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 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.7 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.14 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.18 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .List of Figures Figure 2.4 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.13 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.12 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.11 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.17 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.10 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.

5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.23 Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .2 KN Pmax=15.30 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.26 Figure 2.27 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.33 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.2 KN Pmax=15.31 Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.25 Figure 2.24 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.6 KN) Figure 2.32 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.

3 KN Beam C6x8.5P5 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5H5OL.5H5M (Pmin=2.5 Figure 3.2 KN Pmax=15.5S5 Figure 2.5S5 Figure 2.39 Figure 2. C5x8.1 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.6 KN) Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.Beam C5x8.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .6 Figure 3.5S5 and C5x8.42 Specimen C5 x 8.

5P5. m=3.4 m=3.for Beam C6x8.76) Figure 3.4 m=3. Beam C3x8.76x10.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6. m=3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.5H5 (m=3.4.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.48 Figure 3.57 Figure 3.5H5.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Beam C4x8.76x10. C=6.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.5H5.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6. C=6.5H5.4. m=3.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .76) Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76) Figure 3. C=6. C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.4.76x10.4) Figure 3. Beam C5x8.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76) Figure 3. Beam C3x8.76x10.76 Figure 3.76x10.76x10.76x10.4.76x10. m=3.76x10.4 m=3.76x10.

C=6.8m.8m.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4.76x10.88 102 103 Figure 3. m=3.8m. m=3.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.4.Figure 3. m=3.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm. C=6.76x10.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5P5.4.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. 16M Bar at 100mm.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.76x10.74 102 Figure 3. 16M Bar at 100mm.5P5.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .4. Beam C5x8.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4. C=6.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.7m.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.55 101 Figure 3. Beam C4x8. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.7m. Beam C6x8. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.

Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.7m.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.6m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2. Figure 4.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.6m.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. (Girder spacing 3. Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm. Figure 4.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.10 Figure 4.8m. Figure 4.

Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4. 1.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .20 Figure 4.8m.

1 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .2 Table 3.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.

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

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.


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

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

71. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. 1. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. 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. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. w= 2 . It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 . three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding.00. ACI 440. to be 0. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. 1. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. In the analysis of cyclic loading. slippage moment and fracture moment. A value of 1.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. in the case of no available experimental data. similar to steel bars. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force.

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

For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). although the units were not stated explicitly. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . The authors suggested that C might be related to R. however. height 20 . it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. 0. The material parameter m was found to be 3. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. Similarly. Z. 0. Baluch et al. were close to one for different specimens. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained.3 respectively. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete.12.P. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors.significant errors of 100% although R2’s.1.12 and 3. 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. Therefore.15 at R=0. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length.2. 3.

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

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


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

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

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.


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

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

such as crack opening and lateral load distribution. top and bottom. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. c. However. d. b. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.55S for positive moment and 1220+0. where the girder spacing is S.1. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. the width is taken as 660+0. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs.3-1. Due to serviceability requirements. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The crack control 32 .2.25S for negative moment.S. units. a.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process.) The span length of a slab is less than 3.6. The formula is in U. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design.003 is required in both directions. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders.6m (12 ft). The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically.

1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft). For girder spacing S less than 3.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. 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 other words.6 S 0. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. DF = 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. L is the bridge span. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 .380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders.5. In the current LRFD codes.6m (12 feet).5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. supported on multiple girders. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. the formulas for DF are as follows. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.3 K g 0.2 K g 0.06 + ( S 0. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness. Therefore.4 S 0.

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

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

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

in specimens more representative of in-service applications.5MPa (5000 psi). 37 .The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. water.0/ 0. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.0/ 2.9 MPa (715 psi).5/ 2. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27. Therefore. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers. The concrete was composed of type III cement. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. Traditionally. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. but with four different widths were fabricated.83.9 MPa (4045 psi).5 inches).

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

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

5P5 C5x8.Specimen C3x8.5P5 C4x8.5P5 C6x8.5H5 C4x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5P5 C5x8.5H5M C3x8.5H5 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 2.5P5OL C5x8.5H5 C5x8.5H5 C5x8.

80 mm and 0. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). respectively. Based on nominal kb value of 1.68 mm.Figure 2.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. in accordance with ACI 440. the predicted crack openings are 0.1R-01. According to ACI 440. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 . 0.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. 102 mm.2. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points.75 mm.20ffu for FRP bars.4).3 and 2. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. 0.1R-01. 127 mm and 152 mm.

The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.5H5. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0. For a bridge slab under traffic load.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour.8 Hz. for a bridge of 10. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. For a truck with axle spacing of carbon FRP.94. So.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).3 in the factored load. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7. However. Therefore.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . the overall frequency is 1.23 Hz. which is the product of 7.94 and 0. for specimen C5x8. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.5H5 and C6x8. Therefore.23.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction.

except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.118 in to -0. Inc.039 in)). in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts.1000 in to -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.5H5. respectively. the crack lengths became visually constant.270 mm (+0. Experimental Results (1) Group H . MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632.Static pre-cracking was used. within the pure bending region.02B-20 and 632. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7.5 inches) below the top of beam. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. The first specimen tested was C5x8. for average curvature estimation. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2.5”). and all cracks were stable. After the first test interval of 5. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. After more cycles were applied.540 mm to -1.000 cycles.

No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.5H5. the specimen was still in good condition. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports.0 kips).5 inches).000 cycles. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. 44 . The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. The crack length was virtually the same. Figure 2. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen.000 cycles of this overload. To investigate the effect of overload.6 Specimen C5 x 8.5 inches) to 165mm (6.300 N (5. Pmax was increased to 22.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. After 10.

5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. No addition distress was found in the specimen.8 Specimen C4 x 8.Figure 2.000 cycles.75 inches) below the top of beam.0 kips) for 15.8 million cycles.300 N (5. up to 1. Pmax was again increased to 22.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches). To investigate the effect of overload.5H5 was similar.7 Specimen C3 x 8. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4.5 H5 45 . Figure 2.

After an additional 35.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15.600 N ( 3. prior to 10. however. During the subsequent fatigue testing.5H5 was somewhat different.000 additional cycles were applied.5 H5 46 .000 cycles.600 N. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4. Pmax was raised back to 20.The behavior of specimen C6x8. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared. The newly formed crack was instrumented.9 Specimen C6 x 8.5 kips). no new cracks appeared up to 140. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable. Therefore.000 N and 40. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. Figure 2. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.000 cycles.

there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. To investigate the effect of overload.000 N (4. (2) Group P . After 10. Pmax of 20.5P5.000 cycles.5 kips) was applied.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.300 N (5.75 inches) below the top of beam. After the first run of 3. and all cracks were stable. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. Pmax was finally increased to 22. with the second and third cracks monitored.To further investigate the overload effect. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. No new cracks were found in the specimen. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. After more cycles were applied.000. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. the crack lengths became visually constant.000 cycles were applied at this load level. 47 . a total of 40.000 cycles of overload. the specimen was still in good condition.000 testing cycles.0 kips).

The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. After 200 cycles of overload. 48 .5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied.5k). An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. The average spacing was 200mm (8.5P5. After 3000 cycles of overload.000 load cycles. the concrete cover started falling off.Figure 2. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.000 N (6. Within the pure bending region.10 Specimen C3 x 8. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. 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. as debonding became more pronounced.5 inches).

Figure 2. between the first two cracks at the midspan region.5 inches) within the pure bending region. Pmax of 22. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4.5 P5 Specimen C5x8. At around 900 cycles. and then began growing. By the end of the test.25 million cycles. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. two new cracks appeared.300 N (5.75 in).) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1.11 Specimen C4 x 8. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack. (Unfortunately.5P5 behaved somewhat differently. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.000 cycles. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking.0 kips) was applied for 10. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. To investigate the effect of overload. 49 .000 cycles.

After 155.000 N (6.000 cycles of this overload were applied. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. as expected.12 Specimen C5 x 8. Pmax was raised to 29. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload.300. During the subsequent fatigue testing. however. No extra load was initially added. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5.000 cycles.5 P5 The specimen C6x8.5 kips). After 50. Subsequently. 50 . the specimen was still in good shape. no new cracks appeared up to 1.5P5 behaved similarly. The two existing cracks then started branching.000 cycles of overload. there was no indication of severe distress. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found.Figure 2.

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

No new crack was generated during the test. Pmax was first increased to 22.000. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. Pmax was then increased to 29. As cyclic load testing started.000 cycles.5 S5 52 .(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing.75 inches). Static pre-cracking was used. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). and five cracks appeared.15 Specimen C5 x 8. At the end of 1. Then. with two very close to each other. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. there was no sign of distress within the specimen.0 kips).000 N ( 6.000 cycles of this load level. Figure 2.300 N (5. there was no visible growth of the cracks.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. To further investigate the overload effect. The specimen was still in good shape after 150.000 cycles.

and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. Black ink was injected into the notch. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. As the cracks opened up. After about two hours.15.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. First. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack.5P5 and C6x8. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. particularly for large cycle counts. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. 53 .5P5. so as to open the crack. failed to produce consistently usable results. acoustic emission and dye penetration. For some specimens in group P.For all specimens. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry.14). the images of cross sections of C4x8. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. C5x8.

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

010. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. a kb value of 0. the predicted service load crack openings. respectively. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.5H5.5P5.2.5H5.5P5 and C6x8.6 MPa (4000 psi). at least for the bars tested in this investigation.17 mm. C4x8.5H5. C4x8.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. were 0. In group P.5P5. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.19 and 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .17 mm for group H specimens C3x8.16 mm and 0. 0.68 mm and 0.5H5 and C6x8. based on ACI 440.008 and 0. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27. Specimen C6x8.15 mm. were between 0. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0.007 for specimens C3x8. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8. respectively. respectively.84 mm for all four specimens.1R-01 criteria.013.16 mm. Based on these limited tests. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1.5H5 was 0. As mentioned earlier. 0. C5x8. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P.5H5.5H5. had the lowest reinforcement ratio. According to the limited test results.5P5. 0. C5x8.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. the service load crack openings. C4x8.0048. were 0. 0.5H5. 0.5H5 and C5x8.26mm. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.

The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. 2.18). and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.21 and 2.20. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. which disappears after unloading.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. 56 . The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. with increasing load cycle counts. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2.19.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. 2.

000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.400 C3 x8 . elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.6 KN) 57 .20. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.2 KN Pmax=15. As can be seen in Figure 2. Based on the experimental results.5H5 0.respectively. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.5H5 0. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.200 0.19 and 2.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2. but at a decreasing rate.5H5 C5x8 . Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading. 0. with increasing load cycles counts.5H5 C4 x8 .100 0. 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.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .

5H5 C6 x8 .E+04 1.5P 5 C 4x8.E+03 1.E+05 1.5H5 C5x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.100 1.5P 5 C 5x8.6 KN) 58 .E+00 1.5P 5 0.0.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.E+02 1.300 C 3x8.2 C3 x8 .200 0.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.5P 5 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.150 0.6 KN) 0.E+01 1.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 0.15 CMOD (mm) 0.1 0.

C4x8.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8.5P5.5P5 0. C5x8.0.1 0.5H5 and C6x8. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading. C3x8.5P5 about 10. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).2 C3 x8 .5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles. C4x8.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.5P 5 C6 x8 . during this period of crack development. It took specimens C6x8. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5H5 and C5x8. 59 .5P5 0.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5. Specimens C3x8. The first stage is crack development. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.5P5 C4 x8 .5H5.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.5H5.

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

8 4 1.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 . One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading. 2.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8.1 0. 2. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.2 0.27.05 0. 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 . The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.for the single crack. which is discussed later.30 and 2. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.0 0 0 1.15 0. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.5P5.

25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 2 .15 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .1 0.2 Figure 2.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.05 0.0 0 0 9 8 8 .15 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .0 0 0 1.0 0 0 2 8 0 .05 0.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .2 0.

5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.2 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 140.3 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.05 0.2 0.4 0.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.1 0.

25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.25 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.2 0.1 0.05 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.1 0.2 0.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 900.15 0.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.05 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 900.

25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .05 0.15 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.1 0.000.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 600.15 0.000 0.2 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.000 1.1 0.050.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.2 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.

2.32 and 2.5H5 1. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking. friction.00E-06 4. 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. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.32 and 2.33.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. The pseudo energy loss per crack. etc.5H5 C4 x8 . at unit width.5H5 C6 x8 .60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section. micro-cracking.33).5H5 1. From Figure 2.00E-05 C3 x8 . was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2.20E-05 8. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss.00E-06 0.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . damping.

00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 . the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.5H5 and C4x8.) 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.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. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.00E-05 5. 67 .00E-05 C3 x8 .00E-06 0.50E-05 2.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8. generally speaking.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5P5 C6 x8 .50E-05 1.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.5H5. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.5H5 and C6x8. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.5P5 C4 x8 .5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.2. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8. Similarly in group P.

as shown in Figure 2. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .35). Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. up to 40% over service load levels.1 0.34).37. For specimen C6x8.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. For specimen C5x8. It would appear that relatively modest overloads. a 30% overload was applied after 180.5H5 68 . The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30. Similar results were obtained in group P.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.000 load cycles. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.3 KN Beam C5x8. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.36 and 2.5H5.15 CMO D (mm) 0.5H5.2 0.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.25 Figure 2.

25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .5P5 69 .3 KN Beam C5x8.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.3 0.5H5 20 1.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.4 Figure 2.2 CMO D (mm) 0.2 0.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.15 CMO D (mm) 0.1 0.1 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.05 0.3 Figure 2.25 0.

3 KN Beam C6x8.15 0.1 0. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations.2 0. for the Isorod rebars. At the same time. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.000 cycles.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2.38.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.05 0. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. there was fatigue hardening. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. and CMOD started growing again.37 0.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. Only after 10. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. In the subsequent loading cycles. at the working stress level. as shown in Figure 2.000 cycles of loading. 70 . no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10.

5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5H5 and C5x8. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .5S5 and C5x8. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.2 KN Pmax=15.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.5P5. However. C5x8.5P5. Compared with FRP bars.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.35 0.5H5M (Pmin=2.30 0. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5H5M Figure 2.00 1 -0. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.10 0.Comparing group H. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.05 0.15 0.20 0.5H5OL. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.5H5 and C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.25 CMOD (mm) 0. 0.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.

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

40.01 0.02 0.000. unlike FRP RC.000 1.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.04 0.000 280.06 Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.03 CMO D (mm) 0.02 0.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.08 0.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.06 C MO D (mm) 0. At the same time. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.5S5 73 .04 0.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.05 0.1 Figure 2. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.

00E-06 4.5H5.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5S 5 C5x8. for specimen C5x8.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.41. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle. sometimes. at unit width.5P5OL and C5x8. 74 .5S5 Thus far. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking.5P5 and C5x8.00E-06 0.5S5 and C5x8.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.00E-06 3.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8. 7.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.00E-06 1. there are cracks in close proximity to each other. the pseudo energy loss per crack.00E-06 6. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 2.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.

5P5. they were very close to each other. At around one million cycles. In addition. In other words.000 cycles.42.42 Specimen C5 x 8. it began to stabilize. after 10. no plastic CMOD was acquired. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. the elastic CMOD started to decrease.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. there was a crack at midspan.000 cycles. which was 115mm (4. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count.000 cycles. as more cycles were applied. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. Unfortunately. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected.Figure 2. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. the elastic CMOD became less.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. In specimen C5x8.. however. But. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. until one million cycles had elapsed.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. as shown in the photo. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. 75 . due to operation problems.

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

The plastic CMOD appeared to grow slightly with the number of cycles. 77 .5P5 and C6x8. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading. The profiles of crack length for C4x8. The crack development stage for conventional steel R/C was observed to be shorter and less apparent when compared with FRP RC.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. Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress. although the surfaces were a little uneven. The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence. but at a decreasing rate. For the steel RC.5P5.cycle. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks. C5x8. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios. The reported improvement of bonding stiffness due to cyclic loads by others may be attributable to this phenomenon.

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

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

Figure 3. the bond stress decreases. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar. however. At distances further away from the crack surface. relatively close to the crack surface. The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens. The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. Based on this representation. the stress within reinforcement can be calculated.length from the crack surfaces. 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. The disadvantage of this model is that the interaction of two crack surfaces is neglected. Within the debonded length. It reaches its maximum value. 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 justification of the model is as follows.5P5 C6x8.3). Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. to account 81 .the table below.23 0. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens.5P5 C5x8.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3.5mm (0. A small base dimension.19 0. Interestingly. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. however.21 0.17 0.16 C3x8.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model.5P5 C4x8. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.22 0. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack.17 0. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. As mentioned earlier. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. The height is the true height of a crack. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.1 in). The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.

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

20 0. of the fictitious material was calibrated for each specimen based upon the assumed triangular dimensions and upon the experimental results after the CMOD reached its maximum value. However.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.20 0.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. 83 . It is another possible indication of a size effect.The Young’s modulus.5P5 C4x8. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.5P5 C5x8. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks. below.5P5 C6x8. Also. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.24 0.2. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24. Efic.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.20 Efic 27. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.24 0. Specimen C3x8.20 0. Normally.20 0. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.

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

ac stands for the crack length. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). the result is as follows. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. 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). (3-6) 85 . ⎡ 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. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. the following equations are obtained. hb stands for the beam height. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete.In the diagram above. 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 moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. the following equation is obtained. Utilizing this behavioral assumption. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam.6. under either monotonic or cyclic loading.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. Consequently. shown below in Figure 3. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. 86 . So the following relation is obtained.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. based on finite element analysis. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. In other words. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. This assumption will later be verified.

L is the spacing of cracks. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 .0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively. ∆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).1( c ) 3 + 14.39( ac a a a ) + 7. the following equation is obtained. after rearrangement. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation. 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. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results.12 − 1. and N is the number of cycles.32( c ) 2 − 13. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1.

41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.22( c ) + 34.63 + 25.06( c ) + 0.88(1 − c )5 − 2. ) = 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.G( a c a c a c a c ac .04(1 − c )5 + 1. D was 610mm (24 in).7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.16( c ) − 31.04( c ) 2 + 14. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.54( c ) 2 − 14. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3. M is the bending moment.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.84(1 − c )5 + 0. hb is the beam height. P is the concentrated load. 88 .46 + 3.17 − 28. The angle α has the following expression.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.

00109 5.5 = 0. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.3.0011 5 72 Table 3. we have the following equation. the following equations are obtained. the hinge assumption is justified.5 72 0.5P5 C5x8. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.00696 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.006973 × 12 = 0.S.00127 = 0.0011 5. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U. with relative differences all less than 10%.00654 0.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 . Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.5P5 0. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).01302 × 6 = 0.5H5 C5x8.00128 = 0.5 72 0.5H5 C4x8.00119 = 0.006407 0.01121 × 7.5P5 C6x8.

Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. namely.6x10-17 and 3. 6. units.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm.S. with possibly different initial crack lengths. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. First.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. In the case of multiple cracks. To address these variables with uncertainties.Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack Growth Estimation The unknown Paris Equation parameters in the crack growth simulation are C and m. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated.76x10-4. the exact spacing of cracks is random. the opening increment only changed by 0. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . using specimen C5x8. which will be determined based on experimental results. 6. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. corresponding to 2x10-16. 7. Three different C values were used. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable.8.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. The parameter m was set to be 3. The results were shown in Figure 3.25x10-4. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method.76.5H5 as a prototype. 2. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. depending on the ingredients and curing process. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987).

The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. however. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%.were similar to each other. 3. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1.66. C was therefore fixed at 6. it was concluded that the model of crack opening growth is very sensitive to m although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to m.003mm.5 in). 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. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6.86. The final crack opening increment might be 0. The crack opening increment.9. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. 91 . the model is insensitive to C. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm.76 and 3.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m .76.01mm less.86. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. Obviously. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. and that each was completely different from the others.76x10-4 and m at 3. did not change more than 0. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm.

The crack opening growth. however.11. As Ec increased from 27.5MPa and 41.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger. 1. The error for crack opening increment was about 0. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity.4MPa. The width of specimen C5x8.76x10-4 and m of 3.12 and 3.001mm less.13.Three different values of crack spacing were examined.25 in). the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef.002mm less.3Ef were examined. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other.6MPa to 41. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. with fixed C of 6.10 and 3. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . yet all cracks stop at the same length. with a difference of about 40mm. the values of Ef .15Ef and 1.4MPa. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. The plots are shown in Figure 3. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. The plots are shown in Figure 3. 34. The height of specimen 92 .6MPa. 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. The crack opening increment was approximately 0. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. approximately.76. Finally. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . Values of Ec were set at 27.

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

5H5 (C=6.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76x10-4) 94 .76) Figure 3.Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.

76) Figure 3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.76) 95 .76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.

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

76) 97 .14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.

To simplify the model. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. For specimens of group H. A summary was shown in Figure 3.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P.5H5. units. since m is the exponential term. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. Similar results are shown Figure 3. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. 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.S. 98 . all specimens except C6x8. For both thin and thick specimens. which illustrates a size effect.16 to 3. In other words. using a brute force approach. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model.23. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases.22.18. For parameters C and m in Paris equation.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ). C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987).19 to 3. The results are listed from Figure 3.

the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress.5H5. however.48 99 . When the specimen width increases.76x10-4. C=6. In the case of FRP concrete. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. and. Figure 3. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. 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.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. m=3.

5H5. C=6. m=3.76 100 .57 Figure 3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.Figure 3. m=3.76x10-4.5H5.76x10-4.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. C=6.

55 101 .5P5.76x10-4.5P5. m=3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. C=6. C=6.76x10-4. m=3.Figure 3.39 Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.

76x10-4. C=6.5P5.Figure 3.76x10-4. m=3.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.5P5.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.74 Figure 3.88 102 . m=3. C=6.

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

The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. From the AASHTO design guide. and to simulate a worst case scenario.6.2.1. plus top and bottom chord 104 . First.3-1. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. Secondly. To account for the effect of continuity. due to its relative simplicity. The values of strip width are based on experience.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. the width of primary strip is 660+0. The arching effect will also be examined. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. For a cast-in-place concrete slab.55S for positive moments.

2. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. 105 . 2.8 m (6 feet). Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm.8 m. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction.e. and the width of the loading area is always 0. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. The wheel load is 71. the following assumptions are made. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. i. which represent the majority of bridges in service.bars. with a lateral spacing of 1. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.86 MPa (125 psi).1. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs.6 m (12 feet).5-1 in AASHTO. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.5m (20 in).2 m (86 in) and 2. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section.. For the purpose of simplicity.7 m (9 feet) and 3. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.5P5. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached.2. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. The corresponding strip widths are 1.7 m (105 in).7 m (66 in).6.

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

From the stress contour plot. 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. The tensile stress also decreased significantly. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.Figure 4. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.3. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. 107 .2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m.

with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.Figure 4. 108 . the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3. 2.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. The results are illustrated below.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. the effects of girder spacing were examined.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. Two cases of girder spacing. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing.7m and 3.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.

Figure 4.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.7m.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 . 16M Bar at 100mm.

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

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

The maximum rebar stress at 3.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89.6m Girder Spa. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load.6 0. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. including crack opening and slab deflection.1 MPa (10.2 1. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. therefore.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. 2.8 1 1.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4. The remaining issues. 100mm bar Spa. 100mm Bar Spa.3 ksi).6m Girder Spa. 120 3.2 0. 100 1. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 .7m Girder Spa.0 ksi). are durability and serviceability. 100mm Bar Spa.4 0. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. rather than the static ultimate strength.0MPa (13. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength.8m Girder Spa. 150mm Bar Spa.stress at the assumed 3. 3.

18mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.048mm (0. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders. Compared with the maximum 0.0023 in).8m girder spacing. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. 113 .22mm (0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2.051mm (0.0022 in). Finally.0073 in). which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.0019 in).19mm (0.5 in2).058mm (0.0020 in). under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.00202 in). To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.5mm suggested in ACI 440. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. At the girder spacing of 1. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0.051mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0072 in). under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. a top diaphragm bar.055mm (0.21mm (0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. which should be acceptable. the entire diaphragm was removed. was added at each diaphragm location.0083 in).0085 in). to 0. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).

5 in2). With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm.055 in). which. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.077mm (0. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.0032 in).089 mm (0.0031 in).00303 in). the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0.4mm (0.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0.080mm (0.077mm (0.0042 in). again. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.108mm (0. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. should be acceptable.021 in). Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.53mm (0.13 mm (0.

115 .0063 in).6m. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. namely an opening of less than . The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. and due to their ineffectiveness.sake of simplicity. due to its simplicity and.2m. The axle spacings are 3. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. there are four legal loads.16 mm (0.6m (12 ft). Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. however. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. under the design truck load and lane loads. In the State of Ohio. 1. The strip width is. 9. at 150mm spacing. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. its expected conservatism. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. somewhat arbitrary.2m. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. which is composed of one axle load of 53.02 in).5mm (.4m and 1.62 KN (17 kips). 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). presumably. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low.

3m (60 ft) long. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). such as 5C1. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. which would generate too many elements.producing a total length of 15. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load.5m. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. especially including discrete rebars. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening.6 KN (8 kips). The model bridge was single span of 18. Similar to slab strip model. The front axle load is 35. The second and third axles are 142. The spacing between the 116 . The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders.27m (14 ft). but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection.5 in). 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.5 KN (32 kips). Due to the large size of the structure. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. With the fictitious material representation. the slab was supported by three girders. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program.

8m (6 ft). it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. Compared with Figure 4.11 and 4. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.35 KN/m (0. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3.12.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression.27m (14 ft) and 9. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. in the bridge model. In Figure 4. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model. with no diaphragms. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1.8m (6 ft) girder spacing.11. minimum spacing of 4. using the fictitious material model.64 Kips/ft). spanning the two girder spacings. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. In the case of single span bridge. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9.05m (10 ft). a slab strip model under the same condition was created. relative to the actual imposed stress field. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.4.15m (30 ft). For comparison purposes.081mm.053mm. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing.

the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.13 and 4. there was always one compression “dome”. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 .041mm. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4.6m (12 ft). which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. Finally. as expected. 2. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. The single “dome” was split into two again. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.crack opening prediction. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. and excessive crack opening predictions. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4.8m. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.058mm.15 through 4. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.20.19. As the girder spacing changed from 1.7m and 3.15.6m spacing. as an indication of the arching effect.6m.6m (15 ft). The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar.14. Without diaphragms.8m (6 ft) to 3.

Nevertheless.21 mm. as shown in Figure 4. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. 119 . or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. Even at a girder spacing 3.21.of the same model without diaphragms. the maximum final crack opening was 0. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3.22 for the bridge model with 1.8m girder spacing.41mm.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. 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. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed.6m (12 ft).3. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders. The model is shown in Figure 4. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. Even including an impact factor of 1. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion.

Figure 4.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.8m. Slab thickness 215mm. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Lane Load and Self-Weight. 120 . (Girder spacing 1.

8m.Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 121 .13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.

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

Lane Load and Self-Weight.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 . Figure 4.Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 3.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.

w / Diaph.w / Diaph.Figure 4. CMOD (mm) 0. 3. 0.No Diaph.3 1. 0.No Diaph.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.7m Girder Spa. 1.6m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa.w / Disph. 2.2 2.7m Girder Spa.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.8m Girder Spa.No Diaph. 3.8m Girder Spa.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .

0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.8m.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4. (Girder spacing 1.06 0.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight. 1.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.04 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.

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

Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. In the longitudinal slab direction. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. the effects of temperature and shrinkage needs to be included for the longitudinal direction by supplying minimum reinforcement parallel to the traffic direction of the bridge. As a result.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . at girder lines. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. Empirical Design of Bridge Slabs The analysis discussed has been limited to the serviceability of a deck slab at the maximum positive moment point in the transverse direction. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. ρ = 0. respectively. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction.000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored.0018 × 60. as discussed below. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. are resisted by larger concrete sections.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. although temperature and shrinkage effects. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant.

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

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

The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC. The general trend of elastic CMOD is that it grows with fluctuation until 130 . under constant load amplitude. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles. the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. which is the plastic portion. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches. As more load cycles are applied.000 cycles of full service load testing.000. FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs. At the end of 2. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD. The permanent CMOD at zero load. generally increases with the number of load cycles. 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 elastic CMOD disappears after unloading. even for the case of widely spaced cracks. The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions.Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. 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. In addition. the elastic CMOD. experiences growth to stabilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. American Concrete Institute. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering.5. Detroit. Vol. Cosenza. Journal of Composites for Construction. Publication SP-75. 137 .K.66. Center for Transportation Research. B. Manfredi. K.9. G. Causes. 17. August 2000. Vol. May 1997. The University of Texas at Austin. H. John C. Balaguru. C. Larralde. P. Vol. 1997.2. pp 40-51. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”.87-117. Journal of Bridge Engineering. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. pp. H. E. Vol. L. 10. M. Richard E.E. S. American Concrete Institute. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Vol. Vol. Hilsdorf. August. A.3. G. No. pp 659-673. H. SP-20. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. pp 139-147.1.2. 14. R. Bakht. 12.1.P. pp137-144.4. May. pp 83-87. 1993. Graddy.5. 2000.3. Tarhini. 15. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Mabsout. No. Philleo. August 1969. Gergely. T.P. 16. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. 13. R. Klingner. Frederick. No. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Ned H. No. Kupfer. Editor S. Shah. No. R. Journal of Composites for Construction. Burns. ACI Journal. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”.2. C. 1982 11. February. Lutz.

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

Canada. 1985 30. P. N.V. pp129- 134.E. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”.C. F. K. Swartz. November 1982.528-534. Vijay. June 1984.25.G.98.K. Fartash. Experimental Mechanics. GangaRao. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Tada. 2002.E. S.11. pp. ACI Structural Journal. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”. Banthia and P. edited by P. 27.412-417. No.22. Paris. Vol.85. Transactions of ASME.G. Paris. 28.6. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. J. P. Swartz. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. Hota V.S. Vol. pp.2. S.H. Paris Productions Inc. Buckland. G. Vol. Brett. 2001 139 . P. No. Vol. Experimental Mechanics. Montreal. H.24. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. 1963 29. M. Vancouver. Second Edition. Journal of Basic Engineering. C. Canada.. C. 26. Hu. No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful