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 .
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 C4 x 8.3 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.10 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.4 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.16 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.9 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.11 Figure 2.12 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.List of Figures Figure 2.5 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.15 Figure 2.
5P5 under Cyclic Load Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.24 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.27 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.6 KN) Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.26 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.3 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=2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.33 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.30 Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.2 KN Pmax=15.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.25 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.3 KN Beam C5x8.32 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.31 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.23 Figure 2.
5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 KN Beam C5x8.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5OL.5S5 Figure 2.Beam C5x8.1 Figure 3.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.39 Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.5P5OL and C5x8.3 KN Beam C6x8.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.6 Figure 3.5S5 and C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.7 Figure 3.42 Specimen C5 x 8. C5x8.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.
16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76x10. m=3.76x10.76) Figure 3.76x10.5H5. C=6.4.76) Figure 3.76x10.48 Figure 3. C=6.5H5 (C=6.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 . Beam C4x8.4 m=3.76x10.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3. m=3.76x10.5H5. m=3.5H5 (C=6.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5 (C=6.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8. C=6. Beam C3x8. Beam C3x8. m=3.76x10.57 Figure 3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3. Beam C5x8.4 m=3.76x10.5H5 (C=188.8.131.52 m=3.76 Figure 3.76x10.76) Figure 3.5H5.5P5.76x10. C=6.for Beam C6x8.76x10.4 m=3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.4) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.4.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3.5H5 (m=3.
2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.6m.76x10. C=6.8m. Beam C5x8. 16M Bar at 100mm.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.4.8m.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3.7m.Figure 3. C=6.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. Beam C6x8.5P5.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.76x10.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. m=3.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours 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. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .5P5.4.76x10.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4. C=6. 16M Bar at 100mm. m=3. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4. Beam C4x8. m=3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4.88 102 103 Figure 3.74 102 Figure 3. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.55 101 Figure 3.
19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.8m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4. Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.7m. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4. Figure 4.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.10 Figure 4.6m.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 . Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.8m. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. (Girder spacing 3.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. Slab thickness 215mm.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.
Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.20 Figure 4.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8m. 1.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .Figure 4.
1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .
I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support. Saada as my instructor and sponsor. To me. Throughout my research. 11 . he is a role model for living and working. I have enjoyed our discussions very much. His teaching will benefit me for years to come.Acknowledgements I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Huckelbridge for his guidance.
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.
In the case of smaller scale structures. crack tip blunting by voids. known as the fracture process zone.Serviceability covers many different aspects of structural performance related to particular applications. aggregate bridging. which is about one fifth of the Young’s modulus of conventional steel reinforcement. there is a surge of forces in the bars. the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. with a relatively small fracture process zone. the aforementioned complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM. the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value. particularly in composite materials. crack deflection. particularly so if 16 . it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures. Within the fracture process zone. and etc. crack branching. It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost independent of specimen thickness. as soon as cracking occurs. For quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments. In the case of FRP RC beams under bending. 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. The relatively low Young’s modulus of FRP. There exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack. Consequently. 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. Cracking is a complex phenomenon. Shah (1995) summarized the interaction within the fracture process zone as microcracking. will generate larger crack lengths and crack mouth opening displacements (CMOD) compared with conventional steel reinforcement.
reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. Gergely and L. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. In ACI 440. 17 .076 β f s 3 d c A c (1-1) Where β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. the aggregate bridging will be less. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. w = 0. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. the Gergely-Lutz equation has been modified to estimate the crack opening of FRP RC members by simply replacing the steel strain with FRP strain. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. crack face friction will be smaller. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. Consequently. concrete cover and stress level. and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression. the number of bars.1R-01. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. P.
2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. in the case of no available experimental data. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. 1. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. w= 2 . In the analysis of cyclic loading. similar to steel bars. ACI 440. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. 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 value of 1. slippage moment and fracture moment.00.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. to be 0. 1. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 .71.
da = C (∆K ) m dN (1-3) Where a is the crack length. tension or flexure. Perdikaris et al.C. ∆K is the stress intensity factor difference at maximum and minimum loading. It was concluded that the Paris equation results in 19 . In early 1960s. Crack length was also recorded based on the CMOD compliance measurements. The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 102 and 107 cycles. regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression. P. The report by ACI committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement. this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels). is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems. C and m are material parameters. which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete. The proposed equation is as follows. Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains and microcracking.fracture moment. (1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams under four-point bending. N is the number of cycles. Although Paris’s law was developed for steel. Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete. The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent. Apparently. researchers have tried to verify if it was also valid for concrete.
P. 3. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m .3 respectively. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete.12 and 3. 0. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. although the units were not stated explicitly. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. 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. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). Similarly.15 at R=0. The material parameter m was found to be 3. The authors suggested that C might be related to R.1. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. 0. Baluch et al. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. however. were close to one for different specimens. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. Therefore. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25.2. Z. height 20 .12.
The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf).and notch length. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. utilizing a three point bending test setup. The thickness was constant for all beams. 21 . and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen.26. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. although they were parallel to each other. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length. for fracture under monotonic loading. However. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. Therefore. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. Different lines were obtained for different beam size.
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
with one supplementary bar on each side.1mm. In the test setup. caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. steel bars and concrete. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. 12. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles. An embedment length of five diameters was used. however. in order to ensure sufficient development length. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. due to the damage to the bar. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored.000 cycles. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. Thermal fatigue. The load amplitude was 25 . while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. Basically. The CP bars in their tests exhibited behavior very similar to the Aslan 100 bars made by Hughes Brothers Inc.fatigue loading. At both the top and bottom of a specimen. Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured.7mm and 16mm. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete. there was one protruding test bar. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded. C. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. The bar diameters were 10. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. C.E.
The authors suggested that slipping of bars might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. In the case of CP bars. the residual slip after the first cycle was a significant portion of slip at the end of the 100. Among environmental conditions. Shield et al. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP bars. 26 . Deformed bars were ribbed. grain-covered or sandblasted prismatic rods. FRP bars were categorized into straight bars and deformed bars. 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. This work was contradictory to the finding by C. bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes. depending on the load magnitude. mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete.000 cycles.selected to achieve 90%. The experiment setups were similar to each other for the two investigations. Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance. normal pressure between FRP bars and concrete. and a survey of bond-slip models was presented. ranging from 75% to 25%. friction due to FRP surface roughness. indented. Straight bars were smooth. with the average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased. It was stated that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond. twisted or braided. A top bar effect also exists for FRP. The actuator displacement verses load observations also supported that conclusion. Cosenza et al. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness. 50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. The bar slip at the free ends was recorded. but the load levels were very different. It was found that the residual bond stiffness was actually higher than the initial bond stiffness. An effect of bar size has been observed.
chemical conditions, however, such as high alkalinity were shown to be detrimental to bonding. Popular bond-slip models are the Malvars model, BPE model, modified BPE model and CMR model. All of these models use exponential functions to model the first branch of increasing bond stress and slip. The softening branch was modeled linearly, for convenience. The authors stated that modified BPM model presented the best agreement with the available experiment results.
A. Katz (2001) tested five different types of FRP bars. Each FRP bar was embedded in a concrete block and 450,000 cycles of cyclic loads were applied. Between each 150,000 cycles, the specimens were immersed in water of 60oC and 20oC to simulate a deterioration process. At the end of the fatigue tests, a pullout test was conducted for each specimen. Three mechanisms of failure observed were abrasion of rod surface, delamination of outer layer of resin, and abrasion of cement particles entrapped between rod and concrete. It was concluded that helical wrapping of FRP bars did not increase bond resistance under cyclic loading. A sand covered bar surface did improve bonding; such bars were able to maintain maximum loading for a relatively long slip.
Flexural response of FRP reinforced concrete were reported by Benmokrane (1996) and other investigators. The general consensus is that at small load, the crack pattern in FRP concrete is similar to that of steel reinforced concrete. As the load increases, however, there are more cracks with larger crack openings in FRP concrete than in traditional steel reinforced concrete, for comparable reinforcement ratios. This
behavior is expected, since FRP has a much lower modulus of elasticity, compared with traditional steel reinforcement. The moment /curvature diagrams of lightly reinforced FRP beams are clearly bi-linear, with the bend point at the crack initiation moment level.
GFRP reinforced concrete beams were analyzed by Vijay and GangaRao (2001); different modes of failure were compared. The compression controlled failure mode presented not only higher flexural strength, but also a more ductile failure than the tension controlled failure mode. This result was consistent with ACI 440.1R-01
suggested design criteria. A parameter DF was defined as the ratio of energy absorption at ultimate strength to that at a limiting curvature value. To satisfy both the serviceability deflection limit of L/180 and crack opening limit of 0.016 inches, the curvature limit was set to be 0.005/d. The parameter DF then became a unified indicator, covering both serviceability and strength. The tensile strength of concrete is typically assumed to be 7.5 f c' , with an assumed elastic modulus of 57000 f c' (using U.S. units with stress units in psi). The tensile strain at cracking is thus assumed to
be ε cr = 7.5 f c' 57000 f c' = 0.0013 .
The curvature at first cracking ψ cr is
approximately 2ε cr / h = 0.0026 / h , for a symmetric section. Vijay and GangaRao thus have used twice the curvature at first cracking as the limiting curvature in their design criterion.
Bridge decks of traditional steel reinforced concrete have been analyzed and tested by many researchers, including Graddy et al.(1995). With the general purpose FE program SAP as their primary analysis tool, they performed a sequence of linear finite
element analysis, utilizing a smeared crack representation. A cracking stress of 0.1fc’ was used for plain concrete, with Kupfer's (1969) criterion. Cracks were only deemed possible in the directions parallel to the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement, i.e., the model failed to simulate nonorthogonal cracks. assigned for each round of analysis. New material parameters were
The element utilized was an eight node
isoparametric solid element, of the same size for the entire model, with edges parallel to the edges of model. Comparing analytical results with available experimental data, the study indicated that load-deflection was accurately simulated in the analysis, while the predicted stresses in the reinforcements were very different from those observed experimentally. The work was limited to the ultimate strength studies of RC slabs, and the serviceability of these slabs was not investigated.
Many researchers including Graddy et al.(1995) and others have noticed the effect of arching action in traditional steel reinforced concrete. Before a concrete slab cracks, the dominant resistance is flexure. After the concrete cracks, a “dome” architecture exists underneath the concentrated loads, if the cracked concrete is excluded. In-plane, or membrane stress, then becomes more significant. The results of theoretical analysis and experiments have shown that the arching action contributes to the slab strength. Arching action for multiple wheel loads is uncertain, however, especially in the case of FRP reinforced concrete slabs. Arching effect at service load levels for FRP slab has not been investigated.
The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. partially studded straps. 30 . B. The position and location of the lateral straps were also analyzed. cruciform straps. Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to failure under monotonic loading. it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. They included fully studded straps. The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. 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. but at a much larger load. The authors concluded that actual failure loads of the steel-free deck slabs are more than 10 times larger than the theoretical failure load attributable to bending alone. when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing. Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). The results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. For practical purposes. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. due to shakedown in the slab. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. FRP bars and diaphragms. The transverse reinforcements are mainly external steel straps or FRP bars.
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. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. In either case. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. 1989). Models of 1/6. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. 31 . The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. In the prototype. which was fairly high. however. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. the spacing was fairly large. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. 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.13m (7 ft). the three beams were space at 2.
55S for positive moment and 1220+0. The formula is in U.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. top and bottom. a.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. where the girder spacing is S. The crack control 32 . such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. the width is taken as 660+0. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows.) 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. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.1. However. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab. units. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process.3-1.6. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. b.6m (12 ft).25S for negative moment. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. Due to serviceability requirements.S. d. c.003 is required in both directions.2.
1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.06 + ( S 0.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed.2 K g 0. the formulas for DF are as follows. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. Therefore.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. L is the bridge span. In other words.3 K g 0. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature.6 S 0.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. 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 0.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. For girder spacing S less than 3.6m (12 feet).075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. supported on multiple girders. DF = 0. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck.4 S 0.5. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. In the current LRFD codes. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. 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. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors.
In summary. the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled with beam elements. 34 . with a size effect being detected. although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. Sometimes.1R-01 proposes to design for a strength failure mode of concrete crushing. It was found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26 (1987). on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads. the bond durability under cyclic loads. mostly based on pullout tests. the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in applications such as bridge deck slabs. or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements. particularly in fatigue environments. The analysis results showed that the distribution factor decreased.elements. The performance of FRP RC under monotonic loading has been understood fairly well. however. FRP itself possesses excellent fatigue properties. Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab. as the bridge span became larger. There have been varying results. The Paris law appears to be applicable in concrete. but all were less than AASHTO (1996). The serviceability of FRP RC. Some other criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported. has not been thoroughly investigated. The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from conventional RC. ACI 440. to achieve better ductility. deserves to be further investigated before engineers can be expected to be confident with this fairly new material.
The current bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution. A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening of the test specimens. In this study. Under the condition of a cracked slab. Finally. Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in applications such as bridge slabs. analysis results are typically based on uncracked concrete slab properties. which is generally reasonable for steel RC. serviceability is often the critical factor in bridge deck slab design. An empirical equation for final crack opening will be proposed. Although the current design methodology is strength oriented. A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack growth under cyclic loading. Subsequently. A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to evaluate the effects. 35 .1R-01 will be discussed. particularly in fatigue environments. the crack opening displacement and crack growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory. the overall performance of an FRP RC slab on a single span bridge of multiple girders will be analyzed.Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed. The finite element method has been successfully used for a long time in bridge structural analysis. 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. experimental results on fatigue testing of FRP RC will be presented. respectively. Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood. the lateral load distribution factor will be discussed. Other implications on the serviceability provisions in ACI 440. the uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters.
A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a concrete pull-out block. the bar is susceptible to local damage due to unintentional stress concentrations and eccentricities which may not be representative of in-service conditions. The behavior of FRP reinforced concrete under fatigue loading has been investigated thus far by simple pullout tests. rather than its strength. Crack opening is one of the important indicators of serviceability. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is its serviceability. Crack opening and its growth in FRP RC are related to the fatigue characteristics of FRP bar. and their interface. There are two shortcomings with these approaches. FRP is set to be a promising alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks. Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be applicable to typical in service conditions. The bond-slip and crack growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated. such variations can be especially critical in fatigue testing. The second issue is that such tests are sensitive to specimen imperfections. concrete. or by RILEM beam bond tests.Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load Motivation for the Testing Program Due to its high corrosion resistance. One is that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment such as a bridge deck. 36 . following an interval of cyclic loading. With portions of bar exposed.
5/ 2.5 inches). fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. but with four different widths were fabricated.5MPa (5000 psi). the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8.9 MPa (4045 psi). Therefore. The concrete was composed of type III cement. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers. 37 . Traditionally. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. water.9 MPa (715 psi).The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27.0/ 0.83.0/ 2. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios.
92E6 psi). As shown above. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. 4.1). the last number is the size. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. 102 mm. of the FRP bar.5H5. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. The beam widths were 76 mm.5 inches) thick. For identification purposes.5H5. 38 .. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. respectively.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. which are reported herein. Inc. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. (see Figure 2. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. the beam size in U. Inc.5H5. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. 16 (#5) bars. 16 FRP bar (#5 diameter 5/8 inches) at the bottom of each beam (tensile region) with 25 mm (1 inch) cover to the bar surface. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. there was one No. C5x8.5H5. units follows. C4x8.Figure 2. C6x8.8 GPa (5. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. Within each beam. #5.S.
5P5. One more specimen. The bars are also sand coated. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. C6x8.5P5OL.5P5.5P5. C5x8. Similarly. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. 102 mm. One extra specimen. For identification purposes. respectively. The beam widths were 76 mm. C5x8. 39 . The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6.5H5M.5S5. for comparison purposes. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks. C5x8. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.5 inches) thick. without a helical wrap along the length. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. 4. C5x8.1x106 psi). C4x8.5P5.9 ksi) for #5 bars.Figure 2. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. One specimen.2).
5H5M C3x8.5P5 C4x8.5P5 C6x8.5H5 C4x8.Specimen C3x8.5S5 Width (mm) 76 102 127 152 127 76 102 127 152 75 127 Height (mm) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 Reinforcement 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) Steel Test Sequence 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 10 9 8 11 Table 2.5H5 C6x8.5P5OL C5x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5H5 C5x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.5H5 C5x8.5P5 C5x8.5P5 C5x8.
The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). According to ACI 440. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.80 mm and 0. 0.20ffu for FRP bars.1R-01.3 and 2. 102 mm.2.4). The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .Figure 2. 0. Based on nominal kb value of 1. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points.1R-01.68 mm.75 mm. respectively. 127 mm and 152 mm. in accordance with ACI 440. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. the predicted crack openings are 0.
94. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.3 in the factored load. for a bridge of 10. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location. which is the product of 7. However.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. Therefore.23. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . So. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated.23 Hz. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. For a bridge slab under traffic load.in carbon FRP.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction.94 and 0. for specimen C5x8.5H5. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.8 Hz. the overall frequency is 1.5H5 and C6x8. Therefore.
respectively.02B-20 and 632. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7.118 in to -0.5H5. and all cracks were stable. Experimental Results (1) Group H .Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.1000 in to -0. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. within the pure bending region. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts.540 mm to -1. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.270 mm (+0.Static pre-cracking was used. After the first test interval of 5. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. Inc.5”).050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. the crack lengths became visually constant. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2.039 in)). which was near the theoretical neutral axis. 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. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. for average curvature estimation. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude.000 cycles. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . The first specimen tested was C5x8. After more cycles were applied. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. there was no sign of distress with the specimen.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.5 inches) below the top of beam.
0 kips). The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. The crack length was virtually the same. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. Pmax was increased to 22. After 10. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. To investigate the effect of overload. the specimen was still in good condition. Figure 2. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. 44 .000 cycles. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.5 inches).any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8.000 cycles of this overload.6 Specimen C5 x 8.5H5.300 N (5. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen.5 inches) to 165mm (6.
The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. No addition distress was found in the specimen.5H5 was similar.8 million cycles. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4.75 inches) below the top of beam.8 Specimen C4 x 8. Figure 2. To investigate the effect of overload.Figure 2.0 kips) for 15.300 N (5. Pmax was again increased to 22.5 H5 45 . Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches). up to 1.000 cycles.
000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. at which point the CMOD gage debonded.9 Specimen C6 x 8. no new cracks appeared up to 140.5H5 was somewhat different. prior to 10. Pmax was raised back to 20.000 N and 40.5 kips). A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.600 N. Figure 2. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length.5 H5 46 . Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.The behavior of specimen C6x8. During the subsequent fatigue testing.000 additional cycles were applied. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4. After an additional 35.600 N ( 3. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. Therefore.000 cycles.000 cycles.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload. however. The newly formed crack was instrumented. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.
After 10. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. No new cracks were found in the specimen.000 cycles of overload. the specimen was still in good condition.000 cycles were applied at this load level. Pmax was finally increased to 22. To investigate the effect of overload. the crack lengths became visually constant.0 kips). there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. with the second and third cracks monitored.000 N (4. After the first run of 3. After more cycles were applied.000 testing cycles.000 cycles. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region.To further investigate the overload effect. and all cracks were stable. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8.5 kips) was applied.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.5P5. a total of 40. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. Pmax of 20.75 inches) below the top of beam. 47 . (2) Group P .300 N (5. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30.000. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).
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. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack.5 inches).5P5.000 N (6. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress.5k). After 200 cycles of overload. 48 .Figure 2. After 3000 cycles of overload. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.000 load cycles. as debonding became more pronounced.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. Within the pure bending region. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. the concrete cover started falling off. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared.10 Specimen C3 x 8. The average spacing was 200mm (8. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1.
To investigate the effect of overload.5 inches) within the pure bending region.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. By the end of the test.75 in).300 N (5. At around 900 cycles.0 kips) was applied for 10. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack. 49 . The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.000 cycles.000 cycles. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking.5 P5 Specimen C5x8. two new cracks appeared. and then began growing.Figure 2. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.11 Specimen C4 x 8. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. (Unfortunately. Pmax of 22.25 million cycles.
no new cracks appeared up to 1. After 50. No extra load was initially added. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.Figure 2. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. Pmax was raised to 29.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding.5 kips).000 cycles of overload. 50 . as expected.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. The two existing cracks then started branching.000 cycles of this overload were applied.12 Specimen C5 x 8. Subsequently.300. After 155. however.000 cycles. During the subsequent fatigue testing. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found.000 N (6.5P5 behaved similarly. there was no indication of severe distress. the specimen was still in good shape.
cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared.. For specimen C6x8. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking.5H5.13 Specimen C6 x 8.5 P5OL 51 . For specimen C5x8. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing. Figure 2. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.14 Specimen C5 x 8.5P5OL. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing.Figure 2. followed by cyclic load at service level.
there was no sign of distress within the specimen.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. Static pre-cracking was used. and five cracks appeared.5 S5 52 .000 cycles. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. As cyclic load testing started.300 N (5. At the end of 1.000 cycles of this load level. with two very close to each other.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). The specimen was still in good shape after 150.000.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. Pmax was then increased to 29.000 N ( 6.15 Specimen C5 x 8. To further investigate the overload effect. No new crack was generated during the test. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. Pmax was first increased to 22. Figure 2.0 kips).75 inches).000 cycles. there was no visible growth of the cracks. Then.
5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. As the cracks opened up. the images of cross sections of C4x8. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span.14). C5x8. First. Black ink was injected into the notch. so as to open the crack. particularly for large cycle counts. failed to produce consistently usable results. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with.For all specimens. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. (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. 53 .5P5 and C6x8.15. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports.5P5. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. After about two hours. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. acoustic emission and dye penetration. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. For some specimens in group P. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties.
Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .
it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. the service load crack openings.5H5.2.5H5.5H5.17 mm. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.5P5.008 and 0.5H5 and C6x8. respectively.16 mm.5P5. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. at least for the bars tested in this investigation.15 mm. C5x8.19 and 0.010. C4x8. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. based on ACI 440. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.5H5 and C5x8.84 mm for all four specimens.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. 0.5H5.16 mm and 0. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. 0.013. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1.6 MPa (4000 psi). In group P.5H5 was 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. C4x8.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.26mm.5P5 and C6x8.5H5.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.007 for specimens C3x8. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. although it was still slightly over-reinforced. were 0. According to the limited test results. were between 0.0048. respectively. were 0.5H5. As mentioned earlier. 0. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 . Specimen C6x8.5P5.68 mm and 0. 0. C5x8. C4x8. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. the predicted service load crack openings. a kb value of 0. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. respectively.1R-01 criteria. 0. Based on these limited tests. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.
2. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2.18). The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. 56 . with increasing load cycle counts. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. which disappears after unloading.19.21 and 2.20. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. 2.
Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading. with increasing load cycles counts.5H5 C4 x8 .6 KN) 57 .20.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 . the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs. 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.19 and 2.100 0. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles. 0. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.200 0. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 0. but at a decreasing rate.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5H5 0.respectively. As can be seen in Figure 2.400 C3 x8 .5H5 C5x8 . Based on the experimental results.
15 CMOD (mm) 0.6 KN) 0.2 KN Pmax=15.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5H5 C6 x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .300 C 3x8.E+02 1.100 1.0.E+03 1.5P 5 C 4x8.5H5 0.E+05 1.5P 5 0.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.E+00 1.5P 5 C 5x8.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.1 0.6 KN) 58 .200 0.5P 5 0.E+04 1.150 0.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 C5x8 .2 C3 x8 .2 KN Pmax=15.E+01 1.
5P5 about 10.5P5 C4 x8 . C4x8.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8.5P5. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.5H5 and C6x8.2 C3 x8 . C3x8.5H5. C4x8.5P5.5P5 0. C5x8. 59 .5P 5 C6 x8 .5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles. during this period of crack development.0.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.5H5. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings). the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. It took specimens C6x8.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.1 0. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. The first stage is crack development. Specimens C3x8.5H5 and C5x8.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P5 0.
or crack stabilization.5H5. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 .Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached.5H5 (see Figure 2. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness). The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings). 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.23). For beam C4x8. The general trend of plastic CMOD.5H5 (see Figure 2.5H5 (see Figure 2. For beam C6x8.25). although at a decreasing rate. nearly constant elastic CMOD.24). The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique. Figures 2. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error.5H5 (see Figure 2. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased.23 through 2. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa. For beam C5x8. crack growth reaches the second stage. For beam C3x8.26). If the area becomes larger.26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading.
5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 . This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8.8 4 1.28. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.5P5.15 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5.for the single crack. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.29. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.05 0.30 and 2.0 0 0 1. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 . 2. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.27. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.2 0. which is discussed later.1 0. 2. 2.
0 0 0 9 8 8 .0 0 0 .2 Figure 2.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.15 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 1.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.1 0.0 0 0 .16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .0 0 0 2 .05 0.05 0.2 0.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 2 8 0 .15 0.
5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.05 0.4 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .000 140.1 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.3 0.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.
05 0.15 0.05 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.000 900.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .25 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.000 900.
30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.000 1.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.000.15 0.050.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.2 0.2 0.000 600.1 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .05 0.000 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.05 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.
the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . at unit width. damping.5H5 C4 x8 .32 and 2. The pseudo energy loss per crack. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 .00E-06 0. From Figure 2.5H5 C6 x8 . 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. friction.32 and 2.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss.00E-06 4. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.33.5H5 1.5H5 1. 2.00E-05 C3 x8 . micro-cracking.33). was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2.20E-05 8. etc.
67 . generally speaking.50E-05 2.5H5.5H5 and C6x8.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.33 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P These tests seem to indicate that fatigue damage to FRP RC is related to bar spacing/reinforcement ratio. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.2.5P5 C4 x8 .00E-05 5.) 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.5P5 C6 x8 .00E-06 0. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.00E-05 C3 x8 .5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.5H5 and C4x8. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals. Similarly in group P. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.50E-05 1.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .
have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior.25 Figure 2. Similar results were obtained in group P.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5. as shown in Figure 2. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 . For specimen C6x8.5H5.2 0.3 KN Beam C5x8.35). a 30% overload was applied after 180.36 and 2.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.37. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P. up to 40% over service load levels.5H5 68 .000 load cycles.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30. For specimen C5x8.1 0. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0. It would appear that relatively modest overloads. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.34).
000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.2 CMO D (mm) 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.05 0.5P5 69 .25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.3 KN Beam C5x8.25 0.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.5H5 20 1.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.1 0.3 Figure 2.3 0.4 Figure 2.1 0.
15 0. as shown in Figure 2. At the same time. Only after 10.000 cycles. for the Isorod rebars. at the working stress level. 70 . the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations.000 cycles of loading. there was fatigue hardening. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.3 KN Beam C6x8. and CMOD started growing again.05 0.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.38.37 0.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .2 0.1 0.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. In the subsequent loading cycles. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10.
which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.05 0. However.5H5M (Pmin=2. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 . the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5H5OL.30 0. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.5H5 and C5x8.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.25 CMOD (mm) 0.Comparing group H.5P5.5H5M Figure 2.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8. C5x8.35 0.00 1 -0.5P5.15 0.20 0. 0.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. Compared with FRP bars. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5H5 and C5x8.10 0.
and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC. an overload of 40% above working stress was applied. with similar reinforcement ratios. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC. Figure 2. although no overload was applied. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars.39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. the crack length was visually constant.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. During the service level fatigue testing. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . After one million cycles under working stress. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC.000 response cycles. As more cycles were applied. Figure 2. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed. or closer to rebar at the bottom. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. In the crack stabilization stage.considerably lower. No rotation was visible with the hysteresis.75 in). the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars.
0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.02 0.000.5S5 73 .degradation began as shown in Figure 2.04 0. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.01 0.06 Figure 2. unlike FRP RC. At the same time.08 0.40.02 0.1 Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.03 CMO D (mm) 0.000 280.05 0.000 1.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .06 C MO D (mm) 0.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.04 0.
In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.00E-06 3.5P5OL and C5x8. sometimes.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.5P5 and C5x8.41. 74 .The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8. there are cracks in close proximity to each other. the pseudo energy loss per crack.00E-06 4.5P5OL and C5x8. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.00E-06 2. for specimen C5x8. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. 7.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5H5.00E-06 6.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.5S 5 C5x8.00E-06 1.00E-06 0.5S5 Thus far.5S5 and C5x8. at unit width. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.
the elastic CMOD started to decrease. there was a crack at midspan. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count..5H5M shown above in Figure 2.5P5. after 10. as shown in the photo.42. they were very close to each other. it began to stabilize. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. as more cycles were applied. Unfortunately. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD.000 cycles.Figure 2. 75 . however.000 cycles. the elastic CMOD became less.42 Specimen C5 x 8. In other words. In addition. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. due to operation problems. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack.000 cycles.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. which was 115mm (4. But. no plastic CMOD was acquired. At around one million cycles. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. In specimen C5x8. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. until one million cycles had elapsed.
with four beam widths utilized to simulate different bar spacing in bridge deck slabs. with slower growth in crack opening. This characterization was further verified through monitoring of the evolution of hysteresis plots. and then decreases with distance from the crack surface. and. limiting the opening requirement of monitored cracks.The shear stress distribution along a bar can also be utilized as a vehicle to further explain this multiple-crack phenomenon. The second stage is crack stabilization at which the length of a crack is approximately constant. 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. Effects of overloads at pre-cracking. When a secondary crack appears close to a primary crack. The rebar/concrete shear stress is at a maximum a short distance from the crack surface. In summary. the primary crack appears “stiffer” and its elastic CMOD becomes smaller. For FRP RC. on fully developed cracks were also investigated. there is additional shear stress introduced onto the bar surface. One is crack development. Consequently. thus quantifying the evolution of energy loss per 76 . As more cycles are applied. the results indicate that there are two stages of crack growth. which is characterized by growing crack opening and length. The CMODs were recorded when specimens were under cyclic load at working stress level. the secondary crack will propagate along with the primary one and this “stiffening” effect may become even stronger. the experiments covered one steel rebar and two different types of FRP bars.
77 .5P5 indicated that the crack tips stopped at the same normal distance length from the top of the beam. The plastic CMOD appeared to grow slightly with the number of cycles. The profiles of crack length for C4x8. but at a decreasing rate.cycle. although the surfaces were a little uneven.5P5.5P5 and C6x8. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios. The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence. The reported improvement of bonding stiffness due to cyclic loads by others may be attributable to this phenomenon. The crack development stage for conventional steel R/C was observed to be shorter and less apparent when compared with FRP RC. the specimens showed no sign of distress or significant alteration of crack opening behavior. C5x8. For the steel RC. Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress.
Reinforcing bars may be modeled as truss element. Once valid finite element model parameters are established. the simulation is divided in two steps. Due to the fact that crack growth is composed of development and stabilization. Secondly. which was utilized for this investigation. First. The objective is to be able to make use of the existing experiment results.Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth The experimental results have illustrated the performance of a number of FRP RC beam specimens. a discrete crack model will be used. initial crack mouth opening distance will be estimated. The drawback of this approach is that the 78 . it will be used to analyze more complex structures with cracks. A finite element method will be calibrated to estimate the initial CMOD at static pre-cracking of the specimens which were tested. it is difficult to estimate crack opening for complex structures and loading such as bridge deck slabs. To estimate the opening of a crack in a reinforced concrete beam. 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. and predict the performance of other structures. which is the rebar element in ABAQUS program. Although ACI 440 has modified the Gergely-Lutz equation. a fatigue model will be used to simulate the crack development.
They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. however. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model. Initially. however. The model is not necessarily unique.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar. however. No success was achieved. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. which is not the case in reality. for this investigation. Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3. a crack is modeled as a precracked surface. a substantial effort was made to simulate the mechanical behavior of the contact between the concrete and rebar. When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements. shown above in Figure 3.1. and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it. In the first case.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. The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 .
2 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8. the stress within reinforcement can be calculated. Different specimens will result in different values of debonded length as shown in 80 . The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens. however.length from the crack surfaces. Figure 3. Within the debonded length. the bond stress decreases. A typical finite element model with debonded length representation is shown below. At distances further away from the crack surface. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar. The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. Based on this representation. 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. relatively close to the crack surface.
Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. As mentioned earlier.5mm (0.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.1 in). The height is the true height of a crack. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. Interestingly. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region.5P5 C4x8.21 0.17 0.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model.5P5 C5x8.5P5 C6x8. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2.3). will make this representation insensitive to crack length.22 0.19 0. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. to account 81 . however. A small base dimension.23 0.17 0. and the debonded length subsequently decreases. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. The justification of the model is as follows. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio.16 C3x8. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases.the table below.
3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3.for the interaction between crack surfaces.4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8. The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.5P4 82 . Fictitious Material Figure 3.
since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.20 0. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.The Young’s modulus. Efic.5P5 C5x8. 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.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12. below. However. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation. It is another possible indication of a size effect.20 0. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.24 0.20 0. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. 83 .20 0.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.20 Efic 27. Specimen C3x8.5P5 C6x8.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. Also.24 0. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.2.5P5 C4x8. Normally.
Therefore. under repeated loading. a fracture process zone may be modeled as additional distributed tensile stresses between crack surfaces. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. the fracture process zone may behave differently. The more cyclic loads are applied.5). In the case of cyclic loading. the fewer the interlocks become. the interlocks. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3. Af c1 Figure 3.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 . with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction. Consequently. In the case of monotonic loading up to failure. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff. including aggregate bridging and crack surface friction within cracks.Concrete has been categorized as a quasi-brittle material for its fracture process zone at the crack tip. at the crack tip. several components in the fracture process zone. have to be overcome. At the beginning of cyclic loading. in this model.
the following equations are obtained. hb stands for the beam height. ⎡ 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. 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). (3-6) 85 . Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. the result is as follows. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement.In the diagram above. the depth of compressive concrete is obtained: wb (hb − ac ) 2 + 2 a= Af E f Ec (hb − c1 ) (3-5) 2wb (hb − ac ) + 2 Af E f Ec Finally.
and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. 86 . under either monotonic or cyclic loading. the following equation is obtained. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. So the following relation is obtained. Utilizing this behavioral assumption. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. Consequently. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. based on finite element analysis. shown below in Figure 3. In other words. This assumption will later be verified.6. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3.
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. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively.12 − 1.39( ac a a a ) + 7. after rearrangement. L is the spacing of cracks.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results.32( c ) 2 − 13. ∆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). da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . and N is the number of cycles.1( c ) 3 + 14. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . 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.
88(1 − c )5 − 2. M is the bending moment.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.04(1 − c )5 + 1. D was 610mm (24 in).66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.G( a c a c a c a c ac .98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length. The angle α has the following expression.84(1 − c )5 + 0.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5. hb is the beam height.22( c ) + 34.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.17 − 28. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge. 88 .04( c ) 2 + 14.54( c ) 2 − 14.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.06( c ) + 0. P is the concentrated load. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.63 + 25. ) = 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. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.46 + 3.16( c ) − 31.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.
Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.00119 = 0.006973 × 12 = 0.5P5 0.5 72 0.00127 = 0.00654 0.00696 0.S.5P5 C5x8.00128 = 0. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U. with relative differences all less than 10%.006407 0.5H5 C5x8.01121 × 7.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 . sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).α= D 2 R (3-13) Also. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.5 = 0.5P5 C6x8.01302 × 6 = 0.3. the following equations are obtained. the hinge assumption is justified.0011 5 72 Table 3.5 72 0. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.0011 5.5H5 C4x8. we have the following equation.00109 5.
S. corresponding to 2x10-16. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. 7.25x10-4. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. the exact spacing of cracks is random.6x10-17 and 3. The results were shown in Figure 3. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). using specimen C5x8. First. Three different C values were used. depending on the ingredients and curing process. 6. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. units. namely.76. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. To address these variables with uncertainties.5H5 as a prototype.76x10-4. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. the opening increment only changed by 0. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure.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. with possibly different initial crack lengths. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. which will be determined based on experimental results. In the case of multiple cracks.8. The parameter m was set to be 3. 6. 2.
if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm.86.76.003mm. Obviously.66. 91 . it was concluded that the model of crack opening growth is very sensitive to m although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to m. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). The final crack opening increment might be 0. 3. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6.76x10-4 and m at 3. the model is insensitive to C. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. The crack opening increment. C was therefore fixed at 6.9. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3.01mm less. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3.76 and 3. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3.86.5 in). All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. however. 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. did not change more than 0.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m .were similar to each other. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. and that each was completely different from the others.
34.3Ef were examined. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. the values of Ef . Values of Ec were set at 27. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement.6MPa to 41.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.5MPa and 41.12 and 3. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. The height of specimen 92 . with fixed C of 6.4MPa.11. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . The error for crack opening increment was about 0. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef .002mm less. yet all cracks stop at the same length. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. approximately. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm.76x10-4 and m of 3.13. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. The crack opening growth.001mm less. The crack opening increment was approximately 0.6MPa. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. with a difference of about 40mm. Finally. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. 1. As Ec increased from 27. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0.Three different values of crack spacing were examined.25 in).5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. The plots are shown in Figure 3. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. The width of specimen C5x8.15Ef and 1.76.4MPa. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. however. The plots are shown in Figure 3.10 and 3.
The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. 93 .001mm less. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. crack length.15. The plots are shown in Figure 3. due to the nature of the exponential function.C5x8. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. and vice versa.14 and 3. however. In summary. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. This model is most sensitive. For other variables. with 6mm less beam height.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size.25 in). and specimen size.
5H5 (C=6.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.76x10-4) 94 .Figure 3.76) Figure 3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.5H5 (m=3.
5H5 (C=6.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.76) 95 .
76) 96 .5H5 (C=6.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76) Figure 3.
14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) 97 .Figure 3.
In other words.S. since m is the exponential term.16 to 3. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m.19 to 3. all specimens except C6x8. A summary was shown in Figure 3.23. 98 . For parameters C and m in Paris equation. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. using a brute force approach. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C .5H5. which illustrates a size effect. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. Similar results are shown Figure 3. To simplify the model.18.22. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. For specimens of group H. The results are listed from Figure 3. units. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. a fixed value of C was set to be 6.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ). For both thin and thick specimens. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P.
When the specimen width increases. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. In the case of FRP concrete.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. however.76x10-4. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain.5H5. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. As the width of a metallic specimen is small.48 99 .This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. m=3. and. C=6. Figure 3.
76x10-4. m=3.76x10-4.Figure 3.5H5.57 Figure 3.5H5.76 100 .17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. m=3. C=6.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. C=6.
39 Figure 3.76x10-4. m=3. C=6.55 101 .5P5.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. m=3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.76x10-4.Figure 3. C=6.5P5.
m=3.5P5.5P5. C=6.Figure 3.74 Figure 3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.88 102 . C=6.76x10-4.76x10-4. m=3.
23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .8 m Value 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.4 3.6 3.4 Group H Group P 3.
plus top and bottom chord 104 . due to its relative simplicity. The arching effect will also be examined. the width of primary strip is 660+0. To account for the effect of continuity. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. 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. Secondly. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. First. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters.6. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck.55S for positive moments. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. For a cast-in-place concrete slab. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4.3-1.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs.1. From the AASHTO design guide.2. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. and to simulate a worst case scenario.
5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.2 m (86 in) and 2. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. The wheel load is 71. 2. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0.1.8 m (6 feet). A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO.5-1 in AASHTO. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. 2.. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition. the following assumptions are made. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs.5m (20 in).6. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.7 m (9 feet) and 3.6 m (12 feet). The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.2.e. 105 .3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. i. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. which represent the majority of bridges in service. The corresponding strip widths are 1. and the width of the loading area is always 0.8 m.bars.7 m (66 in). For the purpose of simplicity. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached.7 m (105 in). Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. with a lateral spacing of 1. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.5P5.86 MPa (125 psi).
8m (6 ft) was analyzed. the case of a girder spacing of 1. one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan.2. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4. 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. 16M Bar at 100mm. To investigate the arching effect. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2.5 in2).First.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load.1. Figure 4.
3. The tensile stress also decreased significantly. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load. 107 . two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4. it can be seen that a significant area of compressive stress appeared both at the slab top near edge and at the bottom of the slab in the middle.Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.8m.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. From the stress contour plot.
108 . 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.6m.8m.Figure 4.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3. 2.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.6m girder spacing was also analyzed.7m and 3. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm. The results are illustrated below. Two cases of girder spacing. the effects of girder spacing were examined.
16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.Figure 4.7m.7m.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.
6m.6m.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm.Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 . Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.
Next. regardless of the girder spacing. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. The magnitude of 111 .10. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied.Figure 4. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. In Figure 4. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing.8m. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.
100mm Bar Spa.4 0. 100mm bar Spa.0 ksi). 120 3. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. 2. including crack opening and slab deflection.6 0.6m Girder Spa. are durability and serviceability. 100 1. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. therefore. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels.2 1. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength.1 MPa (10.2 0.6m Girder Spa. The remaining issues.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 .4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.8m Girder Spa.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71.8 1 1.3 ksi). rather than the static ultimate strength.7m Girder Spa.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. 150mm Bar Spa.0MPa (13.stress at the assumed 3. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. 3. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. 100mm Bar Spa. The maximum rebar stress at 3.
0019 in).051mm (0. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000.0085 in). To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. At the girder spacing of 1. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0.22mm (0. a top diaphragm bar.5mm suggested in ACI 440. which should be acceptable. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0.0073 in).0020 in). the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.0072 in). which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders. was added at each diaphragm location. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. Compared with the maximum 0. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.051mm (0.8m girder spacing. Finally. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.18mm (0. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).0022 in).0023 in).21mm (0.5 in2).058mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.00202 in). The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. the entire diaphragm was removed. 113 . under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.19mm (0. to 0.0083 in).048mm (0.055mm (0.
The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.00303 in). the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3.0042 in). which. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. should be acceptable. again.0031 in). with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.077mm (0. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.53mm (0.080mm (0. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.108mm (0. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1.021 in).6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.4mm (0.0032 in).055 in). the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.5 in2).A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2.077mm (0.13 mm (0. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.089 mm (0.
4m and 1.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. its expected conservatism. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. under the design truck load and lane loads. at 150mm spacing.sake of simplicity. which is composed of one axle load of 53. In the State of Ohio. somewhat arbitrary.62 KN (17 kips).16 mm (0. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440.6m. 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.5mm (.0063 in). The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. due to its simplicity and. namely an opening of less than . which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. 115 . however.6m (12 ft). The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. and due to their ineffectiveness.2m. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. 9. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. A rebar spacing of 100mm obviously produces even lower predicted crack openings (25% of the ACI 440 limit) and smaller slab deflections (deflection/span ratio below 1/2000). The strip width is.2m. presumably. there are four legal loads. 1. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. The axle spacings are 3.02 in).
Similar to slab strip model. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load.5m. The second and third axles are 142. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. The design truck is composed of three axles. such as 5C1.6 KN (8 kips).producing a total length of 15.3m (60 ft) long. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. which would generate too many elements. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). The model bridge was single span of 18. the slab was supported by three girders.5 in). With the fictitious material representation. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. The spacing between the 116 . Due to the large size of the structure. The front axle load is 35. especially including discrete rebars.27m (14 ft). it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model.5 KN (32 kips).
with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing.35 KN/m (0. minimum spacing of 4. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3.64 Kips/ft). using the fictitious material model.11. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.8m (6 ft).27m (14 ft) and 9. with no diaphragms. In the case of single span bridge.15m (30 ft). It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression.081mm.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip.4. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1.05m (10 ft). spanning the two girder spacings. In Figure 4. For comparison purposes.8m (6 ft) girder spacing.11 and 4. Compared with Figure 4. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.053mm. relative to the actual imposed stress field. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 .second axle and the third axle varies between 4. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. in the bridge model. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.12. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model. a slab strip model under the same condition was created. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1.
The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4.058mm.8m (6 ft) to 3. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model.14. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. Without diaphragms. and excessive crack opening predictions. as an indication of the arching effect. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. 2. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . As the girder spacing changed from 1. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.15.13 and 4. as expected. Finally.7m and 3.6m (12 ft). there was always one compression “dome”. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4.6m (15 ft). The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.6m. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.20.19. The single “dome” was split into two again.8m.15 through 4. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4.6m spacing. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.crack opening prediction. From the model and results shown in Figure 4.041mm.
8m girder spacing.of the same model without diaphragms. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels.3. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. Even at a girder spacing 3. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab.41mm. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. The model is shown in Figure 4. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. Even including an impact factor of 1.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. the maximum final crack opening was 0.21 mm. as shown in Figure 4. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. Nevertheless. 119 . The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. 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.6m (12 ft). Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders.21. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion.22 for the bridge model with 1.
Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm.8m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.Figure 4. 120 .
Figure 4.8m.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. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 121 .
Figure 4.Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . (Girder spacing 2. Lane Load and Self-Weight.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.7m.
(Girder spacing 3. Lane Load and Self-Weight.6m.Figure 4. Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .
No Diaph. 1.6m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa. 3.Figure 4.3 1.w / Disph.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. CMOD (mm) 0.No Diaph.7m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa. 2.w / Diaph.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .No Diaph.8m Girder Spa.8m Girder Spa. 3. 0.w / Diaph.2 2.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4. 0.
(Girder spacing 1.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.0.04 0.8m.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 . 1.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.06 0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.
The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor. between girders. As the majority of 126 . To compute the distribution factors. slab thickness. more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders. For the critical girder. and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge. there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed load. In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. Then. 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.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight. one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load. When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load.Figure 4. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated.
ρ = 0. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. Empirical Design of Bridge Slabs The analysis discussed has been limited to the serviceability of a deck slab at the maximum positive moment point in the transverse direction. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. As a result. respectively.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. In the longitudinal slab direction. as discussed below. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. although temperature and shrinkage effects.0018 × 60. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. are resisted by larger concrete sections. the effects of temperature and shrinkage needs to be included for the longitudinal direction by supplying minimum reinforcement parallel to the traffic direction of the bridge.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0.000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength. at girder lines. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more.
it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be serviceability. In summary. Although this design seems to be simple. and it does provide adequate strength. for girder spacing up to 3. 128 . top and bottom in both directions. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs. and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action. and the arching effect on strength. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. 1989). For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. Therefore. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. instead of ultimate strength.6m (12 ft). the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. 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. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. 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.study.6m 912 ft).
The somewhat larger predicted crack openings associated with FRP RC bridge decks should be considered admissible by bridge owners and inspectors. 129 . given the enhanced corrosion resistance.
As more load cycles are applied. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches.000 cycles of full service load testing. The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions. Current results from this investigation cannot confirm the results of other researchers. FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs.000. even for the case of widely spaced cracks. The general trend of elastic CMOD is that it grows with fluctuation until 130 . the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. that bonding between concrete and FRP actually can be improved under cyclic loading. which is the plastic portion. At the end of 2. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD. the elastic CMOD. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles.Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. In addition. under constant load amplitude. experiences growth to stabilization. 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. generally increases with the number of load cycles. The elastic CMOD disappears after unloading.
The modulus of elasticity 131 . Tensile stress at the crack tip was included in the section stress distribution. The second finite element representation is a fictitious material representation. which originated during cyclic testing. The first representation is a debonded length representation. The CMOD reduction encountered in the tests was possibly attributable to the effects of additional cracks. the exponential parameter in the Paris equation decreased.convergence. To extend the findings to typical bridge deck slab design. was found to be a conservative estimate. A low modulus fictitious material was placed within a prescribed crack region to account for the bonding stress between concrete and bar near a crack. two simplified finite element crack representations were developed to simulate the test specimen behavior. The sensitivity analysis illustrated that the model was most sensitive to the exponential parameter. The stress intensity factor was assumed to be the sum of those for pure bending and for the concentrated force within the FRP bar. for several different reinforcement spacing. A size effect was observed. 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. on each side of a crack. A debonded length of 25mm (1 in) between the concrete and the FRP rebar. The model has been proved to predict crack growth in FRP RC reasonably well. No tangential relative displacement was allowed between rebar and concrete beyond the assumed debonded length. and then to analyze realistic bridge deck slabs.
In the case of weak or absent diaphragms. arching action within the deck slab between adjacent girders is enhanced. The debonded length FE representation was used to analyze an AASHTO slab strip model. Consequently. Top chord bars in the diaphragms were shown to be ineffective in reducing the predicted crack openings. The fictitious material FE representation was used to analyze a complete bridge slab. 132 . with much less effective arching action.of the fictitious material was calibrated based on the testing results at the crack stabilization stage. instead of ultimate strength. however. was thus verified. Different reinforcement spacing generated somewhat different moduli of elasticity for the fictitious material. 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. larger crack opening will appear. excessive deflections of interior girders will generate one larger compression “dome” covering more than two girders. By reducing the differential deflections between girders. The diaphragms. The assumption that bond fatigue strength is the critical issue in FRP bridge deck slab design. due to the fact that a very large number of elements were required. The results indicated that the stress in the FRP reinforcement was relatively low. when diaphragms were included in the model. are instrumental in the serviceability of bridge slabs.
A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design. Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength. since arching effect has typically been ignored.The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. reinforcement.6m. Reinforcement of 16M spaced at 150mm top and bottom in both directions appears to be satisfactory for girder spacing up to 3. The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 . Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis.
Size effects under variable amplitude should be evaluated. alkaline or acidic solutions and saline solutions. They include seasonal temperature variation. The variability of cracking and crack growth is evident in the experiments. The Paris equation may have to be revised. there are many other environmental factors involved during the life span. In reality. The portions of stress 134 .Chapter 6 Future Research The experiments conducted in this research were limited to loads of constant amplitude at a fixed location. water invasion. The complete empirical slab design algorithm deserves to be verified. supported by multiple girders. Development of accelerated testing techniques for durability would be a breakthrough for FRP technology. The variable amplitudes may be quantified using root mean cube effective stress amplitudes. The crack growth under loads of variable amplitude requires experimental investigation. The experimental work has been limited to beams with FRP reinforcement. a bridge slab is under moving traffic loads of variable amplitudes. Although FRP concrete slab is corrosion resistant. under moving loads. Stochastic models may be developed to describe the variations. The durability of FRP reinforced slabs under these conditions is instrumental to its applicability in bridge deck infrastructures. The experiments should be extended to actual FRP reinforced concrete slabs.
in which case a crack profile may be simulated. FRP rods can be a direct substitute of steel reinforcement. The actually crack profile may be described by a fractal geometry. the normal crack length has been used. which includes the weight of the accommodation module and production facilities. The model may be also extended to random loadings. Structure types may include different configurations such as a sandwich type. Low weight and excellent fatigue performance are also the advantages in this environment.intensity factors in the Paris equation may be randomized by adding noise. such as a tension leg platform (TLP). In this study. The distribution of crack opening growth may be predicted by the model. TLP tendons may also be composed of FRP. 135 . the topside load has to be supported. Any reduction of the topside weight by using FRP composites will reduce the cost of supporting structure. The variability of crack growth may be determined statistically. In offshore structures. The most promising structure modules should possess excellent load distribution. The dynamic characteristics of FRP tendons under wave action should be studied. corrosion resistance is also one of the major concerns. light weight and ease in construction. In a floating offshore platform. Being composite also makes it possible to have different forms.
80-87 8.P. No. June 17-19. S. S.. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. American Concrete Institute. No. S. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. 1996 4. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”.H. Benmokrane. R. Vol. S. 2000 3. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Bakis. 20. American Concrete Institute. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A. Committee 440. A. Baluch. Masmoudi. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. ACI Committee 215. Al-Dulaijan.K. ACI Structural Journal. Chaallal. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. A. 2004 2. 1995 7. 1992 6. M. C. Houston. Fracture of Concrete and Rock.Bibliography 1. JCTRER. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. Compilation 33. American Concrete Institute.91.B. Shah. 1. Boothby. Qureshy. USA. pp 29-37. 2001 5. B.E.2. January 1998. “440. Vol. pp. Texas. 1987. M. Swartz. O. Nanni. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. SEM-RILEM International Conference. 136 .
No. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. ACI Journal. B. No. H. Kupfer. Vol. pp 139-147. Tarhini. May 1997. 15. August 1969.5. G. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. 12.2. 137 . Vol. M. Vol.1. K. pp 659-673. American Concrete Institute. 14. Publication SP-75. Klingner. The University of Texas at Austin. August. S.P. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. No. Graddy. A. Frederick. Vol. C. American Concrete Institute. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete.P.9. H.3.2. E. pp. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Hilsdorf. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. Cosenza. C. Manfredi. Ned H. R. Philleo. Detroit. 1982 11. T. J. 13.4. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. R. August 2000. H.E. G. Journal of Composites for Construction. P. Burns. 16. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. 1993. Balaguru. Center for Transportation Research.87-117. Editor S. 10. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Richard E. Causes. Shah.66. Vol. John C.3. R. Larralde. 17.1. pp137-144. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. Mabsout. SP-20. Lutz. pp 40-51. 2000. No. February.K. Vol. 1997. No. pp 83-87. Bakht. Journal of Composites for Construction. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering.2. Gergely.5. L. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. May.
Perdikaris. 483-491. 20.P. C.C. 2. P. 1987 19. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”..3. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. S. C. R. NCHRP Project No. Swartz. March 1988. Perdikaris. 1997.4. S. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 86. John Wiley & Sons. Beim. No. S. Huang. ASCE. Washington D. 1995 23. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. Texas. 24. 64-69 22. Shah. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures.P.K. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Shah. Inc. Zokaie. Houston. pp. pp 381-388. 591607. 114. T.. K. 21.M. Vol.E. American Concrete Institute. Shah. Publication SP-75. A. S. P. Swartz. July-August 1989. USA. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. S. Shield. Perdikaris.C. pp. No.A. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. S. French. Transportation Research Board.P. Beim. R. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. 1987.M.18. Nutt. S. Journal of Structural Engineering. June 17-19. Vol. Vol.N. Swartz. C. 12-26. Editor S. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. Detroit.E. National research Council.. P. ACI Structural Journal. Oct. A. 1982 138 . Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. S.C. C.C.E. pp.
J.E. Experimental Mechanics. 2001 139 .H. Paris Productions Inc..K.G. Fartash. M. Swartz. Vol. 27. pp. GangaRao. Vol.6. No. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Paris. 26. S. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. G. No.E. June 1984. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Vol. C.G. K. P. Swartz. C. H. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”.412-417. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. 1963 29. pp. S. P.528-534. Hu. Journal of Basic Engineering. Vancouver. Hota V. pp129- 134. Buckland. Paris. Canada. Montreal. N.V.85. Experimental Mechanics. 2002. November 1982. Transactions of ASME.98.25. Brett. edited by P. Second Edition. P. ACI Structural Journal.S.22. F. Canada. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. 1985 30.11. Tada. Banthia and P. Vol. Vijay. 28. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges.2. No.C.24.
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.