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 .

20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .5 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.14 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.12 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.9 Figure 2.List of Figures Figure 2.16 Figure 2.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.15 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.18 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.17 Figure 2.

26 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN) Figure 2.33 Figure 2.23 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.31 Figure 2.27 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .25 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.3 KN Beam C5x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.30 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.6 KN) Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.24 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.32 Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.

7 Figure 3.39 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.5P5OL and C5x8.6 Figure 3.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.2 KN Pmax=15.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .3 KN Beam C5x8.3 KN Beam C6x8.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5S5 and C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5M (Pmin=2.5S5 Figure 2.1 Figure 3.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5S5 Figure 2.Beam C5x8.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5H5OL. C5x8.

11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.5H5 (C= Figure 3.4 m=3.76x10.5H5 (C=6.76 Figure 3. C=6.57 Figure 3. C=6.76x10. Beam C3x8.4 m=3. m=3.76x10. C=6.4 m=3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.76) Figure 3.5P5.5H5 (C=6. Beam C3x8.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5 (C=6. Beam C5x8.4 m=3. m=3.5H5 (m=3.76x10.4.76) Figure 3. Beam C4x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10.for Beam C6x8. m=3.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76x10.48 Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4.76x10.4 m=3. C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.5H5.5H5.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.4 m=3. m=3.5H5 (C=6.5H5.76x10.76) Figure 3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .76x10.76) Figure 3.

76x10.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.5P5. C=6.6m. m=3.8m.88 102 103 Figure 3.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. C=6.8m.4. Beam C4x8. 16M Bar at 100mm. m=3. Beam C5x8.8m. C=6.8m.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.5P5.55 101 Figure 3.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 . m=3.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4.74 102 Figure 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.5P5.7m.76x10. Beam C6x8.4.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.Figure 3.

110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.10 Figure 4.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.8m.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.6m.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.8m.8m.7m.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Figure 4. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.

21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.20 Figure 4. 1.8m.

1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .List of Tables Table 2.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.

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

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.


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

Consequently. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. P. the aggregate bridging will be less. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. the number of bars. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. crack face friction will be smaller. Gergely and L. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. the Gergely-Lutz equation has been modified to estimate the crack opening of FRP RC members by simply replacing the steel strain with FRP strain. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. w = 0. 17 . The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. concrete cover and stress level. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. 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. In ACI 440.1R-01. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables.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. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete.

The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. 1. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. A value of 1. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces.71. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. dc is the concrete cover to bar center.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. w= 2 .83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. similar to steel bars.00. to be 0. 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.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. in the case of no available experimental data. slippage moment and fracture moment. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. 1. In the analysis of cyclic loading. ACI 440. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 .

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

which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression.significant errors of 100% although R2’s.2.12. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. Similarly. height 20 . however. Baluch et al. Z. 0. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. 0. Therefore.3 respectively.1. were close to one for different specimens. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors.12 and 3. although the units were not stated explicitly. The material parameter m was found to be 3.15 at R=0. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. 3. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen.P. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. 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. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete.

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

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


caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. The load amplitude was 25 . C.7mm and 16mm. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. Thermal fatigue. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. At both the top and bottom of a specimen. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. steel bars and concrete. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. The bar diameters were 10.1mm. in order to ensure sufficient development length.fatigue loading. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted. 12. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles. C. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars. due to the damage to the bar.000 cycles.E. with one supplementary bar on each side. The CP bars in their tests exhibited behavior very similar to the Aslan 100 bars made by Hughes Brothers Inc. Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. Basically. however. An embedment length of five diameters was used. In the test setup. there was one protruding test bar.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The curvature at first cracking ψ cr is

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

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


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

The element utilized was an eight node

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

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


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

13m (7 ft). respectively. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. 31 . The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. In the prototype. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. Models of 1/6. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. In either case. however. which was fairly high. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. The orthotropic reinforcement pattern consisted of a top and bottom layer of transverse and longitudinal steel reinforcing bars 19M (#6) spaced at 188mm and 376mm respectively. The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. 1989). the spacing in both directions was 437mm. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. the spacing was fairly large. the three beams were space at 2. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research.

an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.6m (12 ft).) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. b.S. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design.1.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. top and bottom. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. the width is taken as 660+0.003 is required in both directions.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. The formula is in U. However. c.) The span length of a slab is less than 3.6.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m.3-1. where the girder spacing is S. units. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. Due to serviceability requirements. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. The crack control 32 . In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). such as crack opening and lateral load distribution. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. a.25S for negative moment. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders.55S for positive moment and 1220+0.2. d.

simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed.2 K g 0. In the AASHTO LFD design codes.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. 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. Therefore. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm.3 K g 0. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . the formulas for DF are as follows. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. In the current LRFD codes. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. supported on multiple girders. In other words.6 S 0.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.06 + ( S 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing.6m (12 feet). Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. L is the bridge span.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. DF = 0.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). For girder spacing S less than 3.5. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.4 S 0.

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

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

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

the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed. but with four different widths were fabricated. Traditionally.5MPa (5000 psi).0/ 0. water.83. Therefore. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4.5 inches).9 MPa (4045 psi). and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved.5/ 2.9 MPa (715 psi). The nominal compressive strength target was 34. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. The concrete was composed of type III cement. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27.0/ 2. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. 37 . the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers. in specimens more representative of in-service applications.

Within each beam. the last number is the size. 38 .5H5. C4x8.5 inches) thick. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. The beam widths were 76 mm. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. 4.S. 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. #5.1). 102 mm. C6x8. Inc. there was one No. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. C5x8. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. Inc. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. As shown above. (see Figure 2. which are reported herein. 16 (#5) bars. the beam size in U.8 GPa (5.5H5. respectively. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.5H5.. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers.Figure 2. units follows. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested.5H5. For identification purposes.92E6 psi). of the FRP bar. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No.

1x106 psi). One specimen.5S5. The bars are also sand coated. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98.5H5M.Figure 2. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. Similarly. C6x8. 4. For identification purposes.5P5. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. 102 mm. without a helical wrap along the length.5 inches) thick. One more specimen. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. The beam widths were 76 mm.5P5. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.9 ksi) for #5 bars. C4x8. 39 . One extra specimen.5P5.2).5P5OL. C5x8. for comparison purposes. C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. respectively.5P5. C5x8. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8.

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

The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.80 mm and 0. Based on nominal kb value of 1.1R-01.2.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. According to ACI 440.4). resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). 102 mm.3 and 2. 127 mm and 152 mm. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments.20ffu for FRP bars. 0. in accordance with ACI 440.Figure 2. 0. respectively. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 . the predicted crack openings are 0.1R-01.75 mm.68 mm.

So. Therefore.8 Hz. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.5H5. which is the product of 7. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location.3 in the factored load.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour.94. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.23.94 and 0. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. For a bridge slab under traffic load. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7. However. for a bridge of 10. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. the truck load is applied at a frequency of carbon FRP. Therefore. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction.23 Hz. the overall frequency is 1. for specimen C5x8.5H5 and C6x8.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic). Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.

for average curvature estimation. The specimen did not appear to have 43 .5H5.02B-20 and 632.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.5”). MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. After the first test interval of 5.118 in to -0. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1.000 cycles. respectively. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. within the pure bending region. 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. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. The first specimen tested was C5x8. and all cracks were stable.540 mm to -1. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. Experimental Results (1) Group H . the crack lengths became visually constant.1000 in to -0.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. Inc.270 mm (+0.Static pre-cracking was used.039 in)).5 inches) below the top of beam. 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. which was near the theoretical neutral axis.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers. After more cycles were applied.

000 cycles.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8.0 kips). To investigate the effect of overload. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. the specimen was still in good condition. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4.000 cycles of this overload.5H5. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. Figure 2. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. The crack length was virtually the same. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles.5 inches). Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports.6 Specimen C5 x 8.5 inches) to 165mm (6.300 N (5. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. After 10. Pmax was increased to 22. 44 . No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen.

Figure 2.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).8 Specimen C4 x 8.300 N (5.Figure 2. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking. Pmax was again increased to 22.5H5 was similar. No addition distress was found in the specimen.000 cycles.0 kips) for 15.8 million cycles. up to 1. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. To investigate the effect of overload. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles.7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.5 H5 45 .75 inches) below the top of beam.

Pmax was raised back to 20. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. The newly formed crack was instrumented.5H5 was somewhat different. Therefore.5 kips).000 cycles.000 additional cycles were applied. prior to 10.5 H5 46 . Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.The behavior of specimen C6x8.9 Specimen C6 x 8. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.600 N. During the subsequent fatigue testing.000 cycles. no new cracks appeared up to 140. Figure 2. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.600 N ( 3. however.000 N and 40. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload. After an additional 35. at which point the CMOD gage debonded.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15.

To investigate the effect of overload. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. 47 .000 cycles.75 inches) below the top of beam. and all cracks were stable.0 kips). After 10. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270.000 cycles were applied at this load level. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. Pmax was finally increased to 22.000 testing cycles. Pmax of 20. After the first run of 3. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).To further investigate the overload effect. (2) Group P .5 kips) was applied.000 N (4.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.5P5. the specimen was still in good condition. After more cycles were applied.000.000 cycles of overload.300 N (5. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. No new cracks were found in the specimen. the crack lengths became visually constant. a total of 40. with the second and third cracks monitored.

Within the pure bending region. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. After 200 cycles of overload.5P5.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8.000 N (6. the concrete cover started falling off.10 Specimen C3 x 8. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. After 3000 cycles of overload. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.000 load cycles. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. The average spacing was 200mm (8.5k). 48 . existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared.5 inches).Figure 2. 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. as debonding became more pronounced. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack.

One new crack appeared at 110 cycles. two new cracks appeared. and then began growing.5 inches) within the pure bending region.5 P5 Specimen C5x8. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. 49 .0 kips) was applied for 10.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1.5P5 behaved somewhat differently. Pmax of 22. To investigate the effect of overload. At around 900 cycles.25 million cycles.11 Specimen C4 x 8.75 in). the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. (Unfortunately.300 N (5.Figure 2. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4.000 cycles. By the end of the test.000 cycles. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4.

5 P5 The specimen C6x8. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5.000 cycles of this overload were applied. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding.000 cycles.000 cycles of overload.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. No extra load was initially added.5P5 behaved similarly. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.300. there was no indication of severe distress.000 N (6. no new cracks appeared up to 1. After 155. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. Pmax was raised to 29. After 50. the specimen was still in good shape.12 Specimen C5 x 8. Subsequently. 50 .5 kips). however. During the subsequent fatigue testing. The two existing cracks then started branching. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. as expected.Figure 2.

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

Pmax was then increased to 29. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. Pmax was first increased to 22. and five cracks appeared.000 cycles. No new crack was generated during the test. Figure 2.000 cycles.75 inches).0 kips).000 N ( 6.5 S5 52 .300 N (5. there was no visible growth of the cracks. As cyclic load testing started. To further investigate the overload effect. there was no sign of distress within the specimen. Static pre-cracking was used. Then.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. with two very close to each other. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. At the end of 1.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4.000 cycles of this load level.15 Specimen C5 x 8.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing.000.

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

Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.

Based on these limited tests. Specimen C6x8. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. respectively.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.5H5 was 0.007 for specimens C3x8. As mentioned earlier. a kb value of 0.1R-01 criteria. respectively.2.5H5. were between 0.15 mm. 0. C4x8.5H5.5H5. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.5P5.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. C5x8.19 and 0.16 mm and 0. C4x8. based on ACI 440.013.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. C5x8.68 mm and 0.008 and 0. C4x8. at least for the bars tested in this investigation. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. 0. the predicted service load crack openings. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.010.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0.5H5. 0.5P5 and C6x8. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.5H5. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. the service load crack openings.0048.5P5. In group P. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. were 0.84 mm for all four specimens. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .17 mm.26mm. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1.16 mm.6 MPa (4000 psi).5H5 and C6x8.5H5. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27. were 0.5P5.5H5 and C5x8. had the lowest reinforcement ratio. 0. respectively. 0. According to the limited test results.

20.21 and 2. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. 56 .18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. with increasing load cycle counts. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. 2.19. which disappears after unloading.18).22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. 2.

By the end of the tests of one million cycles. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs. it would appear to be conservative to use one and half of the initial CMOD as an estimate of maximum total crack opening under cyclic loads. Based on the experimental results.2 KN Pmax=15.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2. As can be seen in Figure 2. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 . elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first. 0.5H5 0.100 0. but at a decreasing rate.respectively.20.200 0.400 C3 x8 .19 and 2.5H5 C4 x8 .5H5 0.5H5 C5x8 .6 KN) 57 . but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles. with increasing load cycles counts.

1 0.2 KN Pmax=15.E+01 1.6 KN) 58 .E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5P 5 0.E+00 1.E+03 1.200 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.6 KN) 0.150 0.E+02 1.2 C3 x8 .0.5H5 C5x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .5P 5 0.E+04 1.E+05 1.5P 5 C 5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 0.5P 5 C 4x8.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.100 1.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.300 C 3x8.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.15 CMOD (mm) 0.5H5 C6 x8 .

5P5.5P5 about 10. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.5P5 0. C4x8.0.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks. C4x8. C5x8. Specimens C3x8.2 C3 x8 . With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings). Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results.2 KN Pmax=15. It took specimens C6x8.5P 5 C6 x8 . during this period of crack development. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.5H5 and C5x8. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.5H5.5H5 and C6x8. 59 .15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. The first stage is crack development.5P5 0.5P5 C4 x8 . C3x8.5H5.5P5.1 0.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.

For beam C4x8. nearly constant elastic CMOD. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar.23).23 through 2.26). The general trend of plastic CMOD. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading. The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8. The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings). although at a decreasing rate.25).5H5. crack growth reaches the second stage.5H5 (see Figure 2. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness). If the area becomes larger. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop for any particular load cycle is related to the energy loss by the specimen during that load cycle. For beam C6x8. For beam C5x8. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. or crack stabilization. For beam C3x8. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 . it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa.5H5 (see Figure 2.5H5 (see Figure 2.Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached.24).26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique.5H5 (see Figure 2. Figures 2. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased.

showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.8 4 1.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. 2.29.2 0.05 0.15 0.30 and 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .1 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. 2. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 . The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.28. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.5P5.0 0 0 1.5P5. 2.for the single crack. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8. which is discussed later.27.

5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.15 0.0 0 0 .2 0.1 0.05 0.0 0 0 .5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 2 8 0 .0 0 0 2 .25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 9 8 8 .25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.0 0 0 1.05 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.2 Figure 2.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .

05 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.2 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 140.3 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.1 0.15 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.

15 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.000 900.2 0.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.2 0.25 0.05 0.000 900.1 0.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.

2 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.15 0.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.000 1.2 0.1 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.05 0.000 600.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.000 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.050.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .000.15 0.

00E-05 C3 x8 . it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.33.00E-06 0. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking. The pseudo energy loss per crack.5H5 C6 x8 . micro-cracking.20E-05 8. at unit width. friction.5H5 1. 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 2.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . etc.33). the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.5H5 1.32 and 2. 2.32 and 2. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2.00E-06 4.5H5 C4 x8 . damping.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . From Figure 2.

00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .5P5 C4 x8 .00E-05 5. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8. generally speaking. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8. 67 .00E-05 C3 x8 . Similarly in group P.50E-05 1.33 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P These tests seem to indicate that fatigue damage to FRP RC is related to bar spacing/reinforcement ratio. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.5H5 and C4x8.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.00E-06 0.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases.5H5.5H5 and C6x8.5P5 C6 x8 . as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.2.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.50E-05 2.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.

36 and 2.25 Figure 2. a 30% overload was applied after 180.3 KN Beam C5x8.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. It would appear that relatively modest overloads.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 . For specimen C5x8.2 0.5H5.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. up to 40% over service load levels.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.000 load cycles.1 0.34). The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.5H5 68 .37. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. Similar results were obtained in group P. For specimen C6x8.5H5.15 CMO D (mm) 0. as shown in Figure 2.35).

05 0.3 Figure 2.2 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.1 0.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .1 0.5P5 69 .35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.2 CMO D (mm) 0.4 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.5H5 20 1.3 KN Beam C5x8.25 0.3 0.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.

20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .05 0.2 0. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. In the subsequent loading cycles.38. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. At the same time.000 cycles. as shown in Figure 2. there was fatigue hardening. 70 .0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. Only after 10.37 0. at the working stress level. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.000 cycles of loading. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. and CMOD started growing again.1 0. for the Isorod rebars. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage.3 KN Beam C6x8.15 0.

35 0. However. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 . group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen. 0.10 0.15 0.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.Comparing group H.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity. Compared with FRP bars.30 0.25 CMOD (mm) 0. C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.05 0.5S5 and C5x8.5H5 and C5x8. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5H5M Figure 2.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.00 1 -0.2 KN Pmax=15. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.5P5.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8.5H5OL. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.20 0.5P5.

which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC. During the service level fatigue testing. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). No rotation was visible with the hysteresis.75 in). Figure 2.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars. or closer to rebar at the bottom. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. the crack length was visually constant. with similar reinforcement ratios. In the crack stabilization stage. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. although no overload was applied. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs.considerably lower. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC.000 response cycles. As more cycles were applied.39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles. After one million cycles under working stress. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . an overload of 40% above working stress was applied. Figure 2. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed.

there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.06 Figure 2. At the same time.000.05 0. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.02 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.1 Figure 2.degradation began as shown in Figure 2. unlike FRP RC.01 0.000 1.000 280.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5S5 73 .5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .02 0.06 C MO D (mm) 0.03 CMO D (mm) 0.40.

In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.5P5OL and C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen. for specimen C5x8. 74 .5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.5P5OL and C5x8.5H5.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.5S5 Thus far. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.5S 5 C5x8.00E-06 1.00E-06 4.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5. sometimes. at unit width.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.5P5 and C5x8.00E-06 0.00E-06 3.00E-06 2. 7.5S5 and C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per crack. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.41.00E-06 6. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

will make this representation insensitive to crack length.5P5 C5x8. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. As mentioned earlier. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. Interestingly.23 0. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region.5P5 C6x8.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.1 in).17 0.21 0.the table below.3). Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2.17 0.5mm (0.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3.16 C3x8. however. The justification of the model is as follows. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. A small base dimension. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3.22 0. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. to account 81 . The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material.5P5 C4x8. The height is the true height of a crack.19 0.

The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4 82 .for the interaction between crack surfaces.3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3. Fictitious Material Figure 3.

4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.20 0.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength. It is another possible indication of a size effect. 83 . Specimen C3x8.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12. below.5P5 C5x8.24 0. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.20 0.2.The Young’s modulus. However. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.24 0. Efic.20 0.5P5 C6x8.5P5 C4x8.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. Also.20 Efic 27.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.20 0. 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. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.

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

ac stands for the crack length. Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete. the following equations are obtained. the result is as follows. ⎡ 1 h − ac Ec (h − a − ac ) 2 ⎤ wb ⎥ M = Pf ⎢(hb − c1 − a) + b 3 3 A f E f h − a − c1 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ where Pf is the force within FRP bar.In the diagram above. (3-6) 85 . 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). substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). hb stands for the beam height. the depth of compressive concrete is obtained: wb (hb − ac ) 2 + 2 a= Af E f Ec (hb − c1 ) (3-5) 2wb (hb − ac ) + 2 Af E f Ec Finally.

based on finite element analysis. Consequently. In other words. So the following relation is obtained. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. the following equation is obtained. Utilizing this behavioral assumption. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. under either monotonic or cyclic loading.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. This assumption will later be verified. 86 . most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. shown below in Figure 3.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory.6. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam.

39( ac a a a ) + = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results. and N is the number of cycles. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively. after rearrangement. ∆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 + 14.12 − 1.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1.32( c ) 2 − 13. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . L is the spacing of cracks. the following equation is obtained. 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. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows.

04(1 − c )5 + 1. M is the bending moment.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.88(1 − c )5 − 2.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3. The angle α has the following expression.17 − 28.06( c ) + 0. 88 .22( c ) + 34. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.46 + 3.84(1 − c )5 + 0. D was 610mm (24 in).16( c ) − 31. P is the concentrated load. hb is the beam height.04( c ) 2 + 14.54( c ) 2 − 14.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge. ) = 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 ) = 0.63 + 25.G( a c a c a c a c ac .

with relative differences all less than 10%.5H5 C4x8.5 72 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.5H5 C5x8.00128 = 0. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.00119 = 0.0011 5 72 Table 3.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .5 72 0.5 = 0.3.00696 0.00109 5. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.5P5 C5x8. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.006407 0. the hinge assumption is justified. we have the following equation.0011 5. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.5P5 0.006973 × 12 = 0.00654 0. the following equations are obtained.S.5P5 C6x8.01121 × 7.01302 × 6 = 0.00127 = 0.

which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987).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.5H5 as a prototype. units. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. corresponding to 2x10-16. namely. In the case of multiple cracks. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated.6x10-17 and 3.25x10-4. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. The parameter m was set to be 3.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm.76. 6. To address these variables with uncertainties.S. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. 2. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. Three different C values were used. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. which will be determined based on experimental results. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. the exact spacing of cracks is random. The results were shown in Figure 3.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . First. using specimen C5x8. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length.76x10-4. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 .005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. depending on the ingredients and curing process. with possibly different initial crack lengths. the opening increment only changed by 0.8. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. 6. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. 7.

and that each was completely different from the others.were similar to each other. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3.76 and 3.9. Due to the aforementioned difficulties.5 in).76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . Obviously. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths.76. 91 .76x10-4 and m at 3. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). C was therefore fixed at 6. the measured surface crack was always an estimate.86. the model is insensitive to C. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3.003mm. 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. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm. 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. however. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. The crack opening increment. The final crack opening increment might be 0. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected.01mm less. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3.86. 3.66. did not change more than 0.

however. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement.10 and 3.11. The crack opening increment was approximately 0.002mm less.5MPa and 41. The plots are shown in Figure 3. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef.001mm less. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. The width of specimen C5x8. 1. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . yet all cracks stop at the same length.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.13.76x10-4 and m of 3.3Ef were examined. The plots are shown in Figure 3.6MPa. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . The error for crack opening increment was about 0.15Ef and 1.6MPa to 41.4MPa. The crack opening growth. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated.25 in). with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa.76. 34. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. Values of Ec were set at 27. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. with a difference of about 40mm. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. approximately. The height of specimen 92 . with fixed C of 6. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve.4MPa. Finally.12 and 3.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. the values of Ef . As Ec increased from 27.

The plots are shown in Figure 3.14 and 3. In summary. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. however.C5x8. This model is most sensitive. crack length. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. and specimen size. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. with 6mm less beam height.25 in). 93 . their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. and vice versa. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. to the parameter m in the Paris equation.15.001mm less. due to the nature of the exponential function. For other variables. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. The error of crack opening increment was about 0.

5H5 (C=6.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76x10-4) 94 .5H5 (m=3.76) Figure 3.Figure 3.

76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) 95 .11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.

Figure 3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76) 96 .76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.

Figure 3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.76) 97 .5H5 (C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.

As the goal was to simulate the experiments. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length. For specimens of group H. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. A summary was shown in Figure 3.18.22.S.23. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. using a brute force approach. all specimens except C6x8. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . a fixed value of C was set to be 6. 98 . which illustrates a size effect. For both thin and thick specimens. units. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed.19 to 3. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. The results are listed from Figure 3. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U.5H5. since m is the exponential term.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. To simplify the model.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. Similar results are shown Figure 3.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ). C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). In other words. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. For parameters C and m in Paris equation.16 to 3.

16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone.76x10-4. and. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. Figure 3. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. In the case of FRP concrete.48 99 .This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. m=3. however. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. When the specimen width increases. C=6.5H5.

m=3.76x10-4. m=3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.57 Figure 3. C=6.5H5.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.Figure 3.5H5.76 100 . C=6.76x10-4.

5P5.5P5.Figure 3. m=3. C=6.39 Figure 3.55 101 . C=6. m=3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.76x10-4.76x10-4.

22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.76x10-4.74 Figure 3.88 102 .21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.5P5.5P5. C=6. m=3.76x10-4. C=6.Figure 3.

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

From the AASHTO design guide. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. To account for the effect of continuity. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters. and to simulate a worst case scenario. The values of strip width are based on experience. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips.6.55S for positive moments. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. The arching effect will also be examined. plus top and bottom chord 104 .1. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4.2. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. the width of primary strip is 660+0. due to its relative simplicity.3-1. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. For a cast-in-place concrete slab.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. Secondly. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. First.

The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. the following assumptions are made. 2.6. 105 . 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.5-1 in AASHTO.5P5. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.. i.e. For the purpose of simplicity. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached.6 m (12 feet).8 m (6 feet).bars. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section.7 m (66 in). and the width of the loading area is always 0. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load.8 m. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows.5m (20 in). Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. with a lateral spacing of 1. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.1.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. The wheel load is 71. 2. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO.86 MPa (125 psi).7 m (105 in). The corresponding strip widths are 1.7 m (9 feet) and 3. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. which represent the majority of bridges in service.2 m (86 in) and 2.2. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1.

16M Bar at 100mm. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.8m. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2. To investigate the arching effect.First. one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero. the case of a girder spacing of 1. Figure 4. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan.2. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load.8m (6 ft) was analyzed.5 in2).1. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 .1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.

two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.8m.3. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4. 107 . The tensile stress also decreased significantly. From the stress contour plot. it can be seen that a significant area of compressive stress appeared both at the slab top near edge and at the bottom of the slab in the middle.

6m. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed. 108 . the effects of girder spacing were examined. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing.8m. The results are illustrated below. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.7m and 3. Two cases of girder spacing.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 2. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m girder spacing was also analyzed.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.Figure 4.

Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.7m.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.7m.

Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.

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

3 ksi).6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. 100 1.0 ksi). The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength.4 0. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. 100mm Bar Spa.stress at the assumed 3. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. 100mm bar Spa. including crack opening and slab deflection. 3. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design.7m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa.0MPa (13.8m Girder Spa.8 1 1. 100mm Bar Spa. The remaining issues. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. 150mm Bar Spa.2 0.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. 120 3.1 MPa (10. The maximum rebar stress at 3.6 0. 2. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. rather than the static ultimate strength.2 1. are durability and serviceability.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . therefore. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars.6m Girder Spa.

The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.8m girder spacing.0083 in). Finally.18mm (0. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).0073 in). The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.5mm suggested in ACI 440. which should be acceptable.19mm (0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. to 0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.0072 in). the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.21mm (0.051mm (0. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.055mm (0.0022 in). a top diaphragm bar. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck.048mm (0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. was added at each diaphragm location. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect. At the girder spacing of 1.5 in2).051mm (0.0019 in).0085 in). Compared with the maximum 0.0023 in).058mm (0. 113 .00202 in).0020 in).22mm (0. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. the entire diaphragm was removed. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.

it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm.077mm (0. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1.080mm (0. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0.0031 in). The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0.089 mm (0. should be acceptable.0032 in). When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440.5 in2). The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck.4mm (0. which.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.00303 in). with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0042 in). the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.108mm (0.53mm (0.077mm (0. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).055 in). the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. again. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 .7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.13 mm (0.021 in).

115 . The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. under the design truck load and lane loads. 1. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. In the State of Ohio. which is composed of one axle load of 53.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75.6m (12 ft). The axle spacings are 3. namely an opening of less than . 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). is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440.16 mm (0. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar.2m.02 in). under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.sake of simplicity. there are four legal loads. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab.62 KN (17 kips). and due to their ineffectiveness. due to its simplicity and. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440.4m and 1. its expected conservatism. however. 9. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. somewhat arbitrary.2m.6m.0063 in).5mm (. The strip width is. at 150mm spacing. presumably.

The model bridge was single span of 18. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program.5 KN (32 kips). especially including discrete rebars. With the fictitious material representation. The design truck is composed of three axles. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). The front axle load is 35.27m (14 ft). It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load.6 KN (8 kips). Similar to slab strip model. The second and third axles are 142. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. The spacing between the 116 . and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. Due to the large size of the structure. such as 5C1. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection.5m. the slab was supported by three girders.5 in). which would generate too many elements.producing a total length of 15.3m (60 ft) long.

The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.05m (10 ft). For comparison purposes. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. in the bridge model. with no diaphragms. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. In Figure 4. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model.27m (14 ft) and 9.081mm. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.053mm.64 Kips/ft). spanning the two girder spacings. using the fictitious material model. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 .12.11.8m (6 ft).15m (30 ft).4. a slab strip model under the same condition was created. In the case of single span bridge.11 and 4. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.8m (6 ft) girder spacing.35 KN/m (0. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. Compared with Figure 4.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. relative to the actual imposed stress field. minimum spacing of 4. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.

Without diaphragms. and excessive crack opening predictions. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. The single “dome” was split into two again. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. 2.15 through 4.8m. there was always one compression “dome”.6m (12 ft).041mm. As the girder spacing changed from 1. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 .6m spacing. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4.19.058mm.8m (6 ft) to 3. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. as an indication of the arching effect.13 and 4.crack opening prediction.15. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.6m.6m (15 ft). as expected.20. From the model and results shown in Figure 4.14. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. Finally. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.7m and 3.

as shown in Figure 4. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab.of the same model without diaphragms. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing.22 for the bridge model with 1.3. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. The model is shown in Figure 4. Even including an impact factor of 1. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3.8m girder spacing.6m (12 ft). The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. Nevertheless.21 mm. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. 119 . Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. the maximum crack opening under the Ohio legal load 5C1 was about 2/3 of the crack opening of AASHTO design load at different reinforcement spacing. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. Even at a girder spacing 3.41mm. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed.21. the maximum final crack opening was 0.

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

Figure 4. 121 .8m.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.

16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4. Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . (Girder spacing 2.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.7m.

Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3. Lane Load and Self-Weight.6m.Figure 4.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.

1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.2 2. CMOD (mm) 0.8m Girder Spa.No Diaph.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .3 1. 1.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.6m Girder Spa.No Diaph. 3.No Diaph.7m Girder Spa.Figure 4. 3.w / Diaph.w / Diaph. 0. 0. 2.w / Disph.7m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa.8m Girder Spa.

(Girder spacing 1.0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.06 0.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.04 0. 1.8m. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.

one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load.Figure 4. To compute the distribution factors. there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed 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. Then. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated. The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor. between girders. When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load. As the majority of 126 . and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge. In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders. design loads are first applied to a bridge. For the critical girder. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. slab thickness.

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

Although this design seems to be simple. For 215mm thick bridge deck 912 ft). 1989). In summary. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. top and bottom in both directions. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. 128 . the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. instead of ultimate strength. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action. it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be serviceability. and it does provide adequate strength. for girder spacing up to 3. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. The analysis results of this study indicate that reinforcement of 16M (#5) at 150mm (6 in) spacing is satisfactory for girder spans up to 3. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988.6m (12 ft). The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. and the arching effect on strength. Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs. Therefore.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography 1. Baluch. M. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Nanni. 136 . Texas. Qureshy.P. SEM-RILEM International Conference. 80-87 8. USA. pp. C. ACI Structural Journal. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. “440. Bakis. pp 29-37. American Concrete Institute. O. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. Masmoudi. Vol. Compilation 33. Vol. 1. JCTRER. A.E. R. 1992 6. Shah.91. Committee 440. 2001 5. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. A.. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. American Concrete Institute. B. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. American Concrete Institute. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. ACI Committee 215. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. No.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. 20. 2004 2. 2000 3. Benmokrane. Houston. Swartz. No. 1987. 1995 7.H. S. S. A. S. 1996 4. Al-Dulaijan.B. January 1998.2. Chaallal. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. June 17-19. M. S.K. Boothby.

Lutz. No. Tarhini. August 2000. August. H. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. February. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. R. Ned H. 16. Balaguru. Hilsdorf. No.P. R. The University of Texas at Austin. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. Center for Transportation Research. John C. 13. pp137-144. Vol. Burns. H. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Vol. S. pp 40-51. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. 15. No. Bakht. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. ACI Journal. E. Publication SP-75. American Concrete Institute. T. Vol.3. 2000. Graddy. Journal of Composites for Construction.3.9.66. Gergely. No. K. Vol. Journal of Bridge Engineering. pp 83-87. pp 139-147. pp.2. No. Causes. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Larralde. A. Mabsout. August 1969. American Concrete Institute. 12. SP-20.2. 17. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. 137 . J.P. 10.2. 1993. B. 14. Journal of Composites for Construction.E.5. Shah. pp 659-673. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. G. 1982 11. Vol. C. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. L. Editor S. Kupfer. H. Manfredi.5. 1997. G. Frederick. Detroit. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. Cosenza. Klingner. Richard E. Philleo.1.87-117. P. R.1. May 1997. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. May.K. C. M.4.

Swartz. P. Shah. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Vol. 12-26. K. American Concrete Institute. Nutt. March 1988.C. Texas. S.3. Beim. R. pp 381-388.. SEM-RILEM International Conference.P. ACI Structural Journal. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. No. Beim. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. S.P. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. 1987. Perdikaris. R. 1997. National research Council.. S. Transportation Research Board. July-August 1989. 591607.4.P. Inc. 1995 23. Swartz. C. Washington D. Editor S. No. Vol. T. C. Perdikaris. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”.E. S. Shah. 86.C. S.N.C. Houston. Shield. A.M. Detroit.E. 2. Vol. Oct. A. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”.. Shah. 20. pp.E. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. P. Perdikaris. pp. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. Huang. 24. French. 21. Publication SP-75. Swartz. P. 114.M. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. pp. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. NCHRP Project No. 1987 19. C.A. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. S. ASCE. S. Zokaie. S. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”.K. 483-491.18. 64-69 22. John Wiley & Sons. C. Journal of Structural Engineering. June 17-19. 1982 138 .C. USA.

Vol. 2001 139 . Buckland. C.V. November 1982. N. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges.22. No. Experimental Mechanics. June 1984. Fartash. pp. Swartz.E. G. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Vol. edited by P. Canada. Hota V. S.11. K. F. No..H.S. ACI Structural Journal. 28. M. 1963 29. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Montreal. J. P. 2002. Banthia and P. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”.24. Transactions of ASME.98.G. Vijay. Paris. 27.K. Second Edition.85.G. No. Hu. pp129- 134. Paris Productions Inc. Swartz. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Journal of Basic Engineering.25.6. Vol. 26. Canada. P.2. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”.528-534. Vancouver. P.412-417. C. GangaRao. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. 1985 30. Tada. S. H. pp.E. Brett. Paris.C. Experimental Mechanics. Vol.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful