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 .
6 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .18 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.10 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.9 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.17 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.2 KN Pmax=15.8 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.2 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 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=2.12 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.11 Figure 2.List of Figures Figure 2.
5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 Figure 2.24 Figure 2.26 Figure 2.30 Figure 2.25 Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.2 KN Pmax=15.31 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.6 KN) Figure 2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.23 Figure 2.27 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.33 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.6 KN) Figure 2.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.6 KN) Figure 2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .32 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.
6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.3 Figure 3.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.1 Figure 3.5P5OL and C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5P5 Figure 2.42 Specimen C5 x 8.5H5OL.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.Beam C5x8. C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.39 Figure 2.5S5 Figure 2.7 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens 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 .5 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C6x8.
m=3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4 m=3.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .5H5 (C=6. C=6.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76) Figure 3.76x10.5H5 (C=6. Beam C3x8.5H5 (C=6. Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.4.76x10.4.76) Figure 3. Beam C4x8.5H5.76x10.76) Figure 3.5H5.48 Figure 3.76x10.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.4 m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6. m=3.76x10.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.4.5P5.76x10. C=6.4.57 Figure 3.76x10.76x10.5H5.4 m=3.76x10.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8. C=6.4 m=3.4 m=3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3. m=3.76 Figure 3.5H5 (C=6. C=6.76x10.4) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.4 m=3.5H5 (m=3. Beam C3x8. m=3.for Beam C6x8.76) Figure 3.
3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.76x10. Beam C6x8.4.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm.8m. Beam C5x8. C=6. m=3.5P5.5P5. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4. m=3.8m. Beam C4x8.4.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. C=6.4.21 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. 16M Bar at 100mm.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.5P5. C=6. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4. m=3.8m.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .7m.76x10.8m.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.55 101 Figure 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4.76x10.88 102 103 Figure 3.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.Figure 3.74 102 Figure 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.7m.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3.
Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. Lane Load and Self-Weight.8m.8m. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Slab thickness 215mm. Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. Figure 4.10 Figure 4. Figure 4. Figure 4. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.6m.8m. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.7m. (Girder spacing 3.
1. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.Figure 4.20 Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.8m.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.
2 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .1 Table 3.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.
Acknowledgements I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Saada as my instructor and sponsor. he is a role model for living and working. I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. To me. Throughout my research. His teaching will benefit me for years to come. I have enjoyed our discussions very much. Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support. Huckelbridge for his guidance. 11 .
List of Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI CMOD FE FRP GFRP LEFM LFD LRFD RC American Concrete Institute Crack Mouth Opening Displacement Finite Element Fiber-Reinforced Polymers Glass FRP Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Load Factor Design Load and Resistance Factor Design Reinforced Concrete 12 .
FRP Reinforced Concrete and its Application in Bridge Slab Design
by Yunyi Zou
ABSTRACT For decades, bridge slabs have been troubled by the corrosion of steel reinforcements. The unique corrosion resistance of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymers) bars makes them a promising alternative to steel bars. Because of the relatively low elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement, the post-cracking serviceability often is the controlling factor in the flexural design of FRP reinforced concrete. Since bridge deck slabs are under repeated traffic loads, it is the post-cracking serviceability under cyclic loads that becomes vital in the design and maintenance decision-making process.
Experiments have been conducted to investigate the post-cracking flexural performance of FRP RC (reinforced concrete) under constant amplitude cyclic loading. Each specimen tested was a beam with a single FRP bar at the bottom. Two different types of FRP bars were used. The crack opening was monitored for specimens of different size. Up to 2 million cycles of cyclic loads have been applied at 100% service load levels. It has been found that there are two stages in the crack growth of FRP reinforced concrete. The first stage is early growth, which is characterized by increasing crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). The second stage is the stabilization of CMOD and crack length. No fatigue failure was encountered in the testing under service loading and moderate overloads. The effects of moderate overload on observed crack
growth were also investigated.
The performances of two different FRP bars were
compared. A model was proposed to predict long term crack growth in FRP R/C under cyclic loading, based on the Paris equation.
Two FE (finite element) crack representations were examined.
One was a
debonded length representation. In this model it was assumed that there was a debonded length around each crack, within which there was no tangential interaction between concrete and reinforcement. Beyond the debonded length, the interface between concrete and reinforcement was tied with no relative movement. The other representation
examined was a fictitious material crack representation. A fictitious material was placed in a triangular crack cross section, with a maximum width of 2.5mm (0.1 in). Then, the modulus of elasticity of the fictitious material was calibrated, based on the observed testing results, after crack growth had stabilized. Both representations have been used to analyze bridge slabs. Finally, an empirical slab design was discussed.
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.
known as the fracture process zone. as soon as cracking occurs. The tensile forces in the bars and resultant compressive force in concrete increase as depth of intact concrete and fracture process zone decrease. there is a surge of forces in the bars. the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. 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. the crack length generally is deeper on the sides than in the middle. the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value. For quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. The relatively low Young’s modulus of FRP. Within the fracture process zone. Shah (1995) summarized the interaction within the fracture process zone as microcracking. crack face friction. particularly so if 16 . It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost independent of specimen thickness. aggregate bridging. crack branching. In the case of FRP RC beams under bending. it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures. In the case of smaller scale structures. particularly in composite materials. The most commonly encountered serviceability requirements in RC structures are maximum deflection and crack opening control. Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments. which is about one fifth of the Young’s modulus of conventional steel reinforcement. and etc. crack deflection. There exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack. the aforementioned complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM. with a relatively small fracture process zone. Consequently. Cracking is a complex phenomenon. crack tip blunting by voids.
and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression.1R-01. P. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. 17 . Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. the aggregate bridging will be less. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. In ACI 440. Consequently. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. concrete cover and stress level. the number of bars. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars. the Gergely-Lutz equation has been modified to estimate the crack opening of FRP RC members by simply replacing the steel strain with FRP strain.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. dc is the concrete cover to bar center.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. Gergely and L. w = 0. crack face friction will be smaller. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete.
dc is the concrete cover to bar center. In the analysis of cyclic loading. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. 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. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 . similar to steel bars. ACI 440. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions. to be 0. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. in the case of no available experimental data. slippage moment and fracture moment. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars.00. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. w= 2 . A value of 1. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. 1.71. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP. 1. a corrective coefficient kb is introduced.2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar.
(1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams under four-point bending. tension or flexure. Apparently. The proposed equation is as follows. The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 102 and 107 cycles. Although Paris’s law was developed for steel. regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression. Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains and microcracking. is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. da = C (∆K ) m dN (1-3) Where a is the crack length. which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete. Perdikaris et al. The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent. C and m are material parameters. N is the number of cycles. It was concluded that the Paris equation results in 19 . P. Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems. The report by ACI committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement.fracture moment. this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels). In early 1960s.C. Crack length was also recorded based on the CMOD compliance measurements. researchers have tried to verify if it was also valid for concrete. ∆K is the stress intensity factor difference at maximum and minimum loading.
it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. Baluch et al. height 20 . a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. Z. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. were close to one for different specimens. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. The material parameter m was found to be 3.P.3 respectively.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length. although the units were not stated explicitly. 0. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25.15 at R=0. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. Therefore.12.1.12 and 3. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. however. 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. Similarly. 0. Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. 3.2.
The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length. The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. However. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. 21 . The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance.and notch length. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. although they were parallel to each other.26. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf). the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. Different lines were obtained for different beam size. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. Therefore. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. The thickness was constant for all beams. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack. for fracture under monotonic loading. utilizing a three point bending test setup.
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
7mm and 16mm. C. Basically. 12. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete. Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles. there was one protruding test bar. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. steel bars and concrete.E. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. C. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles.fatigue loading. in order to ensure sufficient development length. due to the damage to the bar. The bar diameters were 10. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. with one supplementary bar on each side. however. An embedment length of five diameters was used. At both the top and bottom of a specimen.000 cycles. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. The beam section was 100mmx180mm.1mm. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. In the test setup. Thermal fatigue. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars. The load amplitude was 25 . eccentric pull-out tests were conducted. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. The CP bars in their tests exhibited behavior very similar to the Aslan 100 bars made by Hughes Brothers Inc.
friction due to FRP surface roughness. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness. The experiment setups were similar to each other for the two investigations. 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. Shield et al. The actuator displacement verses load observations also supported that conclusion. This work was contradictory to the finding by C. normal pressure between FRP bars and concrete. An effect of bar size has been observed. Among environmental conditions. indented. FRP bars were categorized into straight bars and deformed bars. grain-covered or sandblasted prismatic rods. 26 . mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete. Deformed bars were ribbed. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP bars. The bar slip at the free ends was recorded. bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes. In the case of CP bars.selected to achieve 90%. The authors suggested that slipping of bars might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. Straight bars were smooth. ranging from 75% to 25%. the residual slip after the first cycle was a significant portion of slip at the end of the 100. It was stated that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond. and a survey of bond-slip models was presented. 50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. It was found that the residual bond stiffness was actually higher than the initial bond stiffness. Cosenza et al. depending on the load magnitude. with the average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased.000 cycles. twisted or braided. Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance. A top bar effect also exists for FRP. but the load levels were very different.
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.
30 . The transverse reinforcements are mainly external steel straps or FRP bars. but at a much larger load. due to shakedown in the slab. They included fully studded straps.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck. The position and location of the lateral straps were also analyzed. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage. 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. Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete. For practical purposes. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. B. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing. it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. cruciform straps. partially studded straps. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. The results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. FRP bars and diaphragms. Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to failure under monotonic loading. 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 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. 1989). In the prototype. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. respectively. the spacing was fairly large. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. which was fairly high. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. In either case.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids.13m (7 ft). The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. however. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. the three beams were space at 2. 31 . for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. Models of 1/6.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23.
The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load.55S for positive moment and 1220+0.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. However. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). the width is taken as 660+0. The formula is in U. d. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15.2. where the girder spacing is S.) The span length of a slab is less than 3.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. Due to serviceability requirements.25S for negative moment. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.6. b.1.S.3-1. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. a. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.003 is required in both directions. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. units. the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design.6m (12 ft). The crack control 32 . c. top and bottom. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs.
simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 . Therefore. L is the bridge span. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing.2 K g 0. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually. the formulas for DF are as follows.5.6 S 0. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. For girder spacing S less than 3.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). DF = 0.06 + ( S 0.3 K g 0. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. supported on multiple girders. In other words. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. the AASHTO design codes have traditionally provided lateral distribution factors which account for the maximum possible portion of wheel load (half of axial load) acting on one girder.6m (12 feet). In the current LRFD codes.4 S 0.
1R-01 proposes to design for a strength failure mode of concrete crushing. with a size effect being detected. the bond durability under cyclic loads. the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled with beam elements. the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in applications such as bridge deck slabs. There have been varying results. as the bridge span became larger. but all were less than AASHTO (1996). Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab. In summary. particularly in fatigue environments.elements. FRP itself possesses excellent fatigue properties. The Paris law appears to be applicable in concrete. Some other criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported. ACI 440. to achieve better ductility. has not been thoroughly investigated. The serviceability of FRP RC. or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements. The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from conventional RC. The analysis results showed that the distribution factor decreased. 34 . Sometimes. mostly based on pullout tests. on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads. although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. It was found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26 (1987). however. The performance of FRP RC under monotonic loading has been understood fairly well. deserves to be further investigated before engineers can be expected to be confident with this fairly new material.
Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood. The current bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution. particularly in fatigue environments. the uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters. respectively. 35 . A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening of the test specimens. Subsequently. which is generally reasonable for steel RC. Under the condition of a cracked slab. the lateral load distribution factor will be discussed.Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed. An empirical equation for final crack opening will be proposed. serviceability is often the critical factor in bridge deck slab design. experimental results on fatigue testing of FRP RC will be presented. In this study. Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in applications such as bridge slabs. A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack growth under cyclic loading. the crack opening displacement and crack growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory. analysis results are typically based on uncracked concrete slab properties.1R-01 will be discussed. A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to evaluate the effects. The finite element method has been successfully used for a long time in bridge structural analysis. Other implications on the serviceability provisions in ACI 440. Finally. Although the current design methodology is strength oriented. The finite element model will then be extended to the analysis and crack opening estimation of realistic FRP reinforced concrete bridge deck slabs under actual AASHTO wheel loads. the overall performance of an FRP RC slab on a single span bridge of multiple girders will be analyzed.
One is that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment such as a bridge deck. and their interface. FRP is set to be a promising alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks. rather than its strength. The second issue is that such tests are sensitive to specimen imperfections.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. 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. following an interval of cyclic loading. There are two shortcomings with these approaches. A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a concrete pull-out block. With portions of bar exposed. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is its serviceability. or by RILEM beam bond tests. concrete. 36 . 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. Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be applicable to typical in service conditions. The bond-slip and crack growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated.
5/ 2.0/ 0. but with four different widths were fabricated.5 inches).0/ 2. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. Traditionally. 37 . fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans.9 MPa (4045 psi). Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. Therefore.5MPa (5000 psi). The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.9 MPa (715 psi).83. The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers. The concrete was composed of type III cement. water.
which are reported herein.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested.92E6 psi). 127 mm and 152 mm (3. the beam size in U. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No.5H5.1).5 inches) thick. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8.5H5. For identification purposes. 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.5H5. units follows. Within each beam. Inc. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. C6x8.5H5. C5x8. The beam widths were 76 mm. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. 102 mm.Figure 2. 4. #5. Inc. the last number is the size.S. respectively. 38 . 16 (#5) bars. (see Figure 2. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers.. To simulate a typical bridge slab section. As shown above. C4x8.8 GPa (5. of the FRP bar. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. there was one No.
5P5OL. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2.5P5. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking.5 inches) thick. One more specimen. C4x8.1x106 psi).2). 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. without a helical wrap along the length.5P5. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other.5P5.9 ksi) for #5 bars. C5x8. respectively.Figure 2.5H5M.5P5. Similarly. C6x8. C5x8. 39 . The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98. For identification purposes. C5x8. One specimen. The beam widths were 76 mm.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. 102 mm.5S5. The bars are also sand coated. 4. One extra specimen. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. for comparison purposes. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.
5P5 C5x8.5H5 C5x8.5P5 C6x8.5H5 C6x8.5P5OL C5x8.5H5 C5x8.5S5 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 2.5H5M C3x8.5P5 C5x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5P5 C4x8.1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.5H5 C4x8.Specimen C3x8.
84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.4). The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively.20ffu for FRP bars. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 . 0.68 mm.2.3 and 2. 127 mm and 152 mm. According to ACI 440. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points.75 mm. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. respectively.80 mm and 0. The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.1R-01. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi).Figure 2. 102 mm. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.1R-01. the predicted crack openings are 0. 0. in accordance with ACI 440. Based on nominal kb value of 1.
the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location. However.5H5.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic).23. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. for a bridge of 10.94. the overall frequency is 1. So.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . For a bridge slab under traffic load. for specimen C5x8. Therefore. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction.23 Hz. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour.94 and 0.8 Hz.in carbon FRP.5H5 and C6x8.3 in the factored load. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1. which is the product of 7. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2. Therefore. For a truck with axle spacing of 3.
039 in)). The first specimen tested was C5x8. there was no sign of distress with the specimen.000 cycles. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. the crack lengths became visually constant. Inc.02B-20 and 632.270 mm (+0. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.5H5. Experimental Results (1) Group H .Static pre-cracking was used.118 in to -0.5 inches) below the top of beam. except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.1000 in to -0. After more cycles were applied. within the pure bending region. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude.540 mm to -1. After the first test interval of 5.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was recorded under a ramp load and the first 20 cycles of cyclic load at the beginning of each test interval.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above. respectively.5”). Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection. which was near the theoretical neutral axis.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. for average curvature estimation. and all cracks were stable.
The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. To investigate the effect of overload. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. Pmax was increased to 22.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.5 inches) to 165mm (6.300 N (5.000 cycles.5 inches). Figure 2. The crack length was virtually the same.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing.5H5.6 Specimen C5 x 8. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. the specimen was still in good condition. After 10.000 cycles of this overload.0 kips). 44 .
5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).75 inches) below the top of beam. No addition distress was found in the specimen. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4. up to 1.5H5 was similar.8 million cycles.000 cycles.7 Specimen C3 x 8. Figure 2.5 H5 45 .0 kips) for 15.8 Specimen C4 x 8. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1.Figure 2. Pmax was again increased to 22.300 N (5. To investigate the effect of overload.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.
5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.600 N.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.The behavior of specimen C6x8. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15.000 cycles.5 H5 46 .5 kips). Figure 2. however. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.000 N and 40.9 Specimen C6 x 8.600 N ( 3.000 additional cycles were applied. no new cracks appeared up to 140.000 cycles.5H5 was somewhat different. Pmax was raised back to 20. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. During the subsequent fatigue testing. Therefore. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. After an additional 35. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. The newly formed crack was instrumented. prior to 10.
All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. No new cracks were found in the specimen. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8.0 kips).000 testing cycles.000 N (4. 47 . the specimen was still in good condition. (2) Group P . there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches). After more cycles were applied. A third crack was found around 400 cycles.5 kips) was applied. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30.000 cycles.75 inches) below the top of beam. Pmax of 20.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.000 cycles of overload. To investigate the effect of overload.000.300 N (5. Pmax was finally increased to 22. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. a total of 40. After 10. and all cracks were stable. the crack lengths became visually constant.5P5.000 cycles were applied at this load level. After the first run of 3. with the second and third cracks monitored.To further investigate the overload effect.
10 Specimen C3 x 8.5k).000 N (6. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. After 200 cycles of overload. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. 48 . The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack.Figure 2.5P5. 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.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. Within the pure bending region. After 3000 cycles of overload. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. The average spacing was 200mm (8. the concrete cover started falling off. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.000 load cycles.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.5 inches). as debonding became more pronounced.
300 N (5.11 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5x8. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.0 kips) was applied for 10. 49 . (Unfortunately.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.25 million cycles. By the end of the test.Figure 2. two new cracks appeared. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4.000 cycles. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles. and then began growing.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. Pmax of 22.5 inches) within the pure bending region. To investigate the effect of overload. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. At around 900 cycles.75 in).000 cycles. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling.
000 cycles of overload. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. as expected.300. During the subsequent fatigue testing. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. Pmax was raised to 29.000 cycles. there was no indication of severe distress. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5. Subsequently.000 cycles of this overload were applied. After 50. The two existing cracks then started branching. 50 .Figure 2. After 155.5P5 behaved similarly.000 N (6.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. No extra load was initially added.12 Specimen C5 x 8. however. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload. the specimen was still in good shape.5 kips). no new cracks appeared up to 1.
For specimen C6x8. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading.5 P5OL 51 .14 Specimen C5 x 8. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. For specimen C5x8. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking. followed by cyclic load at service level. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared.5H5..5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.5P5OL.13 Specimen C6 x 8. Figure 2. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing.Figure 2.
Figure 2. No new crack was generated during the test.000 N ( 6.000 cycles.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches).000. At the end of 1. Static pre-cracking was used.75 inches). there was no visible growth of the cracks. Pmax was then increased to 29. there was no sign of distress within the specimen.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. To further investigate the overload effect. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4.300 N (5. and five cracks appeared.5 S5 52 . The specimen was still in good shape after 150. with two very close to each other.000 cycles of this load level.000 cycles. Pmax was first increased to 22.0 kips). Then. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5.15 Specimen C5 x 8. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30. As cyclic load testing started.
due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. acoustic emission and dye penetration. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch).5P5 and C6x8.For all specimens. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. Black ink was injected into the notch. so as to open the crack. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry. As the cracks opened up. After about two hours. For some specimens in group P. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. the images of cross sections of C4x8. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with.14). failed to produce consistently usable results. 53 .5P5. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points.15. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. particularly for large cycle counts. First. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section. C5x8.
16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .Figure 2.
C4x8.5P5 and C6x8. Specimen C6x8. were between 0.5P5.007 for specimens C3x8.16 mm. were 0. had the lowest reinforcement ratio.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.5H5 and C5x8.010.5H5. 0.15 mm. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .6 MPa (4000 psi). In group P.5H5 was 0.2. based on ACI 440.5H5 and C6x8. 0. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings.1R-01 criteria.5H5.5H5. C5x8.013. at least for the bars tested in this investigation.5P5. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.26mm.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0.5H5. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0. C5x8.84 mm for all four specimens.19 and 0. respectively.16 mm and 0.008 and 0. According to the limited test results. a kb value of 0. the service load crack openings. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.5P5.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8. C4x8. 0. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. respectively. Based on these limited tests. the predicted service load crack openings. respectively.0048. were 0. 0.68 mm and 0. 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8. although it was still slightly over-reinforced. 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.5H5. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8.17 mm. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings. C4x8.5H5. As mentioned earlier. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens.
18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD.18).22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. 56 .more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same.20. 2. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does. 2. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load.19. which disappears after unloading.21 and 2. with increasing load cycle counts.
19 and 2.2 KN Pmax=15. but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles.400 C3 x8 . As can be seen in Figure 2. 0. By the end of the tests of one million cycles.200 0. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading. Based on the experimental results. but at a decreasing rate.5H5 0.5H5 C5x8 . elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.20.100 0.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 .5H5 0. 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.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2. with increasing load cycles counts.6 KN) 57 .respectively. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.5H5 C4 x8 .19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.
E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+02 1.5H5 C5x8 .15 CMOD (mm) 0.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5P 5 C 5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.0.E+01 1.5H5 0.200 0.5H5 C6 x8 .5P 5 0.100 1.5P 5 0.1 0.300 C 3x8.2 C3 x8 .5P 5 C 4x8.150 0.E+00 1.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.5H5 C4 x8 .6 KN) 58 .6 KN) 0.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.E+05 1.
0. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles. 59 .5P5 C4 x8 .5H5.5P 5 C6 x8 .5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles. The first stage is crack development. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings).5P5 0. Specimens C3x8.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5H5.2 C3 x8 .6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. It took specimens C6x8.5H5 and C6x8.5P5. during this period of crack development. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 about 10.5H5 and C5x8.5P5 0. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.5P5.1 0. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count. Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. C3x8. C4x8. C5x8. C4x8.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.
Figures 2. it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa.5H5 (see Figure 2. all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness). The general trend of plastic CMOD. For beam C3x8.26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading. The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8. although at a decreasing rate. and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD. The second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length.5H5 (see Figure 2. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error. is that it increases with the number of cycles applied. The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. nearly constant elastic CMOD.23 through 2. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 .5H5 (see Figure 2.25). crack growth reaches the second stage.26). For beam C4x8.Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading.5H5 (see Figure 2. For beam C6x8. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop for any particular load cycle is related to the energy loss by the specimen during that load cycle. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. If the area becomes larger. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. or crack stabilization.23). For beam C5x8. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar.24). Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique.5H5.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings).
2. which is discussed later.27.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .05 0. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading.0 0 0 1.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.for the single crack.29. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.8 4 1.1 0. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .30 and 2.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. 2.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. 2.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.28. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.5P5.5P5.2 0.15 0. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.
5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .15 0.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.1 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .0 0 0 9 8 8 .05 0.2 Figure 2.05 0.15 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 1.0 0 0 2 8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .2 0.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 2 .25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .
26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.4 0.1 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .15 0.2 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.05 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.000 140.3 0.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.
000 900.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.000 900.15 0.1 0.1 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 0.2 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.05 0.2 0.05 0.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.
5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.1 0.000 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.05 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .2 0.000 600.000.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.1 0.15 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.15 0.000 1.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.2 0.050.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.
00E-06 0. 2. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section.00E-05 C3 x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .33). micro-cracking. friction. etc.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section.32 and 2.5H5 1. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.20E-05 8. at unit width.32 and 2. The pseudo energy loss per crack. 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. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles. From Figure 2. damping.00E-06 4.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 .5H5 1.5H5 C6 x8 .33.
as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased. the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.00E-05 C3 x8 .00E-05 5.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases.5H5.00E-06 0. generally speaking. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.5P5 C6 x8 .5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .50E-05 2. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.2.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1. Similarly in group P.5H5 and C4x8.50E-05 1. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles. 67 .5P5 C4 x8 .33 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P These tests seem to indicate that fatigue damage to FRP RC is related to bar spacing/reinforcement ratio.5H5 and C6x8.
a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.36 and 2. as shown in Figure 2.2 0. It would appear that relatively modest overloads.3 KN Beam C5x8.5H5. For specimen C6x8. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.34).000 load cycles. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 . The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.37. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2. up to 40% over service load levels. For specimen C5x8.15 CMO D (mm) 0. a 30% overload was applied after 180.5H5.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.1 0.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.25 Figure 2.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. Similar results were obtained in group P.5H5 68 .35).
0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.5H5 20 1.1 0.3 0.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.4 Figure 2.2 0.2 CMO D (mm) 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 KN Beam C5x8.3 Figure 2.5P5 69 .25 0.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.
no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. at the working stress level. 70 . but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. as shown in Figure 2.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.38.1 0. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage.15 0.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 . The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. for the Isorod rebars. there was fatigue hardening.3 KN Beam C6x8.05 0.2 0.000 cycles.37 0. and CMOD started growing again.000 cycles of loading. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. At the same time. Only after 10.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. In the subsequent loading cycles.
0.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5S5 and C5x8.Comparing group H.00 1 -0.20 0.5P5.5H5 and C5x8.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 . C5x8.5P5.5H5M Figure 2. However.15 0.5H5 and C5x8.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.10 0. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.35 0.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.5H5OL.05 0. Compared with FRP bars.5H5M (Pmin=2.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.30 0.25 CMOD (mm) 0.
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. No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. As more cycles were applied. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . Figure 2.considerably lower. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars. Figure 2. The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC. or closer to rebar at the bottom. In the crack stabilization stage. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. the crack length was visually constant. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC.75 in). an overload of 40% above working stress was applied. During the service level fatigue testing. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars. 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. After one million cycles under working stress.000 response cycles. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. although no overload was applied. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed. The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4.
04 0.06 C MO D (mm) 0.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.5S5 73 .40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.40.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.02 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 1.02 0. At the same time.04 0.06 Figure 2. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.000.1 Figure 2.03 CMO D (mm) 0.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .01 0.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.000 280.08 0.05 0. unlike FRP RC.
5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. sometimes. for specimen C5x8.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.41.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per crack.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking.5H5.00E-06 3.5P5 and C5x8. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.5S5 Thus far. 74 . there are cracks in close proximity to each other.5S 5 C5x8.00E-06 0.00E-06 4.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5. 7.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 2.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.5S5 and C5x8.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. at unit width. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.00E-06 1.00E-06 6.5P5OL and C5x8.
But.000 cycles. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected.42 Specimen C5 x 8. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. until one million cycles had elapsed. In other words. no plastic CMOD was acquired. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs.000 cycles.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. the elastic CMOD became less.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack.5P5.5H5M shown above in Figure 2.42. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. due to operation problems. as more cycles were applied.000 cycles. there was a crack at midspan. which was 115mm (4.Figure 2. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. At around one million cycles. it began to stabilize. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. In specimen C5x8. Unfortunately. as shown in the photo. however. after 10. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count.. In addition. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. they were very close to each other. 75 .
When a secondary crack appears close to a primary crack. The CMODs were recorded when specimens were under cyclic load at working stress level. The cracks were initiated by static pre-cracking. which is characterized by growing crack opening and length. This characterization was further verified through monitoring of the evolution of hysteresis plots. and. and then decreases with distance from the crack surface. The rebar/concrete shear stress is at a maximum a short distance from the crack surface. on fully developed cracks were also investigated. the results indicate that there are two stages of crack growth. For FRP RC. One is crack development. the primary crack appears “stiffer” and its elastic CMOD becomes smaller. the experiments covered one steel rebar and two different types of FRP bars. The second stage is crack stabilization at which the length of a crack is approximately constant. As more cycles are applied.The shear stress distribution along a bar can also be utilized as a vehicle to further explain this multiple-crack phenomenon. Effects of overloads at pre-cracking. The reported observation by other investigators that cyclic load improves the bonding stiffness between concrete and FRP bars may be attributable to initiation of secondary flexural cracks. limiting the opening requirement of monitored cracks. with slower growth in crack opening. thus quantifying the evolution of energy loss per 76 . there is additional shear stress introduced onto the bar surface. with four beam widths utilized to simulate different bar spacing in bridge deck slabs. the secondary crack will propagate along with the primary one and this “stiffening” effect may become even stronger. In summary. Consequently.
The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence. C5x8. 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. although the surfaces were a little uneven.5P5 indicated that the crack tips stopped at the same normal distance length from the top of the beam.5P5. the specimens showed no sign of distress or significant alteration of crack opening behavior.5P5 and C6x8. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios. The profiles of crack length for C4x8. 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. 77 . For the steel RC. Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress.cycle.
Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth The experimental results have illustrated the performance of a number of FRP RC beam specimens. it is difficult to estimate crack opening for complex structures and loading such as bridge deck slabs. Due to the fact that crack growth is composed of development and stabilization. The objective is to be able to make use of the existing experiment results. Estimation of Crack Opening It has long been known that reinforced concrete is difficult to model. Secondly. and predict the performance of other structures. First. which is the rebar element in ABAQUS program. a discrete crack model will be used. A finite element method will be calibrated to estimate the initial CMOD at static pre-cracking of the specimens which were tested. Reinforcing bars may be modeled as truss element. The general trend in the results of different specimens suggests the possibility of developing a model to predict the evolution of cracks in FRP RC in fatigue environments. a fatigue model will be used to simulate the crack development. Although ACI 440 has modified the Gergely-Lutz equation. Once valid finite element model parameters are established. which was utilized for this investigation. The drawback of this approach is that the 78 . To estimate the opening of a crack in a reinforced concrete beam. it will be used to analyze more complex structures with cracks. the simulation is divided in two steps. initial crack mouth opening distance will be estimated.
however. Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3. The model is not necessarily unique. however.1 Debonded Length Representation Two simplified finite element modeling approaches have been proposed. which is not the case in reality. for this investigation.1. In the first case. No success was achieved. When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements. Initially. a crack is modeled as a precracked surface. shown above in Figure 3. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar. a substantial effort was made to simulate the mechanical behavior of the contact between the concrete and rebar. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. The apparent reason for this difficulty was that the overall behavior of the finite element (FE) model is very sensitive to the local bond-slip model. however. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model. The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 . and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it.
the stress within reinforcement can be calculated.length from the crack surfaces. Different specimens will result in different values of debonded length as shown in 80 . the bond stress decreases. The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens.2 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8. Within the debonded length. It reaches its maximum value. Figure 3. A typical finite element model with debonded length representation is shown below. Based on this representation. At distances further away from the crack surface. relatively close to the crack surface. however. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar. The disadvantage of this model is that the interaction of two crack surfaces is neglected.5P4 A debonded length was calibrated for each specimen based on the experimental results.
19 0. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. to account 81 . however.17 0. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio.5mm (0. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section.22 0.15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces.21 0.5P5 C5x8.23 0.5P5 C6x8.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.1 in). The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces.the table below. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. The height is the true height of a crack. Interestingly.5P5 C4x8. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.17 0. The justification of the model is as follows. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.16 C3x8. As mentioned earlier. A small base dimension.3). a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3.
for the interaction between crack surfaces. Fictitious Material Figure 3. The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3.5P4 82 .4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.
5P5 C4x8. below. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.5P5 C6x8. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties.2.20 0.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. However. Specimen C3x8. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack. Efic.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.24 0.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.24 0.20 0. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation. Normally.20 0. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.5P5 C5x8.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24. It is another possible indication of a size effect. 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. Also. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength.20 Efic 27.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory. 83 . Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3.20 0.The Young’s modulus.
Therefore. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff. Consequently.Concrete has been categorized as a quasi-brittle material for its fracture process zone at the crack tip. In the case of cyclic loading. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction. at the crack tip. In the case of monotonic loading up to failure.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 . the fracture process zone may behave differently. under repeated loading. the fewer the interlocks become. Af c1 Figure 3. The more cyclic loads are applied. a fracture process zone may be modeled as additional distributed tensile stresses between crack surfaces. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength.5). several components in the fracture process zone. the interlocks. in this model. have to be overcome. including aggregate bridging and crack surface friction within cracks. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3. At the beginning of cyclic loading.
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. substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. (3-6) 85 . hb stands for the beam height.In the diagram above. the following equations are obtained. 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). the result is as follows. ac stands for the crack length. ⎡ 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. ff and Af are the stress and area of the FRP reinforcement. fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete.
and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. So the following relation is obtained. In other words. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed.6. 86 . under either monotonic or cyclic loading. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. Utilizing this behavioral assumption.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam. Consequently. based on finite element analysis.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. This assumption will later be verified. shown below in Figure 3. the following equation is obtained. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden.
L is the spacing of cracks. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.32( c ) 2 − 13. after rearrangement. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1. 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.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. ∆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).39( ac a a a ) + 7. the following equation is obtained. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 .1( c ) 3 + 14. and N is the number of cycles. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively.12 − 1.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results.
88 .88(1 − c )5 − 2.63 + 25.17 − 28.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.54( c ) 2 − 14.04( 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.04(1 − c )5 + 1. hb is the beam height. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.84(1 − c )5 + 0. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.16( c ) − 31. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup. The angle α has the following expression.G( a c a c a c a c ac . M is the bending moment.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6. P is the concentrated load.46 + 3. D was 610mm (24 in).39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.06( c ) + 0.22( c ) + 34.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5. ) = 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.
01121 × 7. the following equations are obtained.006973 × 12 = 0. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.5P5 0.00654 0. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).S.5 72 0.0011 5. the hinge assumption is justified. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.00109 5.0011 5 72 Table 3.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .5P5 C5x8. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.3. with relative differences all less than 10%.5 = 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.5H5 C5x8.01302 × 6 = 0. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.006407 0.00128 = 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.00119 = 0. we have the following equation.5P5 C6x8.5H5 C4x8.00127 = 0.00696 0.5 72 0.
6x10-17 and 3. The results were shown in Figure 3.5H5 as a prototype.25x10-4. the opening increment only changed by 0. depending on the ingredients and curing process. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. The parameter m was set to be 3. 6. namely. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . corresponding to 2x10-16.76. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. In the case of multiple cracks. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . 6. First. 7. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length.76x10-4. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987).Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack Growth Estimation The unknown Paris Equation parameters in the crack growth simulation are C and m. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. the exact spacing of cracks is random.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. with possibly different initial crack lengths. To address these variables with uncertainties. 2. which will be determined based on experimental results. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. units.S.8. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. using specimen C5x8. Three different C values were used. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9.
76. the measured surface crack was always an estimate. did not change more than 0. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. Obviously.01mm less.5 in).76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths.86. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). 3.76x10-4 and m at 3. however. It was found that crack opening growth was sensitive to the initial crack length although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to initial crack length. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. C was therefore fixed at 6.66. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. 91 . and that each was completely different from the others.were similar to each other. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected.86. the model is insensitive to C. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. it was concluded that the model of crack opening growth is very sensitive to m although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to m. The crack opening increment. The final crack opening increment might be 0.003mm. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm.9.76 and 3.
76.Three different values of crack spacing were examined.6MPa to 41. 34. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. The error for crack opening increment was about 0.3Ef were examined. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. As Ec increased from 27. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. The plots are shown in Figure 3.002mm less. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef. however.25 in). The height of specimen 92 .10 and 3.15Ef and 1.4MPa. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. The crack opening increment was approximately 0.11. 1.5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. the values of Ef . The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. yet all cracks stop at the same length. The plots are shown in Figure 3. approximately. The width of specimen C5x8.4MPa. Values of Ec were set at 27.5MPa and 41.001mm less. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . with a difference of about 40mm. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. The crack opening growth.12 and 3.76x10-4 and m of 3. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. Finally.6MPa. with fixed C of 6.13.
The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. and specimen size. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. and vice versa. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. In summary. with 6mm less beam height. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. crack length. 93 . to the parameter m in the Paris equation.001mm less.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0.14 and 3. The error of crack opening increment was about 0.C5x8. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. The plots are shown in Figure 3. due to the nature of the exponential function.15. For other variables. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. This model is most sensitive.25 in). the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. however.
Figure 3.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.76x10-4) 94 .5H5 (m=3.
10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.Figure 3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76) 95 .76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.
76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.Figure 3.76) Figure 3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76) 96 .13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.
14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76) 97 .5H5 (C=6.Figure 3.
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. which illustrates a size effect. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. For specimens of group H. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. For both thin and thick specimens. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . using a brute force approach.22. To simplify the model. 98 .Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis.23. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U.19 to 3. Similar results are shown Figure 3.S. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth.18. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. In other words.5H5. A summary was shown in Figure 3. since m is the exponential term.16 to 3. For parameters C and m in Paris equation. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. units. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. The results are listed from Figure 3. all specimens except C6x8. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.
however. As the width of a metallic specimen is small.48 99 .76x10-4. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. and.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. Figure 3. In the case of FRP concrete. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack.5H5. C=6. When the specimen width increases. m=3.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials.
Figure 3.57 Figure 3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. C=6.76x10-4. C=6.5H5. m=3.5H5. m=3.76 100 .76x10-4.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.
55 101 . C=6. C=6.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.76x10-4.5P5.Figure 3.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. m=3.39 Figure 3.76x10-4. m=3.5P5.
Figure 3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.5P5. m=3.76x10-4. C=6.74 Figure 3.88 102 . m=3. C=6.5P5.76x10-4.
4 Group H Group P 3.6 3.8 m Value 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.4 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .
by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. the width of primary strip is 660+0. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4.2. and to simulate a worst case scenario. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck.3-1. plus top and bottom chord 104 . First. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions.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. To account for the effect of continuity. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters.6. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. The values of strip width are based on experience. For a cast-in-place concrete slab.55S for positive moments. due to its relative simplicity. Secondly. From the AASHTO design guide. The arching effect will also be examined.1. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation.
2.7 m (66 in). 2.8 m (6 feet).2 m (86 in) and 2. with a lateral spacing of 1. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.1. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. and the width of the loading area is always 0. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition.e. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO.7 m (9 feet) and 3.8 m. which represent the majority of bridges in service.5P5. 105 . due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs.bars. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8. The corresponding strip widths are 1.86 MPa (125 psi).3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. 2.6 m (12 feet).7 m (105 in). Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0.5-1 in AASHTO. The wheel load is 71.5m (20 in). For the purpose of simplicity. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span. the following assumptions are made.. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. i.6.
First. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.8m. To investigate the arching effect. 16M Bar at 100mm. Figure 4.1. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan.8m (6 ft) was analyzed. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.5 in2). The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2. the case of a girder spacing of 1. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. The tensile stress also decreased significantly. From the stress contour plot. it can be seen that a significant area of compressive stress appeared both at the slab top near edge and at the bottom of the slab in the middle.8m.3.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 107 . implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.
8m. 2.Figure 4.6m. with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed. 108 . The results are illustrated below.7m and 3. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing.8m.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Two cases of girder spacing. the effects of girder spacing were examined. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.
7m.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. 16M Bar at 100mm.Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 . Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.7m.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.
8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m.Figure 4.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.
10.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. The magnitude of 111 .Figure 4. Next. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. regardless of the girder spacing. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. In Figure 4.8m.
Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.6m Girder Spa.8m Girder Spa. 100mm Bar Spa. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars.0 ksi).6 0.2 1.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.8 1 1. rather than the static ultimate strength.1 MPa (10. are durability and serviceability.stress at the assumed 3.0MPa (13.7m Girder Spa.4 0.6m Girder Spa. 3. 150mm Bar Spa. including crack opening and slab deflection.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. 100 1. 120 3.3 ksi). which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. therefore. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. The remaining issues. 100mm Bar Spa. 2.2 0.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. 100mm bar Spa. The maximum rebar stress at 3.
the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. a top diaphragm bar. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0.0073 in).0020 in). the entire diaphragm was removed. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.051mm (0.00202 in).22mm (0.19mm (0. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck.0023 in).058mm (0.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.18mm (0. Finally.048mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. which should be acceptable. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). Compared with the maximum 0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.5 in2).0072 in). At the girder spacing of 1.0022 in).8m girder spacing. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2. to 0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip.055mm (0.0083 in). To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect.0085 in).5mm suggested in ACI 440. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. 113 .21mm (0.0019 in). was added at each diaphragm location.051mm (0. as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000.
4mm (0. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms.53mm (0. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0.021 in).089 mm (0.077mm (0.00303 in). Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. again.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all. should be acceptable. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.080mm (0.0031 in). which. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 .055 in). The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2.13 mm (0.5 in2). Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440.077mm (0. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm.0032 in).0042 in). The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.108mm (0.
at 150mm spacing. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. 115 .16 mm (0.6m.02 in). however. 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. 1.0063 in). it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. In the State of Ohio. under the design truck load and lane loads. due to its simplicity and.sake of simplicity.62 KN (17 kips).2m.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.5mm (. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440.2m.6m (12 ft). 9. its expected conservatism.4m and 1. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. and due to their ineffectiveness. which is composed of one axle load of 53. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. there are four legal loads. The axle spacings are 3. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. presumably. somewhat arbitrary. The strip width is. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. namely an opening of less than .
which would generate too many elements. Due to the large size of the structure. With the fictitious material representation. The second and third axles are 142. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. the slab was supported by three girders. such as 5C1. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. The front axle load is 35.3m (60 ft) long. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi).5 KN (32 kips). it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation.5 in). Similar to slab strip model. especially including discrete rebars.5m. The spacing between the 116 . It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. The model bridge was single span of 18. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening.27m (14 ft). The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4.producing a total length of 15.6 KN (8 kips). Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. The design truck is composed of three axles.
in the bridge model. spanning the two girder spacings. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. For comparison purposes. relative to the actual imposed stress field.second axle and the third axle varies between 4.4. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. a slab strip model under the same condition was created.11 and 4.053mm.11. Compared with Figure 4. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. with no diaphragms. using the fictitious material model.64 Kips/ft). Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip.35 KN/m (0.12. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.8m (6 ft). The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition.15m (30 ft).081mm.05m (10 ft).8m (6 ft) girder spacing. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. In Figure 4. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9.27m (14 ft) and 9. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4. In the case of single span bridge. minimum spacing of 4.
15. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.8m. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.13 and 4.19. as expected. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4.14. As the girder spacing changed from 1. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4. The single “dome” was split into two again. as an indication of the arching effect. and excessive crack opening predictions. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . From the model and results shown in Figure 4.6m spacing. 2. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar.15 through 4.041mm.crack opening prediction.8m (6 ft) to 3. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.7m and 3. 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. Without diaphragms.6m. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle.20.6m (15 ft).6m (12 ft).058mm. Finally. there was always one compression “dome”.
The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load. Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders.22 for the bridge model with 1.6m (12 ft). as shown in Figure 4. Even including an impact factor of 1. Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. the maximum final crack opening was 0. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution.of the same model without diaphragms.8m girder spacing. the maximum crack opening under the Ohio legal load 5C1 was about 2/3 of the crack opening of AASHTO design load at different reinforcement spacing. Even at a girder spacing 3. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed. The model is shown in Figure 4. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0.41mm. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening. 119 .6m (12 ft) girder spacing. Nevertheless.21 mm.3. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing.21. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab.
(Girder spacing 1.8m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Lane Load and Self-Weight.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. 120 .Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm.
8m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.Figure 4. 121 .13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.
Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4.7m.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . (Girder spacing 2. Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.
(Girder spacing 3.Figure 4.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .6m. Lane Load and Self-Weight.
20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .Figure 4.2 2. 3. 1. 0.w / Diaph.3 1.6m Girder Spa. 2.No Diaph.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.No Diaph.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.w / Disph. 3.8m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa.w / Diaph. CMOD (mm) 0.No Diaph. 0.6m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa.8m Girder Spa.
08 CMOD (mm) 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .0. 1.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.06 0.04 0.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0. (Girder spacing 1.8m.02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.
design loads are first applied to a bridge. In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. For the critical girder. As the majority of 126 . The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor. between girders. To compute the distribution factors. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated. and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge. one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load.Figure 4. A cracked section has a smaller stiffness than the uncracked portion the slab in the transverse direction. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load. slab thickness. there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed load. more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders. Then.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight.
006 for FRP bars in this 127 . although temperature and shrinkage effects. 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. 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.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. are resisted by larger concrete sections. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete.0018 × 60. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. ρ = 0. As a result. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. at girder lines. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load effects. In the longitudinal slab direction. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. as discussed below. respectively.
6m (12 ft). The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. In summary. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988. it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be serviceability. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. The analysis results of this study indicate that reinforcement of 16M (#5) at 150mm (6 in) spacing is satisfactory for girder spans up to 3. For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. Although this design seems to be simple. for girder spacing up to 3. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. Therefore. the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. 128 . and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action. Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. and it does provide adequate strength. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs.6m 912 ft). top and bottom in both directions. instead of ultimate strength. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. and the arching effect on strength.study. 1989).
The somewhat larger predicted crack openings associated with FRP RC bridge decks should be considered admissible by bridge owners and inspectors. 129 . given the enhanced corrosion resistance.
The permanent CMOD at zero load.000 cycles of full service load testing. that bonding between concrete and FRP actually can be improved under cyclic loading. under constant load amplitude. FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs. As more load cycles are applied. The elastic CMOD disappears after unloading. the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. Current results from this investigation cannot confirm the results of other researchers. even for the case of widely spaced cracks. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches.000. the elastic CMOD. experiences growth to stabilization. The general trend of elastic CMOD is that it grows with fluctuation until 130 . The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles. At the end of 2. generally increases with the number of load cycles.Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC. The 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. which is the plastic portion. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. In addition.
which originated during cyclic testing. The CMOD reduction encountered in the tests was possibly attributable to the effects of additional cracks. A low modulus fictitious material was placed within a prescribed crack region to account for the bonding stress between concrete and bar near a crack. A size effect was observed. As the thickness of the specimen decreases. The model has been proved to predict crack growth in FRP RC reasonably well. The stress intensity factor was assumed to be the sum of those for pure bending and for the concentrated force within the FRP bar. two simplified finite element crack representations were developed to simulate the test specimen behavior. The modulus of elasticity 131 . The first representation is a debonded length representation. the exponential parameter in the Paris equation decreased.convergence. No tangential relative displacement was allowed between rebar and concrete beyond the assumed debonded length. The sensitivity analysis illustrated that the model was most sensitive to the exponential parameter. To extend the findings to typical bridge deck slab design. A model which is based on the Paris equation was proposed to predict the evolution of crack growth. The second finite element representation is a fictitious material representation. A debonded length of 25mm (1 in) between the concrete and the FRP rebar. and then to analyze realistic bridge deck slabs. on each side of a crack. Tensile stress at the crack tip was included in the section stress distribution. for several different reinforcement spacing. was found to be a conservative estimate.
The diaphragms. excessive deflections of interior girders will generate one larger compression “dome” covering more than two girders. The assumption that bond fatigue strength is the critical issue in FRP bridge deck slab design. In the case of weak or absent diaphragms. Different reinforcement spacing generated somewhat different moduli of elasticity for the fictitious material. larger crack opening will appear.of the fictitious material was calibrated based on the testing results at the crack stabilization stage. when diaphragms were included in the model. Consequently. The debonded length FE representation was used to analyze an AASHTO slab strip model. 132 . Top chord bars in the diaphragms were shown to be ineffective in reducing the predicted crack openings. 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. arching action within the deck slab between adjacent girders is enhanced. was thus verified. due to the fact that a very large number of elements were required. with much less effective arching action. The fictitious material FE representation was used to analyze a complete bridge slab. instead of ultimate strength. By reducing the differential deflections between girders. are instrumental in the serviceability of bridge slabs. however.
Reinforcement of 16M spaced at 150mm top and bottom in both directions appears to be satisfactory for girder spacing up to 3. Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis. reinforcement.6m.The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design. since arching effect has typically been ignored. Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength. The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 .
Although FRP concrete slab is corrosion resistant. there are many other environmental factors involved during the life span. alkaline or acidic solutions and saline solutions. They include seasonal temperature variation. Development of accelerated testing techniques for durability would be a breakthrough for FRP technology. The variable amplitudes may be quantified using root mean cube effective stress amplitudes. Stochastic models may be developed to describe the variations. The durability of FRP reinforced slabs under these conditions is instrumental to its applicability in bridge deck infrastructures. water invasion. supported by multiple girders. The complete empirical slab design algorithm deserves to be verified. The experiments should be extended to actual FRP reinforced concrete slabs. The portions of stress 134 . a bridge slab is under moving traffic loads of variable amplitudes.Chapter 6 Future Research The experiments conducted in this research were limited to loads of constant amplitude at a fixed location. The experimental work has been limited to beams with FRP reinforcement. Size effects under variable amplitude should be evaluated. The crack growth under loads of variable amplitude requires experimental investigation. under moving loads. In reality. The variability of cracking and crack growth is evident in the experiments. The Paris equation may have to be revised.
The actually crack profile may be described by a fractal geometry. The variability of crack growth may be determined statistically. Being composite also makes it possible to have different forms. The model may be also extended to random loadings. The dynamic characteristics of FRP tendons under wave action should be studied. such as a tension leg platform (TLP). In offshore structures. corrosion resistance is also one of the major concerns. 135 . the normal crack length has been used. The most promising structure modules should possess excellent load distribution. FRP rods can be a direct substitute of steel reinforcement. In this study. in which case a crack profile may be simulated. The distribution of crack opening growth may be predicted by the model. which includes the weight of the accommodation module and production facilities. In a floating offshore platform. Low weight and excellent fatigue performance are also the advantages in this environment. TLP tendons may also be composed of FRP. light weight and ease in construction. Any reduction of the topside weight by using FRP composites will reduce the cost of supporting structure. the topside load has to be supported. Structure types may include different configurations such as a sandwich type.intensity factors in the Paris equation may be randomized by adding noise.
“Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. A. Vol. ACI Committee 215.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. Masmoudi.B. 80-87 8. 1992 6. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. Bakis. A. S. 1995 7. Qureshy. SEM-RILEM International Conference. R. USA. B. 2001 5. JCTRER. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. O. pp.K. 20. ACI Structural Journal. C. January 1998. 2000 3. pp 29-37. Texas.. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. No. Committee 440.E.H. A. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. American Concrete Institute. S. Shah. Al-Dulaijan. M. 2004 2. 1. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. S.2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Chaallal. Swartz.91. 1987.P. Nanni. Benmokrane. M.Bibliography 1. 1996 4. Compilation 33. “440. S. 136 . Vol. American Concrete Institute. Baluch. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. June 17-19. Houston. American Concrete Institute. No. Boothby.
66. Editor S. Graddy. 2000.P. pp 40-51. Gergely. Philleo. H. Frederick. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. M. H. May 1997. Vol. American Concrete Institute. The University of Texas at Austin.5. Richard E. Klingner. G.K.3. C.3. 10. John C. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”.2. Hilsdorf. L. Larralde. Vol. Tarhini. 1982 11. ACI Journal. August.1. Detroit. pp. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. August 2000. pp137-144. SP-20. Burns. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete.2. May. Vol. 1997. pp 83-87. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Balaguru. Journal of Bridge Engineering. No. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. C. Cosenza. B. No. G. Publication SP-75. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. Shah. Lutz. E. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. 15. 14. T.5. P.1. No.E. Kupfer. 1993. Center for Transportation Research. pp 659-673. pp 139-147. H. Ned H.9. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. Causes. J. Vol. Mabsout. R. No. Vol. August 1969. K. Journal of Composites for Construction. Journal of Composites for Construction. February. 137 . Vol. 13.P. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. Manfredi.2. American Concrete Institute. No. Bakht. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. 16.87-117. S.4. A. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. R. 12. R. 17.
French.3. Vol. Fatigue of Concrete Structures.4. Detroit. 1987. C. June 17-19. P. Transportation Research Board. P.E. Perdikaris.E. P. 64-69 22. Swartz. John Wiley & Sons. ASCE. S. NCHRP Project No. pp. Swartz. S. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”.C. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Vol.P.M. March 1988. 114. 24. 1982 138 . Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. Shield. Washington D. C. 86. 483-491. R. 1987 19. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. S. 20. R. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Publication SP-75. 2.P.. No.E. USA. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Journal of Structural Engineering. Huang. Shah. July-August 1989.C. S.. Vol. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. ACI Structural Journal. Editor S. 591607. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Oct. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”.A. No. A. Shah.C. A. Shah.C. 1997. Nutt.N. National research Council.M. Swartz.P. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. Inc.18. S. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. C. Texas. C. pp. S. T. Perdikaris. Beim. pp 381-388. American Concrete Institute. Beim.K. S. Zokaie. S. 21.. Perdikaris. 12-26. 1995 23. Houston. pp. K.
6. No. K. Buckland.98. G. ACI Structural Journal. November 1982.11. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Transactions of ASME. Brett. F. Paris. 2001 139 . Swartz.E.H. N. 26. No.G. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. pp129- 134. Vol.22. Canada. Experimental Mechanics. 27. P. GangaRao. Banthia and P.24. Vol. Journal of Basic Engineering. Tada. 28. 2002. C. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. P.25. Swartz. S. Vancouver. Canada. Vol.G.. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”.85. C. Vol. Hu. Hota V. Montreal. June 1984.E. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. pp.S. 1963 29.V. Vijay. pp. Experimental Mechanics. Fartash.K.C. P. No. M. 1985 30.528-534. Paris Productions Inc. edited by P.2. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. J. Second Edition. H.412-417. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Paris. S.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.