This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation Adviser: Dr. Arthur Huckelbridge Supported by Saada Family Fellowship
Department of Civil Engineering CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
We hereby approve the dissertation of
Yunyi Zou ______________________________________________________
candidate for the Ph.D. degree *.
(signed)_______________________________________________ (chair of the committee)
Nov. 11, 2004
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.
To my parents Zou JiShen and Chen XiuFang To my wife Yuping
Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1 3 10 11 12 Abstract 13 Chapter 1 Background and Introduction of the Problem 15 Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load 36 Motivation for the Testing Program Description of Testing Program Experimental Results Qualitative Discussion 36 37 43 55 Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth 78 Estimation of Crack Opening Estimation of Crack Growth Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack 78 83 1 .
Growth Estimation Simulation of Experiment Results 90 98 Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab 104 Analysis of Slab Strips Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs Empirical Design of Bridge Slabs 104 115 127 Chapter 5 Conclusions 130 Chapter 6 Future Research 134 References 136 2 .
5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.16 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.2 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.3 Figure 2.List of Figures Figure 2.4 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.9 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.8 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.12 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 8.10 Figure 2.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .5 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.
30 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.23 Figure 2.33 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.26 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.32 Figure 2.25 Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=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=22.6 KN) Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.31 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.27 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.24 Figure 2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.
5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .5S5 Figure 2. C5x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.Beam C5x8.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5S5 Figure 2.5P5OL and C5x8.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 3.5H5OL.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.5H5M (Pmin=2.5P5 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C6x8.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.5S5 and C5x8.3 Figure 3.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.39 Figure 2.42 Specimen C5 x 8.1 Figure 3.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.
16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4 m=3.76x10.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.5P5.57 Figure 3.48 Figure 3.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5.76x10.4.76x10.4.5H5 (m=3.76x10.5H5 (C=6. Beam C5x8.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. C=6.5H5.5H5.76x10.5H5 (C=6.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Beam C4x8.76) Figure 3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.76x10.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76x10.76x10.4.4 m=3. C=6.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76 Figure 3.76) Figure 3. C=6.for Beam C6x8.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3. C=6. m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76x10.76x10. Beam C3x8. m=3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.4.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8. m=3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Beam C3x8.76x10. m=3.4) Figure 3.
6m.55 101 Figure 3.76x10.8m.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.5P5. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. C=6.4. m=3. Beam C4x8.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.5P5.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .7m.8m. Beam C5x8.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm. m=3. C=6.76x10. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.4.74 102 Figure 3. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.76x10.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. 16M Bar at 100mm. Beam C6x8.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.8m.Figure 3. C=6.4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4. m=3.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.88 102 103 Figure 3.
Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2. (Girder spacing 3. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8m. Slab thickness 215mm.6m.6m.10 Figure 4.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.8m. Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.7m. Figure 4.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.8m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 . Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.
1.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 . Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.20 Figure 4.Figure 4.8m.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.
1 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .2 Table 3.
Saada as my instructor and sponsor. I have enjoyed our discussions very much. he is a role model for living and working. To me. Huckelbridge for his guidance. I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. His teaching will benefit me for years to come. 11 . Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support.Acknowledgements I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Throughout my research.
List of Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI CMOD FE FRP GFRP LEFM LFD LRFD RC American Concrete Institute Crack Mouth Opening Displacement Finite Element Fiber-Reinforced Polymers Glass FRP Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Load Factor Design Load and Resistance Factor Design Reinforced Concrete 12 .
FRP Reinforced Concrete and its Application in Bridge Slab Design
by Yunyi Zou
ABSTRACT For decades, bridge slabs have been troubled by the corrosion of steel reinforcements. The unique corrosion resistance of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymers) bars makes them a promising alternative to steel bars. Because of the relatively low elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement, the post-cracking serviceability often is the controlling factor in the flexural design of FRP reinforced concrete. Since bridge deck slabs are under repeated traffic loads, it is the post-cracking serviceability under cyclic loads that becomes vital in the design and maintenance decision-making process.
Experiments have been conducted to investigate the post-cracking flexural performance of FRP RC (reinforced concrete) under constant amplitude cyclic loading. Each specimen tested was a beam with a single FRP bar at the bottom. Two different types of FRP bars were used. The crack opening was monitored for specimens of different size. Up to 2 million cycles of cyclic loads have been applied at 100% service load levels. It has been found that there are two stages in the crack growth of FRP reinforced concrete. The first stage is early growth, which is characterized by increasing crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). The second stage is the stabilization of CMOD and crack length. No fatigue failure was encountered in the testing under service loading and moderate overloads. The effects of moderate overload on observed crack
growth were also investigated.
The performances of two different FRP bars were
compared. A model was proposed to predict long term crack growth in FRP R/C under cyclic loading, based on the Paris equation.
Two FE (finite element) crack representations were examined.
One was a
debonded length representation. In this model it was assumed that there was a debonded length around each crack, within which there was no tangential interaction between concrete and reinforcement. Beyond the debonded length, the interface between concrete and reinforcement was tied with no relative movement. The other representation
examined was a fictitious material crack representation. A fictitious material was placed in a triangular crack cross section, with a maximum width of 2.5mm (0.1 in). Then, the modulus of elasticity of the fictitious material was calibrated, based on the observed testing results, after crack growth had stabilized. Both representations have been used to analyze bridge slabs. Finally, an empirical slab design was discussed.
Background and Introduction of the Problem
The advantages of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) include a high ratio of strength to mass, excellent fatigue characteristics, excellent corrosion resistance, electromagnetic neutrality, and a low axial coefficient of thermal expansion. Generally speaking, the disadvantages of FRP reinforcement include its higher cost, lower Young’s modulus (except for Carbon FRP), lower failure strain and lack of ductility. The
transverse coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is also much larger than the longitudinal CTE. The long-term strength of FRP can be as low as 70% of its short-term strength, and ultra-violet radiation can damage FRP. FRP reinforcement is also not effective for compression reinforcement because of the compression instability of the slender axial fibers. There is a lot of potential to apply FRP in bridge engineering for structural elements in corrosive environments with low ductility demand.
For decades, reinforced concrete slabs have been used as bridge decks both in United States and around the world. The relatively inexpensive concrete and steel
reinforcement have served very well in most respects. In recent years, rehabilitation of national highway bridges has been a priority, due to the aging and deteriorating superstructures. One of the major causes of superstructure deficiency is the corrosion of steel reinforcement. In this case, the excellent corrosion resistance and light weight of FRP make it potentially superior in long term performance to conventional reinforcing steel, and, particularly in the case of Glass FRP (GFRP), potentially competitive economically.
crack face friction. the aforementioned complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM. particularly so if 16 . the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. The most commonly encountered serviceability requirements in RC structures are maximum deflection and crack opening control. the crack length generally is deeper on the sides than in the middle. Within the fracture process zone. particularly in composite materials. it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures. It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost independent of specimen thickness. aggregate bridging. Consequently. will generate larger crack lengths and crack mouth opening displacements (CMOD) compared with conventional steel reinforcement.Serviceability covers many different aspects of structural performance related to particular applications. crack branching. known as the fracture process zone. In the case of smaller scale structures. crack deflection. there is a surge of forces in the bars. crack tip blunting by voids. Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments. as soon as cracking occurs. For quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. Cracking is a complex phenomenon. The relatively low Young’s modulus of FRP. 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. and etc. the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value. which is about one fifth of the Young’s modulus of conventional steel reinforcement. In the case of FRP RC beams under bending. There exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack. with a relatively small fracture process zone.
In ACI 440. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. Consequently. 17 .076 β f s 3 d c A c (1-1) Where β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression. Gergely and L. the aggregate bridging will be less. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. P. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. crack face friction will be smaller. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. w = 0. concrete cover and stress level. the number of bars. dc is the concrete cover to bar center.1R-01. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. 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. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars.
1.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. in the case of no available experimental data. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. In the analysis of cyclic loading. slippage moment and fracture moment. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam. ACI 440.00. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. A value of 1. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 .2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. to be 0. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. w= 2 .71.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. 1.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. similar to steel bars. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions.
The proposed equation is as follows. The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 102 and 107 cycles. P. this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels). C and m are material parameters. Perdikaris et al. tension or flexure. The report by ACI committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement. In early 1960s. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems. It was concluded that the Paris equation results in 19 . Apparently. regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression. Crack length was also recorded based on the CMOD compliance measurements. researchers have tried to verify if it was also valid for concrete.C.fracture moment. (1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams under four-point bending. Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains and microcracking. Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete. N is the number of cycles. da = C (∆K ) m dN (1-3) Where a is the crack length. which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete. Although Paris’s law was developed for steel. is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent. ∆K is the stress intensity factor difference at maximum and minimum loading.
a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained.2.P. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. da C (∆K ) m = dN (1 − R)( K c − K max ) (1-4) where Kc is the fracture toughness of the material of interest at the appropriate thickness. 0.12 and 3. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . were close to one for different specimens. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. 3. Baluch et al.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. Z. although the units were not stated explicitly. however. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. The material parameter m was found to be 3.12. Similarly. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete.3 respectively. height 20 .1.15 at R=0. Therefore. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. 0. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax).
although they were parallel to each other. However. The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance. Different lines were obtained for different beam size. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. for fracture under monotonic loading. 21 . Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete.and notch length. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. utilizing a three point bending test setup. The thickness was constant for all beams. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. Therefore.26. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf).
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
in order to ensure sufficient development length. C.E. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete. with one supplementary bar on each side.1mm. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded. The CP bars in their tests exhibited behavior very similar to the Aslan 100 bars made by Hughes Brothers Inc. C. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. At both the top and bottom of a specimen. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. due to the damage to the bar. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. The load amplitude was 25 . caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. there was one protruding test bar. 12. The bar diameters were 10. In the test setup. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles. steel bars and concrete. An embedment length of five diameters was used. Thermal fatigue.000 cycles.fatigue loading. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles. Basically. Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars.7mm and 16mm. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. however.
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. indented. The authors suggested that slipping of bars might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness. Cosenza et al. bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes. FRP bars were categorized into straight bars and deformed bars. The experiment setups were similar to each other for the two investigations. the residual slip after the first cycle was a significant portion of slip at the end of the 100. A top bar effect also exists for FRP. 50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. It was stated that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond. friction due to FRP surface roughness.000 cycles. In the case of CP bars. but the load levels were very different. twisted or braided. It was found that the residual bond stiffness was actually higher than the initial bond stiffness. Among environmental conditions.selected to achieve 90%. An effect of bar size has been observed. The actuator displacement verses load observations also supported that conclusion. The bar slip at the free ends was recorded. This work was contradictory to the finding by C. depending on the load magnitude. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP bars. Straight bars were smooth. with the average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased. mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete. ranging from 75% to 25%. Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance. and a survey of bond-slip models was presented. normal pressure between FRP bars and concrete. Deformed bars were ribbed. Shield et al. 26 . grain-covered or sandblasted prismatic rods.
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 transverse reinforcements are mainly external steel straps or FRP bars. 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 position and location of the lateral straps were also analyzed. For practical purposes. partially studded straps. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. FRP bars and diaphragms. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. 30 . Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). 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 results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete. cruciform straps. but at a much larger load. when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage. Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to failure under monotonic loading. A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck. due to shakedown in the slab. it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. B. They included fully studded straps.
and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. respectively. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. the spacing was fairly large. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. however. Models of 1/6. The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. which was fairly high. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. 31 . The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. 1989). The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. In either case. the three beams were space at 2. In the prototype.13m (7 ft). 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.
6m (12 ft). the width is taken as 660+0. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). The formula is in U. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.6. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. The crack control 32 . The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4. a.3-1. top and bottom.55S for positive moment and 1220+0.25S for negative moment. d. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. b.) The span length of a slab is less than 3. However. c. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. Due to serviceability requirements.2. where the girder spacing is S.003 is required in both directions.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.1.S. units.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders.
6 S 0. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer.4 S 0.2 K g 0.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. For girder spacing S less than 3.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. L is the bridge span. In the current LRFD codes. DF = 0. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. In other words.3 K g 0.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0. the formulas for DF are as follows.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. supported on multiple girders. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft). 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.6m (12 feet). Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . Therefore. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.5. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000).06 + ( S 0.
on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads. The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from conventional RC. The performance of FRP RC under monotonic loading has been understood fairly well. the bond durability under cyclic loads. has not been thoroughly investigated. Some other criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported. particularly in fatigue environments. Sometimes. although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. to achieve better ductility. as the bridge span became larger. The Paris law appears to be applicable in concrete.1R-01 proposes to design for a strength failure mode of concrete crushing. There have been varying results. but all were less than AASHTO (1996). 34 . deserves to be further investigated before engineers can be expected to be confident with this fairly new material. It was found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26 (1987). FRP itself possesses excellent fatigue properties.elements. Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab. mostly based on pullout tests. The analysis results showed that the distribution factor decreased. the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in applications such as bridge deck slabs. however. with a size effect being detected. ACI 440. or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements. The serviceability of FRP RC. the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled with beam elements. In summary.
The finite element method has been successfully used for a long time in bridge structural analysis. In this study. A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening of the test specimens. The current bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution. Under the condition of a cracked slab. the lateral load distribution factor will be discussed. 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. Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in applications such as bridge slabs. analysis results are typically based on uncracked concrete slab properties. Finally. which is generally reasonable for steel RC. the crack opening displacement and crack growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory. A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to evaluate the effects.1R-01 will be discussed. 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. serviceability is often the critical factor in bridge deck slab design. Other implications on the serviceability provisions in ACI 440. 35 . Although the current design methodology is strength oriented. respectively.Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed. Subsequently. A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack growth under cyclic loading. particularly in fatigue environments. Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood. the uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters. An empirical equation for final crack opening will be proposed.
The second issue is that such tests are sensitive to specimen imperfections. FRP is set to be a promising alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is its serviceability. Crack opening and its growth in FRP RC are related to the fatigue characteristics of FRP bar. The behavior of FRP reinforced concrete under fatigue loading has been investigated thus far by simple pullout tests. rather than its strength. Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be applicable to typical in service conditions. There are two shortcomings with these approaches. A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a concrete pull-out block. concrete. following an interval of cyclic loading. With portions of bar exposed. and their interface. The bond-slip and crack growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated. Crack opening is one of the important indicators of serviceability. the bar is susceptible to local damage due to unintentional stress concentrations and eccentricities which may not be representative of in-service conditions. 36 . One is that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment such as a bridge deck.Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load Motivation for the Testing Program Due to its high corrosion resistance. such variations can be especially critical in fatigue testing. or by RILEM beam bond tests.
The concrete was composed of type III cement. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. The nominal compressive strength target was 34.9 MPa (715 psi). the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.0/ 2. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. but with four different widths were fabricated. water. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed. Therefore. Traditionally.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading.9 MPa (4045 psi). the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8.0/ 0. 37 .5MPa (5000 psi).83.5 inches).5/ 2.
.5 inches) thick. The beam widths were 76 mm. 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. Inc.S.5H5.Figure 2.8 GPa (5. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. of the FRP bar. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude.92E6 psi). there was one No. C6x8. respectively. 38 . beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. 102 mm. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers.5H5.5H5. (see Figure 2. C4x8. As shown above. which are reported herein. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. the beam size in U. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. Inc.1). 4. Within each beam.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. For identification purposes. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length.5H5. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. C5x8. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. 16 (#5) bars. the last number is the size. #5. units follows.
Similarly. C6x8.5P5. One more specimen. 39 . 4. C5x8. C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. One extra specimen. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking.1x106 psi). ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. The bars are also sand coated. C5x8.5P5OL. without a helical wrap along the length.2). 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.5P5.9 ksi) for #5 bars.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.5P5. for comparison purposes. C5x8. 127 mm and 152 mm (3.5P5. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.5S5. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.Figure 2.5H5M. respectively. For identification purposes. One specimen. 102 mm. C4x8. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8.5 inches) thick. The beam widths were 76 mm.
5P5 C6x8.5H5 C5x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.5P5 C5x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5P5 C5x8.5P5OL C5x8.5H5 C6x8.5S5 Width (mm) 76 102 127 152 127 76 102 127 152 75 127 Height (mm) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 Reinforcement 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) Steel Test Sequence 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 10 9 8 11 Table 2.5H5 C5x8.5H5M C3x8.Specimen C3x8.5H5 C4x8.5P5 C4x8.
84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm.Figure 2. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively. in accordance with ACI 440. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency. 0. According to ACI 440. Based on nominal kb value of 1. 102 mm. respectively. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi).3 and 2.75 mm.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.2. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored.20ffu for FRP bars. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .4). The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments.80 mm and 0.1R-01.68 mm. the predicted crack openings are 0. 127 mm and 152 mm.1R-01. 0.
23 Hz. for specimen C5x8. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.23.in carbon FRP. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2.5H5.94 and 0. Therefore. So.94. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1. Therefore. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. However. which is the product of 7. For a bridge slab under traffic load.5H5 and C6x8. for a bridge of 10.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.3 in the factored load.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7. the overall frequency is 1.8 Hz.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 .000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).
270 mm (+0. the crack lengths became visually constant. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. After more cycles were applied. The first specimen tested was C5x8.5H5. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.5”). All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude.1000 in to -0.000 cycles.Static pre-cracking was used.5 inches) below the top of beam.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. respectively. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. within the pure bending region.039 in)). for average curvature estimation. Inc.118 in to -0. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. Experimental Results (1) Group H . After the first test interval of 5. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was recorded under a ramp load and the first 20 cycles of cyclic load at the beginning of each test interval.540 mm to -1.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started.02B-20 and 632. and all cracks were stable.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above. The specimen did not appear to have 43 .
There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen.300 N (5. To investigate the effect of overload.000 cycles. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports.000 cycles of this overload. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.5H5. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. After 10.6 Specimen C5 x 8. the specimen was still in good condition. Pmax was increased to 22.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. Figure 2. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. The crack length was virtually the same.0 kips). 44 . The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen.5 inches).5 inches) to 165mm (6. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles.
up to 1.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).7 Specimen C3 x 8. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. Figure 2. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles.75 inches) below the top of beam. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. No addition distress was found in the specimen.0 kips) for 15.8 million cycles.Figure 2. Pmax was again increased to 22.5H5 was similar.300 N (5. To investigate the effect of overload.000 cycles. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.5 H5 45 .8 Specimen C4 x 8.
During the subsequent fatigue testing.600 N.000 cycles.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. Pmax was raised back to 20. no new cracks appeared up to 140. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.5H5 was somewhat different.5 kips).5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.000 N and 40. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. Therefore. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. After an additional 35. The newly formed crack was instrumented.9 Specimen C6 x 8. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.The behavior of specimen C6x8. prior to 10. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. however.000 cycles. Figure 2. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. at which point the CMOD gage debonded.000 additional cycles were applied.600 N ( 3. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.5 H5 46 .
000 N (4. the crack lengths became visually constant. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270.5P5. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. 47 . the specimen was still in good condition.000 testing cycles.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. Pmax was finally increased to 22.000 cycles. (2) Group P .000. a total of 40.000 cycles of overload. After more cycles were applied. After the first run of 3.000 cycles were applied at this load level.0 kips). The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. A third crack was found around 400 cycles. After 10. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. Pmax of 20. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. To investigate the effect of overload.75 inches) below the top of beam. and all cracks were stable.300 N (5.5 kips) was applied. No new cracks were found in the specimen. with the second and third cracks monitored. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1.To further investigate the overload effect.
After 200 cycles of overload.5P5. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared.000 load cycles. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied.5k). An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. the concrete cover started falling off. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.000 N (6.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. as debonding became more pronounced.5 inches). Within the pure bending region. The average spacing was 200mm (8.10 Specimen C3 x 8.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.Figure 2. After 3000 cycles of overload. 48 . The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. 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.
By the end of the test. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking.25 million cycles. two new cracks appeared.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.0 kips) was applied for 10.5 P5 Specimen C5x8.5 inches) within the pure bending region.000 cycles. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. (Unfortunately.000 cycles.Figure 2. At around 900 cycles.300 N (5. 49 . the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. To investigate the effect of overload. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100.75 in). with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles. and then began growing.11 Specimen C4 x 8. Pmax of 22.
5 kips). After 155. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. Subsequently.000 cycles.Figure 2.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. During the subsequent fatigue testing. there was no indication of severe distress. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. as expected. 50 . Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload.000 cycles of overload. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found.12 Specimen C5 x 8. No extra load was initially added. no new cracks appeared up to 1.000 N (6.000 cycles of this overload were applied. After 50. The two existing cracks then started branching. Pmax was raised to 29.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload.5P5 behaved similarly. the specimen was still in good shape. however.300.
14 Specimen C5 x 8. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. Figure 2. For specimen C6x8.5P5OL. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading.Figure 2. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing.5 P5OL 51 . Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.. followed by cyclic load at service level. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking. For specimen C5x8. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing.13 Specimen C6 x 8.5H5.
The specimen was still in good shape after 150. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4.000 N ( 6. with two very close to each other. At the end of 1.15 Specimen C5 x 8.75 inches). there was no visible growth of the cracks.000 cycles of this load level. Pmax was then increased to 29.0 kips). Figure 2.000. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. and five cracks appeared.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. Then. No new crack was generated during the test. To further investigate the overload effect.000 cycles. Pmax was first increased to 22. there was no sign of distress within the specimen.000 cycles.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. As cyclic load testing started. Static pre-cracking was used.300 N (5.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches).5 S5 52 .
For all specimens. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. Black ink was injected into the notch. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry.5P5.5P5 and C6x8. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. acoustic emission and dye penetration. First. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. For some specimens in group P. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. After about two hours. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. particularly for large cycle counts. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). 53 . rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. As the cracks opened up. so as to open the crack. the images of cross sections of C4x8.14). C5x8. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. failed to produce consistently usable results.15.
17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.Figure 2.
were 0.5H5. C4x8. respectively.84 mm for all four specimens.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8.16 mm. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. Specimen C6x8.26mm.5H5 and C5x8. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.010. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.15 mm. respectively.16 mm and 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8.5P5. the predicted service load crack openings. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. 0.1R-01 criteria.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.2. Based on these limited tests. respectively. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.17 mm.5H5 was 0.19 and 0.007 for specimens C3x8. In group P. the service load crack openings.008 and 0.0048. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 . The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. a kb value of 0.68 mm and 0.5H5. C4x8. 0. C5x8. were between 0.5H5. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1.5H5. 0. 0.5P5 and C6x8. According to the limited test results. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.5P5.6 MPa (4000 psi). C5x8.5H5. at least for the bars tested in this investigation. 0. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27. based on ACI 440. were 0.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.5H5 and C6x8.5H5.013. C4x8. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens. As mentioned earlier.5P5.
and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does. with increasing load cycle counts. which disappears after unloading.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. 2. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. 2. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2.20. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD.21 and 2.19. 56 .18).22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2.
5H5 C5x8 . 0. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading. Based on the experimental results.5H5 0.200 0.5H5 0.6 KN) 57 .300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .400 C3 x8 .000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.20.5H5 C4 x8 .respectively. with increasing load cycles counts. but at a decreasing rate.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs. 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. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first. As can be seen in Figure 2.100 0.19 and 2. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.
5P 5 C 5x8.E+03 1.6 KN) 58 .E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.150 0.15 CMOD (mm) 0.300 C 3x8.200 0.100 1.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.E+00 1.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 0.5H5 C4 x8 .E+05 1.5H5 C5x8 .6 KN) 0.1 0.E+01 1.E+04 1.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5P 5 0.5H5 C6 x8 .20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 C3 x8 .2 KN Pmax=15.5P 5 0.5P 5 C 4x8.E+02 1.0.
5P5 C4 x8 .5H5.5P5. during this period of crack development.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2. Specimens C3x8. C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15. It took specimens C6x8.5P5 0.5H5 and C5x8.0.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. C5x8. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 and C6x8.5P5 0. C3x8.5P5 about 10.5P5. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.2 C3 x8 . but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. The first stage is crack development. 59 .5P 5 C6 x8 . the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.5H5. C4x8.1 0.
24). For beam C5x8. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness).25). The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. although at a decreasing rate.Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached.26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading.5H5 (see Figure 2. The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings). The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. crack growth reaches the second stage. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased.23 through 2. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD.23). nearly constant elastic CMOD.5H5. If the area becomes larger. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error. The general trend of plastic CMOD. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique. 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. or crack stabilization.5H5 (see Figure 2.26). The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading. For beam C4x8. For beam C6x8.5H5 (see Figure 2. Figures 2. For beam C3x8. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 .5H5 (see Figure 2.
1 0.8 4 1.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.29. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.28.2 0.05 0. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.5P5.for the single crack. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2. 2. which is discussed later.0 0 0 1.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .30 and 2.27.5P5.15 0. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. 2. 2.
5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 .24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.0 0 0 2 .05 0.0 0 0 9 8 8 .1 0.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.2 Figure 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .15 0.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .0 0 0 2 8 0 .1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 .05 0.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.15 0.
15 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.1 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.2 0.05 0.000 140.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.4 0.
2 0.2 0.1 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 900.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .05 0.000 900.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.25 0.1 0.15 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.
05 0.050.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.000 600.000 1.15 0.2 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.1 0.05 0.000.2 0.000 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .1 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.
the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.20E-05 8. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2.32 and 2. The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.5H5 1.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. 2.00E-05 C3 x8 .33. damping.5H5 C4 x8 .32 and 2. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. friction. at unit width.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.5H5 C6 x8 .00E-06 4.5H5 1.00E-06 0. From Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss per crack. micro-cracking.33).00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking. etc.
the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased. generally speaking.5P5 C6 x8 .50E-05 2.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.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.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .5H5 and C6x8. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.50E-05 1.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.5H5. Similarly in group P. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.2. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.00E-05 5.5P5 C4 x8 . as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased.5H5 and C4x8.00E-05 C3 x8 . The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles. 67 .33 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P These tests seem to indicate that fatigue damage to FRP RC is related to bar spacing/reinforcement ratio.
Similar results were obtained in group P.5H5 68 .3 KN Beam C5x8. It would appear that relatively modest overloads.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 . have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. For specimen C6x8. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.2 0.25 Figure 2.5H5.34). overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.15 CMO D (mm) 0.37. as shown in Figure 2.1 0. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.36 and 2. a 30% overload was applied after 180. For specimen C5x8. 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.35).000 load cycles.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.5H5. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. up to 40% over service load levels.
4 Figure 2.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.3 KN Beam C5x8.3 0.3 Figure 2.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.05 0.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.1 0.5H5 20 1.2 0.1 0.2 CMO D (mm) 0.25 0.5P5 69 .
At the same time.2 0.1 0. 70 . the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. at the working stress level.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique.000 cycles of loading. Only after 10. for the Isorod rebars.000 cycles.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.37 0.38.15 0.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .3 KN Beam C6x8. there was fatigue hardening. as shown in Figure 2. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. In the subsequent loading cycles.05 0. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. and CMOD started growing again.
steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.20 0.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.5P5.10 0.2 KN Pmax=15. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5H5M Figure 2.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.5P5. Compared with FRP bars.05 0.35 0.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.30 0. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8. However. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.Comparing group H.5H5OL. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.25 CMOD (mm) 0.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.15 0.00 1 -0. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen. C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8. 0.5H5 and C5x8.
or closer to rebar at the bottom. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC. After one million cycles under working stress. Figure 2. Figure 2. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars.considerably lower. although no overload was applied. During the service level fatigue testing. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. with similar reinforcement ratios.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load. As more cycles were applied. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . an overload of 40% above working stress was applied.000 response cycles. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC.75 in). there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed. In the crack stabilization stage. the crack length was visually constant. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete.39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles.
there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.08 0.06 Figure 2.02 0. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.000 280.04 0. At the same time.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.02 0.03 CMO D (mm) 0.01 0. unlike FRP RC.5S5 73 .40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.06 C MO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.05 0.000 1.1 Figure 2.04 0.000.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.40.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .
41.5H5. the pseudo energy loss per crack.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. 74 .The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8.00E-06 2.00E-06 6. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.00E-06 0.5P5 and C5x8. sometimes.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen. for specimen C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. at unit width.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8. 7.5S 5 C5x8.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.00E-06 4.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 1.00E-06 3.5S5 Thus far.
it began to stabilize. the elastic CMOD started to decrease.. In specimen C5x8. the elastic CMOD became less.42. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected. Unfortunately. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. as shown in the photo. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD.5P5.000 cycles. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count.5 H5M In specimen C5x8.000 cycles. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. there was a crack at midspan. 75 . no plastic CMOD was acquired. as more cycles were applied. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. after 10. due to operation problems.42 Specimen C5 x 8.000 cycles. they were very close to each other. At around one million cycles. however. In other words.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. which was 115mm (4. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. But.Figure 2. until one million cycles had elapsed. In addition.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size.
This characterization was further verified through monitoring of the evolution of hysteresis plots. As more cycles are applied. The second stage is crack stabilization at which the length of a crack is approximately constant. limiting the opening requirement of monitored cracks. The rebar/concrete shear stress is at a maximum a short distance from the crack surface. with four beam widths utilized to simulate different bar spacing in bridge deck slabs. thus quantifying the evolution of energy loss per 76 . with slower growth in crack opening. Effects of overloads at pre-cracking. The reported observation by other investigators that cyclic load improves the bonding stiffness between concrete and FRP bars may be attributable to initiation of secondary flexural cracks. and then decreases with distance from the crack surface. The cracks were initiated by static pre-cracking. 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. One is crack development. The CMODs were recorded when specimens were under cyclic load at working stress level. Consequently. the experiments covered one steel rebar and two different types of FRP bars. there is additional shear stress introduced onto the bar surface. and. When a secondary crack appears close to a primary crack. In summary. the secondary crack will propagate along with the primary one and this “stiffening” effect may become even stronger. For FRP RC. which is characterized by growing crack opening and length. the results indicate that there are two stages of crack growth. the primary crack appears “stiffer” and its elastic CMOD becomes smaller.
cycle. For the steel RC. The plastic CMOD appeared to grow slightly with the number of cycles. The reported improvement of bonding stiffness due to cyclic loads by others may be attributable to this phenomenon. C5x8. although the surfaces were a little uneven.5P5. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios.5P5 and C6x8. 77 . Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks. The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence. The profiles of crack length for C4x8. but at a decreasing rate. The crack development stage for conventional steel R/C was observed to be shorter and less apparent when compared with FRP RC. the specimens showed no sign of distress or significant alteration of crack opening behavior. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading.5P5 indicated that the crack tips stopped at the same normal distance length from the top of the beam.
Secondly. First. To estimate the opening of a crack in a reinforced concrete beam. which is the rebar element in ABAQUS program. it is difficult to estimate crack opening for complex structures and loading such as bridge deck slabs. Once valid finite element model parameters are established. and predict the performance of other structures. The objective is to be able to make use of the existing experiment results. The drawback of this approach is that the 78 . initial crack mouth opening distance will be estimated. it will be used to analyze more complex structures with cracks. Estimation of Crack Opening It has long been known that reinforced concrete is difficult to model. a fatigue model will be used to simulate the crack development. a discrete crack model will be used. which was utilized for this investigation. A finite element method will be calibrated to estimate the initial CMOD at static pre-cracking of the specimens which were tested. 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. Reinforcing bars may be modeled as truss element. Although ACI 440 has modified the Gergely-Lutz equation. the simulation is divided in two steps.Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth The experimental results have illustrated the performance of a number of FRP RC beam specimens. Due to the fact that crack growth is composed of development and stabilization.
however. for this investigation. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. however. In the first case. and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it. which is not the case in reality. They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study. The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 . The apparent reason for this difficulty was that the overall behavior of the finite element (FE) model is very sensitive to the local bond-slip model. No success was achieved. When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements. however. The model is not necessarily unique.1. Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3. Initially.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar. shown above in Figure 3. a crack is modeled as a precracked surface.1 Debonded Length Representation Two simplified finite element modeling approaches have been proposed. a substantial effort was made to simulate the mechanical behavior of the contact between the concrete and rebar.
length from the crack surfaces. Figure 3. It reaches its maximum value. Within the debonded length. however. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar. The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens. Based on this representation.2 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4 A debonded length was calibrated for each specimen based on the experimental results. relatively close to the crack surface. Different specimens will result in different values of debonded length as shown in 80 . The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. The disadvantage of this model is that the interaction of two crack surfaces is neglected. A typical finite element model with debonded length representation is shown below. At distances further away from the crack surface. the bond stress decreases. the stress within reinforcement can be calculated.
Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces.5P5 C5x8.17 0. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material.21 0.19 0.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.3). The justification of the model is as follows.5P5 C6x8.22 0. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. however. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.1 in). after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. As mentioned earlier.23 0.17 0.16 C3x8.5P5 C4x8. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. will make this representation insensitive to crack length. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0.the table below. to account 81 . Interestingly. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. The height is the true height of a crack.5mm (0. A small base dimension.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model.
5P4 82 .3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3. 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.for the interaction between crack surfaces. Fictitious Material Figure 3.
83 .20 0. It is another possible indication of a size effect.5P5 C4x8. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.5P5 C6x8. However. Specimen C3x8.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.20 0.24 0.20 0.20 0. Normally.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.2.5P5 C5x8. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack. below. Also. of the fictitious material was calibrated for each specimen based upon the assumed triangular dimensions and upon the experimental results after the CMOD reached its maximum value.The Young’s modulus. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.24 0.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.20 Efic 27. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis. Efic.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0.
under repeated loading. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff. at the crack tip. the fewer the interlocks become. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. several components in the fracture process zone. including aggregate bridging and crack surface friction within cracks. with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength. At the beginning of cyclic loading. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3.Concrete has been categorized as a quasi-brittle material for its fracture process zone at the crack tip. in this model. the interlocks. have to be overcome.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 . In the case of cyclic loading. The more cyclic loads are applied. Af c1 Figure 3. Therefore. Consequently. 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. the fracture process zone may behave differently.
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. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. the following equations are obtained. (3-6) 85 . 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. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). hb stands for the beam height. 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). Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. ac stands for the crack length. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete.In the diagram above.
the following equation is obtained. under either monotonic or cyclic loading. Consequently. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. shown below in Figure 3. In other words. based on finite element analysis. So the following relation is obtained.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. This assumption will later be verified. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. Utilizing this behavioral assumption. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. 86 .6.
KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation. the following equation is obtained. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows.32( c ) 2 − 13.1( c ) 3 + 14. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . ∆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). L is the spacing of cracks.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. after rearrangement. and N is the number of cycles.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results. 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.39( ac a a a ) + 7. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively.12 − 1. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac .
04( c ) 2 + 14.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6. hb is the beam height. D was 610mm (24 in). The angle α has the following expression. 88 . c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.G( a c a c a c a c ac .88(1 − c )5 − 2.16( c ) − 31. ) = 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 ) = 0.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.04(1 − c )5 + 1. M is the bending moment.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.63 + 25.84(1 − c )5 + 0. P is the concentrated load. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.17 − 28. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.46 + 3.22( c ) + 34.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.54( c ) 2 − 14.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.06( c ) + 0.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5.
5H5 C4x8.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .0011 5 72 Table 3. the hinge assumption is justified.3. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.5P5 C5x8. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.00128 = 0.006407 0. the following equations are obtained.0011 5.006973 × 12 = 0.5P5 0.01121 × 7.5H5 C5x8. we have the following equation.00127 = 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also. with relative differences all less than 10%. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.5 72 0.5 = 0. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.00109 5.5 72 0. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.00696 0.S. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).00119 = 0.5P5 C6x8.01302 × 6 = 0.00654 0.
6x10-17 and 3.25x10-4. To address these variables with uncertainties. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. Three different C values were used.S. units. 6. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. using specimen C5x8. which will be determined based on experimental results.76. 2. the exact spacing of cracks is random.76x10-4.Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack Growth Estimation The unknown Paris Equation parameters in the crack growth simulation are C and m. with possibly different initial crack lengths. 7.8. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. The parameter m was set to be 3. namely. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . depending on the ingredients and curing process.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. the opening increment only changed by 0. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. In the case of multiple cracks.5H5 as a prototype. First. corresponding to 2x10-16. The results were shown in Figure 3. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m .005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. 6. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987).
86. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984).01mm less. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. the model is insensitive to C. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. and that each was completely different from the others.86.76 and 3. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6.76. the measured surface crack was always an estimate.5 in). 3.were similar to each other. however. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. 91 . Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%.66. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm. Obviously. did not change more than 0.003mm. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. The final crack opening increment might be 0. 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.76x10-4 and m at 3. 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. C was therefore fixed at 6.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m .9. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. The crack opening increment. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3.
the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. Finally.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0.13. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.12 and 3. with a difference of about 40mm.11. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef.5MPa and 41.6MPa to 41. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. The crack opening growth. with fixed C of 6.76x10-4 and m of 3. 34. yet all cracks stop at the same length.10 and 3.76. 1.4MPa. The height of specimen 92 . approximately. The error for crack opening increment was about 0. The width of specimen C5x8. The plots are shown in Figure 3. The crack opening increment was approximately 0.25 in). and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other.002mm less. Values of Ec were set at 27.3Ef were examined.001mm less. however. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. As Ec increased from 27. The plots are shown in Figure 3. the values of Ef .6MPa.4MPa.15Ef and 1.
In summary. For other variables. and vice versa.14 and 3.C5x8. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. crack length.15. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. 93 . the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. The plots are shown in Figure 3. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range.001mm less. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. however. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. This model is most sensitive. and specimen size. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. due to the nature of the exponential function.25 in). The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0. with 6mm less beam height. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation.
76x10-4) 94 .5H5 (m=3.Figure 3.76) Figure 3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.5H5 (C=6.
76x10-4 m=3.Figure 3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76) 95 .5H5 (C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.
76) Figure 3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76) 96 .5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.
76x10-4 m=3.76) 97 .76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.
As the goal was to simulate the experiments. For parameters C and m in Paris equation.5H5. The results are listed from Figure 3. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.16 to 3. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth.18. since m is the exponential term. which illustrates a size effect. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. Similar results are shown Figure 3. For specimens of group H.22. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. To simplify the model. A summary was shown in Figure 3. using a brute force approach.19 to 3. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. 98 . The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U.23.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ).5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. units. all specimens except C6x8. For both thin and thick specimens. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . In other words. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m.S.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987).
the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. m=3.76x10-4. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. In the case of FRP concrete. When the specimen width increases. and.48 99 . a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. Figure 3.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. C=6.5H5. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. however.
C=6.Figure 3. m=3.5H5.76 100 .76x10-4.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.76x10-4.5H5.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. C=6.57 Figure 3.
39 Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.76x10-4.5P5.76x10-4.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. C=6.55 101 . C=6. m=3. m=3.Figure 3.5P5.
m=3.76x10-4. C=6.88 102 .22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.Figure 3. C=6. m=3.5P5.76x10-4.74 Figure 3.5P5.
4 Group H Group P 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .6 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.8 m Value 3.4 3.
and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. To account for the effect of continuity. plus top and bottom chord 104 . and to simulate a worst case scenario. For a cast-in-place concrete slab.3-1. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. Secondly. due to its relative simplicity.55S for positive moments. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters. The arching effect will also be examined. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models.6. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4. The values of strip width are based on experience.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs. the width of primary strip is 660+0. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed.2. First.1. From the AASHTO design guide. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck.
The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3.5m (20 in). All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. which represent the majority of bridges in service. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm.8 m (6 feet). i.7 m (9 feet) and 3.7 m (105 in). 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. and the width of the loading area is always 0.5P5. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. 105 .bars.. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0. For the purpose of simplicity. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.2. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.5-1 in AASHTO. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight.6. the following assumptions are made.2 m (86 in) and 2. 2.8 m. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. The wheel load is 71.1.e. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. The corresponding strip widths are 1. with a lateral spacing of 1. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. 2.86 MPa (125 psi).6 m (12 feet). Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction.7 m (66 in).
8m. 16M Bar at 100mm. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2. Figure 4.5 in2). one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4. the case of a girder spacing of 1.1.2. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.First. To investigate the arching effect.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 .8m (6 ft) was analyzed.
The tensile stress also decreased significantly.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4. it can be seen that a significant area of compressive stress appeared both at the slab top near edge and at the bottom of the slab in the middle. From the stress contour plot.3. 107 . two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.8m. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.
Two cases of girder spacing. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.7m and 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. 108 . 2.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. the effects of girder spacing were examined.8m. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.6m. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.Figure 4. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. The results are illustrated below.
7m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.Figure 4.7m.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .
8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm.Figure 4.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 . Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m.
the bar stress in the slab strip was studied. Next. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression.10. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. 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. 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 magnitude of 111 . In Figure 4. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab.Figure 4.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m. regardless of the girder spacing. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone.
3 ksi).6m Girder Spa. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. The maximum rebar stress at 3. rather than the static ultimate strength.8m Girder Spa. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels.7m Girder Spa. 2.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4. 100mm Bar Spa. 100 1.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 .4 0. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. therefore.1 MPa (10. 120 3.0 ksi). it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. 150mm Bar Spa.6m Girder Spa. The remaining issues. are durability and serviceability. 100mm bar Spa. 100mm Bar Spa.2 1. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles.8 1 1.2 0. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. 3.6 0. including crack opening and slab deflection.stress at the assumed 3.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.0MPa (13.
5 in2).0083 in).058mm (0. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.048mm (0.00202 in). the entire diaphragm was removed.22mm (0. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).21mm (0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0.19mm (0. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0.0085 in).5mm suggested in ACI 440. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. was added at each diaphragm location.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. 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 crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more.0023 in).18mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0. Compared with the maximum 0.0020 in). The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. At the girder spacing of 1. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.0019 in). a top diaphragm bar.0022 in). To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.055mm (0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. Finally. to 0. 113 .051mm (0. which should be acceptable.0073 in). The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.0072 in).051mm (0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.8m girder spacing.
Diaphragms were removed for the 114 .108mm (0.080mm (0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.5 in2). which.53mm (0. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.4mm (0. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0.13 mm (0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.055 in). The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm. again. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.0032 in). should be acceptable. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.089 mm (0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2.077mm (0.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3.021 in).00303 in).0031 in). The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0.077mm (0. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0042 in).
6m.02 in). and due to their ineffectiveness. its expected conservatism. at 150mm spacing. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. The strip width is. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low.2m. there are four legal loads. 9. namely an opening of less than . Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design.0063 in). The axle spacings are 3. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. In the State of Ohio. 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. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. which is composed of one axle load of 53. presumably.sake of simplicity.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75.6m (12 ft). under the design truck load and lane loads. however.16 mm (0.2m. somewhat arbitrary. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. 1. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. due to its simplicity and.4m and 1.5mm (. 115 . under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.62 KN (17 kips). The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.
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.3m (60 ft) long. which would generate too many elements. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4.6 KN (8 kips). The spacing between the 116 . The model bridge was single span of 18. The second and third axles are 142. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. The front axle load is 35. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. such as 5C1. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection.27m (14 ft).5 in). especially including discrete rebars.producing a total length of 15.5m. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. Similar to slab strip model. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. The design truck is composed of three axles. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). the slab was supported by three girders. With the fictitious material representation. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load.5 KN (32 kips). The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. Due to the large size of the structure.
The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. minimum spacing of 4.05m (10 ft).27m (14 ft) and 9.8m (6 ft). To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 .second axle and the third axle varies between 4. Compared with Figure 4. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. using the fictitious material model. spanning the two girder spacings. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. In the case of single span bridge.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4. with no diaphragms.11 and 4.11. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. relative to the actual imposed stress field.35 KN/m (0.081mm.15m (30 ft). girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.053mm. In Figure 4.4. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS.12. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. a slab strip model under the same condition was created. For comparison purposes. in the bridge model.64 Kips/ft).27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition.
The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.8m. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge.6m spacing. as expected. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle.crack opening prediction. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly.041mm.6m (12 ft). The single “dome” was split into two again. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.6m. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar. Without diaphragms.6m (15 ft). The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 18.104.22.168m (6 ft) to 3. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. As the girder spacing changed from 1.058mm. Finally. as an indication of the arching effect. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.15 through 4.14. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 .7m and 3. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. and excessive crack opening predictions. 2.13 and 4. From the model and results shown in Figure 4.15. there was always one compression “dome”.
The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. as shown in Figure 4.41mm. the maximum final crack opening was 0. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. Nevertheless. 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.21 mm.22 for the bridge model with 1.6m (12 ft).21. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. 119 .8m girder spacing. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. The model is shown in Figure 4.6m (12 ft) girder spacing.of the same model without diaphragms. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. Even at a girder spacing 3.3. Even including an impact factor of 1. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion.
120 . Slab thickness 215mm.Figure 4.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 1.8m. Lane Load and Self-Weight. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.
14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 121 .8m.
7m.Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.
17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.6m.Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3. Lane Load and Self-Weight.
8m Girder Spa.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.7m Girder Spa.8m Girder Spa.2 2.w / Diaph.Figure 4. 2. 1.6m Girder Spa. 0.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.3 1. CMOD (mm) 0. 0.6m Girder Spa.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .No Diaph. 3.7m Girder Spa.w / Diaph.No Diaph. 3.No Diaph.w / Disph.
8m.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.06 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .04 0.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.0. 1.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight. (Girder spacing 1.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.
between girders.Figure 4. The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders. As the majority of 126 . When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. To compute the distribution factors. slab thickness. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight. there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed load. In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. For the critical girder. one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load. Then. A cracked section has a smaller stiffness than the uncracked portion the slab in the transverse direction. design loads are first applied to a bridge. and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge.
006 for FRP bars in this 127 . there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. although temperature and shrinkage effects. As a result.0018 × 60. respectively. In the longitudinal slab direction. ρ = 0. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. as discussed below. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. 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 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. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. are resisted by larger concrete sections. at girder lines.000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0.
and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action.6m (12 ft). it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be serviceability. for girder spacing up to 3.6m 912 ft). In summary. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. top and bottom in both directions. Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs. Therefore. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988. instead of ultimate strength. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. and it does provide adequate strength. The analysis results of this study indicate that reinforcement of 16M (#5) at 150mm (6 in) spacing is satisfactory for girder spans up to 3.study. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. 1989). 128 . and the arching effect on strength. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. Although this design seems to be simple. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction.
129 .The somewhat larger predicted crack openings associated with FRP RC bridge decks should be considered admissible by bridge owners and inspectors. given the enhanced corrosion resistance.
Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. under constant load amplitude. The permanent CMOD at zero load. the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. the elastic CMOD. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. that bonding between concrete and FRP actually can be improved under cyclic loading. The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC. experiences growth to stabilization. The elastic CMOD disappears after unloading. generally increases with the number of load cycles.000. In addition. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD. FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs. As more load cycles are applied. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles. The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions. Current results from this investigation cannot confirm the results of other researchers. The specimens with more than balanced reinforcement ratio presented multiple cracks in static pre-cracking whereas only one crack appeared for the specimen with a near balanced reinforcement ratio. The general trend of elastic CMOD is that it grows with fluctuation until 130 . At the end of 2. even for the case of widely spaced cracks. which is the plastic portion.000 cycles of full service load testing.
A size effect was observed.convergence. The first representation is a debonded length representation. the exponential parameter in the Paris equation decreased. A debonded length of 25mm (1 in) between the concrete and the FRP rebar. which originated during cyclic testing. for several different reinforcement spacing. No tangential relative displacement was allowed between rebar and concrete beyond the assumed debonded length. To extend the findings to typical bridge deck slab design. Tensile stress at the crack tip was included in the section stress distribution. The second finite element representation is a fictitious material representation. was found to be a conservative estimate. and then to analyze realistic bridge deck slabs. A model which is based on the Paris equation was proposed to predict the evolution of crack growth. The modulus of elasticity 131 . two simplified finite element crack representations were developed to simulate the test specimen behavior. The stress intensity factor was assumed to be the sum of those for pure bending and for the concentrated force within the FRP bar. As the thickness of the specimen decreases. on each side of a crack. The CMOD reduction encountered in the tests was possibly attributable to the effects of additional cracks. The model has been proved to predict crack growth in FRP RC reasonably well. The sensitivity analysis illustrated that the model was most sensitive to the exponential parameter. 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.
due to the fact that a very large number of elements were required. arching action within the deck slab between adjacent girders is enhanced. larger crack opening will appear.of the fictitious material was calibrated based on the testing results at the crack stabilization stage. The assumption that bond fatigue strength is the critical issue in FRP bridge deck slab design. excessive deflections of interior girders will generate one larger compression “dome” covering more than two girders. are instrumental in the serviceability of bridge slabs. when diaphragms were included in the model. By reducing the differential deflections between girders. The debonded length FE representation was used to analyze an AASHTO slab strip model. with much less effective arching action. In the case of weak or absent diaphragms. 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. The results indicated that the stress in the FRP reinforcement was relatively low. was thus verified. 132 . Consequently. Top chord bars in the diaphragms were shown to be ineffective in reducing the predicted crack openings. The diaphragms. The fictitious material FE representation was used to analyze a complete bridge slab. however. Different reinforcement spacing generated somewhat different moduli of elasticity for the fictitious material.
Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis. The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 . Reinforcement of 16M spaced at 150mm top and bottom in both directions appears to be satisfactory for girder spacing up to 3. Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength.The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. since arching effect has typically been ignored. reinforcement.6m. A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design.
supported by multiple girders. They include seasonal temperature variation. Development of accelerated testing techniques for durability would be a breakthrough for FRP technology. The experiments should be extended to actual FRP reinforced concrete slabs. under moving loads. The experimental work has been limited to beams with FRP reinforcement. Although FRP concrete slab is corrosion resistant. The complete empirical slab design algorithm deserves to be verified. Size effects under variable amplitude should be evaluated. alkaline or acidic solutions and saline solutions. The crack growth under loads of variable amplitude requires experimental investigation. water invasion. a bridge slab is under moving traffic loads of variable amplitudes. The portions of stress 134 . In reality. 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. The variability of cracking and crack growth is evident in the experiments. there are many other environmental factors involved during the life span. Stochastic models may be developed to describe the variations. The Paris equation may have to be revised.Chapter 6 Future Research The experiments conducted in this research were limited to loads of constant amplitude at a fixed location.
The variability of crack growth may be determined statistically. the normal crack length has been used. light weight and ease in construction. FRP rods can be a direct substitute of steel reinforcement. The most promising structure modules should possess excellent load distribution. the topside load has to be supported. Any reduction of the topside weight by using FRP composites will reduce the cost of supporting structure. The actually crack profile may be described by a fractal geometry. In this study. In a floating offshore platform. The dynamic characteristics of FRP tendons under wave action should be studied. TLP tendons may also be composed of FRP. In offshore structures. in which case a crack profile may be simulated. Being composite also makes it possible to have different forms. such as a tension leg platform (TLP). which includes the weight of the accommodation module and production facilities. 135 . Structure types may include different configurations such as a sandwich type. The model may be also extended to random loadings. The distribution of crack opening growth may be predicted by the model. Low weight and excellent fatigue performance are also the advantages in this environment. corrosion resistance is also one of the major concerns.intensity factors in the Paris equation may be randomized by adding noise.
. Compilation 33. O. JCTRER. Benmokrane. B. Fracture of Concrete and Rock.91.B. A. American Concrete Institute. Vol. 136 . Baluch. 80-87 8. A. No.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. 2004 2. “440. M. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. 2001 5. American Concrete Institute. Vol. Texas. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. R.E. American Concrete Institute. S. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. Nanni. Committee 440. C. ACI Structural Journal. Houston. S. SEM-RILEM International Conference. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. Chaallal.H. M. June 17-19. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. 1995 7.P. 1987.2.K. A.Bibliography 1. ACI Committee 215. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 20. S. Qureshy. USA. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. pp. S. January 1998. Swartz. 1996 4. 1992 6. Al-Dulaijan. No. 1. 2000 3. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Bakis. Shah. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. Masmoudi. Boothby. pp 29-37.
Manfredi. Shah. Philleo. 14. 2000. Journal of Composites for Construction. B. L.5.P. 12.K. February. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. Vol. Vol. No. Balaguru. Graddy. 1997. Ned H. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. 137 . Hilsdorf. Mabsout. August. August 1969. J. Vol. August 2000. pp 40-51.P. H. Klingner. G. H. Gergely. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. No. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”.9.2. Tarhini. T. Burns. Vol. pp 659-673. Cosenza. P.1. Causes. American Concrete Institute. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. pp 83-87.87-117. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. G. Publication SP-75. pp 139-147. SP-20. 1982 11. Vol. Editor S.3. American Concrete Institute.2. 10. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. The University of Texas at Austin. No. K. Journal of Bridge Engineering.E. H. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. C.66. Kupfer. May 1997. 13.3. C. M. R. Vol. Journal of Composites for Construction. ACI Journal. Bakht. R. R. No. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Lutz. S. pp137-144. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. Detroit. Center for Transportation Research.1. E. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. No. pp. Frederick. 16. Larralde. May.4.5. A. 17. 1993.2. Richard E. John C. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. 15.
S. S. R. Shield. C. Perdikaris.. Swartz. S. A. 12-26. S. Shah.N. 1987.E. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. ACI Structural Journal. S. National research Council. French. Vol. 21.18. C. ASCE.E. Journal of Structural Engineering. Detroit. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”.P. 1982 138 .3. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete.A. 114. 24. Zokaie.M.. Nutt.K. S. pp.. No.C. P.C. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. Vol. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. 483-491. Swartz. 64-69 22. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. R. A. Beim. Editor S. 1987 19. Shah.C. Transportation Research Board.M. Texas. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. C.C. pp. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. Swartz.P. 86. S. Perdikaris. NCHRP Project No. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. July-August 1989. 2. 1995 23. Vol. T.4.E. Oct. K. Publication SP-75.P. John Wiley & Sons. March 1988. 591607. Houston. Huang. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. June 17-19. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. P. Shah. Inc. 1997. pp 381-388. S. C. P. No. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Perdikaris. USA. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Beim. pp. Washington D. 20. American Concrete Institute.
Paris. pp.528-534. Vol. pp129- 134. 28. Banthia and P. 2001 139 . 1963 29. November 1982. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. Vijay. H.6. pp.24.H. Transactions of ASME.11. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. C. Paris Productions Inc. Canada. J. F. Hota V. edited by P. K. Hu. GangaRao. 27. 1985 30. No. P. 2002. Vancouver. P. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Swartz. Canada.E. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. Montreal.C. Brett. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”.K. Paris.V. Swartz. 26.2.85. Experimental Mechanics. Vol. No.98. Journal of Basic Engineering.S. M. June 1984. S. P. Buckland.25. Experimental Mechanics. Fartash. G. Tada.E. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. N. ACI Structural Journal. C.22. Second Edition. Vol. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. S. Vol.G. No..412-417.G.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.