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

# FRP REINFORCED CONCRETE AND ITS APPLICATION IN BRIDGE SLAB DESIGN

by

YUNYI ZOU

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

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

Department of Civil Engineering CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

January, 2005

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the dissertation of

**Yunyi Zou ______________________________________________________
**

candidate for the Ph.D. degree *.

(signed)_______________________________________________ (chair of the committee)

Arthur Huckelbridge

________________________________________________

Clare Rimnac

________________________________________________

Dario Gasparini

________________________________________________

Robert Mullen

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

(date) _______________________

Nov. 11, 2004

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

Dedication

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

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

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

8 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.2 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .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 8.3 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.10 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.List of Figures Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.18 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.12 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.15 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.6 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.

5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.32 Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5 Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.3 KN Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.23 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.33 Figure 2.5P5 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=22.31 Figure 2.26 Figure 2.24 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.30 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.6 KN) Figure 2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.27 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.25 Figure 2.

37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.7 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.42 Specimen C5 x 8.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .6 Figure 3.2 KN Pmax=15.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.39 Figure 2.Beam C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.5S5 Figure 2.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.5S5 and C5x8. C5x8.3 KN Beam C6x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.5P5OL and C5x8.5H5OL.3 KN Beam C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.

10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Beam C4x8. m=3.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76) Figure 3.76x10. m=3.5H5 (C=6.4.76) Figure 3.76x10. Beam C5x8.76x10. C=6.5H5.5H5 (C=6.48 Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76x10.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76x10.5P5.4.4 m=3.5H5 (m=3.76x10.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76x10.5H5 (C=6.4) Figure 3.76x10.76) Figure 3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76 Figure 3. Beam C3x8. Beam C3x8.76) Figure 3. C=6.4 m=3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.5H5.4.76x10. C=6. C=6. m=3.76x10.for Beam C6x8.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .5H5.4 m=3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. m=3.5H5 (C=6.57 Figure 3.4.76x10.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.

76x10.4.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. C=6.8m. C=6.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 . Beam C6x8.5P5.76x10.7m.74 102 Figure 3. Beam C4x8.8m.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. m=3.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.55 101 Figure 3.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m.5P5.21 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.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4. C=6.4. 16M Bar at 100mm.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3.4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.88 102 103 Figure 3. m=3. m=3. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.Figure 3.5P5. Beam C5x8.

Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm. Figure 4. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.6m.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m.6m.8m. Lane Load and Self-Weight.10 Figure 4. Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.7m. (Girder spacing 3.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. Figure 4.

1.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4.20 Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 . Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.8m.

1 Table 3.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.2 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .

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

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

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

by Yunyi Zou

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

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

13

growth were also investigated.

The performances of two different FRP bars were

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

Two FE (finite element) crack representations were examined.

One was a

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

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

14

Chapter 1

Background and Introduction of the Problem

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

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

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

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

15

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

The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. 17 . 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. P. concrete cover and stress level. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. the number of bars. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. w = 0.1R-01. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. Consequently. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. In ACI 440. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. the aggregate bridging will be less.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. crack face friction will be smaller. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. Gergely and L.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.

Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. 1.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. A value of 1. slippage moment and fracture moment. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. In the analysis of cyclic loading.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 . 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. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. in the case of no available experimental data. ACI 440. to be 0. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. 1. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. w= 2 . Ac is the effective tension area of concrete.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. similar to steel bars. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces.00. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors.71.

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

which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. however. were close to one for different specimens. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. Therefore.3 respectively. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained.1.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. 0.2. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. although the units were not stated explicitly. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). 3.12 and 3. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. The material parameter m was found to be 3. Z.P.15 at R=0. Similarly. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. Baluch et al. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm.12. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. 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. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. height 20 . 0. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors.

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

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

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

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

22

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

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

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

23

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

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

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

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

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

24

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

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

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

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

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

27

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

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

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

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

The curvature at first cracking ψ cr is

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

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

28

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

The element utilized was an eight node

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

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

29

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

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

an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.55S for positive moment and 1220+0.6m (12 ft). units.1. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.003 is required in both directions. b. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. a.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum.25S for negative moment.3-1. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.2. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. The crack control 32 . top and bottom. Due to serviceability requirements.S. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. where the girder spacing is S. However.6. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width. d.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15.) The span length of a slab is less than 3. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. the width is taken as 660+0. c. The formula is in U.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD).

the formulas for DF are as follows. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer.06 + ( S 0. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft). L is the bridge span. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry.2 K g 0.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.5.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. Therefore. 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. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed.4 S 0.6m (12 feet). The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck.3 K g 0. In other words. supported on multiple girders. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. DF = 0. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. For girder spacing S less than 3. In the current LRFD codes.6 S 0. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders.

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

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

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

83. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8.5MPa (5000 psi). Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. but with four different widths were fabricated.9 MPa (715 psi). Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.5/ 2.0/ 0.0/ 2.9 MPa (4045 psi). fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading.5 inches). The concrete was composed of type III cement. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. Therefore. Traditionally. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. 37 . water.

Inc.Figure 2. 4. 102 mm.. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. respectively. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No.5 inches) thick. The beam widths were 76 mm.92E6 psi). 127 mm and 152 mm (3. #5. the beam size in U. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. of the FRP bar. which are reported herein. Inc. For identification purposes.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. units follows. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. Within each beam. C5x8.5H5. 16 (#5) bars.5H5. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers.5H5. C6x8. (see Figure 2.1). 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.5H5. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers.S. As shown above.8 GPa (5. there was one No. C4x8. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. the last number is the size. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. 38 . To simulate a typical bridge slab section.

to investigate the effect of multiple cracks. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2.5H5M. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. C4x8. for comparison purposes. C5x8. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.5P5. C5x8.5 inches) thick.5P5.Figure 2. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. 39 .1x106 psi). C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. respectively. C6x8. without a helical wrap along the length. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.9 ksi) for #5 bars.5P5. 102 mm. C5x8.5S5.5P5OL. One extra specimen. Similarly.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. The beam widths were 76 mm.2). For identification purposes. 4. One more specimen. One specimen. The bars are also sand coated. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6.5P5.

5H5 C5x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.5P5OL C5x8.5H5M C3x8.5H5 C5x8.5H5 C4x8.5P5 C5x8.Specimen C3x8.5P5 C6x8.5H5 C6x8.5P5 C5x8.5P5 C4x8.5S5 Width (mm) 76 102 127 152 127 76 102 127 152 75 127 Height (mm) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 Reinforcement 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) Steel Test Sequence 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 10 9 8 11 Table 2.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .

Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .68 mm. respectively.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.1R-01. in accordance with ACI 440.75 mm.3 and 2.Figure 2. 0. the predicted crack openings are 0.2. 102 mm. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm.4). 0.80 mm and 0. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. 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.1R-01.20ffu for FRP bars. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency. Based on nominal kb value of 1. According to ACI 440. 127 mm and 152 mm. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi).

which is the product of 7. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.in carbon FRP.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour.8 Hz. For a truck with axle spacing of 3.5H5. for specimen C5x8.3 in the factored load. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.94. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated.23.5H5 and C6x8. Therefore. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location. Therefore. For a bridge slab under traffic load.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic). the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.94 and 0. So. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction.23 Hz. the overall frequency is 1. However.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . for a bridge of 10.

within the pure bending region.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.02B-20 and 632. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . After the first test interval of 5. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.270 mm (+0. the crack lengths became visually constant.1000 in to -0. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7.5 inches) below the top of beam. Experimental Results (1) Group H . in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts.5”). The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. After more cycles were applied.000 cycles. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2.039 in)).050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. and all cracks were stable.Static pre-cracking was used. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. respectively.5H5. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. for average curvature estimation. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection.540 mm to -1.118 in to -0. Inc.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers. The first specimen tested was C5x8. 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. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632.

5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. Figure 2.300 N (5. To investigate the effect of overload. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing.0 kips). The crack spacing was between 130mm (4.6 Specimen C5 x 8. Pmax was increased to 22. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.000 cycles of this overload.000 cycles.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam.5 inches) to 165mm (6. 44 . After 10.5H5. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. The crack length was virtually the same. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. the specimen was still in good condition.5 inches). There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates.

7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).75 inches) below the top of beam. Pmax was again increased to 22.5H5 was similar.8 Specimen C4 x 8. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. To investigate the effect of overload.0 kips) for 15.8 million cycles.5 H5 45 .Figure 2. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.000 cycles. No addition distress was found in the specimen. up to 1.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. Figure 2. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1.300 N (5.

Therefore. Figure 2. During the subsequent fatigue testing.000 cycles.600 N ( 3.000 cycles. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.5 kips). The newly formed crack was instrumented. however. Pmax was raised back to 20.600 N. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. at which point the CMOD gage debonded.5H5 was somewhat different. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable. no new cracks appeared up to 140.000 N and 40. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.9 Specimen C6 x 8. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length.The behavior of specimen C6x8.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.5 H5 46 .000 additional cycles were applied. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared. prior to 10. After an additional 35.

Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. a total of 40. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. the crack lengths became visually constant. After more cycles were applied.75 inches) below the top of beam. and all cracks were stable. Pmax of 20. 47 . there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen.5P5.000 testing cycles. To investigate the effect of overload. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. After the first run of 3. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1.000 N (4. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270.0 kips).000 cycles of overload.000 cycles.000.300 N (5.000 cycles were applied at this load level. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. with the second and third cracks monitored. Pmax was finally increased to 22. (2) Group P . After 10. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).To further investigate the overload effect.5 kips) was applied. No new cracks were found in the specimen. the specimen was still in good condition.

which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. the concrete cover started falling off. 48 . After 200 cycles of overload. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000.5P5. Within the pure bending region. The average spacing was 200mm (8. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.5k). The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1.000 N (6. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. After 3000 cycles of overload.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. 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. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.10 Specimen C3 x 8. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack.000 load cycles. as debonding became more pronounced.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900.Figure 2.5 inches). Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.

two new cracks appeared.5 P5 Specimen C5x8. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100.75 in). To investigate the effect of overload. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.25 million cycles. By the end of the test. Pmax of 22. 49 .) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1.000 cycles.Figure 2.300 N (5.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.0 kips) was applied for 10.000 cycles. (Unfortunately. and then began growing. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4.11 Specimen C4 x 8. At around 900 cycles.5 inches) within the pure bending region.

0 kips) to explore the effect of overload.Figure 2. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. the specimen was still in good shape.000 cycles of this overload were applied.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. The two existing cracks then started branching. 50 . After 155. Pmax was raised to 29. After 50. No extra load was initially added.000 cycles of overload. there was no indication of severe distress. Subsequently. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.000 N (6.300. as expected. however.5 kips).5P5 behaved similarly. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.000 cycles.12 Specimen C5 x 8. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. During the subsequent fatigue testing. no new cracks appeared up to 1.

For specimen C6x8. followed by cyclic load at service level..5H5.13 Specimen C6 x 8. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking.5 P5OL 51 . there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing. Figure 2.Figure 2. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared. For specimen C5x8. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing.14 Specimen C5 x 8.5P5OL.

(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. Pmax was then increased to 29. No new crack was generated during the test. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. Static pre-cracking was used. Then. As cyclic load testing started. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. with two very close to each other.000.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches).000 cycles. there was no visible growth of the cracks. Figure 2. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30.000 N ( 6. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5.75 inches).0 kips). and five cracks appeared.5 S5 52 .300 N (5. To further investigate the overload effect. there was no sign of distress within the specimen. Pmax was first increased to 22. At the end of 1.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress.15 Specimen C5 x 8.000 cycles.000 cycles of this load level.

relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. For some specimens in group P. First. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses.For all specimens.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2.14). After about two hours.15. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. acoustic emission and dye penetration. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. the images of cross sections of C4x8.5P5 and C6x8. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. C5x8. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. particularly for large cycle counts.5P5. 53 . was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). Black ink was injected into the notch. As the cracks opened up. so as to open the crack. failed to produce consistently usable results. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load.

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

Based on these limited tests.007 for specimens C3x8. based on ACI 440.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. the service load crack openings. respectively. 0.6 MPa (4000 psi).26mm.008 and 0. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.84 mm for all four specimens.5H5 was 0. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings.013. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P.5P5.010. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. According to the limited test results.0048. C4x8. C5x8. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.19 and 0.1R-01 criteria. 0. 0. 0.5P5. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.5H5 and C5x8. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value. Specimen C6x8.17 mm.5H5. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. respectively. were 0.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. C4x8.5H5.5H5 and C6x8. C5x8. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 . the predicted service load crack openings.5H5. 0. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.16 mm. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.5H5. a kb value of 0.5P5. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. In group P. were between 0.68 mm and 0. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. had the lowest reinforcement ratio. respectively.16 mm and 0.5H5.2. C4x8.15 mm. As mentioned earlier. at least for the bars tested in this investigation. were 0.5P5 and C6x8.5H5.

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

As can be seen in Figure 2. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.5H5 C5x8 . 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. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.5H5 0.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.200 0.5H5 C4 x8 . but at a decreasing rate.20. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.400 C3 x8 . with increasing load cycles counts.6 KN) 57 .2 KN Pmax=15.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2. 0.respectively.19 and 2.100 0. Based on the experimental results. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.5H5 0.

0.E+03 1.300 C 3x8.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.150 0.5H5 C6 x8 .1 0.E+02 1.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.5P 5 0.2 KN Pmax=15.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.E+01 1.E+05 1.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.6 KN) 0.200 0.15 CMOD (mm) 0.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 C5x8 .E+04 1.6 KN) 58 .05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5H5 C4 x8 .5P 5 C 4x8.E+00 1.5P 5 C 5x8.5P 5 0.5H5 0.100 1.2 C3 x8 .

C4x8.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. Specimens C3x8.5P5.5H5.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5P5 about 10. It took specimens C6x8.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading. C4x8.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8.5P5.5H5 and C5x8. C5x8.5P5 C4 x8 .0.5P5 0. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).5H5. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.2 KN Pmax=15. during this period of crack development. The first stage is crack development.5H5 and C6x8.5P5 0.1 0.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.5P 5 C6 x8 . the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.2 C3 x8 . the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages. 59 . C3x8.

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

5P5.1 0. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.28. 2. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.2 0. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 . The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2. 2. 2.for the single crack.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.05 0.29. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 . This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.0 0 0 1.8 4 1.5P5.27. which is discussed later.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.30 and 2.15 0.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8.

5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 2 8 0 .0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.0 0 0 1.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.0 0 0 .2 Figure 2.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.05 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.0 0 0 .0 0 0 2 .2 0.1 0.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .05 0.0 0 0 9 8 8 .

05 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.2 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.3 0.4 0.15 0.2 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.1 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .1 0.000 140.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.

25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 900.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 900.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 0.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .1 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.2 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.

31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.000 600.000.000 0.000 1.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .2 0.1 0.2 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.050.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.

damping.00E-05 C3 x8 .32 and 2.00E-06 4.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. From Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss per crack. 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.00E-06 0.20E-05 8. etc. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . 2.5H5 1. friction.5H5 C4 x8 .33. at unit width. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 .32 and 2.5H5 C6 x8 .00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.5H5 1. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.33). it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles. micro-cracking.

67 .5P5 C4 x8 .00E-05 5.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .2.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.33 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.00E-06 0. Similarly in group P. generally speaking.5H5. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases.50E-05 1.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.5P5 C6 x8 . as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.00E-05 C3 x8 .5H5 and C4x8. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.50E-05 2. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.5H5 and C6x8.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.

5H5.25 Figure 2. a 30% overload was applied after 180.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.35). For specimen C5x8. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P. as shown in Figure 2. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .37.3 KN Beam C5x8.2 0. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior.34). It would appear that relatively modest overloads.000 load cycles.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0. For specimen C6x8.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC.1 0.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.36 and 2. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. Similar results were obtained in group P. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22. up to 40% over service load levels.15 CMO D (mm) 0.5H5 68 .5H5.

5H5 20 1.1 0.4 Figure 2.15 CMO D (mm) 0.05 0.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .3 KN Beam C5x8.3 0.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.5P5 69 .36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.3 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.25 0.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 CMO D (mm) 0.

In the subsequent loading cycles.1 0. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. for the Isorod rebars. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. At the same time.2 0. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated.05 0.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .15 0.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.37 0. there was fatigue hardening.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. Only after 10. at the working stress level. and CMOD started growing again. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10.38.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique.000 cycles of loading.3 KN Beam C6x8. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level. as shown in Figure 2. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. 70 .000 cycles.

35 0. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5H5OL.25 CMOD (mm) 0.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.10 0.5P5.5H5 and C5x8. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.5P5.00 1 -0. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8. However.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.5H5M (Pmin=2.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.2 KN Pmax=15. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.05 0. Compared with FRP bars.15 0.5S5 and C5x8.30 0.5H5M Figure 2.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.Comparing group H.20 0. C5x8. 0. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .

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

04 0.02 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000.000 280.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.08 0.06 Figure 2. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.03 CMO D (mm) 0.5S5 73 .02 0. unlike FRP RC.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.01 0.04 0. At the same time.05 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .40.06 C MO D (mm) 0.1 Figure 2.000 1.

5H5.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5S5 Thus far. at unit width.5S 5 C5x8.00E-06 6. the pseudo energy loss per crack.41. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.5P5 and C5x8.00E-06 4.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8. for specimen C5x8. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.5S5 and C5x8.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. 7.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.00E-06 3. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 0. sometimes. 74 . In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.00E-06 1.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.00E-06 2.

there was a crack at midspan. At around one million cycles. no plastic CMOD was acquired. as more cycles were applied. In specimen C5x8.000 cycles. Unfortunately. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. In other words.Figure 2. after 10.5P5.42 Specimen C5 x 8. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. the elastic CMOD became less. however. they were very close to each other. it began to stabilize. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. 75 .. as shown in the photo. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. which was 115mm (4. But.5 in) from the two monitored cracks.000 cycles.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. due to operation problems.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. the elastic CMOD started to decrease.000 cycles. In addition. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack.42. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. until one million cycles had elapsed. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured.

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

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

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

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

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

1 in).16 C3x8. The justification of the model is as follows. 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. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.5P5 C6x8. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack.22 0. and the debonded length subsequently decreases. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0.23 0.21 0.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3.5P5 C4x8. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3.19 0. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. The height is the true height of a crack. to account 81 .3).the table below. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces.17 0. however.5P5 C5x8.5mm (0. Interestingly. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio.17 0. A small base dimension.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.

for the interaction between crack surfaces.3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3.4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4 82 . Fictitious Material Figure 3. The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.

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. 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.24 0. Efic.5P5 C6x8.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.20 0.5P5 C4x8.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3. Also. 83 .6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.24 0. However. Normally. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.The Young’s modulus.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24. It is another possible indication of a size effect. Specimen C3x8. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.5P5 C5x8.2. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.20 0.20 0.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.20 0.20 Efic 27. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. below. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.

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

Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for 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). the following equations are obtained. (3-6) 85 . hb stands for the beam height. the depth of compressive concrete is obtained: wb (hb − ac ) 2 + 2 a= Af E f Ec (hb − c1 ) (3-5) 2wb (hb − ac ) + 2 Af E f Ec Finally. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement.In the diagram above. the result is as follows. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. ac stands for the crack length. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). ⎡ 1 h − ac Ec (h − a − ac ) 2 ⎤ wb ⎥ M = Pf ⎢(hb − c1 − a) + b 3 3 A f E f h − a − c1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ where Pf is the force within FRP bar.

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

L is the spacing of cracks. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . and N is the number of cycles. ∆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).32( c ) 2 − 13.39( ac a a a ) + 7. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. the following equation is obtained.1( c ) 3 + 14.12 − 1. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1. after rearrangement. 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.

88 .88(1 − c )5 − 2. M is the bending moment. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3. D was 610mm (24 in).17 − 28. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.06( c ) + 0.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6. P is the concentrated load.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.54( c ) 2 − 14. The angle α has the following expression. ) = 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 ) = 0.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.16( c ) − 31. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.G( a c a c a c a c ac .04( c ) 2 + 14.04(1 − c )5 + 1.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.63 + 25.84(1 − c )5 + 0.46 + 3. hb is the beam height.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.22( c ) + 34.

S.00654 0. the following equations are obtained.00696 0.3.006407 0.0011 5. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α. the hinge assumption is justified.5P5 C6x8.00119 = 0.5 = 0.0011 5 72 Table 3.5H5 C4x8.5 72 0.00127 = 0.5P5 C5x8.5P5 0. with relative differences all less than 10%.01302 × 6 = 0. we have the following equation. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.006973 × 12 = 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).5H5 C5x8.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.01121 × 7.00128 = 0.00109 5. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .5 72 0.

Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack Growth Estimation The unknown Paris Equation parameters in the crack growth simulation are C and m. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. using specimen C5x8. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. Three different C values were used. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. 6. In the case of multiple cracks. depending on the ingredients and curing process.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U.5H5 as a prototype. The parameter m was set to be 3. the opening increment only changed by 0.76. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . units.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m .76x10-4.8. To address these variables with uncertainties.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm.S. 6. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9.6x10-17 and 3. which will be determined based on experimental results. 7. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. with possibly different initial crack lengths. First. namely. the exact spacing of cracks is random. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. The results were shown in Figure 3. corresponding to 2x10-16. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. 2. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987).25x10-4.

91 .86.5 in). The crack opening increment.76 and 3. 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. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3.66. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. 3.76. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. the model is insensitive to C.003mm. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. C was therefore fixed at 6. and that each was completely different from the others. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1.86. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. Obviously. The final crack opening increment might be 0.were similar to each other. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984).9. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . did not change more than 0.01mm less. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6. It was found that crack opening growth was sensitive to the initial crack length although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to initial crack length. however.76x10-4 and m at 3.

and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef .11.10 and 3. with fixed C of 6. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm.5MPa and 41.4MPa.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef.4MPa. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. 1. The height of specimen 92 . The crack opening increment was approximately 0.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. The plots are shown in Figure 3. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa.15Ef and 1. 34. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. As Ec increased from 27.13.6MPa to 41. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. with a difference of about 40mm. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef.3Ef were examined.25 in). The width of specimen C5x8. Values of Ec were set at 27. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. The error for crack opening increment was about 0.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. Finally. The plots are shown in Figure 3. the values of Ef . the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0.76x10-4 and m of 3.76.001mm less.002mm less. The crack opening growth. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. yet all cracks stop at the same length. approximately. however.6MPa. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing.12 and 3.

however.25 in). crack length. In summary. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition.C5x8. and vice versa. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size.001mm less. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. The plots are shown in Figure 3. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity.14 and 3. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. 93 . with 6mm less beam height. This model is most sensitive. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. due to the nature of the exponential function.15.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. and specimen size. For other variables.

9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (m=3.76x10-4) 94 .Figure 3.

76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.76) 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 .

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

15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.Figure 3.76) 97 .14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.

a fixed value of C was set to be 6. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases.23.22. The results are listed from Figure 3. To simplify the model.18.S. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. For specimens of group H. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. since m is the exponential term.19 to 3. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. units. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data.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).5H5. 98 . using a brute force approach. all specimens except C6x8. In other words. For parameters C and m in Paris equation. Similar results are shown Figure 3. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. For both thin and thick specimens. which illustrates a size effect. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. A summary was shown in Figure 3. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m.16 to 3.

the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain.76x10-4.48 99 . In the case of FRP concrete. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. however. m=3. Figure 3. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. When the specimen width increases.5H5. C=6.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. and.

Figure 3.76 100 .18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3. m=3. C=6.76x10-4.5H5.76x10-4.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.57 Figure 3.5H5. C=6.

76x10-4.5P5.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.39 Figure 3.5P5.Figure 3. m=3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. C=6. C=6. m=3.76x10-4.55 101 .

5P5.88 102 .5P5.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. C=6.74 Figure 3.Figure 3.76x10-4. C=6. m=3. m=3.76x10-4.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.

6 3.8 m Value 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.4 3.4 Group H Group P 3.

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

with a lateral spacing of 1.6. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section.5m (20 in).8 m (6 feet). The corresponding strip widths are 1.7 m (9 feet) and 3. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs.2 m (86 in) and 2. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction.2. For the purpose of simplicity. 2.5P5.7 m (66 in).1. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3.6 m (12 feet). The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8. i. 105 . since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load.bars.8 m. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. 2.e. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.5-1 in AASHTO.7 m (105 in). the following assumptions are made. The wheel load is 71. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. and the width of the loading area is always 0.86 MPa (125 psi). 4) The slab is 215 mm thick. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight.. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. which represent the majority of bridges in service.

8m (6 ft) was analyzed. To investigate the arching effect. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2.2. one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load.1. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan.First.8m.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm. Figure 4. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero.5 in2). Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . the case of a girder spacing of 1.

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

Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8m.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. the effects of girder spacing were examined. The results are illustrated below.6m.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. 108 . To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.7m and 3.6m girder spacing was also analyzed.8m.Figure 4. 2. Two cases of girder spacing. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed. 16M Bar at 100mm.

7m.7m.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .Figure 4.

6m. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m.Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .

Next. regardless of the girder spacing. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. The magnitude of 111 . The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied. In Figure 4.Figure 4. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center.8m.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.10. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab.

150mm Bar Spa. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load.8m Girder Spa. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. 120 3. The remaining issues.6m Girder Spa. The maximum rebar stress at 3.7m Girder Spa. 100mm Bar Spa.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.3 ksi). including crack opening and slab deflection.6m Girder Spa. 2.6 0.2 1. 3. 100mm Bar Spa. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 .6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. 100 1.1 MPa (10. are durability and serviceability. rather than the static ultimate strength.stress at the assumed 3.8 1 1. therefore.2 0. 100mm bar Spa. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels.0MPa (13.0 ksi).4 0.

under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. Compared with the maximum 0.0085 in). To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.0073 in).8m girder spacing.0022 in). the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. the entire diaphragm was removed.0072 in).19mm (0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. a top diaphragm bar. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.0020 in).5mm suggested in ACI 440. to 0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.051mm (0. was added at each diaphragm location.00202 in).5 in2). under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck.0023 in).21mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.051mm (0. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. At the girder spacing of 1. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0. Finally. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. which should be acceptable.055mm (0. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). 113 .048mm (0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.058mm (0. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.18mm (0.22mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2.0083 in).0019 in). as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.

00303 in).0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small. again. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.4mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.0042 in). The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2.077mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.077mm (0.0032 in). The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.5 in2).089 mm (0.055 in). Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).0031 in).7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.108mm (0.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.13 mm (0. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.080mm (0.021 in). With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. which. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . should be acceptable.53mm (0.

2m.62 KN (17 kips). The axle spacings are 3. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. its expected conservatism. somewhat arbitrary. A rebar spacing of 100mm obviously produces even lower predicted crack openings (25% of the ACI 440 limit) and smaller slab deflections (deflection/span ratio below 1/2000). The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. at 150mm spacing. which is composed of one axle load of 53. namely an opening of less than . presumably. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.6m (12 ft). The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. 9.0063 in).16 mm (0.5mm (.4m and 1.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. In the State of Ohio. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design.2m. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab.sake of simplicity. The strip width is. 115 . there are four legal loads.02 in). which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. due to its simplicity and. however.6m. 1. under the design truck load and lane loads. and due to their ineffectiveness.

Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4.5 KN (32 kips). With the fictitious material representation. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. Similar to slab strip model. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection.5m. which would generate too many elements. The design truck is composed of three axles. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. The model bridge was single span of 18.27m (14 ft). such as 5C1. The second and third axles are 142.producing a total length of 15. the slab was supported by three girders. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. The spacing between the 116 . Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi).3m (60 ft) long.6 KN (8 kips). especially including discrete rebars. The front axle load is 35. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load.5 in). Due to the large size of the structure. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load.

The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 .081mm. relative to the actual imposed stress field. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model.12. in the bridge model. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression.8m (6 ft). For comparison purposes. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. a slab strip model under the same condition was created. Compared with Figure 4.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. minimum spacing of 4.64 Kips/ft).27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. In Figure 4. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.11 and 4. spanning the two girder spacings.35 KN/m (0. using the fictitious material model. In the case of single span bridge. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. with no diaphragms.27m (14 ft) and 9. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing.053mm.05m (10 ft). The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9.15m (30 ft).4.11.

8m (6 ft) to 3.6m (12 ft). The single “dome” was split into two again. Without diaphragms. as expected. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 .crack opening prediction. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.6m.14. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4.13 and 4. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4.19.7m and 3. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. as an indication of the arching effect. Finally.6m (15 ft). The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.15 through 4. As the girder spacing changed from 1. and excessive crack opening predictions.20. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. 2. there was always one compression “dome”.058mm.8m.6m spacing.041mm.15. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.

3. 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. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion.41mm.8m girder spacing. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed.21.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. the maximum final crack opening was 0. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. The model is shown in Figure 4. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated.22 for the bridge model with 1. 119 .21 mm. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. Even including an impact factor of 1. as shown in Figure 4.6m (12 ft).of the same model without diaphragms. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. Even at a girder spacing 3. Nevertheless. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders.

Lane Load and Self-Weight. 120 .12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. (Girder spacing 1.8m.Figure 4.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm.

8m. 121 . Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.

7m.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4. (Girder spacing 2. Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 .

Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight.6m. (Girder spacing 3.

3.2 2.3 1.No Diaph.w / Diaph.8m Girder Spa.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .6m Girder Spa. 3. 0.w / Diaph.7m Girder Spa.w / Disph. CMOD (mm) 0.8m Girder Spa.Figure 4.No Diaph.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.7m Girder Spa.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. 0.6m Girder Spa.No Diaph. 2. 1.

0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 . 1.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.06 0.8m. (Girder spacing 1.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.04 0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al-Dulaijan. B.H. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1. Compilation 33. pp 29-37. M. A. O. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. 1995 7. January 1998. ACI Committee 215.B. ACI Structural Journal. Vol. Qureshy. No. A. Baluch. 1992 6. 2000 3. 1987.91. M. Chaallal. Bakis. Masmoudi. American Concrete Institute. No. Vol. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. Shah. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. Nanni.E. Boothby. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. 2004 2. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.2. Texas. S. American Concrete Institute. “440. 80-87 8. S. June 17-19. Committee 440.K.. A. JCTRER. S. R.Bibliography 1. pp. 2001 5. USA. Swartz. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. 20. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Benmokrane. S.P. 136 . American Concrete Institute. 1996 4. C. Houston.

Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Causes. Vol.1. Vol. C. Lutz. 12. No. Hilsdorf. 15. May.3. No. H. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. H. Kupfer. K. J. R. 16. Journal of Composites for Construction. Cosenza. 137 . American Concrete Institute. 14. Ned H.2.P. 10. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. February.87-117. Shah. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. No. August 1969. Editor S. The University of Texas at Austin. Manfredi. August 2000. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. Richard E. No. Publication SP-75. Klingner. G.K. Vol. Journal of Composites for Construction. A.P. 1993. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. pp 659-673.9. T. Philleo. Gergely. Vol. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”.2. R. Bakht. American Concrete Institute. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. G. pp 139-147. 2000.4. Center for Transportation Research. R. 1982 11. L.3.5. No.5. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. John C. 17. S. Burns. Larralde. H. SP-20.1. Mabsout. May 1997. Tarhini. C. 1997. P. Balaguru. pp137-144. E. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. August. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. Graddy. Frederick.66. Detroit.E. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. M. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”.2. pp 40-51. 13. ACI Journal. Vol. pp 83-87. pp. B.

Beim. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Transportation Research Board.P. Editor S. S. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Publication SP-75. S. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. R. pp 381-388. Shah. Vol. John Wiley & Sons. A. Huang. Perdikaris. 1995 23. C. 2. No. Perdikaris. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. 483-491. National Cooperative Highway Research Program.. March 1988. No. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. Shah.N. Vol. S. Oct. Swartz. ASCE. S. S.C. NCHRP Project No.C. P. Shah. Beim. A. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. Nutt. T. 591607. Vol. Swartz.C. Perdikaris. ACI Structural Journal. Fracture of Concrete and Rock.P. June 17-19. R. SEM-RILEM International Conference. C. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. P. 1982 138 . 64-69 22.P. French.4.A. S.. P. pp. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. C. 24..M. 114. pp. Zokaie. Houston. pp. Swartz. 1987 19. C.M.E.K. National research Council.E. American Concrete Institute. Shield. 86. S. Washington D. 20. USA.C. Detroit. S. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium.E.18. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. Journal of Structural Engineering. Inc. 1997. July-August 1989. K. 1987. 12-26. Texas. 21.3.

Canada. pp. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Vancouver. Experimental Mechanics.24. Paris. GangaRao. No.98. 1963 29.G. S. 2002.H. P. K. 27. Hota V. Brett.K. Vol. P.E. edited by P.22.V. pp129- 134. Journal of Basic Engineering.528-534. H. Canada.S. S. Swartz. N. Experimental Mechanics. 1985 30. November 1982. Transactions of ASME. 2001 139 . Tada. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Montreal. Vol. June 1984. M. No. Fartash. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. Hu. Second Edition.85.. Vol.6. Banthia and P. P. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. Vol. 28. 26.412-417. Buckland. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. C. C. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Swartz. ACI Structural Journal.G. Paris.E. No. J.25. Paris Productions Inc. pp.11. Vijay.C. G. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”. F.2.