This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
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)
Nov. 11, 2004
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.
To my parents Zou JiShen and Chen XiuFang To my wife Yuping
Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1 3 10 11 12 Abstract 13 Chapter 1 Background and Introduction of the Problem 15 Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load 36 Motivation for the Testing Program Description of Testing Program Experimental Results Qualitative Discussion 36 37 43 55 Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth 78 Estimation of Crack Opening Estimation of Crack Growth Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack 78 83 1 .
Growth Estimation Simulation of Experiment Results 90 98 Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab 104 Analysis of Slab Strips Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs Empirical Design of Bridge Slabs 104 115 127 Chapter 5 Conclusions 130 Chapter 6 Future Research 134 References 136 2 .
5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.5 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.10 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.13 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.8 Figure 2.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.7 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.List of Figures Figure 2.14 Figure 2.12 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.16 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.
22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.26 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 Figure 2.30 Figure 2.27 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.33 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.23 Figure 2.32 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.31 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .25 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.24 Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 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.
6 KN) Figure 2.5P5OL and C5x8.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.7 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C5x8.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.Beam C5x8.39 Figure 2.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P5 Figure 2.6 Figure 3.5H5M (Pmin=2.5S5 Figure 2.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 . C5x8.5H5OL.3 KN Beam C6x8.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.5P5 Figure 2.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.2 KN Pmax=15.5S5 Figure 2.
5H5 (C=6.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8. C=6.48 Figure 3.4. m=3.for Beam C6x8.4 m=3.76x10.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 . C=6.4 m=3.5H5 (m=3.5H5 (C=6. Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76x10.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3.4 m=3. m=3.76) Figure 3. Beam C3x8.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.57 Figure 3.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76) Figure 3.4. Beam C3x8.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5. C=6. C=6.76x10.5H5.76x10.5H5 (C=6.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76x10.4.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. m=3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4.76) Figure 3.76x10.76x10. Beam C4x8.4) Figure 3.5P5.4 m=3.76) Figure 3. m=3.76 Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76x10.76x10.76x10.5H5.76x10.5H5 (C=6.
7m.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 . C=6.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4. Beam C5x8.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm.76x10.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3.5P5.7m.6m.4.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. C=6. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.5P5. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.76x10.55 101 Figure 3.8m.76x10. m=3.8m.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. 16M Bar at 100mm.4. Beam C6x8.88 102 103 Figure 3. 16M Bar at 100mm. m=3.Figure 3. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. m=3. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. C=6.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.74 102 Figure 3. Beam C4x8.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.8m.4.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.
9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.10 Figure 4.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 3.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .6m.6m.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Figure 4.8m.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.8m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.8m. Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.
8m.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 . Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.20 Figure 4. 1.
List of Tables Table 2.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.
Huckelbridge for his guidance. Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support. Throughout my research. I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. To me.Acknowledgements I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Saada as my instructor and sponsor. His teaching will benefit me for years to come. 11 . I have enjoyed our discussions very much. he is a role model for living and working.
List of Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI CMOD FE FRP GFRP LEFM LFD LRFD RC American Concrete Institute Crack Mouth Opening Displacement Finite Element Fiber-Reinforced Polymers Glass FRP Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Load Factor Design Load and Resistance Factor Design Reinforced Concrete 12 .
FRP Reinforced Concrete and its Application in Bridge Slab Design
by Yunyi Zou
ABSTRACT For decades, bridge slabs have been troubled by the corrosion of steel reinforcements. The unique corrosion resistance of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymers) bars makes them a promising alternative to steel bars. Because of the relatively low elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement, the post-cracking serviceability often is the controlling factor in the flexural design of FRP reinforced concrete. Since bridge deck slabs are under repeated traffic loads, it is the post-cracking serviceability under cyclic loads that becomes vital in the design and maintenance decision-making process.
Experiments have been conducted to investigate the post-cracking flexural performance of FRP RC (reinforced concrete) under constant amplitude cyclic loading. Each specimen tested was a beam with a single FRP bar at the bottom. Two different types of FRP bars were used. The crack opening was monitored for specimens of different size. Up to 2 million cycles of cyclic loads have been applied at 100% service load levels. It has been found that there are two stages in the crack growth of FRP reinforced concrete. The first stage is early growth, which is characterized by increasing crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). The second stage is the stabilization of CMOD and crack length. No fatigue failure was encountered in the testing under service loading and moderate overloads. The effects of moderate overload on observed crack
growth were also investigated.
The performances of two different FRP bars were
compared. A model was proposed to predict long term crack growth in FRP R/C under cyclic loading, based on the Paris equation.
Two FE (finite element) crack representations were examined.
One was a
debonded length representation. In this model it was assumed that there was a debonded length around each crack, within which there was no tangential interaction between concrete and reinforcement. Beyond the debonded length, the interface between concrete and reinforcement was tied with no relative movement. The other representation
examined was a fictitious material crack representation. A fictitious material was placed in a triangular crack cross section, with a maximum width of 2.5mm (0.1 in). Then, the modulus of elasticity of the fictitious material was calibrated, based on the observed testing results, after crack growth had stabilized. Both representations have been used to analyze bridge slabs. Finally, an empirical slab design was discussed.
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.
Cracking is a complex phenomenon. and etc. crack face friction. The most commonly encountered serviceability requirements in RC structures are maximum deflection and crack opening control. In the case of smaller scale structures. For quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. The relatively low Young’s modulus of FRP. it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures. Within the fracture process zone. It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost independent of specimen thickness. the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. aggregate bridging. The tensile forces in the bars and resultant compressive force in concrete increase as depth of intact concrete and fracture process zone decrease. crack deflection. as soon as cracking occurs. Consequently. the crack length generally is deeper on the sides than in the middle.Serviceability covers many different aspects of structural performance related to particular applications. Shah (1995) summarized the interaction within the fracture process zone as microcracking. which is about one fifth of the Young’s modulus of conventional steel reinforcement. crack branching. will generate larger crack lengths and crack mouth opening displacements (CMOD) compared with conventional steel reinforcement. crack tip blunting by voids. There exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack. particularly so if 16 . the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value. there is a surge of forces in the bars. the aforementioned complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM. Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments. In the case of FRP RC beams under bending. particularly in composite materials. known as the fracture process zone. with a relatively small fracture process zone.
w = 0. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. 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.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. In ACI 440. the number of bars. crack face friction will be smaller. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. 17 . P.1R-01. Gergely and L. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. the aggregate bridging will be less.076 β f s 3 d c A c (1-1) Where β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. concrete cover and stress level. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. Consequently. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable.
bar slip and crack growth under different conditions.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. In the analysis of cyclic loading.00. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. to be 0. similar to steel bars. ACI 440. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. in the case of no available experimental data. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 .2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. 1. 1. A value of 1. w= 2 . Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete.71. slippage moment and fracture moment. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior.
The proposed equation is as follows. Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete. In early 1960s. researchers have tried to verify if it was also valid for concrete. tension or flexure. (1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams under four-point bending.fracture moment. It was concluded that the Paris equation results in 19 . The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 102 and 107 cycles. The report by ACI committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement. Although Paris’s law was developed for steel. Apparently. Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains and microcracking. da = C (∆K ) m dN (1-3) Where a is the crack length. N is the number of cycles. Crack length was also recorded based on the CMOD compliance measurements. Perdikaris et al. is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression. P. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems. this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels). The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent. which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete.C. ∆K is the stress intensity factor difference at maximum and minimum loading. C and m are material parameters.
Similarly. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m .12 and 3. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression.3 respectively. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. although the units were not stated explicitly. 0. 0. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. Z. were close to one for different specimens. The material parameter m was found to be 3. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. 3. The authors suggested that C might be related to R.2.15 at R=0. Therefore. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors.P. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. however. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen.12. Baluch et al. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. height 20 .1. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. 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.
although they were parallel to each other.and notch length. 21 . for fracture under monotonic loading. Therefore. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack. utilizing a three point bending test setup. However. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control.26. Different lines were obtained for different beam size. and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf). the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. The thickness was constant for all beams. The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law.
Swartz et al (1981) also compared the effects of fatigue pre-cracking and static pre-cracking. For the same notched plain concrete beams, one group was pre-cracked by fatigue after one million cycles and the other group was statically pre-cracked to the same crack depth. Under three-point and four-point bending, it was reported that failure strength and associated maximum stress intensity factor of the statically pre-cracked beams are slightly higher than those of pre-cracked by fatigue. It was then concluded that static pre-cracking was acceptable, even for fatigue testing.
Efforts have been made to predict the growth of cracks due to fatigue loading. Balaguru and Shah (1981) proposed a model to simulate the increase of deflection and crack opening for steel RC. The components included in the model were as follows: (a) the cyclic creep of concrete; (b) the reduction of stiffness due to cracking and bond deterioration; (c) reinforcing steel softening. The experimental data was cited from other articles, which was limited to 100,000 or 50,000 cycles. The rebar stress range was between 69 MPa and 276 MPa (10 ksi and 40 ksi). The maximum rebar stress utilized was almost twice the rebar fatigue stress limit. The crack opening was recorded
photographically. It appeared that there were only five data points recorded within 100,000 cycles. The general trend of the model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. However, the motivation of using a stress range twice the rebar fatigue stress limit may be questioned. A limit of 100,000 cycles is generally not enough in the fatigue test of reinforced concrete.
The finite element method has been widely used in reinforced concrete analysis. There are two different approaches in crack modeling in finite element analysis. One is smeared crack modeling, which is generally better when overall load/deflection behavior is of primary interest. Initially, the concrete is assumed to be isotropic. The reinforced concrete cracks when the stress reaches an assumed failure surface. Instead of literally representing the crack in the concrete FE mesh, the concrete member remains as a continuum. The constitutive equations are then modified to reflect the cracked state.
The other popular method is discrete cracking modeling, utilized when detailed local behavior is investigated, as done early on by Ngo and Scordelis (1967). Based on local stresses in the finite element mesh, some element nodes are separated to model a discrete crack. Since it is costly and tedious, this method is generally only applicable in certain special circumstances.
Darwin (1993) performed a review of finite element analyses on conventional reinforced concrete. The survey results are summarized as follows. (a) Reinforcement. Reinforcements can be modeled in three methods - (1) distributed reinforcement within elements, (2) discrete bar element between element nodes, and (3) uniaxial element embedded in the element. In all cases, reinforcements and concrete are modeled as separate materials. Perfect bonding is always assumed. Fortunately, load-deflection behavior is not sensitive to the bonding unless the failure mode is bond slip, which is not deemed to be a valid design. (b) Concrete under Tension. Tension stiffening and tension softening have improved the numerical stability of simulation. Tension stiffening was
first used to account for the residual tensile strength of concrete between cracks. Tension softening uses the concept of fracture mechanics to achieve similar effects. (c) Concrete in Compression. It was found that the overall performance of a model is more related to the details of crack representation and shear retention after cracking, than the details of different concrete constitutive models in compression. (e) Load Increment. It was advised to take small load increments and assure that convergence is achieved at every step.
Perfect bond models, however, are invalid for the purpose of crack analysis. In the vicinity of a crack, there is inevitable bond-slip between rebar and concrete. Efforts have been made to model bonding. Manufacturers of FRP bars are aware of the necessity to model the bond-slip of their bars. Hughes Brothers, Inc. had sponsored a couple of institutions to investigate the phenomenon. A variety of results were obtained, as
different testing methodologies generated different results. This is an indication of the complexity of the issue.
Larralde et al (1993) tested the bonding of FRP bar and concrete. There was a longitudinal helical wrap around bar surface. Since there was little cracking in the concrete after bond failure, it was believed to be an indication of low local bearing stress between the indentations of the FRP bars and the surrounding concrete.
There is generally no fatigue failure within the FRP bars themselves. Therefore, research activities have been directed to the bonding between FRP and concrete under
The bar diameters were 10. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted.fatigue loading.1mm. C. Thermal fatigue. however. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete. Basically.7mm and 16mm. In the test setup. due to the damage to the bar. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. steel bars and concrete. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded. Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. there was one protruding test bar. The load amplitude was 25 . 12. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars.000 cycles. The CP bars in their tests exhibited behavior very similar to the Aslan 100 bars made by Hughes Brothers Inc. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. in order to ensure sufficient development length. with one supplementary bar on each side. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. 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. An embedment length of five diameters was used. At both the top and bottom of a specimen. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. C.
50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. 26 . It was found that the residual bond stiffness was actually higher than the initial bond stiffness. It was stated that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond. with the average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased. The authors suggested that slipping of bars might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. normal pressure between FRP bars and concrete. mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete. friction due to FRP surface roughness. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness. An effect of bar size has been observed.selected to achieve 90%. indented. twisted or braided. The experiment setups were similar to each other for the two investigations. A top bar effect also exists for FRP. 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. ranging from 75% to 25%. Cosenza et al. the residual slip after the first cycle was a significant portion of slip at the end of the 100. Deformed bars were ribbed. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP bars. This work was contradictory to the finding by C. Shield et al. In the case of CP bars. Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance. depending on the load magnitude. grain-covered or sandblasted prismatic rods. The bar slip at the free ends was recorded. Straight bars were smooth. Among environmental conditions. bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes. and a survey of bond-slip models was presented. FRP bars were categorized into straight bars and deformed bars. The actuator displacement verses load observations also supported that conclusion. but the load levels were very different.000 cycles.
chemical conditions, however, such as high alkalinity were shown to be detrimental to bonding. Popular bond-slip models are the Malvars model, BPE model, modified BPE model and CMR model. All of these models use exponential functions to model the first branch of increasing bond stress and slip. The softening branch was modeled linearly, for convenience. The authors stated that modified BPM model presented the best agreement with the available experiment results.
A. Katz (2001) tested five different types of FRP bars. Each FRP bar was embedded in a concrete block and 450,000 cycles of cyclic loads were applied. Between each 150,000 cycles, the specimens were immersed in water of 60oC and 20oC to simulate a deterioration process. At the end of the fatigue tests, a pullout test was conducted for each specimen. Three mechanisms of failure observed were abrasion of rod surface, delamination of outer layer of resin, and abrasion of cement particles entrapped between rod and concrete. It was concluded that helical wrapping of FRP bars did not increase bond resistance under cyclic loading. A sand covered bar surface did improve bonding; such bars were able to maintain maximum loading for a relatively long slip.
Flexural response of FRP reinforced concrete were reported by Benmokrane (1996) and other investigators. The general consensus is that at small load, the crack pattern in FRP concrete is similar to that of steel reinforced concrete. As the load increases, however, there are more cracks with larger crack openings in FRP concrete than in traditional steel reinforced concrete, for comparable reinforcement ratios. This
behavior is expected, since FRP has a much lower modulus of elasticity, compared with traditional steel reinforcement. The moment /curvature diagrams of lightly reinforced FRP beams are clearly bi-linear, with the bend point at the crack initiation moment level.
GFRP reinforced concrete beams were analyzed by Vijay and GangaRao (2001); different modes of failure were compared. The compression controlled failure mode presented not only higher flexural strength, but also a more ductile failure than the tension controlled failure mode. This result was consistent with ACI 440.1R-01
suggested design criteria. A parameter DF was defined as the ratio of energy absorption at ultimate strength to that at a limiting curvature value. To satisfy both the serviceability deflection limit of L/180 and crack opening limit of 0.016 inches, the curvature limit was set to be 0.005/d. The parameter DF then became a unified indicator, covering both serviceability and strength. The tensile strength of concrete is typically assumed to be 7.5 f c' , with an assumed elastic modulus of 57000 f c' (using U.S. units with stress units in psi). The tensile strain at cracking is thus assumed to
be ε cr = 7.5 f c' 57000 f c' = 0.0013 .
The curvature at first cracking ψ cr is
approximately 2ε cr / h = 0.0026 / h , for a symmetric section. Vijay and GangaRao thus have used twice the curvature at first cracking as the limiting curvature in their design criterion.
Bridge decks of traditional steel reinforced concrete have been analyzed and tested by many researchers, including Graddy et al.(1995). With the general purpose FE program SAP as their primary analysis tool, they performed a sequence of linear finite
element analysis, utilizing a smeared crack representation. A cracking stress of 0.1fc’ was used for plain concrete, with Kupfer's (1969) criterion. Cracks were only deemed possible in the directions parallel to the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement, i.e., the model failed to simulate nonorthogonal cracks. assigned for each round of analysis. New material parameters were
The element utilized was an eight node
isoparametric solid element, of the same size for the entire model, with edges parallel to the edges of model. Comparing analytical results with available experimental data, the study indicated that load-deflection was accurately simulated in the analysis, while the predicted stresses in the reinforcements were very different from those observed experimentally. The work was limited to the ultimate strength studies of RC slabs, and the serviceability of these slabs was not investigated.
Many researchers including Graddy et al.(1995) and others have noticed the effect of arching action in traditional steel reinforced concrete. Before a concrete slab cracks, the dominant resistance is flexure. After the concrete cracks, a “dome” architecture exists underneath the concentrated loads, if the cracked concrete is excluded. In-plane, or membrane stress, then becomes more significant. The results of theoretical analysis and experiments have shown that the arching action contributes to the slab strength. Arching action for multiple wheel loads is uncertain, however, especially in the case of FRP reinforced concrete slabs. Arching effect at service load levels for FRP slab has not been investigated.
The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. They included fully studded straps. partially studded straps. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. cruciform straps. The results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. 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. due to shakedown in the slab. but at a much larger load. Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. 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. 30 . when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%. B. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. FRP bars and diaphragms. The results showed that the load at slab failure was only increased by 11% for a two girder model and 15% for a three girder model.
The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. the three beams were space at 2. 1989). Models of 1/6. In either case. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. respectively. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. which was fairly high. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. In the prototype. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. the spacing was fairly large. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. 31 .6 and 1/3 scale were tested. The orthotropic reinforcement pattern consisted of a top and bottom layer of transverse and longitudinal steel reinforcing bars 19M (#6) spaced at 188mm and 376mm respectively. The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin.13m (7 ft). and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. however. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research.
3-1. Due to serviceability requirements. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load.6m (12 ft). requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design.55S for positive moment and 1220+0. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. the width is taken as 660+0. b. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.6.S.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m.1. top and bottom.003 is required in both directions. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. c. a.2. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The crack control 32 .25S for negative moment. The formula is in U. d. where the girder spacing is S. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. However. units.) The span length of a slab is less than 3. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design.
Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. supported on multiple girders. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. the AASHTO design codes have traditionally provided lateral distribution factors which account for the maximum possible portion of wheel load (half of axial load) acting on one girder.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. DF = 0. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . In the AASHTO LFD design codes. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed.2 K g 0. Therefore. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000).1 ) ( ) ( ) 9.4 S 0.06 + ( S 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. L is the bridge span.3 K g 0.6m (12 feet). the formulas for DF are as follows. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck.6 S 0. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. In the current LRFD codes.5.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0. For girder spacing S less than 3. In other words.
particularly in fatigue environments. In summary. on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads. The analysis results showed that the distribution factor decreased.1R-01 proposes to design for a strength failure mode of concrete crushing. 34 . with a size effect being detected.elements. the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in applications such as bridge deck slabs. or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements. The Paris law appears to be applicable in concrete. has not been thoroughly investigated. as the bridge span became larger. to achieve better ductility. Some other criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported. although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. The serviceability of FRP RC. FRP itself possesses excellent fatigue properties. It was found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26 (1987). ACI 440. There have been varying results. Sometimes. the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled with beam elements. The performance of FRP RC under monotonic loading has been understood fairly well. deserves to be further investigated before engineers can be expected to be confident with this fairly new material. the bond durability under cyclic loads. The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from conventional RC. mostly based on pullout tests. Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab. however. but all were less than AASHTO (1996).
Other implications on the serviceability provisions in ACI 440. The finite element method has been successfully used for a long time in bridge structural analysis. the uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters. analysis results are typically based on uncracked concrete slab properties. A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack growth under cyclic loading. 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. 35 . A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening of the test specimens. the crack opening displacement and crack growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory. Under the condition of a cracked slab. Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in applications such as bridge slabs. experimental results on fatigue testing of FRP RC will be presented. Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood. particularly in fatigue environments. the lateral load distribution factor will be discussed. serviceability is often the critical factor in bridge deck slab design. In this study. the overall performance of an FRP RC slab on a single span bridge of multiple girders will be analyzed. Subsequently. Although the current design methodology is strength oriented. An empirical equation for final crack opening will be proposed.1R-01 will be discussed. A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to evaluate the effects. which is generally reasonable for steel RC. The current bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution. respectively.Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed. Finally.
The behavior of FRP reinforced concrete under fatigue loading has been investigated thus far by simple pullout tests. such variations can be especially critical in fatigue testing. Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be applicable to typical in service conditions. rather than its strength. following an interval of cyclic loading. and their interface. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is its serviceability. There are two shortcomings with these approaches. The second issue is that such tests are sensitive to specimen imperfections. the bar is susceptible to local damage due to unintentional stress concentrations and eccentricities which may not be representative of in-service conditions. 36 . Crack opening is one of the important indicators of serviceability. concrete. The bond-slip and crack growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated. A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a concrete pull-out block. or by RILEM beam bond tests. With portions of bar exposed. Crack opening and its growth in FRP RC are related to the fatigue characteristics of FRP bar. One is that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment such as a bridge deck.Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load Motivation for the Testing Program Due to its high corrosion resistance. FRP is set to be a promising alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks.
9 MPa (715 psi). Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios.5 inches). in specimens more representative of in-service applications.83. but with four different widths were fabricated. 37 . The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.0/ 0. Traditionally.9 MPa (4045 psi).5/ 2. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved.5MPa (5000 psi). The concrete was composed of type III cement. Therefore. water.0/ 2.
were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. there was one No. 38 .1). C4x8. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. C6x8. As shown above. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.5 inches) thick. 16 (#5) bars. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. units follows.92E6 psi). the last number is the size. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length.8 GPa (5. 4. 102 mm. 127 mm and 152 mm (3.5H5. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers.5H5.Figure 2. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. #5. Within each beam. respectively. 16 FRP bar (#5 diameter 5/8 inches) at the bottom of each beam (tensile region) with 25 mm (1 inch) cover to the bar surface. The beam widths were 76 mm.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. C5x8. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. the beam size in U. (see Figure 2.S. For identification purposes. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. Inc.5H5. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. of the FRP bar..5H5. Inc. which are reported herein.
5P5.5S5. The bars are also sand coated. C5x8. 4.5P5. C6x8.5P5OL. C4x8. Similarly. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. One extra specimen. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. without a helical wrap along the length. C5x8. C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. 127 mm and 152 mm (3.5P5.5H5M.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. For identification purposes.2). for comparison purposes. One more specimen. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks. C5x8.Figure 2.5 inches) thick.1x106 psi). 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.9 ksi) for #5 bars. 102 mm. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98.5P5. The beam widths were 76 mm. 39 . they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. One specimen. respectively.
5P5 C4x8.5H5 C5x8.5P5 C5x8.5P5OL C5x8.5H5M C3x8.5P5 C5x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5H5 C5x8.5H5 C6x8.5S5 Width (mm) 76 102 127 152 127 76 102 127 152 75 127 Height (mm) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 Reinforcement 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) Steel Test Sequence 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 10 9 8 11 Table 2.5H5 C4x8.5P5 C6x8.Specimen C3x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.
Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored.2. 127 mm and 152 mm.3 and 2. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm.75 mm. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.Figure 2.1R-01. According to ACI 440.4).1R-01.68 mm. 102 mm. in accordance with ACI 440. respectively. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. 0.20ffu for FRP bars.80 mm and 0. Based on nominal kb value of 1. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. the predicted crack openings are 0. 0.
the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.94. for specimen C5x8.94 and 0. for a bridge of 10.5H5.in carbon FRP. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location.23.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. So. For a bridge slab under traffic load. For a truck with axle spacing of 3.3 in the factored load. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. Therefore.23 Hz. Therefore. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.8 Hz. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0. However. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).5H5 and C6x8. the overall frequency is 1. which is the product of 7.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 .
5 inches) below the top of beam. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. Inc. 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. for average curvature estimation. and all cracks were stable.540 mm to -1. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0.5”).Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.000 cycles. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. The first specimen tested was C5x8. respectively. After more cycles were applied. within the pure bending region. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2.039 in)). Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.5H5.1000 in to -0. the crack lengths became visually constant. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. which was near the theoretical neutral axis.270 mm (+0.118 in to -0. After the first test interval of 5. Experimental Results (1) Group H . there was no sign of distress with the specimen.02B-20 and 632.Static pre-cracking was used. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.
The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam.000 cycles of this overload. Figure 2.5 inches). No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings.5 inches) to 165mm (6. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. To investigate the effect of overload. 44 . It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates.300 N (5. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4.000 cycles. The crack length was virtually the same. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports.5H5. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen.6 Specimen C5 x 8.0 kips). After 10. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. Pmax was increased to 22. the specimen was still in good condition. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi.
5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.8 Specimen C4 x 8. Figure 2.Figure 2.5 H5 45 .300 N (5.75 inches) below the top of beam.0 kips) for 15.8 million cycles. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. No addition distress was found in the specimen.5H5 was similar. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. Pmax was again increased to 22. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.000 cycles.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).7 Specimen C3 x 8. up to 1. To investigate the effect of overload.
600 N ( 3. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. however. Therefore. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.9 Specimen C6 x 8.000 N and 40. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.The behavior of specimen C6x8.000 additional cycles were applied.000 cycles.5H5 was somewhat different. prior to 10.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4. The newly formed crack was instrumented.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. Figure 2.5 H5 46 . no new cracks appeared up to 140. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15.600 N. After an additional 35.5 kips).000 cycles. During the subsequent fatigue testing. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared. Pmax was raised back to 20. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.
0 kips).000 N (4. Pmax was finally increased to 22.000 testing cycles.300 N (5.000 cycles. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. To investigate the effect of overload. the crack lengths became visually constant. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. and all cracks were stable.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. A third crack was found around 400 cycles.000. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). the specimen was still in good condition. Pmax of 20. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.5P5. After 10. (2) Group P . After more cycles were applied. No new cracks were found in the specimen. After the first run of 3. a total of 40. 47 .To further investigate the overload effect.000 cycles were applied at this load level. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30.75 inches) below the top of beam. with the second and third cracks monitored.5 kips) was applied.000 cycles of overload. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1.
The average spacing was 200mm (8. 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. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress.5P5. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.Figure 2. 48 .000 load cycles. the concrete cover started falling off. After 200 cycles of overload. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000.10 Specimen C3 x 8. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.5 inches).000 N (6.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack.5k). After 3000 cycles of overload. Within the pure bending region. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. as debonding became more pronounced.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.
between the first two cracks at the midspan region.25 million cycles. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack. Pmax of 22.000 cycles. and then began growing.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. (Unfortunately.Figure 2. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. two new cracks appeared. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. 49 . By the end of the test.5P5 behaved somewhat differently. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.75 in).11 Specimen C4 x 8. At around 900 cycles.5 P5 Specimen C5x8.300 N (5.000 cycles. To investigate the effect of overload.0 kips) was applied for 10.5 inches) within the pure bending region.
During the subsequent fatigue testing.5 kips).5 P5 The specimen C6x8. After 155.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. Subsequently.300. as expected.12 Specimen C5 x 8. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. 50 .000 cycles.000 cycles of this overload were applied. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. however. No extra load was initially added.000 cycles of overload. The two existing cracks then started branching. Pmax was raised to 29.000 N (6. the specimen was still in good shape. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. no new cracks appeared up to 1.Figure 2. there was no indication of severe distress. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding.5P5 behaved similarly. After 50. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.
which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking.5 P5OL 51 .13 Specimen C6 x 8. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking. followed by cyclic load at service level.5P5OL. For specimen C6x8. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading. Figure 2.Figure 2.14 Specimen C5 x 8.5H5. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing. For specimen C5x8. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared.
Pmax was first increased to 22. there was no sign of distress within the specimen.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. As cyclic load testing started.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. No new crack was generated during the test.000. Then. To further investigate the overload effect.000 N ( 6.300 N (5.0 kips).5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. Figure 2.000 cycles of this load level. and five cracks appeared. At the end of 1. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. there was no visible growth of the cracks.000 cycles. with two very close to each other.15 Specimen C5 x 8. Pmax was then increased to 29.5 S5 52 . Static pre-cracking was used. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4.75 inches).000 cycles.
penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. so as to open the crack. Black ink was injected into the notch. rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. First. particularly for large cycle counts. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry.15. After about two hours. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined.For all specimens. 53 . even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. C5x8. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. 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. As the cracks opened up. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. For some specimens in group P. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. acoustic emission and dye penetration. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. failed to produce consistently usable results.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2.14). It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports.5P5. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. the images of cross sections of C4x8.5P5 and C6x8.
Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.
C4x8.5H5. the predicted service load crack openings.007 for specimens C3x8. respectively.5H5 was 0. the service load crack openings.2.5H5.5P5. a kb value of 0. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value. were between 0. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0.15 mm.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. 0.5P5. According to the limited test results.5P5.5H5. C5x8.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. respectively.6 MPa (4000 psi). C4x8.16 mm and 0. In group P. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. 0. C4x8. were 0. As mentioned earlier.16 mm. 0.26mm.5P5 and C6x8. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. C5x8. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.5H5 and C5x8.1R-01 criteria. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.84 mm for all four specimens.68 mm and 0.5H5. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. 0. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.0048. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .19 and 0.17 mm.5H5 and C6x8.010.008 and 0.5H5. 0.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction. Specimen C6x8. based on ACI 440. at least for the bars tested in this investigation. were 0. Based on these limited tests. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.5H5. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. respectively.013.
19. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. 56 . The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. 2. with increasing load cycle counts. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. 2. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does. which disappears after unloading. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2.18).20.21 and 2.
6 KN) 57 . 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.5H5 C4 x8 .5H5 0. Based on the experimental results.200 0.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15. As can be seen in Figure 2. 0.400 C3 x8 . elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading. but at a decreasing rate.20.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .respectively.19 and 2.5H5 C5x8 . By the end of the tests of one million cycles. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.5H5 0. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.100 0. with increasing load cycles counts.
300 C 3x8.150 0.E+01 1.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 C6 x8 .6 KN) 58 .E+03 1.1 0.E+05 1.E+02 1.E+00 1.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5P 5 C 5x8.6 KN) 0.5P 5 C 4x8.5H5 0.2 KN Pmax=15.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.E+04 1.2 KN Pmax=15.15 CMOD (mm) 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.200 0.5P 5 0.2 C3 x8 .5P 5 0.0.100 1.5H5 C4 x8 .5H5 C5x8 .
With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings). C3x8. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.5H5. during this period of crack development.5P5 0.5H5 and C6x8. Specimens C3x8. C4x8.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results.2 C3 x8 . It took specimens C6x8. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles.5P 5 C6 x8 .05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.0. The first stage is crack development.5P5 about 10. 59 .5H5. C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.1 0.5P5.5P5 C4 x8 .22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 and C5x8.5P5.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.5P5 0. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles. C5x8.
although at a decreasing rate.5H5 (see Figure 2. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD.23 through 2. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop for any particular load cycle is related to the energy loss by the specimen during that load cycle. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness).23).5H5.24). The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length.5H5 (see Figure 2.25). The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. crack growth reaches the second stage. For beam C6x8.5H5 (see Figure 2. The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings).5H5 (see Figure 2. For beam C4x8. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 . nearly constant elastic CMOD. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading.Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached. For beam C5x8. For beam C3x8.26). Figures 2. The general trend of plastic CMOD. it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. If the area becomes larger. or crack stabilization.26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading.
showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.8 4 1. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.27.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.5P5.30 and 2. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .0 0 0 1. which is discussed later. 2.for the single crack.15 0.5P5. 2.1 0.05 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.2 0.28. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8. 2.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .29.
0 0 0 1.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 9 8 8 .15 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .05 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 2 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .0 0 0 .2 Figure 2.1 0.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 .05 0.2 0.0 0 0 2 8 0 .15 0.
5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 140.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.1 0.1 0.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.4 0.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.05 0.
28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.1 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.15 0.2 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.2 0.000 900.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .05 0.1 0.000 900.05 0.25 0.
000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.2 0.15 0.000 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.050.000 1.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.1 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.05 0.2 0.000 600.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.000.
60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . damping. 2. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.5H5 1.5H5 C6 x8 . etc.00E-06 4.00E-05 C3 x8 .00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2. friction.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 .20E-05 8. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.5H5 1. The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.32 and 2. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. micro-cracking. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.33). The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.32 and 2. The pseudo energy loss per crack.5H5 C4 x8 .00E-06 0. at unit width.33.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. From Figure 2.
5H5 and C4x8.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.00E-06 0.5P5 C4 x8 .5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.5P5 C6 x8 .5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.33 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P These tests seem to indicate that fatigue damage to FRP RC is related to bar spacing/reinforcement ratio.50E-05 2. generally speaking.50E-05 1.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.00E-05 5.00E-05 C3 x8 .5H5. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.2.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 . 67 .5H5 and C6x8.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases. Similarly in group P. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.
up to 40% over service load levels.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.15 CMO D (mm) 0.000 load cycles.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30. It would appear that relatively modest overloads.5H5. For specimen C5x8.1 0.36 and 2. Similar results were obtained in group P.5H5 68 . Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10.2 0. For specimen C6x8.35).5H5. a 30% overload was applied after 180.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.3 KN Beam C5x8.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .34). as shown in Figure 2. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.25 Figure 2. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.37.
1 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.25 0.5H5 20 1.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .1 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.3 KN Beam C5x8.2 CMO D (mm) 0.5P5 69 .25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.4 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.2 0.05 0.3 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.
Only after 10.000 cycles. and CMOD started growing again.2 0. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening.38. At the same time.1 0.37 0. 70 .0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. In the subsequent loading cycles. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated.3 KN Beam C6x8. for the Isorod rebars.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 . no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10.15 0. there was fatigue hardening. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.05 0. as shown in Figure 2.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22. at the working stress level.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique.000 cycles of loading. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage.
5P5.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.5H5M Figure 2.25 CMOD (mm) 0. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity. Compared with FRP bars.5H5 and C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.30 0. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .2 KN Pmax=15. C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.35 0.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5H5OL.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.15 0.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.20 0.05 0. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5H5 and C5x8.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.10 0. However.00 1 -0.5P5.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload. 0.Comparing group H.
The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed.000 response cycles. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. Figure 2. an overload of 40% above working stress was applied. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. As more cycles were applied.considerably lower. 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. Figure 2. or closer to rebar at the bottom. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. the crack length was visually constant. with similar reinforcement ratios. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding.75 in). This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . although no overload was applied. During the service level fatigue testing. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars. No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. After one million cycles under working stress. In the crack stabilization stage.
5S5 73 .000 1.08 0.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.02 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. At the same time.1 Figure 2.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .04 0.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.06 Figure 2.40.05 0.04 0.000 280.000.06 C MO D (mm) 0.degradation began as shown in Figure 2. unlike FRP RC.01 0.03 CMO D (mm) 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.02 0. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.
41.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 3.5S 5 C5x8.00E-06 2. 7.00E-06 4.00E-06 0. the pseudo energy loss per crack.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5. 74 . Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. at unit width.5P5OL and C5x8.5S5 Thus far.00E-06 6. for specimen C5x8. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.5S5 and C5x8.5P5 and C5x8.5H5.00E-06 1.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2. sometimes.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.
the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. as more cycles were applied. In specimen C5x8. after 10.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. the elastic CMOD became less.42 Specimen C5 x 8. until one million cycles had elapsed.000 cycles. 75 . however. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. In addition. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. In other words. it began to stabilize. no plastic CMOD was acquired.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. they were very close to each other..5 H5M In specimen C5x8. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. which was 115mm (4. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD.5P5.000 cycles. due to operation problems. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70.Figure 2. At around one million cycles. there was a crack at midspan.42. as shown in the photo. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. Unfortunately. But.000 cycles.
Effects of overloads at pre-cracking. which is characterized by growing crack opening and length. One is crack development. In summary. the experiments covered one steel rebar and two different types of FRP bars. and. Consequently. thus quantifying the evolution of energy loss per 76 . This characterization was further verified through monitoring of the evolution of hysteresis plots. 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 rebar/concrete shear stress is at a maximum a short distance from the crack surface. For FRP RC. with four beam widths utilized to simulate different bar spacing in bridge deck slabs. limiting the opening requirement of monitored cracks. The second stage is crack stabilization at which the length of a crack is approximately constant.The shear stress distribution along a bar can also be utilized as a vehicle to further explain this multiple-crack phenomenon. there is additional shear stress introduced onto the bar surface. The CMODs were recorded when specimens were under cyclic load at working stress level. on fully developed cracks were also investigated. and then decreases with distance from the crack surface. with slower growth in crack opening. When a secondary crack appears close to a primary crack. As more cycles are applied. the primary crack appears “stiffer” and its elastic CMOD becomes smaller. The cracks were initiated by static pre-cracking. The reported observation by other investigators that cyclic load improves the bonding stiffness between concrete and FRP bars may be attributable to initiation of secondary flexural cracks.
77 .5P5 and C6x8. For the steel RC. The profiles of crack length for C4x8. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading. although the surfaces were a little uneven.5P5. The crack development stage for conventional steel R/C was observed to be shorter and less apparent when compared with FRP RC. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios. The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence. the specimens showed no sign of distress or significant alteration of crack opening behavior. but at a decreasing rate.cycle. Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress. C5x8. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks. The plastic CMOD appeared to grow slightly with the number of cycles.5P5 indicated that the crack tips stopped at the same normal distance length from the top of the beam. The reported improvement of bonding stiffness due to cyclic loads by others may be attributable to this phenomenon.
it is difficult to estimate crack opening for complex structures and loading such as bridge deck slabs. a discrete crack model will be used. initial crack mouth opening distance will be estimated. which was utilized for this investigation. The objective is to be able to make use of the existing experiment results. The drawback of this approach is that the 78 . Reinforcing bars may be modeled as truss element. the simulation is divided in two steps. Although ACI 440 has modified the Gergely-Lutz equation.Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth The experimental results have illustrated the performance of a number of FRP RC beam specimens. a fatigue model will be used to simulate the crack development. Secondly. it will be used to analyze more complex structures with cracks. and predict the performance of other structures. The general trend in the results of different specimens suggests the possibility of developing a model to predict the evolution of cracks in FRP RC in fatigue environments. A finite element method will be calibrated to estimate the initial CMOD at static pre-cracking of the specimens which were tested. First. Once valid finite element model parameters are established. Due to the fact that crack growth is composed of development and stabilization. To estimate the opening of a crack in a reinforced concrete beam. which is the rebar element in ABAQUS program. Estimation of Crack Opening It has long been known that reinforced concrete is difficult to model.
The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 . When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements. 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. a substantial effort was made to simulate the mechanical behavior of the contact between the concrete and rebar. The model is not necessarily unique. and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it. which is not the case in reality. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. No success was achieved. Initially.1. They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. for this investigation. shown above in Figure 3. Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar. In the first case. however.1 Debonded Length Representation Two simplified finite element modeling approaches have been proposed. however. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study. however. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model.
The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. the stress within reinforcement can be calculated. the bond stress decreases.length from the crack surfaces.5P4 A debonded length was calibrated for each specimen based on the experimental results.2 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8. A typical finite element model with debonded length representation is shown below. The disadvantage of this model is that the interaction of two crack surfaces is neglected. Within the debonded length. At distances further away from the crack surface. Based on this representation. relatively close to the crack surface. The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens. It reaches its maximum value. however. Different specimens will result in different values of debonded length as shown in 80 . Figure 3. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar.
The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces.5mm (0.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2.17 0.1 in).5P5 C5x8. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.17 0.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. however. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. The justification of the model is as follows.5P5 C4x8. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. to account 81 .the table below.5P5 C6x8. The height is the true height of a crack. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. As mentioned earlier. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section.3).16 C3x8. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.19 0.23 0. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. Interestingly.21 0. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.22 0. A small base dimension.
3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3.for the interaction between crack surfaces. Fictitious Material Figure 3.4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4 82 . The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.
6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.20 0.20 0.2.5P5 C6x8. Also.20 0.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24. It is another possible indication of a size effect.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. Specimen C3x8.The Young’s modulus. Efic. Normally.20 Efic 27.5P5 C5x8.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.5P5 C4x8. 83 . Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3. below.20 0. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.24 0. of the fictitious material was calibrated for each specimen based upon the assumed triangular dimensions and upon the experimental results after the CMOD reached its maximum value. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation. However.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.24 0.
including aggregate bridging and crack surface friction within cracks. The more cyclic loads are applied.Concrete has been categorized as a quasi-brittle material for its fracture process zone at the crack tip. the interlocks. under repeated loading. At the beginning of cyclic loading. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. a fracture process zone may be modeled as additional distributed tensile stresses between crack surfaces. the fracture process zone may behave differently. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3. Af c1 Figure 3. at the crack tip. the fewer the interlocks become. in this model. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff. Therefore. with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength. In the case of monotonic loading up to failure.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 .5). several components in the fracture process zone. In the case of cyclic loading. Consequently. have to be overcome.
fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. ⎡ 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. (3-6) 85 . substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. based on compatibility and equilibrium conditions: fc a = f t hb − a − ac fc a Ec = f f hb − a − c1 E f (3-1) (3-2) 1 1 f c awb = f f Af + f t (hb − a − ac ) wb 2 2 1 2 1 M = A f f f (hb − c1 − a ) + f t wb (hb − a − ac ) (hb − ac ) 3 2 3 (3-3) (3-4) Substituting equation (3-1) and (3-2) into (3-3).In the diagram above. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. hb stands for the beam height. the depth of compressive concrete is obtained: wb (hb − ac ) 2 + 2 a= Af E f Ec (hb − c1 ) (3-5) 2wb (hb − ac ) + 2 Af E f Ec Finally. the result is as follows. ac stands for the crack length. the following equations are obtained.
Consequently.6.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. Utilizing this behavioral assumption. the following equation is obtained. In other words. shown below in Figure 3. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. This assumption will later be verified. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. under either monotonic or cyclic loading. 86 . based on finite element analysis. So the following relation is obtained. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam.
the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . 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.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1.1( c ) 3 + 14.32( c ) 2 − 13. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. L is the spacing of cracks. ∆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). E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively.39( ac a a a ) + 7. and N is the number of cycles. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.12 − 1. the following equation is obtained. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 .
16( c ) − 31.22( c ) + 34.G( a c a c a c a c ac .17 − 28.88(1 − c )5 − 2. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.63 + 25. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge. hb is the beam height.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.46 + 3. M is the bending moment.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.06( c ) + 0.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5. D was 610mm (24 in).04(1 − c )5 + 1. P is the concentrated load.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length. 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 ) = 0.04( c ) 2 + 14. 88 .54( c ) 2 − 14.84(1 − c )5 + 0.
S.01121 × 7.01302 × 6 = 0.3.0011 5 72 Table 3.00654 0. the following equations are obtained. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.00127 = 0.00119 = 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.006973 × 12 = 0. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.5H5 C4x8. we have the following equation.00128 = 0. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.00109 5.5P5 0.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .5P5 C5x8. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).5H5 C5x8.5 = 0.5 72 0.5 72 0. the hinge assumption is justified.00696 0. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.5P5 C6x8.006407 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.0011 5. with relative differences all less than 10%.
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. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. In the case of multiple cracks. To address these variables with uncertainties. 7. using specimen C5x8. depending on the ingredients and curing process. the exact spacing of cracks is random.6x10-17 and 3. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. which will be determined based on experimental results.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . with possibly different initial crack lengths.25x10-4.76.S. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. corresponding to 2x10-16.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . 2. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). 6. units.76x10-4. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. The results were shown in Figure 3. 6. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm.5H5 as a prototype. Three different C values were used. The parameter m was set to be 3. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. the opening increment only changed by 0. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable.8. First. namely.
The crack opening increment.66. did not change more than 0. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. however. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. C was therefore fixed at 6. 3. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected.9. The final crack opening increment might be 0.01mm less. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm.76x10-4 and m at 3.86. 91 . Due to the aforementioned difficulties. 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.76.76 and 3. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. 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 6.86. the model is insensitive to C.003mm. and that each was completely different from the others. Obviously. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3.were similar to each other.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . 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.5 in).
76.10 and 3. 34. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. The height of specimen 92 . The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. The plots are shown in Figure 3.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0.12 and 3. the values of Ef . Finally. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing.25 in). and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . Values of Ec were set at 27. The width of specimen C5x8.76x10-4 and m of 3. with fixed C of 6. The error for crack opening increment was about 0. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa.15Ef and 1. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. however.4MPa. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other.4MPa.13. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. As Ec increased from 27.002mm less.5MPa and 41. yet all cracks stop at the same length.6MPa. The plots are shown in Figure 3.001mm less. 1. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size.3Ef were examined.11. The crack opening increment was approximately 0.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. with a difference of about 40mm. The crack opening growth.6MPa to 41. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. approximately. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement.
however. crack length.25 in). The plots are shown in Figure 3. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. 93 . with 6mm less beam height. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. and specimen size. due to the nature of the exponential function. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. In summary.001mm less. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. and vice versa.C5x8.14 and 3. This model is most sensitive. For other variables. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa.15.
Figure 3.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.76) Figure 3.76x10-4) 94 .9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.5H5 (m=3.5H5 (C=6.
Figure 3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76) 95 .76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.
76x10-4 m=3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.76) 96 .Figure 3.
5H5 (C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.76) 97 .76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.
Similar results are shown Figure 3. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller.S. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. For parameters C and m in Paris equation. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth.16 to 3. 98 . The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.23. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. For both thin and thick specimens. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model.22. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). In other words. since m is the exponential term. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. A summary was shown in Figure 3.19 to 3. For specimens of group H. using a brute force approach. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C .5H5. units. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. which illustrates a size effect. The results are listed from Figure 3. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. all specimens except C6x8.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ).18. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. To simplify the model.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis.
48 99 . and.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. m=3. As the width of a metallic specimen is small.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. however.76x10-4.5H5. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. Figure 3. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. C=6. In the case of FRP concrete. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. When the specimen width increases. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain.
57 Figure 3. C=6.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.Figure 3.76x10-4. C=6. m=3.76x10-4.5H5.76 100 . m=3.5H5.
76x10-4.5P5.Figure 3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. m=3. C=6. C=6.55 101 .39 Figure 3. m=3.76x10-4.5P5.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.
m=3.74 Figure 3. C=6.Figure 3. m=3.88 102 .76x10-4.5P5.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.5P5.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8. C=6.76x10-4.
4 Group H Group P 3.4 3.6 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.8 m Value 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .
The values of strip width are based on experience. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. the width of primary strip is 660+0. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed.55S for positive moments.2.6. For a cast-in-place concrete slab.3-1. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs. plus top and bottom chord 104 . some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. Secondly. To account for the effect of continuity. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck.1. From the AASHTO design guide. and to simulate a worst case scenario. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. due to its relative simplicity. First. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters. The arching effect will also be examined.
Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight.e. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0.5m (20 in). Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.5-1 in AASHTO. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. 105 . 1) The values of girder spacing are 1.7 m (66 in). The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. The wheel load is 71. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load.8 m (6 feet).86 MPa (125 psi). All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. the following assumptions are made.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load.5P5.7 m (9 feet) and 3.bars. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.2. i. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack.7 m (105 in). due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. with a lateral spacing of 1. and the width of the loading area is always 0. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.6 m (12 feet)..6.2 m (86 in) and 2. which represent the majority of bridges in service.8 m.1. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. 2. For the purpose of simplicity. The corresponding strip widths are 1. 2. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.
1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero.2. To investigate the arching effect.8m (6 ft) was analyzed.5 in2). one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4.First. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . Figure 4.1. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2. the case of a girder spacing of 1. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.8m.
Figure 4. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. The tensile stress also decreased significantly.8m.3. 107 . 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. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.
with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. the effects of girder spacing were examined. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m. The results are illustrated below.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8m.8m. 2. Two cases of girder spacing.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4. 108 .7m and 3. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.
Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .7m.Figure 4.
16M Bar at 100mm.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .6m.Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.
10. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. regardless of the girder spacing. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. Next.Figure 4. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied. In Figure 4. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression.8m. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. The magnitude of 111 .
The remaining issues.4 0. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. 120 3. The maximum rebar stress at 3.6m Girder Spa. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. therefore. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89.6 0.8m Girder Spa.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels.3 ksi).stress at the assumed 3.6m Girder Spa. 150mm Bar Spa. are durability and serviceability.7m Girder Spa.0MPa (13. rather than the static ultimate strength. 100 1.2 0. 100mm Bar Spa. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles.0 ksi). Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4. including crack opening and slab deflection. 2. 3. 100mm Bar Spa.8 1 1. 100mm bar Spa.1 MPa (10.2 1.
0083 in).5 in2). The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more.00202 in).21mm (0.0072 in). which should be acceptable. 113 . under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.051mm (0. Finally. the entire diaphragm was removed. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. to 0. At the girder spacing of 1. was added at each diaphragm location.0020 in).0022 in). To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.058mm (0.22mm (0.055mm (0. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0085 in). the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0.18mm (0.0019 in). the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).051mm (0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.0023 in).0073 in).8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. a top diaphragm bar.8m girder spacing. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.19mm (0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.048mm (0. Compared with the maximum 0.5mm suggested in ACI 440. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.
or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.077mm (0.0032 in).A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. which.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm.108mm (0.077mm (0. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.055 in). When a top bar was added to the diaphragm. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2.021 in). the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0.4mm (0.0042 in). should be acceptable. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.13 mm (0. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 .0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. again. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.0031 in).00303 in).089 mm (0.53mm (0.080mm (0.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.5 in2).
and due to their ineffectiveness.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75.02 in). which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. namely an opening of less than . it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab.6m (12 ft). under the design truck load and lane loads. somewhat arbitrary. there are four legal loads. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. The axle spacings are 3. its expected conservatism. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1.0063 in).2m. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design.16 mm (0. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low.6m. however.sake of simplicity. presumably. at 150mm spacing. A rebar spacing of 100mm obviously produces even lower predicted crack openings (25% of the ACI 440 limit) and smaller slab deflections (deflection/span ratio below 1/2000). 115 .62 KN (17 kips). which is composed of one axle load of 53. due to its simplicity and. 9.5mm (.4m and 1. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. 1. The strip width is.2m. In the State of Ohio. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440.
which would generate too many elements. Similar to slab strip model.3m (60 ft) long.6 KN (8 kips). the slab was supported by three girders. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. The model bridge was single span of 18. Due to the large size of the structure. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. such as 5C1. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load.5 KN (32 kips). There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. The design truck is composed of three axles. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). With the fictitious material representation. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. The front axle load is 35. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load.5m.producing a total length of 15. The spacing between the 116 . especially including discrete rebars.5 in). but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening.27m (14 ft). The second and third axles are 142. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation.
8m (6 ft).27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. in the bridge model. with no diaphragms. spanning the two girder spacings.15m (30 ft). 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. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip.27m (14 ft) and 9. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. a slab strip model under the same condition was created. In Figure 4.35 KN/m (0.11. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. In the case of single span bridge.12. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4. minimum spacing of 4. For comparison purposes. Compared with Figure 4.64 Kips/ft). using the fictitious material model.second axle and the third axle varies between 4.081mm. relative to the actual imposed stress field. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1.11 and 4.4.05m (10 ft).053mm. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.
Without diaphragms.058mm. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 .8m (6 ft) to 3.7m and 3. Finally.041mm. as an indication of the arching effect.15. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4.6m (15 ft). The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.6m spacing.6m. and excessive crack opening predictions. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.crack opening prediction. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4.14. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. The single “dome” was split into two again. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. As the girder spacing changed from 1. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. as expected.13 and 4. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model.19.8m.15 through 4. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.6m (12 ft). 2.20. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. there was always one compression “dome”. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4.
Even including an impact factor of 1. The model is shown in Figure 4. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load.41mm. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. Nevertheless. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. 119 .3. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders.22 for the bridge model with 1.of the same model without diaphragms. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels.21. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. Even at a girder spacing 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. the maximum final crack opening was 0.8m girder spacing.6m (12 ft). the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. as shown in Figure 4.21 mm.
8m. Lane Load and Self-Weight. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 1.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. 120 . Slab thickness 215mm.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.
Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 121 .8m.Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.
(Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 .15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. Lane Load and Self-Weight.7m.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.Figure 4. Figure 4.
Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .
1.3 1.8m Girder Spa.No Diaph.8m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa.w / Diaph.Figure 4. 3.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 . 0.w / Diaph.6m Girder Spa.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4. CMOD (mm) 0.No Diaph. 3. 2.No Diaph.2 2. 0.w / Disph.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.7m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa.
1.0.04 0.8m.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0. (Girder spacing 1.08 CMOD (mm) 0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.06 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.
For the critical girder. and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge. A cracked section has a smaller stiffness than the uncracked portion the slab in the transverse direction.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight. To compute the distribution factors. one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load. In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. design loads are first applied to a bridge.Figure 4. When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated. there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed load. more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor. slab thickness. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. As the majority of 126 . between girders. Then.
000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. at girder lines. as discussed below. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. respectively. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. ρ = 0. are resisted by larger concrete sections. the effects of temperature and shrinkage needs to be included for the longitudinal direction by supplying minimum reinforcement parallel to the traffic direction of the bridge. As a result. 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.0018 × 60. In the longitudinal slab direction. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. although temperature and shrinkage effects.
Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs.6m 912 ft). top and bottom in both directions. and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action. and it does provide adequate strength. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing.6m (12 ft). Therefore. 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. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. instead of ultimate strength. 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. for girder spacing up to 3. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. and the arching effect on strength. For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. 1989). it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction. the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. In summary.study. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. Although this design seems to be simple. 128 . According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988.
129 .The somewhat larger predicted crack openings associated with FRP RC bridge decks should be considered admissible by bridge owners and inspectors. given the enhanced corrosion resistance.
the elastic CMOD. which is the plastic portion. The elastic CMOD disappears after unloading. As more load cycles are applied. The permanent CMOD at zero load.000 cycles of full service load testing. FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs. even for the case of widely spaced cracks. experiences growth to stabilization. the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions. At the end of 2. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches. 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. that bonding between concrete and FRP actually can be improved under cyclic loading. Current results from this investigation cannot confirm the results of other researchers. The general trend of elastic CMOD is that it grows with fluctuation until 130 . The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC. In addition. generally increases with the number of load cycles.000.Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. under constant load amplitude. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD.
on each side of a crack. The modulus of elasticity 131 . A model which is based on the Paris equation was proposed to predict the evolution of crack growth. A debonded length of 25mm (1 in) between the concrete and the FRP rebar. was found to be a conservative estimate. The CMOD reduction encountered in the tests was possibly attributable to the effects of additional cracks. for several different reinforcement spacing. To extend the findings to typical bridge deck slab design. The model has been proved to predict crack growth in FRP RC reasonably well. The sensitivity analysis illustrated that the model was most sensitive to the exponential parameter. which originated during cyclic testing. and then to analyze realistic bridge deck slabs. The first representation is a debonded length representation. A size effect was observed. No tangential relative displacement was allowed between rebar and concrete beyond the assumed debonded length. The stress intensity factor was assumed to be the sum of those for pure bending and for the concentrated force within the FRP bar. Tensile stress at the crack tip was included in the section stress distribution. 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. two simplified finite element crack representations were developed to simulate the test specimen behavior. As the thickness of the specimen decreases. the exponential parameter in the Paris equation decreased. The second finite element representation is a fictitious material representation.
are instrumental in the serviceability of bridge slabs. Top chord bars in the diaphragms were shown to be ineffective in reducing the predicted crack openings. arching action within the deck slab between adjacent girders is enhanced. The fictitious material FE representation was used to analyze a complete bridge slab.of the fictitious material was calibrated based on the testing results at the crack stabilization stage. In the case of weak or absent diaphragms. 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. instead of ultimate strength. when diaphragms were included in the model. The results indicated that the stress in the FRP reinforcement was relatively low. excessive deflections of interior girders will generate one larger compression “dome” covering more than two girders. due to the fact that a very large number of elements were required. The assumption that bond fatigue strength is the critical issue in FRP bridge deck slab design. with much less effective arching action. 132 . Different reinforcement spacing generated somewhat different moduli of elasticity for the fictitious material. however. The debonded length FE representation was used to analyze an AASHTO slab strip model. The diaphragms. Consequently. was thus verified. By reducing the differential deflections between girders. larger crack opening will appear.
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. A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design. reinforcement. Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis.6m. The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 .The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength.
The experiments should be extended to actual FRP reinforced concrete slabs. In reality. They include seasonal temperature variation. The Paris equation may have to be revised. water invasion. The experimental work has been limited to beams with FRP reinforcement. there are many other environmental factors involved during the life span.Chapter 6 Future Research The experiments conducted in this research were limited to loads of constant amplitude at a fixed location. The portions of stress 134 . a bridge slab is under moving traffic loads of variable amplitudes. The complete empirical slab design algorithm deserves to be verified. Size effects under variable amplitude should be evaluated. under moving loads. Stochastic models may be developed to describe the variations. The crack growth under loads of variable amplitude requires experimental investigation. alkaline or acidic solutions and saline solutions. The variability of cracking and crack growth is evident in the experiments. Although FRP concrete slab is corrosion resistant. The variable amplitudes may be quantified using root mean cube effective stress amplitudes. supported by multiple girders. Development of accelerated testing techniques for durability would be a breakthrough for FRP technology. The durability of FRP reinforced slabs under these conditions is instrumental to its applicability in bridge deck infrastructures.
in which case a crack profile may be simulated. Being composite also makes it possible to have different forms. In offshore structures. The distribution of crack opening growth may be predicted by the model. corrosion resistance is also one of the major concerns. The most promising structure modules should possess excellent load distribution. Structure types may include different configurations such as a sandwich type. The variability of crack growth may be determined statistically. FRP rods can be a direct substitute of steel reinforcement. the normal crack length has been used. In a floating offshore platform. Any reduction of the topside weight by using FRP composites will reduce the cost of supporting structure.intensity factors in the Paris equation may be randomized by adding noise. 135 . Low weight and excellent fatigue performance are also the advantages in this environment. In this study. The model may be also extended to random loadings. which includes the weight of the accommodation module and production facilities. The actually crack profile may be described by a fractal geometry. such as a tension leg platform (TLP). The dynamic characteristics of FRP tendons under wave action should be studied. TLP tendons may also be composed of FRP. light weight and ease in construction. the topside load has to be supported.
Al-Dulaijan.E. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. USA. January 1998. Qureshy. Bakis. M. 1996 4. Swartz.K. Baluch. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A. 136 . Texas. A. Boothby. 2000 3. “440. S. 80-87 8. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. ACI Structural Journal. ACI Committee 215. S. Vol. 20. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. No. June 17-19. Houston. Compilation 33. Benmokrane. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. American Concrete Institute. 2004 2. R. Journal of Composite Technology & Research.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. O. C.91. S.. SEM-RILEM International Conference. 2001 5. 1987. 1995 7. S.B. No.Bibliography 1.2. Shah. B. Nanni. Vol. pp. 1992 6. JCTRER. American Concrete Institute. Masmoudi. Chaallal. A. American Concrete Institute. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. 1. Committee 440. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”.H. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”.P. M. pp 29-37.
Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. Vol. Manfredi.9. Shah. No. pp 139-147. Richard E. Lutz. 1982 11. M. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”.4. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. H. C. R.2. 10. Philleo. Cosenza. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. B. 1997. Klingner. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”.87-117.E. February.3. May. E. Gergely. 16.66. H. Vol. Frederick. American Concrete Institute. T. Vol. 14. 13. G. G. Graddy. P. SP-20. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. No.P. K. 2000. Vol. 12. John C. Mabsout.K. L. Burns.2. 137 . pp 83-87. Publication SP-75. ACI Journal. R. H. Bakht. Journal of Composites for Construction.1. The University of Texas at Austin. Vol. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. 1993.P. Balaguru. pp. August 2000. Vol. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. May 1997. pp 40-51. A. No.1. C. pp137-144. Kupfer. Hilsdorf.3. R. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. Detroit. Ned H. Larralde. No. S. pp 659-673.5. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Causes. J. August 1969. Center for Transportation Research. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering.5. 15. Tarhini. Journal of Composites for Construction.2. 17. August. Journal of Bridge Engineering. American Concrete Institute. No. Editor S.
18. C. 591607.N. ACI Structural Journal. pp. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. 1995 23.E.A. Swartz. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. S. Nutt. C. Beim. C.E.C. Editor S. Perdikaris. Shah. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. March 1988.. P. Shah.4. pp. S. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. 20. P. USA. July-August 1989. 24. P. Beim. Transportation Research Board. R. 12-26. Journal of Structural Engineering. A. 2. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. A. SEM-RILEM International Conference.. 114. pp.. pp 381-388. Vol. 1997. 1987 19. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. Texas. Shield. 1982 138 . 483-491. Swartz.C.K. Huang. K. Detroit. 21. American Concrete Institute.C. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. French. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. S. No. John Wiley & Sons.P. T. National research Council. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. ASCE.M. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. R. Inc. Publication SP-75. Vol.E. S. Swartz.M.P. 64-69 22. Shah. No. S. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Perdikaris. Oct. June 17-19. Houston. S. Zokaie. NCHRP Project No. 86. Vol. S.P. C. Perdikaris.3. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1987. S. Washington D.C. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”.
S. June 1984. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. pp129- 134. Vol. Vancouver. No. Journal of Basic Engineering.11. Buckland. Vol. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Vol. Vol. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”.K. Banthia and P. ACI Structural Journal. pp. J. No. 26. Experimental Mechanics. Vijay. November 1982. S. C. M. Hu.G.98. Paris. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. Canada.S. Fartash. 1985 30. Experimental Mechanics. 28. C. K. 2001 139 . Tada.2. P. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. F. Montreal. H. Transactions of ASME. Paris. Paris Productions Inc. Hota V.22. Swartz.6. Canada. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”.412-417. 27.24.E. edited by P. 1963 29. P.G.528-534. P. pp..E. Second Edition.85.V.25. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. Swartz. N.H. G. No.C. GangaRao. Brett. 2002.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.