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

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

Department of Civil Engineering CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

January, 2005


We hereby approve the dissertation of

Yunyi Zou ______________________________________________________
candidate for the Ph.D. degree *.

(signed)_______________________________________________ (chair of the committee)

Arthur Huckelbridge


Clare Rimnac


Dario Gasparini


Robert Mullen



(date) _______________________

Nov. 11, 2004

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


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

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

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

17 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.12 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.16 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.9 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.List of Figures 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=2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.1 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.10 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.2 KN Pmax=15.19 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 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.15 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.

31 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.30 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.32 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.26 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.27 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.25 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.24 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.23 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN) Figure 2.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.33 Figure 2.

5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C6x8.5P5 Figure 2.5P5OL and C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.Beam C5x8.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5S5 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.39 Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.7 Figure 3.6 KN) Figure 2.5S5 and C5x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5OL.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.6 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.5H5M (Pmin=2.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .5 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22. C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.

16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5 (C=6. m=3.76x10.4) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .4 m=3.5H5 (C=6. m=3.5H5 (C=6. C=6.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3. Beam C3x8.4.4 m=3. C=6.76x10.76x10.4.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76x10.76x10. C=6. m=3.5P5.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6. C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8. Beam C3x8.76) Figure 3.76x10.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.48 Figure 3.4.for Beam C6x8.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10. Beam C5x8.76x10. Beam C4x8.5H5.76) Figure 3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.5H5.76) Figure 3.76x10.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.57 Figure 3.76 Figure 3.5H5 (C=6. m=3.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.76x10.4.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.5H5.

C=6.8m.55 101 Figure 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.88 102 103 Figure 3.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.6m. m=3. Beam C6x8.8m.5P5.4.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.76x10.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5P5. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. Beam C5x8.74 102 Figure 3.5P5.76x10. 16M Bar at 100mm. C=6.7m. Beam C4x8.Figure 3.8m. m=3. C=6.76x10. m=3.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm.4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.

8m.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 . Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.6m.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.6m.10 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. Figure 4. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. (Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Lane Load and Self-Weight.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.8m.8m.

20 Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.Figure 4.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 . Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4. 1.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8m.

1 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.2 Table 3.

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

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

FRP Reinforced Concrete and its Application in Bridge Slab Design
by Yunyi Zou

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

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


growth were also investigated.

The performances of two different FRP bars were

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

Two FE (finite element) crack representations were examined.

One was a

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

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


Chapter 1

Background and Introduction of the Problem

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

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

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

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


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

Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. the aggregate bridging will be less. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC.1R-01. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. 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. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. w = 0. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC.076 β f s 3 d c A c (1-1) Where β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. crack face friction will be smaller. P. Consequently. the number of bars.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. Gergely and L. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. 17 . In ACI 440. and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression. concrete cover and stress level.

a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. In the analysis of cyclic loading.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. A value of 1. similar to steel bars.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. w= 2 . bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. in the case of no available experimental data. ACI 440.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. 1. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. slippage moment and fracture moment.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report.00. to be 0. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 . The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. 1. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force.71.

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

0. however. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length.3 respectively. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25.1. 3. da C (∆K ) m = dN (1 − R)( K c − K max ) (1-4) where Kc is the fracture toughness of the material of interest at the appropriate thickness.P. were close to one for different specimens. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. Therefore. Z. 0. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. Baluch et al. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. although the units were not stated explicitly. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . Similarly.12. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials.12 and 3.15 at R=0. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete.2. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). The authors suggested that C might be related to R. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. height 20 . The material parameter m was found to be 3. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete.

The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. for fracture under monotonic loading. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack.and notch length. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. utilizing a three point bending test setup. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method.26. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length. The thickness was constant for all beams. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. However. 21 . although they were parallel to each other. The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf). The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. Therefore. 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


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

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

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

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

The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. top and bottom. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. d. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. c. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. units. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. the width is taken as 660+0. Due to serviceability requirements. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load.1. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.6m (12 ft).) The span length of a slab is less than 3. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.003 is required in both directions. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum.6. The crack control 32 . b. a.S.55S for positive moment and 1220+0.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load.3-1. where the girder spacing is S. However. The formula is in U.2. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD).25S for negative moment. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m.

570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. For girder spacing S less than 3. In the current LRFD codes.5.4 S 0. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. In other words. DF = 0.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer.3 K g 0. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature.2 K g 0. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft). Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors.6 S 0.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0.6m (12 feet). the distribution factor (DF) is S/5.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). Therefore.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0. the AASHTO design codes have traditionally provided lateral distribution factors which account for the maximum possible portion of wheel load (half of axial load) acting on one girder. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. supported on multiple girders. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing.06 + ( S 0. 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. L is the bridge span. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. the formulas for DF are as follows.

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

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

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

The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars.5 inches). in specimens more representative of in-service applications. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. 37 .5/ 2. Traditionally.9 MPa (715 psi). but with four different widths were fabricated. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. The concrete was composed of type III cement. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.5MPa (5000 psi).0/ 2. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. water.0/ 0. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved.9 MPa (4045 psi). Therefore. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1.83.

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

The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98.5P5.1x106 psi).5P5. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. C5x8. 4. for comparison purposes. The beam widths were 76 mm. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. C4x8. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. One specimen. C5x8.5P5. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. without a helical wrap along the length.2).5P5OL. 127 mm and 152 mm (3.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. Similarly.5 inches) thick. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. One more specimen.9 ksi) for #5 bars. C5x8. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. C6x8. respectively. 39 .5P5. One extra specimen. C5x8. The bars are also sand coated. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks. For identification purposes.5H5M. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6.5S5. 102 mm.Figure 2.

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

1R-01. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.20ffu for FRP bars. in accordance with ACI 440. According to ACI 440. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi).2. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. respectively. the predicted crack openings are 0.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments.68 mm.80 mm and 0. 0.Figure 2.1R-01.3 and 2.75 mm. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively.4). 0.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 . 102 mm. 127 mm and 152 mm. Based on nominal kb value of 1.

Therefore. for a bridge of 10. So.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.8 Hz. carbon FRP. for specimen C5x8. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. the overall frequency is 1. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests.94 and 0. For a truck with axle spacing of 3.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.3 in the factored load.23. which is the product of 7. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic). For a bridge slab under traffic load. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.5H5 and C6x8. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour.23 Hz.94. Therefore.5H5.

Inc. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. 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. After more cycles were applied. and all cracks were stable.Static pre-cracking was used. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2.000 cycles. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.540 mm to -1. there was no sign of distress with the specimen.5”).Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. which was near the theoretical neutral axis.270 mm (+0.118 in to -0. respectively. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. for average curvature estimation.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0.5H5.5 inches) below the top of beam.039 in)). The first specimen tested was C5x8. After the first test interval of 5. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. the crack lengths became visually constant.1000 in to -0. Experimental Results (1) Group H . All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. within the pure bending region. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started.02B-20 and 632. The specimen did not appear to have 43 .02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.

6 Specimen C5 x 8.5H5. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. After 10.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. 44 .5 inches) to 165mm (6. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. the specimen was still in good condition. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. Figure 2.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles.000 cycles. To investigate the effect of overload.000 cycles of this overload. Pmax was increased to 22.0 kips). Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20. The crack length was virtually the same. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen.300 N (5. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4.5 inches).

5 H5 45 .7 Specimen C3 x 8. up to 1. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles.8 million cycles.300 N (5.000 cycles. Figure 2.8 Specimen C4 x 8. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking. To investigate the effect of overload. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1.0 kips) for 15. Pmax was again increased to 22.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches). No addition distress was found in the specimen.Figure 2.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.75 inches) below the top of beam.5H5 was similar.

no new cracks appeared up to 140. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. prior to 10. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.The behavior of specimen C6x8. Therefore.600 N.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.000 additional cycles were applied.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4. at which point the CMOD gage debonded.600 N ( 3.000 cycles. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.5 kips).5H5 was somewhat different.000 cycles.000 N and 40.5 H5 46 . Pmax was raised back to 20.9 Specimen C6 x 8. During the subsequent fatigue testing. however. After an additional 35. The newly formed crack was instrumented. Figure 2.

No new cracks were found in the specimen.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.300 N (5. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).0 kips).5 kips) was applied. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. Pmax was finally increased to 22. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. a total of 40. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. the specimen was still in good condition. To investigate the effect of overload. Pmax of 20. After 10.5P5. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region.000. After more cycles were applied.000 cycles.To further investigate the overload effect.75 inches) below the top of beam. After the first run of 3. the crack lengths became visually constant. (2) Group P . and all cracks were stable. with the second and third cracks monitored.000 testing cycles. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. 47 .000 cycles of overload. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.000 N (4.000 cycles were applied at this load level.

000 load cycles. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.5P5. 48 .5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8.000 N (6. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. After 3000 cycles of overload. 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. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. The average spacing was 200mm (8. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied.Figure 2. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.10 Specimen C3 x 8. Within the pure bending region. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. the concrete cover started falling off.5 inches). as debonding became more pronounced.5k). After 200 cycles of overload.

no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack. two new cracks appeared. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1.Figure 2. Pmax of 22. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking.11 Specimen C4 x 8.300 N (5. To investigate the effect of overload.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.5 P5 Specimen C5x8. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. At around 900 cycles. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4.000 cycles. between the first two cracks at the midspan region.5 inches) within the pure bending region.000 cycles.75 in).0 kips) was applied for 10. (Unfortunately. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.25 million cycles. 49 . and then began growing. By the end of the test.

The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. the specimen was still in good shape. 50 .000 N (6. as expected.5 kips).Figure 2. Pmax was raised to 29. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found.000 cycles. Subsequently. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload. After 155. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. The two existing cracks then started branching.000 cycles of this overload were applied.5P5 behaved similarly. No extra load was initially added. During the subsequent fatigue testing. After 50. no new cracks appeared up to 1.300. however.12 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding.000 cycles of overload.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. there was no indication of severe distress.

. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing. followed by cyclic load at service level. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing. For specimen C5x8.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared. For specimen C6x8.5 P5OL 51 .5H5.14 Specimen C5 x 8. Figure 2.13 Specimen C6 x 8.Figure 2.5P5OL. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking.

15 Specimen C5 x 8. there was no sign of distress within the specimen.5 S5 52 .75 inches). the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. Then. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches).5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. To further investigate the overload effect. No new crack was generated during the test.000 cycles.000 cycles of this load level. At the end of 1.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. The specimen was still in good shape after 150.0 kips). Figure 2.000 N ( 6.300 N (5. and five cracks appeared. with two very close to each other. As cyclic load testing started. Static pre-cracking was used.000 cycles. Pmax was first increased to 22.000. Pmax was then increased to 29. there was no visible growth of the cracks.

5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. After about two hours. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with.5P5.15. For some specimens in group P. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. First. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. particularly for large cycle counts. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. As the cracks opened up. Black ink was injected into the notch. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry. 53 . rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. C5x8. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. failed to produce consistently usable results. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load.For all specimens.5P5 and C6x8. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. so as to open the crack.14). the images of cross sections of C4x8. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. acoustic emission and dye penetration. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined.

Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .

5H5 was 0. 0. although it was still slightly over-reinforced. the predicted service load crack openings. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.5P5.26mm. at least for the bars tested in this investigation. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. a kb value of 0.5H5 and C5x8. C5x8. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P.5P5.007 for specimens C3x8.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction. respectively.6 MPa (4000 psi). it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. 0. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. C4x8.5H5. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. C5x8.5H5.1R-01 criteria.5H5.5P5 and C6x8.15 mm. In group P.2. 0. respectively. 0. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.0048. Specimen C6x8.16 mm.5H5 and C6x8. the service load crack openings. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. Based on these limited tests. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 . were between 0. 0.17 mm. respectively. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0.68 mm and 0.008 and 0.19 and 0. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. C4x8. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. based on ACI 440.5H5. C4x8.84 mm for all four specimens.5P5.5H5.013. According to the limited test results. As mentioned earlier. were 0.16 mm and 0. were 0.010.5H5.

19.18).more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. 2. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.21 and 2. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. 56 .22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. 2.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. with increasing load cycle counts. which disappears after unloading.20.

19 and 2.6 KN) 57 . Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.respectively. 0.5H5 0. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5H5 C4 x8 . elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.20. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.400 C3 x8 .5H5 C5x8 .2 KN Pmax=15. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles. with increasing load cycles counts. 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.100 0. Based on the experimental results.200 0. but at a decreasing rate.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 . As can be seen in Figure 2.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 0.

300 C 3x8.E+03 1.6 KN) 58 .5P 5 0.150 0.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5P 5 C 5x8.200 0.5H5 0.2 KN Pmax=15.0.100 1.E+05 1.1 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.E+00 1.5P 5 C 4x8.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P 5 0.E+04 1.5H5 C4 x8 .15 CMOD (mm) 0.2 C3 x8 .E+01 1.E+02 1.6 KN) 0.5H5 C6 x8 .2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 C5x8 .

5P5 about 10. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages. It took specimens C6x8.5P5 0.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. Specimens C3x8.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles. The first stage is crack development. C4x8.2 C3 x8 .5H5 and C6x8.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).5P 5 C6 x8 .5H5.5P5 C4 x8 . but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.5H5.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5H5 and C5x8. C5x8.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P5. 59 .5P5. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.1 0.5P5 0. C3x8.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.0.2 KN Pmax=15. C4x8. during this period of crack development.

5H5 (see Figure 2.25). although at a decreasing rate. crack growth reaches the second stage. nearly constant elastic CMOD.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings). For beam C5x8. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. For beam C4x8.23).5H5 (see Figure 2. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error.5H5 (see Figure 2.Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached. Figures 2.24). For beam C6x8.23 through 2. If the area becomes larger.26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading. The general trend of plastic CMOD.26). or crack stabilization. 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. The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 . it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness). and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD.5H5 (see Figure 2. For beam C3x8.5H5. The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8.

31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.29.27. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.28.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.for the single crack. 2.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5. which is discussed later.05 0. 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .8 4 1.0 0 0 1. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 . One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.5P5.1 0. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical. 2.15 0.2 0.30 and 2. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.

1 0.2 Figure 2.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.0 0 0 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.05 0.0 0 0 2 8 0 .16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .0 0 0 9 8 8 .15 0.15 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.05 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 2 .0 0 0 1.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.2 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 .

1 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.05 0.2 0.3 0.000 140.1 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .2 0.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.4 0.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.

05 0.15 0.2 0.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.15 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 900.25 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 900.05 0.

1 0.15 0.000 1.05 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.1 0.000 600.050.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.2 0.2 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.000.15 0.000 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.05 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .

The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss.32 and 2.33.5H5 C6 x8 . friction.33).32 and 2. 2.00E-06 4. The pseudo energy loss per crack.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . micro-cracking. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section.00E-05 C3 x8 .5H5 1. damping. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.5H5 C4 x8 .20E-05 8. From Figure 2.5H5 1. etc. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.00E-06 0. at unit width.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.

00E-06 0. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.5P5 C4 x8 .00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .2.5H5 and C6x8.33 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.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. generally speaking.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.00E-05 C3 x8 . which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases.50E-05 1.00E-05 5. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.50E-05 2.5P5 C6 x8 .5H5.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.5H5 and C4x8. 67 . Similarly in group P. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.

2 0.000 load cycles.34). For specimen C5x8.5H5 68 . a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading. a 30% overload was applied after 180. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10.15 CMO D (mm) 0.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. Similar results were obtained in group P. It would appear that relatively modest overloads. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .1 0.35).36 and 2. up to 40% over service load levels. as shown in Figure 2. For specimen C6x8.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.5H5.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5.3 KN Beam C5x8.37. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.25 Figure 2.

3 KN Beam C5x8.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.3 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.1 0.1 0.2 0.5P5 69 .05 0.5H5 20 1.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.4 Figure 2.3 0.25 0.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .2 CMO D (mm) 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.

15 0. At the same time. Only after 10. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated.000 cycles. and CMOD started growing again.1 0.05 0. 70 . The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations.38. there was fatigue hardening. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening.3 KN Beam C6x8.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.37 0. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. for the Isorod rebars. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.000 cycles of loading. at the working stress level. In the subsequent loading cycles.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 . as shown in Figure 2.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2.2 0.

which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.5H5 and C5x8. 0.00 1 -0.5H5M (Pmin=2.20 0.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.5P5. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.05 0.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.35 0.5H5M Figure 2. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.5H5OL.5S5 and C5x8.Comparing group H.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.15 0.25 CMOD (mm) 0. However. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 . C5x8.30 0.5P5. Compared with FRP bars.10 0.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.

an overload of 40% above working stress was applied. Figure 2. or closer to rebar at the bottom. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed. Figure 2. In the crack stabilization stage. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars. although no overload was applied. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200.000 response cycles. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. During the service level fatigue testing.39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles. As more cycles were applied. No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). the crack length was visually constant.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load.75 in). After one million cycles under working stress.considerably lower. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. with similar reinforcement ratios. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 .

06 Figure 2.04 0.01 0.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.1 Figure 2.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.000 1.03 CMO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.02 0.04 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.5S5 73 . unlike FRP RC. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .08 0.05 0. At the same time.000.06 C MO D (mm) 0.000 280.02 0.40.

sometimes. 74 .5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8. for specimen C5x8.5S 5 C5x8.00E-06 0. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.00E-06 4. 7.41. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle. the pseudo energy loss per crack.5S5 Thus far.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.5S5 and C5x8.00E-06 3.00E-06 6. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 1. at unit width. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8.5P5 and C5x8.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.5H5.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.5P5OL and C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.00E-06 2. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.

there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. the elastic CMOD became less. At around one million cycles. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count.000 cycles.5H5M shown above in Figure 2.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. which was 115mm (4. 75 .Figure 2. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. as shown in the photo. In specimen C5x8.42. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. no plastic CMOD was acquired.5P5. it began to stabilize. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. In other words. after 10. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs..42 Specimen C5 x 8. there was a crack at midspan. as more cycles were applied.000 cycles. until one million cycles had elapsed. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. due to operation problems.000 cycles. In addition.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. But. they were very close to each other. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. however. Unfortunately.

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

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

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

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

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

to account 81 .22 0. A small base dimension.23 0.5P5 C5x8. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. however.5P5 C4x8. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. Interestingly. As mentioned earlier. The justification of the model is as follows. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces.the table below.17 0. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens.16 C3x8.3).19 0. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases.5P5 C6x8.17 0. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3.21 0. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces.1 in). a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. The height is the true height of a crack. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.5mm (0.

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

the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.24 0.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.20 0.20 0. Normally. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. Specimen C3x8. below. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.5P5 C4x8.5P5 C5x8. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack. However. 83 .1 MPa (3500 psi) 13.5P5 C6x8. Efic. It is another possible indication of a size effect.24 0.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.The Young’s modulus.20 0. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength. 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. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties. Also.20 0.20 Efic 27. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.2.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.

at the crack tip. have to be overcome. Therefore. Af c1 Figure 3. in this model. Consequently. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3.5). the interlocks.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 . a fracture process zone may be modeled as additional distributed tensile stresses between crack surfaces. In the case of monotonic loading up to failure. The more cyclic loads are applied. the fewer the interlocks become. under repeated loading. with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength. the fracture process zone may behave differently. 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. several components in the fracture process zone. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. At the beginning of cyclic loading. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff. In the case of cyclic loading.

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). 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.In the diagram above. the result is as follows. (3-6) 85 . substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. the depth of compressive concrete is obtained: wb (hb − ac ) 2 + 2 a= Af E f Ec (hb − c1 ) (3-5) 2wb (hb − ac ) + 2 Af E f Ec Finally. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. the following equations are obtained. ac stands for the crack length.

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

KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [ = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results.1( c ) 3 + 14. L is the spacing of cracks.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. and N is the number of cycles.39( ac a a a ) + 7. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively. 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.32( c ) 2 − 13. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . ∆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). ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . after rearrangement. the following equation is obtained. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.12 − 1.

hb is the beam height.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.04( c ) 2 + 14. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3. 88 .88(1 − c )5 − 2.54( c ) 2 − 14.22( c ) + 34.06( c ) + 0. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.04(1 − c )5 + 1. M is the bending moment.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.63 + 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 ) = 0.84(1 − c )5 + 0.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length. P is the concentrated load. D was 610mm (24 in). c is the distance from the load to the crack edge. The angle α has the following expression.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.46 + 3.G( a c a c a c a c ac .17 − 28.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.16( c ) − 31.

0011 5.00109 5.0011 5 72 Table 3.01302 × 6 = 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.5H5 C4x8. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.S.5P5 C6x8.006407 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.5 72 0.00128 = 0.01121 × 7.006973 × 12 = 0.00654 0.00119 = 0.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .5H5 C5x8.5P5 C5x8.5 = 0.3. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).00696 0.5P5 0.5 72 0. with relative differences all less than 10%. the following equations are obtained. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U. we have the following equation. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8. the hinge assumption is justified.00127 = 0. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.

with possibly different initial crack lengths. using specimen C5x8. units. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 .005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm.8. which will be determined based on experimental results. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. The parameter m was set to be 3. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. 6. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length.25x10-4. namely.S. The results were shown in Figure 3. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. 2. the exact spacing of cracks is random. To address these variables with uncertainties. 6.76.5H5 as a prototype. depending on the ingredients and curing process. the opening increment only changed by 0. Three different C values were used. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm.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.6x10-17 and 3. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. 7. First. In the case of multiple cracks.76x10-4. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. corresponding to 2x10-16.

It was found that crack opening growth was sensitive to the initial crack length although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to initial crack length.5 in). Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. did not change more than 0. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. C was therefore fixed at 6. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. the model is insensitive to C. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm. 91 .01mm less. however.were similar to each other. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6.003mm.66. The final crack opening increment might be 0. 3. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3.76 and 3. and that each was completely different from the others.76x10-4 and m at 3.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . 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. Due to the aforementioned difficulties.76. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3.86. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. Obviously.9.86. The crack opening increment.

The error for crack opening increment was about 0. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. with fixed C of 6. The plots are shown in Figure 3. approximately.4MPa. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.15Ef and 1. Finally. with a difference of about 40mm.6MPa to 41. 34. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. 1. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef .5MPa and 41. The crack opening growth. the values of Ef .001mm less.4MPa. The plots are shown in Figure 3. As Ec increased from 27. yet all cracks stop at the same length. Values of Ec were set at 27.11. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other.76.12 and 3.6MPa.76x10-4 and m of 3. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve.13. The height of specimen 92 .3Ef were examined. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec .002mm less. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. The width of specimen C5x8.25 in). however. The crack opening increment was approximately 0.10 and 3. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm.

crack length.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. 93 . the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. In summary.C5x8. This model is most sensitive. The plots are shown in Figure 3. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. however. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. due to the nature of the exponential function. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. For other variables. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. and specimen size.001mm less.14 and 3.25 in). their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. with 6mm less beam height. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. and vice versa.15. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range.

8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.Figure 3.76x10-4) 94 .

5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76) 95 .11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.

12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) 96 .76) Figure 3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.

76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76) 97 .5H5 (C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.

98 . To simplify the model. Similar results are shown Figure 3. In other words. The results are listed from Figure 3. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8.S. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. For both thin and thick specimens.23. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. which illustrates a size effect. A summary was shown in Figure 3. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.18. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data.5H5. For parameters C and m in Paris equation. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). all specimens except C6x8.16 to 3. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth.22.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. since m is the exponential term.19 to 3. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. units. For specimens of group H. using a brute force approach. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ).

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

57 Figure 3. C=6.5H5. C=6.Figure 3.76x10-4.76x10-4.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3. m=3.76 100 .17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.5H5.

20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.5P5. m=3.55 101 .76x10-4.39 Figure 3.76x10-4. C=6.5P5.Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. m=3. C=6.

22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.Figure 3. C=6.76x10-4. C=6.74 Figure 3. m=3.5P5.88 102 .5P5.76x10-4. m=3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.

2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.6 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .4 Group H Group P 3.8 m Value 3.4 3.

The arching effect will also be examined. and to simulate a worst case scenario. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. From the AASHTO design guide.1. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck.6. To account for the effect of continuity.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs. the width of primary strip is 660+0.2. plus top and bottom chord 104 . For a cast-in-place concrete slab.3-1. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. The values of strip width are based on experience. due to its relative simplicity. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. First.55S for positive moments. Secondly. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed.

7 m (9 feet) and 3. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. which represent the majority of bridges in service.8 m. 2.86 MPa (125 psi). The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.e.2.. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm.5-1 in AASHTO. For the purpose of simplicity.7 m (66 in). 2.5P5. i.8 m (6 feet).1. with a lateral spacing of 1. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. the following assumptions are made.6 m (12 feet).7 m (105 in). 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.6. The wheel load is 71. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. and the width of the loading area is always 0. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0.bars. 105 .2 m (86 in) and 2. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.5m (20 in). The corresponding strip widths are 1. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load.

Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . 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. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2.5 in2). The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.1.8m (6 ft) was analyzed.2.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm.First.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan. Figure 4. To investigate the arching effect.

16M Bar at 100mm) Next. From the stress contour plot. 107 . 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.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4. The tensile stress also decreased significantly.3.8m. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.Figure 4.

To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.8m. The results are illustrated below. the effects of girder spacing were examined.7m and 3. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm.Figure 4.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.6m.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. 2.8m. Two cases of girder spacing. 108 .

6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .7m.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.Figure 4.

Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.Figure 4.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .

The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing.8m.10. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. The magnitude of 111 . the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. In Figure 4. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. Next. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. regardless of the girder spacing. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone.Figure 4.

100mm Bar Spa.0MPa (13.6m Girder Spa.3 ksi).1 MPa (10.6 0.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. 120 3.6m Girder Spa.stress at the assumed 3. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. rather than the static ultimate strength. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89.8m Girder Spa. 3. 100mm bar Spa. including crack opening and slab deflection.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 .2 1.8 1 1. 150mm Bar Spa.2 0.0 ksi). 100mm Bar Spa. The remaining issues. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars.4 0. The maximum rebar stress at 3. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. therefore. are durability and serviceability. 2. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. 100 1.7m Girder Spa. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.

18mm (0.19mm (0. a top diaphragm bar. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.055mm (0.0020 in). The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.8m girder spacing. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. was added at each diaphragm location. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).5mm suggested in ACI 440. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0.0022 in). the entire diaphragm was removed.00202 in). to 0.0072 in). At the girder spacing of 1.058mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.048mm (0.21mm (0.0019 in).0073 in). Finally.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. Compared with the maximum 0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0. which should be acceptable.051mm (0.0083 in). which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders. 113 . The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.22mm (0.5 in2).051mm (0.0023 in). having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0085 in). as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.

The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same. should be acceptable.53mm (0.108mm (0. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).021 in). the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0.0032 in).077mm (0. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.077mm (0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. which.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.4mm (0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.0031 in).080mm (0.055 in).00303 in).089 mm (0.13 mm (0. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . again.0042 in). The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.5 in2).

6m. somewhat arbitrary. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. 9.2m. however.62 KN (17 kips). The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. at 150mm spacing. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.02 in). A rebar spacing of 100mm obviously produces even lower predicted crack openings (25% of the ACI 440 limit) and smaller slab deflections (deflection/span ratio below 1/2000). 115 . The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. under the design truck load and lane loads.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. namely an opening of less than .0063 in). due to its simplicity and.6m (12 ft). presumably. The strip width is. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. which is composed of one axle load of 53. 1.4m and 1. and due to their ineffectiveness. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory.2m. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. The axle spacings are 3. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. there are four legal loads. its expected conservatism.16 mm (0. In the State of Ohio.sake of simplicity.5mm (.

5 in). Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model.6 KN (8 kips).5 KN (32 kips). which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. The model bridge was single span of 18. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness.3m (60 ft) long. With the fictitious material representation. The design truck is composed of three axles. The second and third axles are 142. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi).producing a total length of 15.27m (14 ft). and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. Due to the large size of the structure. the slab was supported by three girders. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. The front axle load is 35. especially including discrete rebars. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. which would generate too many elements. such as 5C1.5m. Similar to slab strip model. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. The spacing between the 116 .

The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip.081mm.11. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. In the case of single span bridge.053mm. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model. spanning the two girder spacings. with no diaphragms.64 Kips/ft).12. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1.15m (30 ft).27m (14 ft) and 9. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. relative to the actual imposed stress field. In Figure 4. Compared with Figure 4. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. a slab strip model under the same condition was created.8m (6 ft). in the bridge model.35 KN/m (0.11 and 4. For comparison purposes. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3.4. using the fictitious material model.05m (10 ft). minimum spacing of 4.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9.

there was always one compression “dome”.6m spacing. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.15 through 4. From the model and results shown in Figure 4.041mm. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. Finally.8m. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar.15. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . and excessive crack opening predictions. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.7m and 3. The single “dome” was split into two again. as expected. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4.crack opening prediction.20.8m (6 ft) to 3. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.19.13 and 4. as an indication of the arching effect. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4.6m (15 ft).6m. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. As the girder spacing changed from 1.058mm. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. Without diaphragms. 2. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.14. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.6m (12 ft).

or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. The model is shown in Figure 4. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. the maximum final crack opening was 0. as shown in Figure 4.of the same model without diaphragms. Even at a girder spacing 3. Even including an impact factor of 1.21. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. Nevertheless.41mm. 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. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. 119 . the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3.6m (12 ft).22 for the bridge model with 1.8m girder spacing.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated.3. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening.21 mm.

8m. Slab thickness 215mm.Figure 4. (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. 120 .

8m.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. 121 .14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.

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

18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.Figure 4.6m. Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 3. Figure 4.

w / Disph.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4. 2.No Diaph.w / Diaph. CMOD (mm) 0. 3.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 . 0.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.6m Girder Spa.2 2.No Diaph. 3. 0.8m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa.3 1.No Diaph.w / Diaph.8m Girder Spa.Figure 4.6m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa. 1.

06 0.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.0.8m.08 CMOD (mm) 0.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight. (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 . 1.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.04 0.

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

As a result. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. 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. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects.000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. In the longitudinal slab direction. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0.0018 × 60. although temperature and shrinkage effects. at girder lines. as discussed below. 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. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. ρ = 0.006 for FRP bars in this 127 . are resisted by larger concrete sections. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard E. Ned H. 2000. pp 40-51. Mabsout. 1997. L.5. A. 10. Lutz. Hilsdorf. Manfredi. Vol. 1993.K. August 2000. 16. Detroit. pp 139-147. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. K. pp137-144. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 12. M. 13.2. R. Vol. May 1997.P. 1982 11. No.3.87-117. E. G. Bakht. Vol. Philleo.1. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. May. Publication SP-75. No. R.1. C. Frederick.66.P. Center for Transportation Research. Vol.2. Vol. Cosenza. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. American Concrete Institute. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”.5. 15. American Concrete Institute. Burns. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. SP-20. R. 14. ACI Journal. No. H. Causes. Journal of Composites for Construction. pp. P. Journal of Composites for Construction. No. pp 659-673. G. Tarhini.3. T. John C. Gergely. 17. J. S. Shah. 137 . Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. August 1969.9. B. Larralde.E. Klingner. Balaguru. H. The University of Texas at Austin. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. February. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”.4.2. H. pp 83-87. August. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Graddy. Editor S. No. C. Kupfer. Fatigue of Concrete Structures.

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

85. Vijay. Tada. November 1982. 2002. Hu. Paris. Second Edition. N.S. Banthia and P.E. J. C.C.528-534. No. pp. pp. ACI Structural Journal.22. K. Fartash. 1963 29. Hota V. P. 2001 139 . Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”.25.2. June 1984. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”.98. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. H. Vol. No.412-417. P. Canada. Swartz.V. Vancouver. G. 26.11. edited by P. Experimental Mechanics. Paris. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges.H.K. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Canada. Paris Productions Inc. 1985 30.G. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. Journal of Basic Engineering. 27. Buckland. F. 28.G. pp129- 134. Transactions of ASME.. S. C. Experimental Mechanics. P. Montreal. Swartz. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”.6. S.24.E. No. Vol. GangaRao. Vol. M. Vol. Brett.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful