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 .

5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.12 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .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=2.13 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.3 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.10 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.1 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.11 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.List of Figures Figure 2.

5H5 Figure 2.25 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.2 KN Pmax=15.30 Figure 2.33 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.31 Figure 2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.26 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.32 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of 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=22.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.23 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.3 KN Beam C5x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.27 Figure 2.24 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.6 KN) Figure 2.

2 KN Pmax=15.5H5OL.Beam C5x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.3 Figure 3.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5P5OL and C5x8.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C6x8.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.5 Figure 3.5H5M (Pmin=2.5P5 Figure 2.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.5S5 Figure 2.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.1 Figure 3.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .7 Figure 3.5S5 and C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.6 Figure 3.5P5 Figure 2.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22. C5x8.6 KN) 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 C4x8.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C5x8.39 Figure 2.

5H5.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.for Beam C6x8.5H5 (C=6. m=3. C=6.4 m=3.4.76x10.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.76x10. C=6.76x10.76) Figure 3.4.5H5 (C=6.76 Figure 3.5P5. m=3.5H5 (C=6.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .76) Figure 3.76x10.4.5H5.4 m=3.5H5. C=6.4 m=3. Beam C3x8.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.76x10.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10. m=3. Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4 m=3.48 Figure 3.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76x10. Beam C4x8.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.57 Figure 3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.4) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8. m=3.76x10.4.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5 (m=3.5H5 (C=6. Beam C3x8.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76x10.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76x10. C=6.

5P5. Beam C5x8.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.7m. m=3. C=6. C=6.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m.4.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.88 102 103 Figure 3.6m.76x10.4. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.8m. m=3.8m.Figure 3.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm.5P5. Beam C4x8.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .7m.4. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.74 102 Figure 3.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4. C=6.55 101 Figure 3. m=3.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. Beam C6x8.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.76x10.76x10. 16M Bar at 100mm.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.

Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm. Lane Load and Self-Weight.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.7m.6m.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.8m.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.8m.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.8m.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4. Figure 4.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3.10 Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 . Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.6m.

1.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.20 Figure 4.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.8m.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.

3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .List of Tables Table 2.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.

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

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.


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

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

bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. in the case of no available experimental data. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. ACI 440. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. A value of 1.00. w= 2 .2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. 1. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. 1. slippage moment and fracture moment. 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. similar to steel bars. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced.71. to be 0. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 .2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. In the analysis of cyclic loading.

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

Z.12 and 3.15 at R=0. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. 3. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete.12. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. The material parameter m was found to be 3.1. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. Baluch et al. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . height 20 . however. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. were close to one for different specimens.P. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. 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. 0.2. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. Therefore. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm.3 respectively. 0. Similarly. although the units were not stated explicitly.

The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf). The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. Therefore. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length. The thickness was constant for all beams. Different lines were obtained for different beam size. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. for fracture under monotonic loading. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. However. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete.and notch length. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. although they were parallel to each other. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. 21 . and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance. utilizing a three point bending test setup. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0.26. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods.

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The curvature at first cracking ψ cr is

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

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


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

The element utilized was an eight node

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

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


cruciform straps. The results showed that the load at slab failure was only increased by 11% for a two girder model and 15% for a three girder model. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to failure under monotonic loading. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing. The results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. They included fully studded straps. B. partially studded straps. when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%. it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. The authors concluded that actual failure loads of the steel-free deck slabs are more than 10 times larger than the theoretical failure load attributable to bending alone. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. The position and location of the lateral straps were also analyzed. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage. The transverse reinforcements are mainly external steel straps or FRP bars. due to shakedown in the slab.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. but at a much larger load. A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck. 30 . The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. FRP bars and diaphragms. Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). For practical purposes.

1989). The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. Models of 1/6.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. In either case. The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. the spacing in both directions was 437mm.13m (7 ft). respectively. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. the spacing was fairly large. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. however. which was fairly high. 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. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. In the prototype. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. 31 .

such as crack opening and lateral load distribution. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. b.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. The formula is in U. However. units.6.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load.S. Due to serviceability requirements.003 is required in both directions.3-1.25S for negative moment. c.1. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement.) The span length of a slab is less than 3.2. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. the width is taken as 660+0. top and bottom. d. a.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. where the girder spacing is S. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4. The crack control 32 . The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.6m (12 ft).) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs.55S for positive moment and 1220+0. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 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. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.2 K g 0.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. L is the bridge span.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. For girder spacing S less than 3. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. the formulas for DF are as follows. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm.6m (12 feet). In the current LRFD codes. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature.6 S 0. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. In other words. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry.06 + ( S 0. DF = 0. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. supported on multiple girders. Therefore.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 .1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.4 S 0.5. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck.3 K g 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000).

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

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

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

37 . Therefore. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading.5 inches). fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1.9 MPa (4045 psi).0/ 2.9 MPa (715 psi). but with four different widths were fabricated.5/ 2. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed. water. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. Traditionally. The nominal compressive strength target was 34.5MPa (5000 psi).0/ 0. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27.83. The concrete was composed of type III cement.

To simulate a typical bridge slab section.1). the last number is the size. units follows. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. of the FRP bar. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. 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. respectively.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. Inc..5H5. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. For identification purposes.8 GPa (5.S. there was one No. 102 mm. 38 . Inc. Within each beam.92E6 psi). C6x8. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. C5x8.5 inches) thick. The beam widths were 76 mm.5H5.5H5. (see Figure 2.Figure 2.5H5. the beam size in U. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. #5. which are reported herein. 16 (#5) bars. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. 4. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. As shown above. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. C4x8. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.

2).5P5. 4.5H5M.5S5. respectively.5P5OL. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. The bars are also sand coated. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. 39 .5 inches) thick.1x106 psi). One specimen. The beam widths were 76 mm. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. for comparison purposes. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks. For identification purposes.5P5. C5x8. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.9 ksi) for #5 bars. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. without a helical wrap along the length. C4x8.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. 102 mm. C5x8. Similarly. One extra specimen. C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar.Figure 2.5P5. One more specimen.5P5. C6x8. C5x8. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2.

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

102 mm.1R-01. the predicted crack openings are 0. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored.Figure 2.2. Based on nominal kb value of 1. 0. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi).4).80 mm and 0. 0.1R-01. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments.75 mm.3 and 2. According to ACI 440. in accordance with ACI 440. respectively. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 . 127 mm and 152 mm.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.68 mm.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.20ffu for FRP bars.

Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7. Therefore. the overall frequency is 1. which is the product of 7.3 in the factored load. Therefore.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 .000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic). For a bridge slab under traffic load.23 Hz. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same carbon FRP. for a bridge of 10.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction.23.8 Hz.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests.94. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated.5H5. However.5H5 and C6x8. for specimen C5x8. So. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.94 and 0. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.

02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2.000 cycles. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632.540 mm to -1.118 in to -0.5”). Inc. respectively. After the first test interval of 5. within the pure bending region. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. The first specimen tested was C5x8. After more cycles were applied.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. and all cracks were stable.02B-20 and 632. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7.039 in)). Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection.270 mm (+0. 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.5H5.5 inches) below the top of beam. Experimental Results (1) Group H .Static pre-cracking was used.1000 in to -0. the crack lengths became visually constant. for average curvature estimation. which was near the theoretical neutral axis.

5 inches). No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings.0 kips). 44 . To investigate the effect of overload. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. Figure 2. Pmax was increased to 22. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports.000 cycles of this overload. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates.6 Specimen C5 x 8.000 cycles. After 10.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. The crack length was virtually the same.5H5. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. the specimen was still in good condition.300 N (5.5 inches) to 165mm (6.

5H5 was similar. To investigate the effect of overload. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.8 million cycles.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8. Figure 2.300 N (5. up to 1. Pmax was again increased to 22.8 Specimen C4 x 8.000 cycles.75 inches) below the top of beam.7 Specimen C3 x 8. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. No addition distress was found in the specimen.Figure 2.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).0 kips) for 15.5 H5 45 .

Pmax was raised back to 20. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.600 N ( 3. During the subsequent fatigue testing.5H5 was somewhat different.000 additional cycles were applied. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.000 N and 40. Therefore.9 Specimen C6 x 8.5 H5 46 . however.5 kips).) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.000 cycles.The behavior of specimen C6x8. The newly formed crack was instrumented. no new cracks appeared up to 140. After an additional 35. Figure 2. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length.600 N.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. prior to 10.000 cycles.

All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. Pmax of 20.75 inches) below the top of beam.300 N (5. After 10.000 cycles of overload. A third crack was found around 400 cycles.000 cycles.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. 47 .5 kips) was applied.To further investigate the overload effect. After more cycles were applied. To investigate the effect of overload.000 cycles were applied at this load level. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).000 N (4.000 testing cycles. No new cracks were found in the specimen. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30.5P5. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. the crack lengths became visually constant. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. the specimen was still in good condition. a total of 40. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. with the second and third cracks monitored. (2) Group P .000.0 kips). Pmax was finally increased to 22. After the first run of 3. and all cracks were stable.

5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. This stress level was equivalent to the data cited by Balaguru and Shah (1981) in their model to simulate the increase of deflection and crack opening for steel RC. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared.000 load cycles. 48 . The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900.5 inches).5P5. as debonding became more pronounced.5k).000 N (6. After 200 cycles of overload. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. After 3000 cycles of overload. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress.10 Specimen C3 x 8. Within the pure bending region.Figure 2. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. The average spacing was 200mm (8. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. the concrete cover started falling off. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.

By the end of the test. 49 . At around 900 cycles.75 in). One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. To investigate the effect of overload.000 cycles. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100.5P5 behaved somewhat differently. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling.0 kips) was applied for 10.000 cycles.Figure 2.11 Specimen C4 x 8. Pmax of 22.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. (Unfortunately.300 N (5. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. two new cracks appeared.25 million cycles. and then began growing. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.5 P5 Specimen C5x8.5 inches) within the pure bending region.

300.12 Specimen C5 x 8. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. Pmax was raised to 29. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. however. as expected.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload. 50 . After 50.000 cycles of this overload were applied. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.5P5 behaved similarly.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload.000 cycles of overload. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. During the subsequent fatigue testing. no new cracks appeared up to 1. The two existing cracks then started branching.5 kips). the specimen was still in good shape.000 N (6.000 cycles. there was no indication of severe distress. Subsequently.Figure 2. After 155. No extra load was initially added.

5H5. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing. For specimen C5x8. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking. For specimen C6x8.13 Specimen C6 x 8.5 P5OL 51 .5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.. followed by cyclic load at service level.Figure 2.5P5OL.14 Specimen C5 x 8. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading. Figure 2. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared.

300 N (5. Then. Pmax was then increased to 29.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. with two very close to each other.0 kips).75 inches).000 cycles. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. No new crack was generated during the test. As cyclic load testing started.000. there was no visible growth of the cracks.5 S5 52 .5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches).5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. and five cracks appeared. At the end of 1. Pmax was first increased to 22.000 N ( 6. Static pre-cracking was used.15 Specimen C5 x 8. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30.000 cycles of this load level. To further investigate the overload effect. Figure 2.000 cycles. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. there was no sign of distress within the specimen.

resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained.15.5P5 and C6x8. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. First. 53 . the images of cross sections of C4x8. C5x8.5P5. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. Black ink was injected into the notch.For all specimens. As the cracks opened up. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. After about two hours. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. acoustic emission and dye penetration. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined.14). was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. failed to produce consistently usable results. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. For some specimens in group P. so as to open the crack. particularly for large cycle counts. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2.

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

2. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.16 mm. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. respectively.1R-01 criteria. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 . were 0. 0.5H5 was 0. C4x8. the predicted service load crack openings. C4x8. respectively. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P.84 mm for all four specimens.5H5.5P5 and C6x8. According to the limited test results. 0. 0.17 mm. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings. a kb value of 0.5H5 and C5x8.26mm. As mentioned earlier. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. C4x8.68 mm and 0. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.5P5.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. C5x8.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8.16 mm and 0. based on ACI 440.15 mm. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens.5P5. at least for the bars tested in this investigation.5H5. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. Specimen C6x8. 0.013. the service load crack openings. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.5H5.5P5. In group P. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.19 and 0.010.008 and 0. C5x8.5H5. respectively.6 MPa (4000 psi).5H5 and C6x8.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction. were between 0.007 for specimens C3x8. Based on these limited tests. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. 0.5H5.0048.5H5. were 0.

2. which disappears after unloading. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P.18).21 and 2. 56 . The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. 2.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding.20. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. with increasing load cycle counts. 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.19. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2.

Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.20. it would appear to be conservative to use one and half of the initial CMOD as an estimate of maximum total crack opening under cyclic loads.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.respectively. but at a decreasing rate. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.2 KN Pmax=15.400 C3 x8 .19 and 2. Based on the experimental results. 0. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.5H5 C5x8 .100 0. As can be seen in Figure 2.5H5 0. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.200 0.5H5 0.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .6 KN) 57 .000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5H5 C4 x8 . with increasing load cycles counts.

5P 5 C 4x8.5P 5 0.5H5 0.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.15 CMOD (mm) 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.2 KN Pmax=15.E+02 1.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.E+00 1.6 KN) 0.E+05 1.1 0.5H5 C5x8 .E+03 1.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5P 5 0.E+04 1.2 C3 x8 .05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5P 5 C 5x8.5H5 C4 x8 .100 1.150 0.2 KN Pmax=15.200 0.5H5 C6 x8 .6 KN) 58 .E+01 1.300 C 3x8.0.

during this period of crack development.1 0.5P5.5P5 0. It took specimens C6x8. Specimens C3x8. 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.5P5 C4 x8 . The first stage is crack development.5P5.5H5. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings). the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.5P5 0.5P 5 C6 x8 .6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results.5H5. C3x8. 59 . but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles.5H5 and C5x8. C4x8. C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 about 10.0.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8.5H5 and C6x8.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.2 C3 x8 . C4x8.

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

25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.5P5.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.28.29.1 0.30 and 2.for the single crack. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.15 0.2 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .0 0 0 1.5P5. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.05 0.8 4 1. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.27. 2. 2. 2. which is discussed later.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.

1 0.0 0 0 .0 0 0 1.2 Figure 2.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.05 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.15 0.0 0 0 2 .25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.0 0 0 .25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 9 8 8 .16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .0 0 0 2 8 0 .0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.05 0.15 0.2 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .

1 0.000 140.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.3 0.05 0.1 0.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.

000 900.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.05 0.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 900.15 0.1 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.2 0.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .05 0.2 0.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 0.1 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.

5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.050.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.000.15 0.000 1.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 600.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .1 0.2 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.

32 and 2.00E-06 4.32 and 2.00E-06 0.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.5H5 1.33). The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.5H5 C4 x8 . From Figure 2. etc.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. friction. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.33.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.5H5 1.00E-05 C3 x8 .5H5 C6 x8 . The pseudo energy loss per crack. 2.20E-05 8. at unit width. micro-cracking. 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. damping.

67 .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.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.2. generally speaking.) 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. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals. Similarly in group P.00E-06 0.5P5 C6 x8 . as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.00E-05 C3 x8 .5H5 and C4x8.50E-05 1.5H5. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.5H5 and C6x8.50E-05 2. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .00E-05 5. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5P5 C4 x8 .

5H5.000 load cycles. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.5H5 68 .35). 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior.5H5. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. For specimen C6x8.1 0.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2. Similar results were obtained in group P.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. as shown in Figure 2.37.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22. a 30% overload was applied after 180.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.34).000 cycles of service level fatigue loading. up to 40% over service load levels.36 and 2.2 0. It would appear that relatively modest overloads. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading. For specimen C5x8. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.3 KN Beam C5x8.25 Figure 2.15 CMO D (mm) 0.

25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.4 Figure 2.5P5 69 .0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 CMO D (mm) 0.3 Figure 2.1 0.05 0.3 KN Beam C5x8.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.15 CMO D (mm) 0.1 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.25 0.5H5 20 1.

the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. Only after 10. At the same time. at the working stress level. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level. for the Isorod rebars. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. and CMOD started growing again.000 cycles.05 0.3 KN Beam C6x8. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. 70 . there was fatigue hardening.000 cycles of loading.2 0.38.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .37 0.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. In the subsequent loading cycles. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10.1 0. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. as shown in Figure 2.15 0.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2.

5S5 and C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8. 0.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.25 CMOD (mm) 0.10 0.5H5OL. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. Compared with FRP bars. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 . group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.5P5. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.35 0.5H5M (Pmin=2.00 1 -0.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5H5M Figure 2. However. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.05 0. C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.5P5.2 KN Pmax=15.15 0.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.20 0.30 0.Comparing group H.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.

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

02 0.06 C MO D (mm) 0.08 0.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.000 280.02 0.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.05 0. unlike FRP RC.03 CMO D (mm) 0.5S5 73 . there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.06 Figure 2. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.40.000 1.01 0. At the same time.1 Figure 2.04 0.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.000.04 0.

00E-06 3. at unit width.00E-06 2.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per crack. for specimen C5x8.41.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased. there are cracks in close proximity to each other. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8.5S 5 C5x8.00E-06 1.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 0.5S5 Thus far.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.00E-06 4. 74 . sometimes.5S5 and C5x8. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen. 7. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5P5OL and C5x8. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking.5P5 and C5x8.5H5.00E-06 6.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.

In specimen C5x8. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. At around one million cycles. In addition. Unfortunately.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD.000 cycles. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70..5H5M shown above in Figure 2. after 10. no plastic CMOD was acquired.000 cycles. there was a crack at midspan. as shown in the photo. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. the elastic CMOD became less. as more cycles were applied. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. until one million cycles had elapsed.Figure 2. due to operation problems. they were very close to each other. it began to stabilize. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10.42 Specimen C5 x 8. But. however.42. 75 .5 in) from the two monitored cracks. In other words. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs.000 cycles. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. which was 115mm (4.5P5.

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

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

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

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

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

The justification of the model is as follows. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region.21 0.17 0.5P5 C5x8.5P5 C4x8. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2.5mm (0.23 0. to account 81 .17 0. The height is the true height of a crack. A small base dimension. will make this representation insensitive to crack length. As mentioned earlier.1 in).16 C3x8. and the debonded length subsequently decreases. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. however.5P5 C6x8.22 0. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens.3).19 0. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. Interestingly. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases.the table below. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio.

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.5P4 82 .4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8. Fictitious Material Figure 3.

It is another possible indication of a size effect. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.20 0.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. Also. However.24 0.5P5 C4x8.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13.5P5 C5x8. below.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.20 0.20 Efic 27. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.24 0.20 0. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack. Efic.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. Specimen C3x8. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.5P5 C6x8. 83 . due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation. Normally. of the fictitious material was calibrated for each specimen based upon the assumed triangular dimensions and upon the experimental results after the CMOD reached its maximum value.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.2.The Young’s modulus.20 0.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.

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

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. ac stands for the crack length. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. based on compatibility and equilibrium conditions: fc a = f t hb − a − ac fc a Ec = f f hb − a − c1 E f (3-1) (3-2) 1 1 f c awb = f f Af + f t (hb − a − ac ) wb 2 2 1 2 1 M = A f f f (hb − c1 − a ) + f t wb (hb − a − ac ) (hb − ac ) 3 2 3 (3-3) (3-4) Substituting equation (3-1) and (3-2) into (3-3). (3-6) 85 . the following equations are obtained. the result is as follows. hb stands for the beam height. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). ⎡ 1 h − ac Ec (h − a − ac ) 2 ⎤ wb ⎥ M = Pf ⎢(hb − c1 − a) + b 3 3 A f E f h − a − c1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ where Pf is the force within FRP bar. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete.In the diagram above.

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

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

16( c ) − 31. D was 610mm (24 in). P is the concentrated load.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.04(1 − c )5 + 1.63 + 25. hb is the beam height. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.46 + 3.17 − 28.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.22( c ) + 34.84(1 − c )5 + 0.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.06( c ) + 0. M is the bending moment. 88 .04( c ) 2 + 14. ) = 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 ) = 0.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.88(1 − c )5 − 2.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.54( c ) 2 − 14. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup. The angle α has the following expression.G( a c a c a c a c ac . c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.

0011 5. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.00127 = 0.00654 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also. the following equations are obtained.00128 = 0.006407 0.0011 5 72 Table 3.5P5 0. the hinge assumption is justified. we have the following equation.006973 × 12 = 0.00119 = 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.S.5 = 0. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.01121 × 7.01302 × 6 = 0.5P5 C5x8.5 72 0.00109 5. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .5P5 C6x8. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.3.5 72 0. with relative differences all less than 10%. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.5H5 C5x8.00696 0.5H5 C4x8.

Three different C values were used. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm.S. depending on the ingredients and curing process. 6.6x10-17 and 3. corresponding to 2x10-16. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length.76. the opening increment only changed by 0. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. which will be determined based on experimental results. with possibly different initial crack lengths. 7. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . The results were shown in Figure 3. 2. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables.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. units. To address these variables with uncertainties. using specimen C5x8. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. namely. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method.8. In the case of multiple cracks. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). First. The parameter m was set to be 3.5H5 as a prototype.25x10-4. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. 6. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure.76x10-4. the exact spacing of cracks is random.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm.

Due to the aforementioned difficulties. and that each was completely different from the others. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. Obviously.9. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). 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. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths.were similar to each other.5 in). Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. however. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6. The final crack opening increment might be 0. did not change more than 0.86.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . the model is insensitive to C. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. 3. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm.01mm less.66. 91 . 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.76.003mm.76x10-4 and m at 3. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. The crack opening increment.86.76 and 3. C was therefore fixed at 6.

4MPa.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.Three different values of crack spacing were examined.11.3Ef were examined.6MPa. with a difference of about 40mm. The crack opening increment was approximately 0. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. Values of Ec were set at 27. with fixed C of 6. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. The crack opening growth. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. The width of specimen C5x8. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef.4MPa.002mm less. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . The plots are shown in Figure 3. the values of Ef . with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. The error for crack opening increment was about 0.001mm less. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. yet all cracks stop at the same length.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0.12 and 3.5MPa and 41.13. The height of specimen 92 .25 in). The plots are shown in Figure 3.15Ef and 1. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other.76. however. Finally. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. As Ec increased from 27. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef .76x10-4 and m of 3. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. approximately. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef.10 and 3. 34. 1.6MPa to 41. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity.

The error of crack opening increment was about 0. however. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. and specimen size. due to the nature of the exponential function. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. This model is most sensitive. 93 . crack length. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. with 6mm less beam height. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. The plots are shown in Figure 3. For other variables.001mm less.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. In summary. and vice versa. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP.14 and 3. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. to the parameter m in the Paris equation.15.25 in). the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity.C5x8.

76) Figure 3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.5H5 (m=3.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4) 94 .Figure 3.

11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) 95 .76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.

76) 96 .5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.

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

23. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. 98 . The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length. To simplify the model.19 to 3. Similar results are shown Figure 3. For specimens of group H.22. 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 ). The results are listed from Figure 3. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . As the goal was to simulate the experiments. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. For both thin and thick specimens. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. In other words. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). using a brute force approach. For parameters C and m in Paris equation. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases.S. A summary was shown in Figure 3. units. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U.18.16 to 3.5H5. which illustrates a size effect. since m is the exponential term. all specimens except C6x8.

48 99 . however. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. C=6. m=3.76x10-4. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. and.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. When the specimen width increases.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials.5H5. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. In the case of FRP concrete. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. Figure 3.

m=3.76x10-4.5H5. m=3. C=6. C=6.76 100 .57 Figure 3.76x10-4.5H5.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.Figure 3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.

19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.5P5.76x10-4.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.Figure 3. C=6.39 Figure 3.5P5. C=6. m=3.55 101 .76x10-4. m=3.

m=3.5P5.88 102 .21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.74 Figure 3.76x10-4.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8. C=6.Figure 3.5P5.76x10-4. C=6. m=3.

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

The values of strip width are based on experience. and to simulate a worst case scenario. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models.2. To account for the effect of continuity.6.55S for positive moments. First. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. The arching effect will also be examined. From the AASHTO design guide. the width of primary strip is 660+0.3-1. For a cast-in-place concrete slab. due to its relative simplicity. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters.1. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. Secondly. plus top and bottom chord 104 . the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed.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.

7 m (105 in). Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. For the purpose of simplicity. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack.. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0.8 m.5P5. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.2.7 m (9 feet) and 3.5-1 in AASHTO. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1.2 m (86 in) and 2. The wheel load is 71. with a lateral spacing of 1. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. and the width of the loading area is always 0.6. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. the following assumptions are made.e. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3.6 m (12 feet).bars.7 m (66 in). A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO.1. which represent the majority of bridges in service.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. i. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows.8 m (6 feet). 105 . due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. 2.86 MPa (125 psi).5m (20 in). 2. The corresponding strip widths are 1.

It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan. 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. Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.5 in2).8m.1.2. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.First. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 .8m (6 ft) was analyzed. To investigate the arching effect. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero.

From the stress contour plot. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.3. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.Figure 4. The tensile stress also decreased significantly. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4. it can be seen that a significant area of compressive stress appeared both at the slab top near edge and at the bottom of the slab in the middle.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m. 107 .

the effects of girder spacing were examined. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. 108 . 16M Bar at 100mm. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.8m.7m and 3.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.Figure 4.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. The results are illustrated below. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. 2. Two cases of girder spacing.6m.8m. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.

5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.7m.7m.Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.

6m. 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. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .

the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. The magnitude of 111 . Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. Next. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab.8m. In Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. regardless of the girder spacing.Figure 4.10.

8m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4. The maximum rebar stress at 3. 100mm Bar Spa. 150mm Bar Spa.3 ksi). Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load.6 0.0 ksi).6m Girder Spa.2 0. rather than the static ultimate strength. 120 3. including crack opening and slab deflection. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. 100mm Bar Spa.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. The remaining issues. 100 1.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. are durability and serviceability.1 MPa (10. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. 2. 100mm bar Spa.2 1.stress at the assumed 3.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71.7m Girder Spa.8 1 1. therefore.4 0. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength.0MPa (13. 3.

to 0. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. Finally. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. At the girder spacing of 1.0085 in). the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). 113 .0073 in). having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.18mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.0022 in). was added at each diaphragm location. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0.19mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.5mm suggested in ACI 440. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. the entire diaphragm was removed. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0019 in).8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.00202 in).051mm (0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.0083 in). To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.055mm (0.8m girder spacing. Compared with the maximum 0.051mm (0.058mm (0. a top diaphragm bar.5 in2).0020 in). as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.048mm (0.0023 in).22mm (0.21mm (0. which should be acceptable.0072 in).

13 mm (0.080mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.53mm (0.077mm (0. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2.0042 in). the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1.5 in2). With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.108mm (0.055 in).7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. which. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck.4mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.0032 in). The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.089 mm (0. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0031 in). the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. again.00303 in). the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).077mm (0. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. should be acceptable. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3.021 in).

at 150mm spacing. due to its simplicity and. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. under the design truck load and lane loads. The axle spacings are 3. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. its expected conservatism.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. 1.2m.16 mm (0. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. there are four legal loads. which is composed of one axle load of 53. 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). presumably.6m (12 ft). somewhat arbitrary.62 KN (17 kips).6m.0063 in). is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3.02 in). however. 115 .2m. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. 9. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory.sake of simplicity. namely an opening of less than . The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low.5mm (. The strip width is. In the State of Ohio.4m and 1. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. and due to their ineffectiveness.

With the fictitious material representation. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program.5m. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. The front axle load is 35. which would generate too many elements. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening.5 in). especially including discrete rebars. The second and third axles are 142. The model bridge was single span of 18. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. The spacing between the 116 . it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. Due to the large size of the structure. the slab was supported by three girders. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi).5 KN (32 kips).producing a total length of 15. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load.27m (14 ft). There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection.3m (60 ft) long. Similar to slab strip model. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. such as 5C1. The design truck is composed of three axles. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load.6 KN (8 kips). The slab thickness was 215mm (8.

with no diaphragms. For comparison purposes. in the bridge model.12.053mm. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model.8m (6 ft). using the fictitious material model.11 and 4.4. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. Compared with Figure 4.05m (10 ft). The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. a slab strip model under the same condition was created. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip.15m (30 ft).081mm. minimum spacing of 4.11. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. In the case of single span bridge. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. spanning the two girder spacings.27m (14 ft) and 9. In Figure 4.35 KN/m (0. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 .64 Kips/ft). relative to the actual imposed stress field.

8m (6 ft) to 3. As the girder spacing changed from 1. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . there was always one compression “dome”. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression. and excessive crack opening predictions. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4.8m. as expected.6m spacing.14.20. The single “dome” was split into two again.19.7m and 3.058mm.13 and 4.6m (15 ft). The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle.15.6m. as an indication of the arching effect. 2. Finally.6m (12 ft).041mm. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly. 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.crack opening prediction.15 through 4. Without diaphragms.

8m girder spacing. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0.22 for the bridge model with 1. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. the maximum final crack opening was 0. Nevertheless. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load.of the same model without diaphragms. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab.21. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution.21 mm. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. Even at a girder spacing 3. as shown in Figure 4. Even including an impact factor of 1. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. 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.3. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3.41mm. The model is shown in Figure 4. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. 119 .6m (12 ft).6m (12 ft) girder spacing. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion.

(Girder spacing 1. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm. 120 .8m.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Lane Load and Self-Weight.

8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.Figure 4. 121 .14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.

15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4.7m. (Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 .

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

No Diaph.7m Girder Spa.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 . CMOD (mm) 0. 0.w / Disph.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. 3.6m Girder Spa. 1.3 1.w / Diaph.No Diaph.w / Diaph.7m Girder Spa.No Diaph. 2.6m Girder Spa.2 2.8m Girder Spa. 0.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.Figure 4. 3.8m Girder Spa.

1. (Girder spacing 1.06 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .04 0.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.8m.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.0.

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

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

instead of ultimate strength. and it does provide adequate strength. and the arching effect on strength. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988. 128 . due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. Therefore. for girder spacing up to 3. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action. In summary. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. Although this design seems to be simple. 1989).6m 912 ft). The analysis results of this study indicate that reinforcement of 16M (#5) at 150mm (6 in) spacing is satisfactory for girder spans up to 3. the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction.6m (12 ft). For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be top and bottom in both directions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journal of Composite Technology & Research. C. A.E. Benmokrane. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2004 2. Chaallal.. S. Texas. American Concrete Institute. 1992 6. Baluch. pp 29-37. S. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Shah. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”.H. 1996 4.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. Boothby.P.91. Nanni. No.B. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. ACI Committee 215. pp. Masmoudi. USA. Swartz. 20. Vol. June 17-19. 2000 3. ACI Structural Journal. Committee 440.2. S. Vol. January 1998. JCTRER. No. 80-87 8. Al-Dulaijan. American Concrete Institute. S.Bibliography 1. “440. American Concrete Institute. M. R. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Compilation 33. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. 2001 5. 1995 7. 136 . Houston. Bakis.K. 1987. A. A. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Qureshy. B. M. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. 1. O.

H. R. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. R.66. Larralde. Ned H. H. pp 139-147. No. Klingner. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. 17. K. Journal of Bridge Engineering. 1982 11.K. Burns. Lutz. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. G. No.9.2.3. Bakht. August 1969. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Detroit. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. pp137-144. Vol. Manfredi. Vol. B. Journal of Composites for Construction. C.E. 137 . The University of Texas at Austin. L. J.P. Journal of Composites for Construction. Graddy. Cosenza. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. 14. August. Tarhini. P. ACI Journal. Frederick. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. 10. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. G. E. 15. C. 1993. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. Vol. S. Hilsdorf. Gergely. May 1997. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”.5. pp 83-87. August 2000. Kupfer. Causes. Balaguru. T. John C.2. February. 13. Publication SP-75. pp 659-673. M.2.1.87-117. 2000. American Concrete Institute. No. 12.3. Richard E. 16. Vol. pp.P. Philleo. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. R. 1997. Vol. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. A. Shah. Vol. H.1. SP-20.5. No. Mabsout. May. Center for Transportation Research. American Concrete Institute.4. pp 40-51. Editor S. No.

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

1985 30.E.H. Vijay. S.K.V. Vol.98. Transactions of ASME. 28. M. Hota V. edited by P. Paris. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. No. N.C. No. Tada. P.G. ACI Structural Journal. GangaRao. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Banthia and P. Hu. Brett. Canada.412-417.11. Fartash. Vol. Vancouver. Experimental Mechanics. Swartz. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”. H. C. Second Edition.2. S. June 1984. pp129- 134. 1963 29. G. Buckland. Paris.6.. Swartz. Experimental Mechanics. P. pp. pp. Montreal. No. November 1982.25.24. P.G.S.22. Vol. C. 2002. J.528-534.85. Journal of Basic Engineering. Paris Productions Inc. 2001 139 . 27. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. F. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. Vol. 26. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Canada. K.E. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful