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 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=2.14 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.12 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.9 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.List of Figures Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.13 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.19 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 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.6 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.17 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.
6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.26 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.23 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load 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=22.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5H5 Figure 2.33 Figure 2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.27 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.6 KN) Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.31 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.2 KN Pmax=15.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.32 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.25 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.30 Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.24 Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.
6 Figure 3.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5OL.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.5S5 Figure 2.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5 Figure 3. C5x8.7 Figure 3.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 Figure 3.5P5OL and C5x8.3 KN Beam C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.3 KN Beam C6x8.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.42 Specimen C5 x 8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .5S5 Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.1 Figure 3.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.6 KN) Figure 2.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.39 Figure 2.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.Beam C5x8.
76x10.4 m=3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (m=3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8. Beam C3x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.4.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.5H5.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8. m=3.5H5 (C=6.76x10.76x10. m=3.4 m=3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.76) Figure 3.4. m=3.4 m=3.5H5.4.57 Figure 3.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .4.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.5P5.76x10.5H5.for Beam C6x8.4 m=3.76x10.4 m=3. m=3.76 Figure 3.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.76x10.5H5 (C=6. Beam C4x8.76x10.5H5 (C=6.76x10.4) Figure 3. Beam C3x8.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.48 Figure 3. Beam C5x8. C=6. C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8. C=6.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.76x10.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. C=6.
3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. m=3. 16M Bar at 100mm.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. C=6. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4.8m. Beam C4x8. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4. m=3.76x10.5P5. Beam C6x8.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.Figure 3.76x10. C=6.5P5.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.74 102 Figure 3.5P5.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.6m.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 188.8.131.52x10.55 101 Figure 3. Beam C5x8.88 102 103 Figure 3.7m.4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .7m.8m. C=6. m=3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.
9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.6m.6m. Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.10 Figure 4. Figure 4.8m.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.7m.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight.
Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.8m.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. 1.20 Figure 4.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 . Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.
List of Tables Table 2.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .
His teaching will benefit me for years to come. I have enjoyed our discussions very much. Huckelbridge for his guidance. Saada as my instructor and sponsor. I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. To me. Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support.Acknowledgements I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Throughout my research. 11 . 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. There exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack. there is a surge of forces in the bars. particularly so if 16 . the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. In the case of smaller scale structures. particularly in composite materials. Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments. Within the fracture process zone.Serviceability covers many different aspects of structural performance related to particular applications. crack tip blunting by voids. the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value. The relatively low Young’s modulus of FRP. will generate larger crack lengths and crack mouth opening displacements (CMOD) compared with conventional steel reinforcement. the crack length generally is deeper on the sides than in the middle. The most commonly encountered serviceability requirements in RC structures are maximum deflection and crack opening control. crack face friction. The tensile forces in the bars and resultant compressive force in concrete increase as depth of intact concrete and fracture process zone decrease. crack branching. and etc. For quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. as soon as cracking occurs. crack deflection. In the case of FRP RC beams under bending. aggregate bridging. Consequently. 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. the aforementioned complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM. It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost independent of specimen thickness. it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures. with a relatively small fracture process zone. known as the fracture process zone.
reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases.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. In ACI 440. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. 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. Consequently. concrete cover and stress level. P. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. crack face friction will be smaller. and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression. Gergely and L. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration.1R-01. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. the aggregate bridging will be less. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. the number of bars. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. 17 . w = 0.
00. ACI 440. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. to be 0. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. A value of 1.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. w= 2 . similar to steel bars. In the analysis of cyclic loading.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. in the case of no available experimental data. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete.71.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. 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. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. 1. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 . The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. slippage moment and fracture moment. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. 1.
Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete.C. The proposed equation is as follows. In early 1960s. P. this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels). da = C (∆K ) m dN (1-3) Where a is the crack length. It was concluded that the Paris equation results in 19 . is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. Apparently. regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression. Crack length was also recorded based on the CMOD compliance measurements. The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent. Perdikaris et al. Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains and microcracking. The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 102 and 107 cycles. which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete. N is the number of cycles. C and m are material parameters. (1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams under four-point bending. researchers have tried to verify if it was also valid for concrete. Although Paris’s law was developed for steel.fracture moment. tension or flexure. The report by ACI committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement. ∆K is the stress intensity factor difference at maximum and minimum loading. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems.
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. The material parameter m was found to be 3. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25.12. 0. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors.3 respectively. Z.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. Baluch et al. 0. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete.12 and 3.2. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete.P. Therefore. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. height 20 . it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. however. Similarly. were close to one for different specimens. although the units were not stated explicitly. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax).1. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. 3.15 at R=0.
The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf). Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. Different lines were obtained for different beam size. for fracture under monotonic loading. However. The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. 21 . utilizing a three point bending test setup. The thickness was constant for all beams. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack.and notch length. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length.26. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. although they were parallel to each other. Therefore.
Swartz et al (1981) also compared the effects of fatigue pre-cracking and static pre-cracking. For the same notched plain concrete beams, one group was pre-cracked by fatigue after one million cycles and the other group was statically pre-cracked to the same crack depth. Under three-point and four-point bending, it was reported that failure strength and associated maximum stress intensity factor of the statically pre-cracked beams are slightly higher than those of pre-cracked by fatigue. It was then concluded that static pre-cracking was acceptable, even for fatigue testing.
Efforts have been made to predict the growth of cracks due to fatigue loading. Balaguru and Shah (1981) proposed a model to simulate the increase of deflection and crack opening for steel RC. The components included in the model were as follows: (a) the cyclic creep of concrete; (b) the reduction of stiffness due to cracking and bond deterioration; (c) reinforcing steel softening. The experimental data was cited from other articles, which was limited to 100,000 or 50,000 cycles. The rebar stress range was between 69 MPa and 276 MPa (10 ksi and 40 ksi). The maximum rebar stress utilized was almost twice the rebar fatigue stress limit. The crack opening was recorded
photographically. It appeared that there were only five data points recorded within 100,000 cycles. The general trend of the model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. However, the motivation of using a stress range twice the rebar fatigue stress limit may be questioned. A limit of 100,000 cycles is generally not enough in the fatigue test of reinforced concrete.
The finite element method has been widely used in reinforced concrete analysis. There are two different approaches in crack modeling in finite element analysis. One is smeared crack modeling, which is generally better when overall load/deflection behavior is of primary interest. Initially, the concrete is assumed to be isotropic. The reinforced concrete cracks when the stress reaches an assumed failure surface. Instead of literally representing the crack in the concrete FE mesh, the concrete member remains as a continuum. The constitutive equations are then modified to reflect the cracked state.
The other popular method is discrete cracking modeling, utilized when detailed local behavior is investigated, as done early on by Ngo and Scordelis (1967). Based on local stresses in the finite element mesh, some element nodes are separated to model a discrete crack. Since it is costly and tedious, this method is generally only applicable in certain special circumstances.
Darwin (1993) performed a review of finite element analyses on conventional reinforced concrete. The survey results are summarized as follows. (a) Reinforcement. Reinforcements can be modeled in three methods - (1) distributed reinforcement within elements, (2) discrete bar element between element nodes, and (3) uniaxial element embedded in the element. In all cases, reinforcements and concrete are modeled as separate materials. Perfect bonding is always assumed. Fortunately, load-deflection behavior is not sensitive to the bonding unless the failure mode is bond slip, which is not deemed to be a valid design. (b) Concrete under Tension. Tension stiffening and tension softening have improved the numerical stability of simulation. Tension stiffening was
first used to account for the residual tensile strength of concrete between cracks. Tension softening uses the concept of fracture mechanics to achieve similar effects. (c) Concrete in Compression. It was found that the overall performance of a model is more related to the details of crack representation and shear retention after cracking, than the details of different concrete constitutive models in compression. (e) Load Increment. It was advised to take small load increments and assure that convergence is achieved at every step.
Perfect bond models, however, are invalid for the purpose of crack analysis. In the vicinity of a crack, there is inevitable bond-slip between rebar and concrete. Efforts have been made to model bonding. Manufacturers of FRP bars are aware of the necessity to model the bond-slip of their bars. Hughes Brothers, Inc. had sponsored a couple of institutions to investigate the phenomenon. A variety of results were obtained, as
different testing methodologies generated different results. This is an indication of the complexity of the issue.
Larralde et al (1993) tested the bonding of FRP bar and concrete. There was a longitudinal helical wrap around bar surface. Since there was little cracking in the concrete after bond failure, it was believed to be an indication of low local bearing stress between the indentations of the FRP bars and the surrounding concrete.
There is generally no fatigue failure within the FRP bars themselves. Therefore, research activities have been directed to the bonding between FRP and concrete under
Thermal fatigue. In the test setup.7mm and 16mm. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. An embedment length of five diameters was used. C. At both the top and bottom of a specimen. however.000 cycles. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. due to the damage to the bar. with one supplementary bar on each side. steel bars and concrete. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. 12. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles. C. caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded.fatigue loading. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. Basically. there was one protruding test bar. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles. in order to ensure sufficient development length. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. The load amplitude was 25 . Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete.E. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more.1mm. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars. The CP bars in their tests exhibited behavior very similar to the Aslan 100 bars made by Hughes Brothers Inc. The bar diameters were 10.
twisted or braided. normal pressure between FRP bars and concrete. FRP bars were categorized into straight bars and deformed bars. ranging from 75% to 25%. Shield et al. Straight bars were smooth. indented. Among environmental conditions. Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance. It was also recognized by the authors that bond failure should not occur in properly designed members with working stress of up to 20% of ultimate strength. The experiment setups were similar to each other for the two investigations. In the case of CP bars. grain-covered or sandblasted prismatic rods. Deformed bars were ribbed. This work was contradictory to the finding by C. the residual slip after the first cycle was a significant portion of slip at the end of the 100. mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete. It was found that the residual bond stiffness was actually higher than the initial bond stiffness. An effect of bar size has been observed. The bar slip at the free ends was recorded. friction due to FRP surface roughness. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness. 50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. The authors suggested that slipping of bars might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. with the average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased. The actuator displacement verses load observations also supported that conclusion. depending on the load magnitude. It was stated that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond. A top bar effect also exists for FRP.selected to achieve 90%. but the load levels were very different.000 cycles. and a survey of bond-slip models was presented. Cosenza et al. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP bars. 26 . bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes.
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.
cruciform straps. The position and location of the lateral straps were also analyzed. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage. They included fully studded straps. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. FRP bars and diaphragms. Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). 30 . B. when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%. due to shakedown in the slab. The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete. 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. it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing. A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. The transverse reinforcements are mainly external steel straps or FRP bars. For practical purposes. partially studded straps. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. The results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. The results showed that the load at slab failure was only increased by 11% for a two girder model and 15% for a three girder model. Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to failure under monotonic loading. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. but at a much larger load.
6 and 1/3 scale were tested. which was fairly high. 31 . In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. In either case. In the prototype. 1989). Models of 1/6. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. respectively. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. 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 factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. the spacing was fairly large.13m (7 ft). The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. the three beams were space at 2. however. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement.
In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). d.55S for positive moment and 1220+0. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load.S. The crack control 32 . Due to serviceability requirements. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution. top and bottom.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m.6m (12 ft).003 is required in both directions. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab. where the girder spacing is S. b.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15.3-1. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement.25S for negative moment. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. units.) The span length of a slab is less than 3.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process.2.6. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width. The formula is in U. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. the width is taken as 660+0. c. However. a.1.
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. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0. the formulas for DF are as follows. DF = 0.3 K g 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors.06 + ( S 0. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. In other words. In the current LRFD codes. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.6m (12 feet).2 K g 0.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing.4 S 0. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. supported on multiple girders. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature.5. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. L is the bridge span. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. For girder spacing S less than 3.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0.6 S 0. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness. Therefore.
The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from conventional RC. FRP itself possesses excellent fatigue properties. has not been thoroughly investigated. the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in applications such as bridge deck slabs. It was found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26 (1987). In summary. on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads. Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab. The analysis results showed that the distribution factor decreased. although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. There have been varying results. but all were less than AASHTO (1996). Sometimes. particularly in fatigue environments. 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. or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements. 34 . with a size effect being detected.1R-01 proposes to design for a strength failure mode of concrete crushing. however. ACI 440. Some other criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported. as the bridge span became larger. The Paris law appears to be applicable in concrete. the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled with beam elements. to achieve better ductility.elements. The serviceability of FRP RC. mostly based on pullout tests.
Finally. the crack opening displacement and crack growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory. particularly in fatigue environments. the overall performance of an FRP RC slab on a single span bridge of multiple girders will be analyzed. The finite element method has been successfully used for a long time in bridge structural analysis. respectively. Subsequently. analysis results are typically based on uncracked concrete slab properties. A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to evaluate the effects. the uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters. experimental results on fatigue testing of FRP RC will be presented. which is generally reasonable for steel RC. In this study. A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack growth under cyclic loading. Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood.Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed. Other implications on the serviceability provisions in ACI 440. 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. The current bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution.1R-01 will be discussed. Although the current design methodology is strength oriented. An empirical equation for final crack opening will be proposed. Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in applications such as bridge slabs. Under the condition of a cracked slab. the lateral load distribution factor will be discussed. 35 . A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening of the test specimens. serviceability is often the critical factor in bridge deck slab design.
The bond-slip and crack growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated. FRP is set to be a promising alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks. The second issue is that such tests are sensitive to specimen imperfections. With portions of bar exposed. 36 . rather than its strength. The behavior of FRP reinforced concrete under fatigue loading has been investigated thus far by simple pullout tests. following an interval of cyclic loading. the bar is susceptible to local damage due to unintentional stress concentrations and eccentricities which may not be representative of in-service conditions. Crack opening and its growth in FRP RC are related to the fatigue characteristics of FRP bar. Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be applicable to typical in service conditions. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is its serviceability. such variations can be especially critical in fatigue testing. A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a concrete pull-out block.Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load Motivation for the Testing Program Due to its high corrosion resistance. There are two shortcomings with these approaches. concrete. One is that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment such as a bridge deck. or by RILEM beam bond tests. Crack opening is one of the important indicators of serviceability. and their interface.
5MPa (5000 psi). Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. but with four different widths were fabricated. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. The concrete was composed of type III cement.0/ 2.5 inches). water.0/ 0. Therefore. 37 .9 MPa (4045 psi). Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. Traditionally.9 MPa (715 psi). Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed. The nominal compressive strength target was 34.83. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved.5/ 2. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27.
units follows. As shown above. (see Figure 2. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude.92E6 psi). 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. C5x8. which are reported herein.5H5. C6x8. Inc.. respectively. 102 mm. The beam widths were 76 mm. 16 (#5) bars.1).5 inches) thick.S. the last number is the size. 127 mm and 152 mm (3.8 GPa (5. For identification purposes. there was one No. #5.5H5.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. 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. Within each beam. 4. the beam size in U. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. of the FRP bar. To simulate a typical bridge slab section.5H5. 38 . C4x8. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. Inc. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8.5H5.Figure 2.
The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking.9 ksi) for #5 bars. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. The beam widths were 76 mm.5H5M.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. C5x8.1x106 psi). C5x8. C4x8.5P5. 127 mm and 152 mm (3.Figure 2. C5x8.5P5. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. 4. C5x8. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.5 inches) thick. 102 mm. without a helical wrap along the length.5P5. C6x8. For identification purposes.5S5.5P5OL. The bars are also sand coated. Similarly. respectively. One specimen. One extra specimen. for comparison purposes. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other.5P5. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. One more specimen. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. 39 .2).
5H5 C5x8.Specimen C3x8.5P5OL C5x8.5P5 C6x8.5P5 C5x8.5H5 C6x8.5H5M C3x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5P5 C5x8.5H5 C4x8.5H5 C5x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.5P5 C4x8.5S5 Width (mm) 76 102 127 152 127 76 102 127 152 75 127 Height (mm) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 Reinforcement 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) Steel Test Sequence 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 10 9 8 11 Table 2.
0.20ffu for FRP bars. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.75 mm.1R-01. respectively. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. in accordance with ACI 440. 127 mm and 152 mm.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. 102 mm. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively.2.1R-01. the predicted crack openings are 0.68 mm. 0.80 mm and 0. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .Figure 2. According to ACI 440. Based on nominal kb value of 1.3 and 2.4).
For a bridge slab under traffic load. for specimen C5x8. Therefore.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. the overall frequency is 1. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.23 Hz. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.in carbon FRP. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.3 in the factored load.94.8 Hz. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. Therefore. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location. which is the product of 7. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 .94 and 0.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. So.23. However. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. for a bridge of 10.5H5 and C6x8.5H5. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic). For a truck with axle spacing of 3.
The first specimen tested was C5x8.5H5.Static pre-cracking was used. Experimental Results (1) Group H . in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.118 in to -0.5”). MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. After the first test interval of 5. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. for average curvature estimation.5 inches) below the top of beam.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.540 mm to -1.270 mm (+0.039 in)). the crack lengths became visually constant. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. Inc. respectively.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.1000 in to -0. and all cracks were stable. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. within the pure bending region. After more cycles were applied. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. 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. there was no sign of distress with the specimen.02B-20 and 632.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0.000 cycles. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection.
any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles.5 inches) to 165mm (6. the specimen was still in good condition. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing.000 cycles.0 kips). corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4.5 inches). 44 .300 N (5.5H5. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. After 10. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. Pmax was increased to 22.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20. The crack length was virtually the same. Figure 2.6 Specimen C5 x 8. To investigate the effect of overload.000 cycles of this overload. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings.
5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.5H5 was similar.8 million cycles. To investigate the effect of overload. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. up to 1.75 inches) below the top of beam. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.8 Specimen C4 x 8.7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches). No addition distress was found in the specimen. Figure 2.5 H5 45 .0 kips) for 15. Pmax was again increased to 22.000 cycles.Figure 2.300 N (5.
000 cycles.The behavior of specimen C6x8. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.600 N.000 N and 40.5 H5 46 . Figure 2. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload. Pmax was raised back to 20. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15.000 additional cycles were applied. The newly formed crack was instrumented. no new cracks appeared up to 140. During the subsequent fatigue testing.600 N ( 3.000 cycles.5H5 was somewhat different. however. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. After an additional 35.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.9 Specimen C6 x 8. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. prior to 10. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.5 kips). Therefore.
0 kips). A third crack was found around 400 cycles. and all cracks were stable. a total of 40. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. After more cycles were applied.300 N (5.To further investigate the overload effect. the crack lengths became visually constant. Pmax of 20. After the first run of 3. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.000 cycles of overload. the specimen was still in good condition. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.000 testing cycles.5P5. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). Pmax was finally increased to 22. with the second and third cracks monitored.000 cycles. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270.000 cycles were applied at this load level. After 10. No new cracks were found in the specimen. 47 .000.75 inches) below the top of beam. To investigate the effect of overload.5 kips) was applied. (2) Group P .000 N (4.
000 load cycles. After 200 cycles of overload.Figure 2. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. the concrete cover started falling off. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900.5k). Within the pure bending region. as debonding became more pronounced.10 Specimen C3 x 8.5P5. 48 . The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. This stress level was equivalent to the data cited by Balaguru and Shah (1981) in their model to simulate the increase of deflection and crack opening for steel RC. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.5 inches). A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8.000 N (6. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29. The average spacing was 200mm (8. After 3000 cycles of overload.
5 P5 Specimen C5x8.000 cycles. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. Pmax of 22. To investigate the effect of overload.5P5 behaved somewhat differently. At around 900 cycles.000 cycles. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. By the end of the test.0 kips) was applied for 10. 49 .5 inches) within the pure bending region. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack. and then began growing. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling.300 N (5. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. (Unfortunately. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4.Figure 2.75 in).11 Specimen C4 x 8. two new cracks appeared. between the first two cracks at the midspan region.25 million cycles.
The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5.5 P5 The specimen C6x8.Figure 2. After 50.000 cycles of this overload were applied. however.5P5 behaved similarly. the specimen was still in good shape.300. No extra load was initially added. there was no indication of severe distress.12 Specimen C5 x 8.5 kips). to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. After 155.000 N (6.000 cycles of overload.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload. Pmax was raised to 29.000 cycles. no new cracks appeared up to 1. 50 . During the subsequent fatigue testing. Subsequently. The two existing cracks then started branching. as expected. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.
5H5. Figure 2.5 P5OL 51 . cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing.13 Specimen C6 x 8. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared.14 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.. For specimen C6x8. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing. For specimen C5x8.5P5OL. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking.Figure 2. followed by cyclic load at service level.
5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. As cyclic load testing started.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). Pmax was then increased to 29.000 cycles. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. there was no visible growth of the cracks.300 N (5. To further investigate the overload effect.000 cycles. there was no sign of distress within the specimen. with two very close to each other. and five cracks appeared.0 kips). The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. Then. Figure 2.15 Specimen C5 x 8.000 cycles of this load level. Pmax was first increased to 22. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. No new crack was generated during the test. At the end of 1. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. Static pre-cracking was used.75 inches).000 N ( 6.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing.5 S5 52 .000.
the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. C5x8. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points.14). failed to produce consistently usable results. 53 . (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. acoustic emission and dye penetration. For some specimens in group P. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. the images of cross sections of C4x8. After about two hours. Black ink was injected into the notch.5P5.For all specimens. As the cracks opened up. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. so as to open the crack. rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. First. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode.5P5 and C6x8. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses.15. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. particularly for large cycle counts.
Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.
5P5.15 mm. respectively.68 mm and 0. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0.6 MPa (4000 psi).010.5P5. C5x8.2. 0.5H5 and C6x8. Based on these limited tests. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. 0. a kb value of 0. 0.26mm. were 0. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens.5P5. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.17 mm.013.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. 0. C4x8.5H5. 0.5H5. were between 0. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .007 for specimens C3x8. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0.5H5 and C5x8.16 mm and 0. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. Specimen C6x8. based on ACI 440. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.5H5. the predicted service load crack openings. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27. C4x8.1R-01 criteria.5P5 and C6x8. C5x8.5H5. C4x8.16 mm. respectively. respectively.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. According to the limited test results.5H5 was 0. In group P.5H5. the service load crack openings.0048.008 and 0. at least for the bars tested in this investigation.19 and 0.5H5. were 0. As mentioned earlier.84 mm for all four specimens. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.
which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. with increasing load cycle counts.21 and 2.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. which disappears after unloading. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does. 56 .19. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. 2. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2.20. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load.18). 2.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2.
000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.400 C3 x8 .19 and 2. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.6 KN) 57 . 0. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.5H5 C5x8 .300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .100 0.2 KN Pmax=15. As can be seen in Figure 2.respectively.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs. Based on the experimental results.5H5 0. with increasing load cycles counts. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.20. but at a decreasing rate.5H5 C4 x8 .5H5 0.200 0. it would appear to be conservative to use one and half of the initial CMOD as an estimate of maximum total crack opening under cyclic loads. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.
1 0.E+00 1.0.2 KN Pmax=15.150 0.5H5 C6 x8 .6 KN) 0.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.6 KN) 58 .E+01 1.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.E+05 1.15 CMOD (mm) 0.5H5 0.2 C3 x8 .300 C 3x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5P 5 0.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.100 1.5H5 C5x8 .E+03 1.E+02 1.5P 5 C 5x8.200 0.5P 5 0.E+04 1.5P 5 C 4x8.5H5 C4 x8 .05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.
6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. The first stage is crack development. C4x8.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).5P5 0.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles.5P 5 C6 x8 .2 C3 x8 .5H5.2 KN Pmax=15. It took specimens C6x8.0.5H5 and C6x8. 59 . but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.5P5 C4 x8 .5P5 0. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks. during this period of crack development.5P5.1 0.5H5 and C5x8.5H5. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count. Specimens C3x8.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles. C3x8. C4x8.5P5 about 10.5P5. C5x8.
5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings). Figures 2.23 through 2. For beam C5x8. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. nearly constant elastic CMOD. For beam C4x8.23). the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased.5H5. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error. For beam C3x8. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8.5H5 (see Figure 2. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD. If the area becomes larger. crack growth reaches the second stage.5H5 (see Figure 2. The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading. The general trend of plastic CMOD. although at a decreasing rate. 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. For beam C6x8.26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading.24).Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. or crack stabilization. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 .5H5 (see Figure 2.26).25).5H5 (see Figure 2. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness).
2 0. which is discussed later.28. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.5P5. 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 . This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.for the single crack.27.30 and 2. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.0 0 0 1. 2.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.5P5. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .29.05 0.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. 2.8 4 1. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.1 0. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.
05 0.0 0 0 9 8 8 .25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 2 8 0 .2 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 1.0 0 0 .15 0.0 0 0 2 .0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 Figure 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .0 0 0 .15 0.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.05 0.1 0.
2 0.05 0.1 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.4 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.000 140.3 0.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.2 0.
5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .1 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.05 0.2 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.05 0.25 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 900.15 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 900.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.
1 0.15 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .000.1 0.050.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.000 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.2 0.000 600.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.2 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.000 1.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.05 0.15 0.
was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. 2.5H5 1.5H5 C4 x8 . the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section. friction. damping.20E-05 8. The pseudo energy loss per crack. The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 .00E-06 0.32 and 2.5H5 C6 x8 . The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking. micro-cracking. at unit width. From Figure 2.00E-05 C3 x8 . To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.00E-06 4.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . etc. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.33).5H5 1.32 and 2.33.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.
5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length. 67 . The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.33 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. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.5P5 C4 x8 .5P5 C6 x8 .5H5 and C4x8.2. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.00E-05 C3 x8 .50E-05 1. Similarly in group P.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.00E-05 5.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .5H5. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.50E-05 2.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases.5H5 and C6x8. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.00E-06 0. generally speaking.
3 KN Beam C5x8. It would appear that relatively modest overloads.1 0. For specimen C6x8. a 30% overload was applied after 180.5H5.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.5H5 68 . overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.25 Figure 2. For specimen C5x8.5H5.2 0.37. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.15 CMO D (mm) 0. as shown in Figure 2. Similar results were obtained in group P. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.36 and 2. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.35).000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2. up to 40% over service load levels.34).000 load cycles.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .
4 Figure 2.1 0.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.25 0.05 0.2 0.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .3 KN Beam C5x8.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.1 0.3 0.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.5P5 69 .5H5 20 1.15 CMO D (mm) 0.3 Figure 2.2 CMO D (mm) 0.
0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .2 0. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. as shown in Figure 2.000 cycles of loading.000 cycles.3 KN Beam C6x8. there was fatigue hardening. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. for the Isorod rebars. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. In the subsequent loading cycles.15 0.38. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. and CMOD started growing again.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. At the same time.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.37 0.1 0. 70 . Only after 10. at the working stress level.05 0.
5H5 and C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed. However.Comparing group H.10 0. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.5P5. C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.00 1 -0.30 0. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.15 0. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5P5. 0.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2. Compared with FRP bars.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.20 0. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.5H5OL.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5H5M Figure 2.5S5 and C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.25 CMOD (mm) 0.05 0.35 0.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.
with similar reinforcement ratios. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars. an overload of 40% above working stress was applied.39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles. In the crack stabilization stage. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. Figure 2. During the service level fatigue testing.000 response cycles. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . Figure 2. As more cycles were applied. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC.considerably lower. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. although no overload was applied. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. After one million cycles under working stress. The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC. or closer to rebar at the bottom. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars. the crack length was visually constant.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load.75 in). The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening.
degradation began as shown in Figure 2.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.000.04 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 280.03 CMO D (mm) 0. unlike FRP RC. At the same time.01 0.5S5 73 .08 0.1 Figure 2.05 0.06 C MO D (mm) 0.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .06 Figure 2.000 1.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.02 0.40.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.02 0.04 0.
to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.5S5 and C5x8. for specimen C5x8. at unit width.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.00E-06 4.5H5.5S5 Thus far.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.00E-06 3.5S 5 C5x8. sometimes.5P5OL and C5x8. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. 7. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.00E-06 1.5P5 and C5x8.00E-06 2. 74 .41. there are cracks in close proximity to each other. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per crack.00E-06 0.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 6.
which was 115mm (4. after 10. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10.000 cycles.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. however. the elastic CMOD started to decrease.000 cycles.Figure 2. In specimen C5x8. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size.000 cycles. as more cycles were applied. no plastic CMOD was acquired. due to operation problems. Unfortunately. In other words. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. there was a crack at midspan. In addition. At around one million cycles.5P5.. it began to stabilize. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected.42. they were very close to each other. But.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. 75 . until one million cycles had elapsed. as shown in the photo. the elastic CMOD became less.
thus quantifying the evolution of energy loss per 76 . When a secondary crack appears close to a primary crack. As more cycles are applied. the secondary crack will propagate along with the primary one and this “stiffening” effect may become even stronger. The second stage is crack stabilization at which the length of a crack is approximately constant. the results indicate that there are two stages of crack growth. which is characterized by growing crack opening and length. One is crack development. on fully developed cracks were also investigated. 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. The cracks were initiated by static pre-cracking. In summary. Consequently. limiting the opening requirement of monitored cracks. the experiments covered one steel rebar and two different types of FRP bars. This characterization was further verified through monitoring of the evolution of hysteresis plots. and. with slower growth in crack opening. Effects of overloads at pre-cracking. The rebar/concrete shear stress is at a maximum a short distance from the crack surface. The CMODs were recorded when specimens were under cyclic load at working stress level. there is additional shear stress introduced onto the bar surface. the primary crack appears “stiffer” and its elastic CMOD becomes smaller. with four beam widths utilized to simulate different bar spacing in bridge deck slabs.The shear stress distribution along a bar can also be utilized as a vehicle to further explain this multiple-crack phenomenon. and then decreases with distance from the crack surface. For FRP RC.
C5x8. The plastic CMOD appeared to grow slightly with the number of cycles. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks. Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress.5P5 and C6x8. but at a decreasing rate. The crack development stage for conventional steel R/C was observed to be shorter and less apparent when compared with FRP RC.5P5 indicated that the crack tips stopped at the same normal distance length from the top of the beam.cycle. The profiles of crack length for C4x8.5P5. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios. 77 . The reported improvement of bonding stiffness due to cyclic loads by others may be attributable to this phenomenon. the specimens showed no sign of distress or significant alteration of crack opening behavior. although the surfaces were a little uneven. The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence. For the steel RC. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading.
it is difficult to estimate crack opening for complex structures and loading such as bridge deck slabs. and predict the performance of other structures. A finite element method will be calibrated to estimate the initial CMOD at static pre-cracking of the specimens which were tested. First. 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. Estimation of Crack Opening It has long been known that reinforced concrete is difficult to model.Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth The experimental results have illustrated the performance of a number of FRP RC beam specimens. the simulation is divided in two steps. it will be used to analyze more complex structures with cracks. To estimate the opening of a crack in a reinforced concrete beam. The objective is to be able to make use of the existing experiment results. Once valid finite element model parameters are established. a fatigue model will be used to simulate the crack development. Secondly. a discrete crack model will be used. which was utilized for this investigation. Reinforcing bars may be modeled as truss element. Due to the fact that crack growth is composed of development and stabilization. initial crack mouth opening distance will be estimated. The drawback of this approach is that the 78 . Although ACI 440 has modified the Gergely-Lutz equation. which is the rebar element in ABAQUS program.
a crack is modeled as a precracked surface. Initially. When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study.1 Debonded Length Representation Two simplified finite element modeling approaches have been proposed. 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. Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. shown above in Figure 3. The model is not necessarily unique. In the first case. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model. They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. No success was achieved. for this investigation. and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it. however. The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 . however. which is not the case in reality. however.1.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar.
Based on this representation. Within the debonded length. The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens. the stress within reinforcement can be calculated. the bond stress decreases. A typical finite element model with debonded length representation is shown below. Different specimens will result in different values of debonded length as shown in 80 .length from the crack surfaces. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar. The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. relatively close to the crack surface.2 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8. however. It reaches its maximum value.5P4 A debonded length was calibrated for each specimen based on the experimental results. The disadvantage of this model is that the interaction of two crack surfaces is neglected. Figure 3. At distances further away from the crack surface.
the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. A small base dimension.21 0.the table below.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.3). Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. however.5P5 C5x8. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.1 in).5P5 C6x8. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens.5mm (0. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. As mentioned earlier. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2.16 C3x8.23 0.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3.19 0.22 0. to account 81 . there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. Interestingly. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.17 0.17 0.5P5 C4x8. The justification of the model is as follows. The height is the true height of a crack. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.
Fictitious Material Figure 3.for the interaction between crack surfaces. The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4 82 .3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3.
It is another possible indication of a size effect.20 0.20 Efic 27. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.24 0. 83 .The Young’s modulus.24 0. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3. below. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis. Also.20 0. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.20 0.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3. Specimen C3x8. However. 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. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.5P5 C6x8. Normally.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. Efic. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.5P5 C4x8.2.5P5 C5x8.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13.20 0.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.
Concrete has been categorized as a quasi-brittle material for its fracture process zone at the crack tip. at the crack tip. the interlocks. with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength. several components in the fracture process zone. a fracture process zone may be modeled as additional distributed tensile stresses between crack surfaces. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. Therefore. Af c1 Figure 3. In the case of cyclic loading. the fracture process zone may behave differently. The more cyclic loads are applied. have to be overcome. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction. in this model. including aggregate bridging and crack surface friction within cracks. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3. At the beginning of cyclic loading. Consequently. the fewer the interlocks become.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 .5). In the case of monotonic loading up to failure. under repeated loading. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff.
In the diagram above. hb stands for the beam height. the following equations are obtained. (3-6) 85 . ac stands for the crack length. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. based on compatibility and equilibrium conditions: fc a = f t hb − a − ac fc a Ec = f f hb − a − c1 E f (3-1) (3-2) 1 1 f c awb = f f Af + f t (hb − a − ac ) wb 2 2 1 2 1 M = A f f f (hb − c1 − a ) + f t wb (hb − a − ac ) (hb − ac ) 3 2 3 (3-3) (3-4) Substituting equation (3-1) and (3-2) into (3-3). ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). ⎡ 1 h − ac Ec (h − a − ac ) 2 ⎤ wb ⎥ M = Pf ⎢(hb − c1 − a) + b 3 3 A f E f h − a − c1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ where Pf is the force within FRP bar. the 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. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. the result is as follows.
The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. This assumption will later be verified.6. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. shown below in Figure 3. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. based on finite element analysis. the following equation is obtained. Consequently. In other words.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam. 86 . It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. under either monotonic or cyclic loading. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. Utilizing this behavioral assumption. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. So the following relation is obtained.
The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. ∆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). 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. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . L is the spacing of cracks.39( ac a a a ) + 7. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively. the following equation is obtained.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. after rearrangement. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results.1( c ) 3 + 14.12 − 1. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac .32( c ) 2 − 13. and N is the number of cycles.
7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.16( c ) − 31.06( c ) + 0. P is the concentrated load. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6. D was 610mm (24 in).63 + 25.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6. hb is the beam height.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.17 − 28. The angle α has the following expression.46 + 3. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.22( c ) + 34.54( c ) 2 − 14.04(1 − c )5 + 1.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3. ) = 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 .88(1 − c )5 − 2. M is the bending moment.84(1 − c )5 + 0. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.G( a c a c a c a c ac .
5H5 C5x8.006973 × 12 = 0. we have the following equation.5 72 0. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.3.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .00119 = 0. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.01302 × 6 = 0.5P5 C5x8.01121 × 7.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.5H5 C4x8.5P5 C6x8.0011 5 72 Table 3.00109 5. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).0011 5. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.5 = 0. with relative differences all less than 10%. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.00696 0.00654 0. the hinge assumption is justified.006407 0.5P5 0.S. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.5 72 0.00127 = 0.00128 = 0. the following equations are obtained.
units.S.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. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. The results were shown in Figure 3. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987).51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. corresponding to 2x10-16. the exact spacing of cracks is random. First. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 .3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. the opening increment only changed by 0. 6. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. 7. 2.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm.76x10-4. To address these variables with uncertainties.8. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length.5H5 as a prototype. Three different C values were used.76. depending on the ingredients and curing process.25x10-4. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. using specimen C5x8. namely. with possibly different initial crack lengths. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm.6x10-17 and 3. which will be determined based on experimental results. In the case of multiple cracks. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. The parameter m was set to be 3. 6.
were similar to each other. The final crack opening increment might be 0.66. 91 . The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm.76x10-4 and m at 3. it was concluded that the model of crack opening growth is very sensitive to m although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to m. however.76. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected.76 and 3. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm.003mm.86.5 in). Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. The crack opening increment.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m .86.9.01mm less. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. and that each was completely different from the others. C was therefore fixed at 6. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. 3. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. did not change more than 0. Obviously. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. 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. the model is insensitive to C.
15Ef and 1. yet all cracks stop at the same length. The height of specimen 92 . As Ec increased from 27.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0.6MPa to 41.76. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve.13. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated.5MPa and 41. The crack opening growth. The crack opening increment was approximately 0. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. with fixed C of 6. 34.11.Three different values of crack spacing were examined.10 and 3.6MPa.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.4MPa.001mm less. 1. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm.76x10-4 and m of 3. The error for crack opening increment was about 0.002mm less. the values of Ef . The plots are shown in Figure 3. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other.3Ef were examined. approximately.25 in). and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. with a difference of about 40mm.4MPa. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. however.12 and 3. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . Values of Ec were set at 27. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. Finally. The width of specimen C5x8. The plots are shown in Figure 3.
The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. The error of crack opening increment was about 0.001mm less. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. and vice versa.25 in). to the parameter m in the Paris equation. crack length. with 6mm less beam height.14 and 3. and specimen size. The plots are shown in Figure 3.C5x8. For other variables. This model is most sensitive. however. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. In summary. 93 .15. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. 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. due to the nature of the exponential function.
9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76x10-4) 94 .5H5 (m=3.5H5 (C=6.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.Figure 3.76) Figure 3.
76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) 95 .Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.
5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.76) 96 .5H5 (C=6.
76) 97 .5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.Figure 3.
The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ). the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . which illustrates a size effect.23. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis.5H5.22. A summary was shown in Figure 3.18. all specimens except C6x8.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. The results are listed from Figure 3. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). As the goal was to simulate the experiments.16 to 3. units. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. For parameters C and m in Paris equation. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. using a brute force approach. For both thin and thick specimens. 98 . It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. Similar results are shown Figure 3. since m is the exponential term.19 to 3. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. In other words. For specimens of group H.S. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. To simplify the model. a fixed value of C was set to be 6.
the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. C=6.76x10-4.48 99 .16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. m=3. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. however. In the case of FRP concrete. As the width of a metallic specimen is small.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone.5H5. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. and. Figure 3. When the specimen width increases.
m=3. C=6.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.57 Figure 3.Figure 3.76 100 .5H5.5H5.76x10-4.76x10-4. C=6.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.
19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. C=6.39 Figure 3. C=6.Figure 3. m=3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.5P5.5P5.76x10-4.76x10-4. m=3.55 101 .
m=3. C=6.76x10-4. C=6.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.74 Figure 3.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.76x10-4.5P5.88 102 .Figure 3.5P5. m=3.
4 Group H Group P 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .4 3.8 m Value 3.6 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.
some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration.6. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. The arching effect will also be examined. From the AASHTO design guide. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters. due to its relative simplicity.1. To account for the effect of continuity. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. For a cast-in-place concrete slab. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck.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. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. and to simulate a worst case scenario.55S for positive moments. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation.2. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. The values of strip width are based on experience. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. First. Secondly. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. the width of primary strip is 660+0.3-1. plus top and bottom chord 104 .
For the purpose of simplicity.bars. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. 2.2 m (86 in) and 2. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition. 105 . i. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs.5m (20 in).7 m (9 feet) and 3. The wheel load is 71. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. the following assumptions are made. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm.6.5P5.1. which represent the majority of bridges in service. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load.5-1 in AASHTO. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load.86 MPa (125 psi). The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3.8 m (6 feet). with a lateral spacing of 1. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached.7 m (105 in).2. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick. The corresponding strip widths are 1. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.e. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.8 m. 2. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO.6 m (12 feet). the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. and the width of the loading area is always 0.7 m (66 in).. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.
Figure 4. one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2.First. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 .5 in2).1.2. 16M Bar at 100mm. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. To investigate the arching effect. the case of a girder spacing of 1.8m. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.8m (6 ft) was analyzed. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load.
16M Bar at 100mm) Next.8m. The tensile stress also decreased significantly. 107 .2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.Figure 4.3. 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. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.
2. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. 16M Bar at 100mm.7m and 3.8m.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Two cases of girder spacing.Figure 4. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.6m girder spacing was also analyzed.8m. the effects of girder spacing were examined.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3. The results are illustrated below. 108 .3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.
6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm.Figure 4.7m.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .
16M Bar at 100mm) 110 . 16M Bar at 100mm.6m.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.
8m.Figure 4. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied. The magnitude of 111 . The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. In Figure 4. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. 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.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.10. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression.
4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4. 3.8m Girder Spa. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load.2 0. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.7m Girder Spa. 2. 150mm Bar Spa. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles.stress at the assumed 3.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 .4 0. 100mm Bar Spa.3 ksi).8 1 1.0MPa (13. The remaining issues. including crack opening and slab deflection. are durability and serviceability. The maximum rebar stress at 3. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength.6m Girder Spa. 120 3. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. 100 1.0 ksi).6m Girder Spa.6 0.2 1. 100mm Bar Spa.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71.1 MPa (10.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. rather than the static ultimate strength. 100mm bar Spa. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. therefore.
19mm (0.0019 in). the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).5mm suggested in ACI 440. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.21mm (0.051mm (0. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect. the entire diaphragm was removed. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.055mm (0.5 in2). was added at each diaphragm location.18mm (0.22mm (0. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.0072 in). which should be acceptable. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.00202 in).048mm (0. Finally. to 0. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. Compared with the maximum 0. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0.051mm (0.0083 in).058mm (0. At the girder spacing of 1. a top diaphragm bar. 113 . under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0023 in).8m girder spacing. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.0020 in).0073 in). as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000.0085 in). The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.0022 in).
When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.0032 in). With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0.108mm (0.080mm (0. should be acceptable. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 .021 in). it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.077mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.055 in). the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0.4mm (0.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.0042 in). The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. which. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.13 mm (0. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.5 in2). Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.089 mm (0. again.00303 in). The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm.53mm (0. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.077mm (0.0031 in).0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck.
The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. The strip width is.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. namely an opening of less than . however. which is composed of one axle load of 53. its expected conservatism. 115 .2m. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. presumably. 1. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. and due to their ineffectiveness. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3.2m. 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). In the State of Ohio.6m.62 KN (17 kips). at 150mm spacing.02 in).4m and 1. under the design truck load and lane loads.5mm (. due to its simplicity and. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1.0063 in). somewhat arbitrary. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440.sake of simplicity. The axle spacings are 3. 9.16 mm (0.6m (12 ft). there are four legal loads.
There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. The design truck is composed of three axles. With the fictitious material representation.3m (60 ft) long. The front axle load is 35. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. such as 5C1. the slab was supported by three girders. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. which would generate too many elements.5m.27m (14 ft). The model bridge was single span of 18.6 KN (8 kips).5 KN (32 kips). Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). The second and third axles are 142. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. Due to the large size of the structure.5 in). The spacing between the 116 . but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness.producing a total length of 15. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. Similar to slab strip model. especially including discrete rebars. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller.
081mm. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip.second axle and the third axle varies between 4.8m (6 ft).11. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. In Figure 4. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. in the bridge model. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. using the fictitious material model. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . relative to the actual imposed stress field. with no diaphragms. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip.053mm.05m (10 ft). actually less than that predicted by the full deck model. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9.64 Kips/ft).8m (6 ft) girder spacing.12.27m (14 ft) and 9.35 KN/m (0. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. Compared with Figure 4.15m (30 ft).11 and 4. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4. a slab strip model under the same condition was created.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition.4. minimum spacing of 4. In the case of single span bridge. For comparison purposes. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. spanning the two girder spacings.
6m.crack opening prediction.15.13 and 4. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4.058mm. and excessive crack opening predictions.6m (15 ft).6m (12 ft).14. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.19. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1. 2.15 through 4.6m spacing.20.7m and 3. The single “dome” was split into two again. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. Finally. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. As the girder spacing changed from 1.8m (6 ft) to 3.8m. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. as expected. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . Without diaphragms. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. there was always one compression “dome”.041mm. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. as an indication of the arching effect. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.
22 for the bridge model with 1.41mm.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. Even at a girder spacing 3. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels.21.3. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. the maximum final crack opening was 0. as shown in Figure 4.of the same model without diaphragms. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3.6m (12 ft). 119 . Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. The model is shown in Figure 4. 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.8m girder spacing. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. Even including an impact factor of 1.21 mm. Nevertheless. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load.
Slab thickness 215mm.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. 120 . Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4. (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight.8m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.
121 .14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.8m.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.
7m. Figure 4. (Girder spacing 2.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.
6m. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .Figure 4.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.
8m Girder Spa.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .Figure 4.w / Diaph.8m Girder Spa.w / Disph. 3.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.No Diaph. 1.3 1.6m Girder Spa.2 2.7m Girder Spa. 0.No Diaph. 0.7m Girder Spa. 2. 3.w / Diaph.No Diaph.6m Girder Spa. CMOD (mm) 0.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.
0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.06 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4. 1.8m.04 0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4. (Girder spacing 1.
more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders. To compute the distribution factors. A cracked section has a smaller stiffness than the uncracked portion the slab in the transverse direction. design loads are first applied to a bridge. and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge.Figure 4. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. Then. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. As the majority of 126 .23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight. When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load. there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed load. For the critical girder. between girders. slab thickness. The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor. one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load.
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. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. As a result.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. as discussed below. are resisted by larger concrete sections. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. although temperature and shrinkage effects. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. ρ = 0. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction.000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength.0018 × 60. at girder lines. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. respectively. In the longitudinal slab direction. the effects of temperature and shrinkage needs to be included for the longitudinal direction by supplying minimum reinforcement parallel to the traffic direction of the bridge.
and it does provide adequate strength.6m (12 ft). Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. instead of ultimate strength. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. 1989). The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. Although this design seems to be simple. In summary. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction. for girder spacing up to 3. it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be serviceability. the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs.6m 912 ft). For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988. 128 . top and bottom in both directions. Therefore. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm.study. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action. and the arching effect on strength. 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.
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. 129 .
generally increases with the number of load cycles. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. The elastic CMOD disappears after unloading.000 cycles of full service load testing. FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs. The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions. even for the case of widely spaced cracks. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles. As more load cycles are applied. The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC. which is the plastic portion. In addition. 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. The permanent CMOD at zero load.Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. experiences growth to stabilization. the elastic CMOD. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD. under constant load amplitude. 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 . that bonding between concrete and FRP actually can be improved under cyclic loading. At the end of 2.000. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches.
No tangential relative displacement was allowed between rebar and concrete beyond the assumed debonded length. and then to analyze realistic bridge deck slabs. The second finite element representation is a fictitious material representation. was found to be a conservative estimate. As the thickness of the specimen decreases. A model which is based on the Paris equation was proposed to predict the evolution of crack growth. The first representation is a debonded length representation. The sensitivity analysis illustrated that the model was most sensitive to the exponential parameter. which originated during cyclic testing. 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. Tensile stress at the crack tip was included in the section stress distribution.convergence. The model has been proved to predict crack growth in FRP RC reasonably well. A size effect was observed. for several different reinforcement spacing. The CMOD reduction encountered in the tests was possibly attributable to the effects of additional cracks. A debonded length of 25mm (1 in) between the concrete and the FRP rebar. The modulus of elasticity 131 . To extend the findings to typical bridge deck slab design. the exponential parameter in the Paris equation decreased. on each side of a crack. two simplified finite element crack representations were developed to simulate the test specimen behavior. The stress intensity factor was assumed to be the sum of those for pure bending and for the concentrated force within the FRP bar.
instead of ultimate strength. with much less effective arching action. 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. The assumption that bond fatigue strength is the critical issue in FRP bridge deck slab design. The fictitious material FE representation was used to analyze a complete bridge slab. Top chord bars in the diaphragms were shown to be ineffective in reducing the predicted crack openings. when diaphragms were included in the model. 132 . due to the fact that a very large number of elements were required. are instrumental in the serviceability of bridge slabs. excessive deflections of interior girders will generate one larger compression “dome” covering more than two girders. was thus verified. however. The diaphragms. Different reinforcement spacing generated somewhat different moduli of elasticity for the fictitious material. Consequently. arching action within the deck slab between adjacent girders is enhanced. By reducing the differential deflections between girders. The debonded length FE representation was used to analyze an AASHTO slab strip model.of the fictitious material was calibrated based on the testing results at the crack stabilization stage. The results indicated that the stress in the FRP reinforcement was relatively low. larger crack opening will appear.
The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 . A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design.6m. Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis. Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength. reinforcement. Reinforcement of 16M spaced at 150mm top and bottom in both directions appears to be satisfactory for girder spacing up to 3.The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. since arching effect has typically been ignored.
a bridge slab is under moving traffic loads of variable amplitudes. In reality. under moving loads. They include seasonal temperature variation. The variability of cracking and crack growth is evident in the experiments. Stochastic models may be developed to describe the variations. supported by multiple girders. The complete empirical slab design algorithm deserves to be verified. The durability of FRP reinforced slabs under these conditions is instrumental to its applicability in bridge deck infrastructures. alkaline or acidic solutions and saline solutions. The experimental work has been limited to beams with FRP reinforcement. The experiments should be extended to actual FRP reinforced concrete slabs.Chapter 6 Future Research The experiments conducted in this research were limited to loads of constant amplitude at a fixed location. Size effects under variable amplitude should be evaluated. The crack growth under loads of variable amplitude requires experimental investigation. Development of accelerated testing techniques for durability would be a breakthrough for FRP technology. water invasion. The Paris equation may have to be revised. The variable amplitudes may be quantified using root mean cube effective stress amplitudes. Although FRP concrete slab is corrosion resistant. there are many other environmental factors involved during the life span. The portions of stress 134 .
Being composite also makes it possible to have different forms. the topside load has to be supported. The distribution of crack opening growth may be predicted by the model. In a floating offshore platform. The most promising structure modules should possess excellent load distribution. FRP rods can be a direct substitute of steel reinforcement. In this study. light weight and ease in construction. The actually crack profile may be described by a fractal geometry. which includes the weight of the accommodation module and production facilities. TLP tendons may also be composed of FRP. In offshore structures. The model may be also extended to random loadings. such as a tension leg platform (TLP). corrosion resistance is also one of the major concerns. 135 . The variability of crack growth may be determined statistically.intensity factors in the Paris equation may be randomized by adding noise. The dynamic characteristics of FRP tendons under wave action should be studied. in which case a crack profile may be simulated. Structure types may include different configurations such as a sandwich type. the normal crack length has been used. Any reduction of the topside weight by using FRP composites will reduce the cost of supporting structure. Low weight and excellent fatigue performance are also the advantages in this environment.
1995 7. A.K. Committee 440. American Concrete Institute. Houston. ACI Structural Journal. S. JCTRER. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. 1987.91. M. Shah. Boothby. No. 80-87 8. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. Vol. January 1998.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. Compilation 33. 1996 4. Nanni.. Masmoudi.E. American Concrete Institute. Chaallal. B. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2004 2. Qureshy. Benmokrane. SEM-RILEM International Conference. M. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. June 17-19. S. C. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. American Concrete Institute. “440. Swartz. pp 29-37. pp. O. R. S.Bibliography 1. Al-Dulaijan. A.H. ACI Committee 215. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. Baluch. Vol. 2001 5.2. 1992 6. S. Texas. 136 . No. Bakis. 2000 3. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”.B. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. 1. A. 20.P. USA.
P. ACI Journal. Vol. No.P. R. G. pp 659-673. 15. Vol. John C. Vol. Journal of Composites for Construction. 16. Journal of Composites for Construction. Frederick. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. pp 40-51.E. R. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. American Concrete Institute. No. M. Cosenza. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. S. pp 139-147. 12. August 1969. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. SP-20. American Concrete Institute.P. August 2000. Hilsdorf. Klingner.2.2. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. 2000. 1993. Lutz. Tarhini.66. C. 1997. Richard E. August. Editor S. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. pp137-144. Center for Transportation Research. R. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. Ned H. Kupfer. Gergely. No. H. 14. H. 17. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”.1. Philleo. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. No.3. No. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. E. J.9.1. Graddy. Causes. B. Vol. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. A. G. pp 83-87.K. May 1997. 13. Mabsout. Bakht. 1982 11. Publication SP-75. Shah.3. Balaguru.5. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. pp. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”.5. Manfredi. 137 . Detroit. T.2. 10. L.87-117. The University of Texas at Austin. Larralde. February. Burns. K. May. Vol. C.4. H.
P. P. Oct. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”.N. K. Transportation Research Board. S. S. June 17-19. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. P. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. S. 483-491. Editor S. Vol. Washington D. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. 1982 138 .E. John Wiley & Sons. National research Council. S.A.4. Publication SP-75.C.P. Vol. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. 12-26. Beim. Texas. 1995 23. 24. French. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. July-August 1989. Beim. C. A. C. A. R. pp. C. 21. 64-69 22. 591607. C. Detroit. March 1988. 20. Fatigue of Concrete Structures.E.E. Shah. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. Swartz.M. S. SEM-RILEM International Conference. ACI Structural Journal. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2. 1987 19. USA. American Concrete Institute.. Huang. Shield. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. T.M. pp 381-388. Perdikaris. Swartz.C. pp. S. 86. pp. No. Perdikaris.C. 114. R.. Inc. NCHRP Project No. National Cooperative Highway Research Program.P. Fracture of Concrete and Rock.3. 1987. No.P. Shah. Shah. 1997. Houston. Swartz.18. Zokaie. Nutt. S. Perdikaris. ASCE.K.C.. S. Vol. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”.
Second Edition. M. Swartz. Vol. G.2.H. Experimental Mechanics.11. P. Paris. Fartash.C. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”.24. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. P. Canada. 26. S. Journal of Basic Engineering. 1985 30.. Vijay.412-417. 1963 29. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. 2001 139 .528-534. 2002. Paris. 27. November 1982.E. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”.G. Vol. pp129- 134. Experimental Mechanics. Canada. pp. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. Transactions of ASME. Brett. J.K. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges.98. Hu. June 1984. Vancouver. GangaRao. edited by P. H.6. S. No. P. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Vol. Buckland. No. No. C. Vol. Banthia and P. F.G. Montreal. Swartz.85.25. N. K. Paris Productions Inc.V. Hota V. ACI Structural Journal.S. 28. C. Tada.22.E. pp.
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.