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 .
2 KN Pmax=15.10 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.12 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.9 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.18 Figure 2.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.11 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.List of Figures Figure 2.7 Figure 2.17 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.8 Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .1 Figure 2.13 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.6 Figure 2.
3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .5P5 under Cyclic Load 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 C3x8.6 KN) Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.23 Figure 2.24 Figure 2.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.6 KN) Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.33 Figure 2.30 Figure 2.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.27 Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.26 Figure 2.31 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.3 KN Beam C5x8.25 Figure 2.32 Figure 2.
5P5 Figure 2.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.42 Specimen C5 x 8.Beam C5x8.1 Figure 3.39 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.6 Figure 3.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.3 KN Beam C6x8.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.5S5 Figure 2.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.7 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15.8 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section A “Hinge” Model Verification of Hinge Model Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C 5 .5P5 Figure 2.5S5 and C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8.3 Figure 3. C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.3 KN Beam C5x8.5S5 Figure 2.5H5OL.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.
4 m=3. m=3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.5P5.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.5H5.76) Figure 3. C=6.76) Figure 3.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.76x10.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76x10.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5.76x10. Beam C5x8.5H5 (m=3.76x10.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.4.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.48 Figure 3. m=3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.76x10.76x10.4.4.76x10.5H5.5H5 (C=6.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 . m=3.4 m=3.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Beam C3x8.4) Figure 3.for Beam C6x8.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.4 m=3. Beam C3x8. Beam C4x8.57 Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76 Figure 3.76x10.76x10.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.76x10.76) Figure 3.4.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.4 m=3. C=6.4 m=3. C=6.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6. C=6. m=3.
16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.8m.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. m=3.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .8m.Figure 3.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.76x10. Beam C6x8.55 101 Figure 3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5P5.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. C=6.8m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4.5P5.4.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm. C=6.5P5.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.4.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.7m. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. m=3.4. Beam C4x8.76x10. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4. C=6.76x10.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm. m=3. 16M Bar at 100mm.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. Beam C5x8.74 102 Figure 3.88 102 103 Figure 3.8m.
Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .8m. Figure 4. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Figure 4.6m. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.8m.8m.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck. (Girder spacing 3.10 Figure 4. Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.7m.6m. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm.
22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1. 1.8m.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.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4.20 Figure 4.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.
1 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.2 Table 3.
Acknowledgements I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. His teaching will benefit me for years to come. he is a role model for living and working. I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. Throughout my research. To me. Saada as my instructor and sponsor. Huckelbridge for his guidance. I have enjoyed our discussions very much. 11 . Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support.
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.
the aforementioned complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM. crack face friction. aggregate bridging. crack tip blunting by voids. it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures. and etc.Serviceability covers many different aspects of structural performance related to particular applications. For quasi-brittle materials such as concrete. It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost independent of specimen thickness. will generate larger crack lengths and crack mouth opening displacements (CMOD) compared with conventional steel reinforcement. known as the fracture process zone. with a relatively small fracture process zone. The relatively low Young’s modulus of FRP. there is a surge of forces in the bars. crack branching. particularly so if 16 . Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments. The most commonly encountered serviceability requirements in RC structures are maximum deflection and crack opening control. the crack length generally is deeper on the sides than in the middle. Within the fracture process zone. In the case of smaller scale structures. The tensile forces in the bars and resultant compressive force in concrete increase as depth of intact concrete and fracture process zone decrease. In the case of FRP RC beams under bending. Consequently. Shah (1995) summarized the interaction within the fracture process zone as microcracking. the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value. Cracking is a complex phenomenon. as soon as cracking occurs. There exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack. crack deflection. the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. particularly in composite materials. which is about one fifth of the Young’s modulus of conventional steel reinforcement.
Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete. Bar size was also found not to be a major variable. the aggregate bridging will be less. concrete cover and stress level. The concrete cover was an important variable but not the only secondary consideration. conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English units was as follows. It was found that steel stress magnitude was the most important variable. 17 . Consequently. w = 0. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. the Gergely-Lutz equation has been modified to estimate the crack opening of FRP RC members by simply replacing the steel strain with FRP strain. the number of bars. A multiple regression analysis was performed on crack openings with respect to different variables. In ACI 440. and the zone of microcracking will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression.076 β f s 3 d c A c (1-1) Where β is the ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to extreme tension fiber to the distance from the neutral axis to the center of the tensile reinforcement. crack face friction will be smaller. dc is the concrete cover to bar center.1R-01. which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC. This is the essential difference between plain concrete. P. Gergely and L. The significant variables identified were effective area of concrete. and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. fs is the tensile stress in steel bars.reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases.
71. Ac is the effective tension area of concrete. The total energy was calculated in terms of bending moment and rebar force. Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam.1R-01 listed values of kb by Gao et al. slippage moment and fracture moment. three cases were discussed based on comparing the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment. The relationship between rebar force and bending moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity factors. to be 0. 1. The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of KI due to the bending moment and to the bar force. ff is the tensile stress in FRP bars.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars. In the analysis of cyclic loading. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the 18 . a corrective coefficient kb is introduced. 1.To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP.00. Many researchers have suggested different values for different bar surfaces. similar to steel bars. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding. 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. The coefficient kb is assumed to be one for FRP bars having bond behavior. bar slip and crack growth under different conditions.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report. dc is the concrete cover to bar center. ACI 440. w= 2 .2 βk b f f 3 d c A c Ef (1-2) Where Ef is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar. in the case of no available experimental data. A value of 1. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows.
Although Paris’s law was developed for steel. Perdikaris et al. N is the number of cycles. tension or flexure. The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 102 and 107 cycles. regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression. Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete. The fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50 percent. da = C (∆K ) m dN (1-3) Where a is the crack length.C. In early 1960s. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems. Apparently. which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete. researchers have tried to verify if it was also valid for concrete. It was concluded that the Paris equation results in 19 . Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains and microcracking. The proposed equation is as follows.fracture moment. ∆K is the stress intensity factor difference at maximum and minimum loading. is approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength. The report by ACI committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and reinforcement. P. this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels). (1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams under four-point bending. Crack length was also recorded based on the CMOD compliance measurements. C and m are material parameters.
Z.3 respectively. however. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. 0. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. 0. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. Similarly. Baluch et al. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete.12 and 3.12. For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. da C (∆K ) m = dN (1 − R)( K c − K max ) (1-4) where Kc is the fracture toughness of the material of interest at the appropriate thickness. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length.2. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . although the units were not stated explicitly.1. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. The material parameter m was found to be 3. 3.significant errors of 100% although R2’s.15 at R=0. height 20 . Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the same type of specimen. were close to one for different specimens. Therefore.P.
it has been questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack.and notch length. For ratios of crack length to beam height greater than 0. 21 . It took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to the compliance calibration curve. Due to the nature of cracks in concrete. the crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration methods. and true compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. utilizing a three point bending test setup. Dye would then be applied at the crack section. the revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function. the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was about 25mm. The results of fatigue tests were presented with the plots of log(∆a/∆N) versus log(∆K/∆KIf). Different lines were obtained for different beam size. although they were parallel to each other. Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method. for fracture under monotonic loading. The test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual crack length.26. All specimens had small starter notches at midspan and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control. However. Therefore. a method of compliance calibration is normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete. The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth predicted by a calibrated compliance. The authors combined the Paris law with a size effect law. The thickness was constant for all beams.
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
The bar diameters were 10. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles. C. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles.E. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. steel bars and concrete. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. there was one protruding test bar. The load amplitude was 25 . C. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. 12.fatigue loading. with one supplementary bar on each side. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted.1mm. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. 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. in order to ensure sufficient development length. All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. Basically. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. In the test setup.7mm and 16mm. however. An embedment length of five diameters was used. At both the top and bottom of a specimen. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. due to the damage to the bar.000 cycles. Thermal fatigue.
ranging from 75% to 25%. friction due to FRP surface roughness. with the average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased. A top bar effect also exists for FRP. the residual slip after the first cycle was a significant portion of slip at the end of the 100. indented. The bar slip at the free ends was recorded.000 cycles. FRP bars were categorized into straight bars and deformed bars. twisted or braided. 50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. and a survey of bond-slip models was presented. The experiment setups were similar to each other for the two investigations. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP bars. 26 . It was found that the residual bond stiffness was actually higher than the initial bond stiffness. Straight bars were smooth. Among environmental conditions. An effect of bar size has been observed. This work was contradictory to the finding by C. depending on the load magnitude. Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance. Deformed bars were ribbed. It was stated that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond. 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. normal pressure between FRP bars and concrete. grain-covered or sandblasted prismatic rods. In the case of CP bars. mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete. bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes. Cosenza et al.selected to achieve 90%. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness. The actuator displacement verses load observations also supported that conclusion. The authors suggested that slipping of bars might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. Shield et al. 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.
FRP bars and diaphragms. it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders. Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002). A finite element model was developed for a steel free concrete deck. so as to control cracking due to creep and shrinkage. The position and location of the lateral straps were also analyzed. Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to failure under monotonic loading. B. 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. cruciform straps. The transverse reinforcements are mainly external steel straps or FRP bars. They included fully studded straps. The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete. 30 . when the inertia of girders was increased by 150%.Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced concrete and steel-free bridge deck system. 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. An additional specimen was tested under 1000 cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing. The results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased. but at a much larger load. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure as expected. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform strap. partially studded straps. For practical purposes. The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position. due to shakedown in the slab.
the spacing was fairly large. The product is commercially known as NEFMAC. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. however. the three beams were space at 2. respectively. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. In either case. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. 1989). The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. which was fairly high. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. The orthotropic reinforcement pattern consisted of a top and bottom layer of transverse and longitudinal steel reinforcing bars 19M (#6) spaced at 188mm and 376mm respectively. the spacing in both directions was 437mm. Models of 1/6. In the prototype. for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23. 31 .13m (7 ft). The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits.
2. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs.S. 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.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum.25S for negative moment. where the girder spacing is S.3-1. the width is taken as 660+0. 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 formula is in U.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. b. top and bottom.003 is required in both directions. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. a.1. However.6m (12 ft). The crack control 32 .) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m. c. units. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically. Due to serviceability requirements. ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.6.) The span length of a slab is less than 3. d.
1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft).3 K g 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing.1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0. In the AASHTO LFD design codes.6m (12 feet). In the current LRFD codes. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness.06 + ( S 0. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face. Therefore. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. DF = 0. For girder spacing S less than 3. the formulas for DF are as follows.6 S 0. 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry. In other words.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature. supported on multiple girders. L is the bridge span. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). girders are usually analyzed and designed individually.4 S 0.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 .5. 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.2 K g 0.
34 . as the bridge span became larger. 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. particularly in fatigue environments.1R-01 proposes to design for a strength failure mode of concrete crushing. the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled with beam elements. Some other criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported. The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from conventional RC. the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in applications such as bridge deck slabs.elements. There have been varying results. In summary. however. Sometimes. the bond durability under cyclic loads. although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. to achieve better ductility. Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab. It was found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26 (1987). mostly based on pullout tests. ACI 440. on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads. with a size effect being detected. or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements. FRP itself possesses excellent fatigue properties. has not been thoroughly investigated. The Paris law appears to be applicable in concrete. but all were less than AASHTO (1996). The analysis results showed that the distribution factor decreased. The serviceability of FRP RC.
the overall performance of an FRP RC slab on a single span bridge of multiple girders will be analyzed.Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed. In this study. Subsequently. which is generally reasonable for steel RC. particularly in fatigue environments. Under the condition of a cracked slab. A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening of the test specimens. experimental results on fatigue testing of FRP RC will be presented. the lateral load distribution factor will be discussed. serviceability is often the critical factor in bridge deck slab design. Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in applications such as bridge slabs. 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 uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters.1R-01 will be discussed. A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to evaluate the effects. Other implications on the serviceability provisions in ACI 440. Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood. Although the current design methodology is strength oriented. analysis results are typically based on uncracked concrete slab properties. the crack opening displacement and crack growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory. respectively. The current bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution. 35 . The finite element method has been successfully used for a long time in bridge structural analysis. Finally. A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack growth under cyclic loading. An empirical equation for final crack opening will be proposed.
One is that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment such as a bridge deck. following an interval of cyclic loading. The bond-slip and crack growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated. and their interface. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is its serviceability. or by RILEM beam bond tests. Crack opening is one of the important indicators of serviceability. such variations can be especially critical in fatigue testing. rather than its strength.Chapter 2 Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load Motivation for the Testing Program Due to its high corrosion resistance. concrete. FRP is set to be a promising alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks. There are two shortcomings with these approaches. With portions of bar exposed. Crack opening and its growth in FRP RC are related to the fatigue characteristics of FRP bar. A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a concrete pull-out block. Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be applicable to typical in service conditions. The second issue is that such tests are sensitive to specimen imperfections. the bar is susceptible to local damage due to unintentional stress concentrations and eccentricities which may not be representative of in-service conditions. The behavior of FRP reinforced concrete under fatigue loading has been investigated thus far by simple pullout tests. 36 .
The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27. water. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. The concrete was composed of type III cement. Therefore. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1.0/ 2.5MPa (5000 psi). Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans. Traditionally.5 inches). the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. in specimens more representative of in-service applications. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.5/ 2. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. but with four different widths were fabricated. Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.9 MPa (715 psi).9 MPa (4045 psi). Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars. 37 .0/ 0.83.
respectively. (see Figure 2. Inc. 38 .1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested. C5x8. 4. there was one No. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95 ksi) for No. For identification purposes. units follows. the beam size in U. beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.5H5.Figure 2. they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as C3x8. #5. 102 mm. 16 FRP bar (#5 diameter 5/8 inches) at the bottom of each beam (tensile region) with 25 mm (1 inch) cover to the bar surface. were Aslan 100 GFRP made by Hughes Brothers. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. the last number is the size. C6x8. C4x8. The first letter C stands for the constant amplitude. To simulate a typical bridge slab section.S. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks. H shows the manufacture of the bars as Hughes Brothers. The reported modulus of elasticity is 40. the bars are sand coated with a helical wrap along the length. 16 (#5) bars. which are reported herein..1). The beam widths were 76 mm. Within each beam.5H5.8 GPa (5.92E6 psi).5 inches) thick.5H5. Inc. of the FRP bar.5H5. As shown above.
One more specimen. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6. The bars are also sand coated.5 inches) thick.1x106 psi). C5x8. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.5P5. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98.5H5M.9 ksi) for #5 bars. C5x8. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. C5x8. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. C5x8.5P5. For identification purposes. C6x8. for comparison purposes.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.2). of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking. 4. The beam widths were 76 mm. C4x8.5P5.5S5. 102 mm. without a helical wrap along the length.Figure 2. One specimen. Similarly. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2.5P5OL. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. 127 mm and 152 mm (3. 39 .5P5. One extra specimen. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8. respectively.
1 Specimen Descriptions 610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.5S5 Width (mm) 76 102 127 152 127 76 102 127 152 75 127 Height (mm) 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 215 Reinforcement 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Aslan 100) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) 16M (Isorod) Steel Test Sequence 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 10 9 8 11 Table 2.5H5 C6x8.5P5 C5x8.5P5 C5x8.Specimen C3x8.5H5 C5x8.5P5OL C5x8.5H5M C3x8.5P5 C4x8.5H5 C5x8.5H5 C4x8.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition 40 .5P5 C6x8.
The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). 127 mm and 152 mm. The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points.75 mm. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency.20ffu for FRP bars.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm.4).Figure 2. Based on nominal kb value of 1.68 mm. 0. 102 mm.80 mm and 0. 0. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively.1R-01.2. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. According to ACI 440.1R-01. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .3 and 2. the predicted crack openings are 0. in accordance with ACI 440.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. respectively.
5H5. However. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7. the overall frequency is 1. So.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour.94. For a bridge slab under traffic load. for a bridge of 10.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction.23.94 and 0. the stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab at the same location.23 Hz. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. for specimen C5x8.3 in the factored load. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 . which is the product of 7. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design.in carbon FRP.5H5 and C6x8.8 Hz.000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic). Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2. Therefore. Therefore. the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0.
The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts. for average curvature estimation. 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.02B-20 and 632. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. The first specimen tested was C5x8. within the pure bending region. Inc.118 in to -0. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection.540 mm to -1. Experimental Results (1) Group H . Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started.270 mm (+0.5H5.5”).Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0.1000 in to -0.5 inches) below the top of beam.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above. and all cracks were stable. respectively. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens.039 in)). After the first test interval of 5. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632.Static pre-cracking was used. After more cycles were applied. the crack lengths became visually constant.000 cycles. The specimen did not appear to have 43 . except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.
The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. After 10. the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2 million cycles of testing. Three cracks appeared at static precracking and three more were observed at 20.6 Specimen C5 x 8. 44 .5H5. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi. There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. the specimen was still in good condition. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. Figure 2. The crack length was virtually the same. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings.5 inches) to 165mm (6. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. Pmax was increased to 22.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8.000 cycles. To investigate the effect of overload.0 kips).000 cycles of this overload.300 N (5.5 inches).
Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles.0 kips) for 15. No addition distress was found in the specimen.75 inches) below the top of beam. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking. Figure 2.5 H5 45 . To investigate the effect of overload. up to 1.7 Specimen C3 x 8.000 cycles.8 million cycles.Figure 2.5H5 was similar. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4.300 N (5.8 Specimen C4 x 8. Pmax was again increased to 22.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).
however. After an additional 35. During the subsequent fatigue testing. at which point the CMOD gage debonded. The newly formed crack was instrumented.000 N and 40.5 H5 46 .5 kips).000 cycles.600 N. no new cracks appeared up to 140.000 cycles.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15.9 Specimen C6 x 8. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable. Therefore. Figure 2. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.5H5 was somewhat different. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload. Pmax was raised back to 20. prior to 10.The behavior of specimen C6x8. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking.600 N ( 3.000 additional cycles were applied. A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.
ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8.To further investigate the overload effect.0 kips).5 kips) was applied. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30.000 N (4. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1.000 testing cycles. Pmax was finally increased to 22.75 inches) below the top of beam. After the first run of 3.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. and all cracks were stable. After 10. the specimen was still in good condition.000 cycles were applied at this load level. Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region.300 N (5. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted. No new cracks were found in the specimen.000 cycles. After more cycles were applied. (2) Group P . To investigate the effect of overload. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).000. with the second and third cracks monitored. the crack lengths became visually constant. Pmax of 20.5P5. 47 . A third crack was found around 400 cycles. a total of 40. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen.000 cycles of overload.
The average spacing was 200mm (8. as debonding became more pronounced. the concrete cover started falling off. only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.10 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8. After 3000 cycles of overload.Figure 2. This stress level was equivalent to the data cited by Balaguru and Shah (1981) in their model to simulate the increase of deflection and crack opening for steel RC.5k).5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900.5P5. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack.000 load cycles. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29.5 inches). 48 . After 200 cycles of overload. Within the pure bending region.000 N (6. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress.
11 Specimen C4 x 8. two new cracks appeared. and then began growing. One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking. between the first two cracks at the midspan region. To investigate the effect of overload. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling.000 cycles. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. Pmax of 22.300 N (5. By the end of the test. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. 49 .75 in).5 P5 Specimen C5x8.Figure 2. (Unfortunately. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1.000 cycles.5P5 behaved somewhat differently.0 kips) was applied for 10.25 million cycles. At around 900 cycles.5 inches) within the pure bending region.
The two existing cracks then started branching.5P5 behaved similarly. No extra load was initially added. the specimen was still in good shape. After 155.000 cycles. After 50. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5.5 kips).0 kips) to explore the effect of overload.000 N (6.000 cycles of overload. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload. however.000 cycles of this overload were applied. no new cracks appeared up to 1. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. there was no indication of severe distress. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. 50 .300. Pmax was raised to 29.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. Subsequently. as expected.Figure 2.12 Specimen C5 x 8. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. During the subsequent fatigue testing.
Figure 2. For specimen C6x8. For specimen C5x8. followed by cyclic load at service level. Additional static overload was applied after cracks had appeared. there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue testing.5P5OL. Experiments were also conducted to investigate the case of overload pre-cracking. crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue testing.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this point.. cracks had been generated with minimum possible static loading.14 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5OL 51 .13 Specimen C6 x 8. which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking.5H5.Figure 2.
000 N ( 6.000 cycles. No new crack was generated during the test. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. with two very close to each other. Pmax was first increased to 22.000.0 kips). Figure 2.(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing.15 Specimen C5 x 8. and five cracks appeared. there was no sign of distress within the specimen. Then.300 N (5.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. To further investigate the overload effect. the specimen appeared to be intact after 30.000 cycles. The specimen was still in good shape after 150. As cyclic load testing started. At the end of 1.75 inches). Pmax was then increased to 29. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5.5 S5 52 .5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). there was no visible growth of the cracks. Static pre-cracking was used.000 cycles of this load level.
14). As the cracks opened up. acoustic emission and dye penetration. due primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports. the attempts to monitor average curvature through the measurement of relative displacements within the test section.For all specimens. A notch was made at the top of a crack for a specimen. relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2. penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. C5x8. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending mode. Black ink was injected into the notch. all of which contributed to measurement difficulties. the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. resulting in a low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with. the images of cross sections of C4x8. After about two hours. failed to produce consistently usable results. particularly for large cycle counts.5P5 and C6x8. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack gauge data in the subsequent analyses. the magnitude of deflection at the mid-span. 53 . (5) Crack Profile Characterization The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic interferometry.15. rubber sheets were clamped to each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2. so as to open the crack. First. For some specimens in group P. and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement. was very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch). the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined. It was also inevitable for specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load. even though a minimum non-zero load was maintained.5P5.
16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54 .Figure 2.
The reinforcement ratios tested were 0.5H5.19 and 0. respectively.5H5. although it was still slightly over-reinforced. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. a kb value of 0. the service load crack openings.5H5.26mm. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.16 mm.007 for specimens C3x8. According to the limited test results. based on ACI 440.5P5.5H5 was 0. 0.2.5P5. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 . 0.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8.5H5. Based on these limited tests. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. had the lowest reinforcement ratio. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. Specimen C6x8. 0. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. 0.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0.5H5 and C5x8.17 mm.0048.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.15 mm.010.5H5.013. C5x8. were 0.5P5 and C6x8. 0. As mentioned earlier. respectively. C5x8. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value. at least for the bars tested in this investigation.1R-01 criteria.008 and 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8.84 mm for all four specimens. were between 0. the predicted service load crack openings. C4x8. were 0. respectively. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens.5P5.68 mm and 0.5H5 and C6x8. C4x8.5H5. C4x8.6 MPa (4000 psi). for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.16 mm and 0. In group P.
The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding. 2. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. with increasing load cycle counts. 56 .22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2.21 and 2. 2. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2.19. which disappears after unloading.18). The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same.20.
19 and 2. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs. but at a decreasing rate.respectively.5H5 C5x8 .20.6 KN) 57 .5H5 C4 x8 . with increasing load cycles counts. As can be seen in Figure 2.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 . but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles. 0.5H5 0.100 0.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5H5 0. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15. 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.400 C3 x8 . By the end of the tests of one million cycles.200 0. Based on the experimental results.
0.E+02 1.5H5 0.05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.5P 5 0.E+00 1.5P 5 C 4x8.150 0.100 1.5H5 C4 x8 .2 C3 x8 .1 0.6 KN) 58 .5P 5 C 5x8.15 CMOD (mm) 0.2 KN Pmax=15.300 C 3x8.6 KN) 0.5P 5 0.E+04 1.E+01 1.5H5 C6 x8 .2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 C5x8 .20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.E+05 1.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.200 0.E+03 1.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.
0.5P5 C4 x8 .5P5 about 10.5H5.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8.5P5 0.2 KN Pmax=15. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading. C5x8. Specimens C3x8. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings). but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles. C4x8.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.2 C3 x8 . during this period of crack development.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 and C5x8.6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages.5H5.5P5.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles.5H5 and C6x8.5P5 0.5P5. 59 . C3x8.1 0. C4x8. The first stage is crack development.5P 5 C6 x8 . Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count. It took specimens C6x8.
is that it increases with the number of cycles applied.26). all hysteresis loops were nearly parallel to each other (constant stiffness). The fact that there was only one crack in the specimen C6x8.5H5 suggests that there is more potential for cracks exhibiting larger CMOD for beams of lower reinforcement ratio (wider bar spacings). and a slow accumulation of plastic CMOD.5H5 (see Figure 2. The area of hysteresis also decreases slightly with increasing load cycles for beam C5x8. The slope of the hysteresis loop is related to the integrity of the bonding mechanism between concrete and the FRP bar. For beam C4x8. a larger CMOD was recorded 60 . The general trend of plastic CMOD. which was calculated as the residual CMOD at zero loading.23 through 2. or crack stabilization. The area contained within the hysteresis loops decreased slightly with increasing load cycles. plastic CMOD was subject to a greater relative measurement error. Figures 2. the hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased. it implies that more damage was induced within that load cycle and vice versa.5H5 (see Figure 2. 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 second stage is characterized by nearly constant crack length. crack growth reaches the second stage.Once the peak elastic CMOD is reached. For beam C3x8. For beam C6x8.26 show the evolutionary history of the total vertical load versus CMOD hysteresis of group H under cyclic loading. If the area becomes larger. nearly constant elastic CMOD. Due to the finite resolution of the measurement technique.25). For beam C5x8.5H5 (see Figure 2. although at a decreasing rate.23).5H5.5H5 (see Figure 2.24). the slope of the hysteresis loops decreased slightly as the number of cycles increased.
1 0.28. 2. showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.27.2 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 .5P5.30 and 2.8 4 1. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 .50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5P5.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8. which is discussed later.15 0.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.for the single crack.0 0 0 1.05 0. 2. This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.29. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2. 2.
25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .1 0.2 Figure 2.1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.05 0.0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 9 8 8 .15 0.0 0 0 .15 0.24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.0 0 0 2 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 2 8 0 .2 0.05 0.0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .0 0 0 1.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .
2 0.000 140.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.15 0.3 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .4 0.2 0.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.05 0.1 0.27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.
05 0.25 0.000 900.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.05 0.2 0.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .000 900.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.1 0.2 0.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.1 0.
5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.05 0.1 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.2 0.05 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 600.000 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.000.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.1 0.050.2 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.000 1.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.15 0.
From Figure 2.32 and 2.5H5 1. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.00E-05 C3 x8 . damping. 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. The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking. friction. etc. the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss.5H5 C6 x8 . 2.5H5 C4 x8 .00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section. micro-cracking.00E-06 0.00E-06 4.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.5H5 1.60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.33.33).20E-05 8. The pseudo energy loss per crack. at unit width.32 and 2.
50E-05 2. 67 .33 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P These tests seem to indicate that fatigue damage to FRP RC is related to bar spacing/reinforcement ratio. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.00E-05 C3 x8 . the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8. The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.50E-05 1. Similarly in group P.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1. generally speaking.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 .5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.2.5H5 and C6x8.5H5 and C4x8.5P5 C4 x8 .00E-05 5. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals.00E-06 0.) This observation would seem to imply that the energy required for crack growth becomes less and crack growth becomes more “brittle” as beam width (bar spacing) increases.5H5.5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5P5 C6 x8 .
35). up to 40% over service load levels.5H5. a 30% overload was applied after 180.3 KN Beam C5x8.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.2 0.5H5 68 . Similar results were obtained in group P. For specimen C5x8.36 and 2.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC.5H5.25 Figure 2.1 0.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.000 cycles of service level fatigue loading.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P. The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30.34).000 load cycles. For specimen C6x8.15 CMO D (mm) 0. It would appear that relatively modest overloads. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.37. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. as shown in Figure 2. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .
1 0.05 0.5H5 20 1.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.15 CMO D (mm) 0.3 KN Beam C5x8.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.5P5 69 .2 CMO D (mm) 0.4 Figure 2.1 0.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.25 0.25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .2 0.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.3 Figure 2.3 0.
there was fatigue hardening.1 0.05 0. The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. 70 . at the working stress level.000 cycles.3 KN Beam C6x8. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations. In the subsequent loading cycles.38. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening.2 0. and CMOD started growing again. Only after 10.000 cycles of loading. At the same time. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10. as shown in Figure 2.15 0.37 0.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique. for the Isorod rebars.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .
5H5M Figure 2.20 0.00 1 -0.25 CMOD (mm) 0.5H5 and C5x8.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.10 0.15 0.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.2 KN Pmax=15. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded.5H5M (Pmin=2.5H5 and C5x8.5P5. C5x8.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8. 0. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed.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. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen.5H5OL. Compared with FRP bars.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.35 0. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.5S5 and C5x8.5P5. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 .38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.30 0.Comparing group H.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8. However.05 0.
39 shows the evolutionary history of the elastic and plastic CMODs versus the number of cycles. This phenomenon is clearly related to the bonding mechanism between conventional deformed rebar and concrete. Bond slip for conventional steel rebars is therefore generally less than that for FRP rebars. although no overload was applied. In the crack stabilization stage. the general trend was that the energy consumed decreased. After one million cycles under working stress. The plastic CMOD did not become significant until after 200. or closer to rebar at the bottom. and lasted for fewer cycles (only about 500 cycles). The crack lengths observed were from 100mm to 120mm (4 in to 4. The crack development stage was less noticeable than that of FRP RC. with similar reinforcement ratios. there was minor fluctuation of CMOD observed.000 response cycles. which indicated that there was no degradation of the bonding. due to the small magnitude of growth in crack opening. Figure 2. an overload of 40% above working stress was applied. instead of friction as is the case for FRP rebars.considerably lower. As more cycles were applied.75 in). During the service level fatigue testing. The area encompassed by the hysteresis loop is also much smaller comparing to that of FRP RC. The hysteresis at different testing stages was approximately parallel to each other under working stress.39 shows the hysteresis evolutionary history of the CMOD versus number of cycle under cyclic load. The dominant bonding mechanism for steel rebars is bearing against the rolled on lugs. It was only under overload that hysteresis started to rotate and bond 72 . No rotation was visible with the hysteresis. which were lower than those observed in FRP RC. Figure 2. the crack length was visually constant.
40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.02 0.04 0.04 0.1 Figure 2.06 Figure 2.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0. unlike FRP RC.000.03 CMO D (mm) 0.000 280.01 0.06 C MO D (mm) 0.08 0.40.05 0.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5S5 73 .02 0. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.000 1. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10. At the same time.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.
at unit width. sometimes.00E-06 0. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 4.5S5 Thus far.5S5 and C5x8.41.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle. for specimen C5x8.5H5. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased. 74 .5S 5 C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 2. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.00E-06 6.00E-06 1.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.5P5 and C5x8.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen.00E-06 3.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2. the pseudo energy loss per crack. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. 7.
due to operation problems. But.5 H5M In specimen C5x8. after 10.5P5. no plastic CMOD was acquired. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. as more cycles were applied.000 cycles. In specimen C5x8. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected.000 cycles. At around one million cycles. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10. Unfortunately. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack.Figure 2. In addition. it began to stabilize. In other words. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. the elastic CMOD became less. as shown in the photo. 75 .42.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. which was 115mm (4.42 Specimen C5 x 8. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. however. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs.. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size. until one million cycles had elapsed.000 cycles. they were very close to each other. there was a crack at midspan.
The second stage is crack stabilization at which the length of a crack is approximately constant. there is additional shear stress introduced onto the bar surface. In summary. Effects of overloads at pre-cracking. For FRP RC. One is crack development. on fully developed cracks were also investigated.The shear stress distribution along a bar can also be utilized as a vehicle to further explain this multiple-crack phenomenon. limiting the opening requirement of monitored cracks. The CMODs were recorded when specimens were under cyclic load at working stress level. with four beam widths utilized to simulate different bar spacing in bridge deck slabs. 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. The rebar/concrete shear stress is at a maximum a short distance from the crack surface. and then decreases with distance from the crack surface. the results indicate that there are two stages of crack growth. with slower growth in crack opening. This characterization was further verified through monitoring of the evolution of hysteresis plots. Consequently. The cracks were initiated by static pre-cracking. the primary crack appears “stiffer” and its elastic CMOD becomes smaller. which is characterized by growing crack opening and length. the secondary crack will propagate along with the primary one and this “stiffening” effect may become even stronger. the experiments covered one steel rebar and two different types of FRP bars. When a secondary crack appears close to a primary crack. and. thus quantifying the evolution of energy loss per 76 . As more cycles are applied.
For the steel RC. but at a decreasing rate. The initiation of secondary cracks close to primary cracks will tend to decrease the observed opening of the primary cracks prior to convergence. 77 . the specimens showed no sign of distress or significant alteration of crack opening behavior. although the surfaces were a little uneven. The plastic CMOD appeared to grow slightly with the number of cycles. It suggests that crack length is nearly uniform across the width in the case of cyclic loading. The profiles of crack length for C4x8.5P5 indicated that the crack tips stopped at the same normal distance length from the top of the beam. Under overloads of 30% or 40% over working stress. the crack opening and length are smaller than those of FRP RC with similar reinforcement ratios. The reported improvement of bonding stiffness due to cyclic loads by others may be attributable to this phenomenon. The normal crack length will be a better parameter for the irregular surface of cracks. C5x8.5P5 and C6x8.5P5.cycle. The crack development stage for conventional steel R/C was observed to be shorter and less apparent when compared with FRP RC.
A finite element method will be calibrated to estimate the initial CMOD at static pre-cracking of the specimens which were tested. a fatigue model will be used to simulate the crack development. it will be used to analyze more complex structures with cracks. Estimation of Crack Opening It has long been known that reinforced concrete is difficult to model.Chapter 3 Simulation of Crack Growth The experimental results have illustrated the performance of a number of FRP RC beam specimens. initial crack mouth opening distance will be estimated. Once valid finite element model parameters are established. 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. which is the rebar element in ABAQUS program. Although ACI 440 has modified the Gergely-Lutz equation. Due to the fact that crack growth is composed of development and stabilization. First. it is difficult to estimate crack opening for complex structures and loading such as bridge deck slabs. the simulation is divided in two steps. The objective is to be able to make use of the existing experiment results. To estimate the opening of a crack in a reinforced concrete beam. Secondly. and predict the performance of other structures. The drawback of this approach is that the 78 . Reinforcing bars may be modeled as truss element. a discrete crack model will be used. which was utilized for this investigation.
for this investigation. it becomes possible to introduce the bond-slip effect into the model. however. Initially. and its apparent nature is dependent somewhat on the testing methodology used to observe it. however. which is not the case in reality. Finding a feasible bond-slip model was considered beyond the scope of this study. In the first case. a crack is modeled as a precracked surface. The apparent reason for this difficulty was that the overall behavior of the finite element (FE) model is very sensitive to the local bond-slip model. in establishing convergence in this effort using the finite element program ABAQUS. No success was achieved. shown above in Figure 3. however. Fully Bonded Debonded Figure 3. The model is not necessarily unique.1 Debonded Length Representation Two simplified finite element modeling approaches have been proposed. When a rebar is represented discretely embedded within continuum elements.model is then limited to perfect bonding between concrete and rebar. They are the debonded length representation and the fictitious material representation. The bar has perfect bonding with concrete beyond a certain debonded 79 .1. a substantial effort was made to simulate the mechanical behavior of the contact between the concrete and rebar.
Different specimens will result in different values of debonded length as shown in 80 .length from the crack surfaces. The debonded length will be calibrated based on the CMOD at the beginning of the experiments for different specimens. 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. Figure 3. the stress within reinforcement can be calculated. Based on this representation. Within the debonded length.2 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8. At distances further away from the crack surface. however. It reaches its maximum value. The actual bond stress is zero at the crack surfaces. the bond stress decreases. it is assumed that there is no tangential interaction between concrete and rebar. A typical finite element model with debonded length representation is shown below. relatively close to the crack surface.
15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. As mentioned earlier. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases.5P5 C4x8. Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces. to account 81 .16 C3x8.the table below.23 0.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.1 in). and the debonded length subsequently decreases.5P5 C6x8.21 0. The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. Interestingly. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3. however. The justification of the model is as follows.22 0. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio.17 0. The height is the true height of a crack. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack. A small base dimension. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.5P5 C5x8.3).17 0.5mm (0.19 0.
The disadvantage of the model is that an estimate of stress in the reinforcement is not available.for the interaction between crack surfaces.3 Fictitious Material Representation Figure 3. Fictitious Material Figure 3.4 A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4 82 .
due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3. However. Specimen C3x8. It is another possible indication of a size effect.2. Efic. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13.24 0.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.20 Efic 27. The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis. Two further assumptions are made in this simulation.20 0.20 0.The Young’s modulus.5P5 C4x8. below. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties. Also.20 0. of the fictitious material was calibrated for each specimen based upon the assumed triangular dimensions and upon the experimental results after the CMOD reached its maximum value.2 Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Estimation of Crack Growth The methodology used to simulate crack growth is based on the Paris equation and beam theory.5P5 C6x8.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.20 0.24 0.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0.5P5 C5x8. 83 . Normally.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24.
in this model. In the case of monotonic loading up to failure. The more cyclic loads are applied. fc a hb M ft ac Crack tip ff. have to be overcome.5). a fracture process zone may be modeled as additional distributed tensile stresses between crack surfaces.5 Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section 84 . including aggregate bridging and crack surface friction within cracks. At the beginning of cyclic loading. the fracture process zone may behave differently. the fewer the interlocks become.Concrete has been categorized as a quasi-brittle material for its fracture process zone at the crack tip. such as aggregate bridging and crack face friction. Therefore. the interlocks. Af c1 Figure 3. several components in the fracture process zone. under repeated loading. In the case of cyclic loading. will diminish due to the brittleness of concrete. at the crack tip. with the maximum as the assumed tensile strength. Consequently. the fracture process zone is ignored and the tensile stress beyond a crack is included (Figure 3.
⎡ 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. (3-6) 85 . substitute the above equation into equation (3-4). Assuming that Young’s moduli at compression and tension are the same for concrete. ac stands for the crack length. the depth of compressive concrete is obtained: wb (hb − ac ) 2 + 2 a= Af E f Ec (hb − c1 ) (3-5) 2wb (hb − ac ) + 2 Af E f Ec Finally. based on 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). fc and ft are the compressive and tensile stresses in concrete.In the diagram above. hb stands for the beam height. the result is as follows. the following equations are obtained.
So the following relation is obtained. This assumption will later be verified.The other behavioral assumption included is a “hinge” model. 86 . Utilizing this behavioral assumption. θ R L ac θ wc Figure 3. under either monotonic or cyclic loading. In other words. It has been observed in the tests of FRP RC beams that crack initiation is sudden. most of the deformation is concentrated at the cracked sections.6 A “Hinge” Model wc L + wc = =θ ac R (3-7) From beam theory.6. the following equation is obtained. shown below in Figure 3. and that the opening of cracks in FRP RC account for all the deformation of the beam. and that the initial crack depth is more than half of the beam depth. -EIy”=M and y”=1/R. the moment of inertia of a cracked section is much less than that of the uncracked section. Consequently. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that sections in between cracks are undeformed. based on finite element analysis.
32( c ) 2 − 13.39( ac a a a ) + 7. ∆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). E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively. dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 M C∆K m ≈ = LC∆K m dN EI L EI (3-10) Note that wc in the above equation is the elastic portion of the crack opening. after rearrangement.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1.1( c ) 3 + 14. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . L is the spacing of cracks. The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.12 − 1. the following equation is obtained.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface. and N is the number of cycles. the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac .
98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.84(1 − c )5 + 0.17 − 28.22( c ) + 34.16( c ) − 31.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6. The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.G( a c a c a c a c ac . P is the concentrated load.04(1 − c )5 + 1.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5. D was 610mm (24 in).54( c ) 2 − 14. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.04( c ) 2 + 14. hb is the beam height. M is the bending moment. The angle α has the following expression. α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3.66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3.06( c ) + 0.46 + 3. ) = 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 ) = 0.88(1 − c )5 − 2.63 + 25.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5. 88 .
units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.5H5 C5x8.006973 × 12 = 0.5 72 0.00128 = 0.5H5 C4x8.00127 = 0. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.01121 × 7.5 72 0.α= D 2 R (3-13) Also. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8.5P5 C6x8. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).01302 × 6 = 0. the hinge assumption is justified.5 = 0.3.00696 0.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .006407 0.S.5P5 C5x8. the following equations are obtained.0011 5.00109 5. we have the following equation. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.00654 0.5P5 0.0011 5 72 Table 3. with relative differences all less than 10%.00119 = 0.
51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m .005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. 6. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables.76x10-4. In the case of multiple cracks. with possibly different initial crack lengths.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. The results were shown in Figure 3. Three different C values were used. the opening increment only changed by 0.6x10-17 and 3. the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. 6. depending on the ingredients and curing process. the exact spacing of cracks is random. units. 7. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method.S.76. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves. The parameter m was set to be 3.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. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length.8. What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . using specimen C5x8. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). which will be determined based on experimental results. namely. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. 2.25x10-4. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. corresponding to 2x10-16. To address these variables with uncertainties.5H5 as a prototype. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. First.
The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3.66. and that each was completely different from the others.5 in). The final crack opening increment might be 0. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. 3. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm. The crack opening increment.76x10-4 and m at 3.86. did not change more than 0. 91 . if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm.9.86. C was therefore fixed at 6. Obviously. the measured surface crack was always an estimate.were similar to each other. 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. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected.76.76 and 3. The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6. 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. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . the model is insensitive to C. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. however. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3.003mm. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%.01mm less.
5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . final specimen size can be different from the nominal size. approximately. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other. The plots are shown in Figure 3. Values of Ec were set at 27. 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. Finally.12 and 3. 34. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef.6MPa.10 and 3. with a difference of about 40mm. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. The crack opening increment was approximately 0. however.Three different values of crack spacing were examined.5MPa and 41.3Ef were examined.76.25 in). 1.002mm less. yet all cracks stop at the same length. As Ec increased from 27. the values of Ef . The crack opening growth.6MPa to 41.13.15Ef and 1. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef .76x10-4 and m of 3. The height of specimen 92 .05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated.4MPa. with fixed C of 6.11.001mm less. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement.4MPa. The width of specimen C5x8. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve. The plots are shown in Figure 3. The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. The error for crack opening increment was about 0. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity.
The error of crack opening increment was about 0.C5x8. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size. For other variables. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model.15.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0.25 in). however.14 and 3. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. and specimen size. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. In summary. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity. and vice versa. specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. due to the nature of the exponential function. The plots are shown in Figure 3. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range. with 6mm less beam height. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP.001mm less. 93 . This model is most sensitive. crack length. to the parameter m in the Paris equation.
Figure 3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4) 94 .5H5 (m=3.76) Figure 3.
Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.76) 95 .76x10-4 m=3.76x10-4 m=3.
13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.76) 96 .Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.
76x10-4 m=3.Figure 3.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76) 97 .14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10-4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3.
the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed.23. The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. since m is the exponential term.S.18.22. units.5H5.19 to 3. Similar results are shown Figure 3. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U.16 to 3. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. As the goal was to simulate the experiments. which illustrates a size effect. A summary was shown in Figure 3. For both thin and thick specimens. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. The results are listed from Figure 3. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C . For parameters C and m in Paris equation. In other words. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987).Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. all specimens except C6x8. using a brute force approach. 98 .76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ). To simplify the model. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases. For specimens of group H.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length.
16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. and. As the width of a metallic specimen is small. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials. m=3. C=6.5H5. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. however. In the case of FRP concrete.48 99 . This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone.76x10-4. the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. Figure 3. When the specimen width increases.
18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.5H5. C=6.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.Figure 3.76x10-4.5H5.76x10-4.76 100 . C=6.57 Figure 3. m=3.
76x10-4.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.76x10-4.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. C=6.5P5. m=3. m=3.39 Figure 3.5P5. C=6.55 101 .Figure 3.
C=6. m=3.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8. m=3.76x10-4.5P5.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8.76x10-4.88 102 . C=6.Figure 3.5P5.74 Figure 3.
2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.4 Group H Group P 3.4 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .8 m Value 3.6 3.
6. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models.Chapter 4 Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP Reinforced Concrete Slab The experiment results and corresponding analytical models have concluded that FRP has significant potential as a possible reinforcement for bridge slabs. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips. plus top and bottom chord 104 . the width of primary strip is 660+0. The values of strip width are based on experience. Secondly. First. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. due to its relative simplicity. and to simulate a worst case scenario. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters.55S for positive moments. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. For a cast-in-place concrete slab. From the AASHTO design guide. The arching effect will also be examined. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4.2. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. To account for the effect of continuity.1.3-1.
2 m (86 in) and 2. with a lateral spacing of 1. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached. and the width of the loading area is always 0.5m (20 in). 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span.bars. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. For the purpose of simplicity. The corresponding strip widths are 1. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction.8 m. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick.7 m (66 in). due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs.86 MPa (125 psi). i.7 m (9 feet) and 3.5-1 in AASHTO. which represent the majority of bridges in service.5P5..6 m (12 feet). 2. 2.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0.8 m (6 feet). Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm.e.2.7 m (105 in). 1) The values of girder spacing are 1. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO.1. 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load.6. 105 . Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack. The wheel load is 71. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. the following assumptions are made. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.
Figure 4.2.8m (6 ft) was analyzed.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1. one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4.5 in2).1. To investigate the arching effect.8m. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan. 16M Bar at 100mm. the case of a girder spacing of 1. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero.First. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 . The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4.
16M Bar at 100mm) Next. From the stress contour plot.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 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.Figure 4. 107 . The tensile stress also decreased significantly. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.3.8m. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4.
The results are illustrated below.8m. Two cases of girder spacing. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next. 2.7m and 3. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing.6m girder spacing was also analyzed. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.Figure 4.6m.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 108 . with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed.8m. the effects of girder spacing were examined. 16M Bar at 100mm. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.
7m. 16M Bar at 100mm.Figure 4.7m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 .6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.
16M Bar at 100mm. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3. 16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .Figure 4.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m.6m.
The magnitude of 111 .8m. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. regardless of the girder spacing. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. the arching effect has been illustrated by a “dome” of concrete under compression. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied.10. Next. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing. In Figure 4.Figure 4.
0MPa (13.8 1 1. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars. 3.stress at the assumed 3. therefore. 100mm bar Spa. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load. rather than the static ultimate strength.6 0. 120 3. including crack opening and slab deflection. 100 1.7m Girder Spa. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4. 150mm Bar Spa. The remaining issues. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles. 2.1 MPa (10. The maximum rebar stress at 3.3 ksi).8m Girder Spa. Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. are durability and serviceability. 100mm Bar Spa. 100mm Bar Spa.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 .4 0.2 1.6m Girder Spa.6m Girder Spa. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89.0 ksi).2 0.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71.
which should be acceptable.22mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck.0023 in). The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.051mm (0.5mm suggested in ACI 440.0020 in).8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.0083 in).058mm (0. To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect. was added at each diaphragm location. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab.18mm (0.0073 in). Finally.19mm (0. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections.21mm (0.0085 in). Compared with the maximum 0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.048mm (0. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0.051mm (0.0072 in).0022 in). the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.8m girder spacing.0019 in). as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. At the girder spacing of 1. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. to 0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. the entire diaphragm was removed. 113 . which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders.5 in2).00202 in).055mm (0. a top diaphragm bar. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2.
The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0.077mm (0. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms. Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.055 in).021 in). with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2.13 mm (0. should be acceptable.080mm (0.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck.4mm (0. or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.00303 in). again. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.108mm (0.077mm (0.5 in2). When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.53mm (0. which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440.0042 in).089 mm (0. Diaphragms were removed for the 114 . The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm. which. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3.A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2.0032 in). the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.0031 in). With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.
somewhat arbitrary.6m (12 ft).38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. there are four legal loads. its expected conservatism.2m. 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).0063 in).62 KN (17 kips). it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab. under the design truck load and lane loads. 1. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. which is composed of one axle load of 53.4m and 1. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3. 9.16 mm (0.02 in). The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1.6m. The strip width is. Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. presumably.sake of simplicity. however. due to its simplicity and. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440. namely an opening of less than . In the State of Ohio. at 150mm spacing. The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. and due to their ineffectiveness. Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory.2m. The axle spacings are 3. 115 .5mm (.
The spacing between the 116 . The second and third axles are 142. such as 5C1.5m. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller. The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. especially including discrete rebars. The front axle load is 35. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders.6 KN (8 kips). it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load. Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model.5 in).3m (60 ft) long. The slab thickness was 215mm (8. which would generate too many elements. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program.5 KN (32 kips). but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. With the fictitious material representation. the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening.producing a total length of 15. Due to the large size of the structure. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. The design truck is composed of three axles. The model bridge was single span of 18. Similar to slab strip model.27m (14 ft). The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. the slab was supported by three girders.
64 Kips/ft).12. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.11. spanning the two girder spacings. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.27m (14 ft) and 9.081mm. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. with no diaphragms. Compared with Figure 4. using the fictitious material model.11 and 4. For comparison purposes.4. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. In the case of single span bridge. The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. in the bridge model. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 . relative to the actual imposed stress field. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1.35 KN/m (0. a slab strip model under the same condition was created.05m (10 ft).27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing.15m (30 ft). minimum spacing of 4.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. In Figure 4.053mm.8m (6 ft). The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3.
Without diaphragms.20.7m and 3.8m (6 ft) to 3.8m.19.15. Finally. The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.crack opening prediction. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4.13 and 4. As the girder spacing changed from 1. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . From the model and results shown in Figure 4. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar.041mm.6m (15 ft). The single “dome” was split into two again. 2.14.6m spacing. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4.15 through 4. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4.6m (12 ft). as an indication of the arching effect. as expected. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge. diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. and excessive crack opening predictions. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle.058mm.6m. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly. there was always one compression “dome”. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.
Using maximum crack opening as the criterion.6m (12 ft). the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. the maximum final crack opening was 0. Nevertheless. The model is shown in Figure 4. 119 . Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution. Even at a girder spacing 3.3. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening.21 mm. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3.8m girder spacing. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed.41mm. as shown in Figure 4. Even including an impact factor of 1. 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.22 for the bridge model with 1.6m (12 ft) girder spacing.of the same model without diaphragms.21. 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.
12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm. No Diaphragm) Figure 4.11 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.8m. 120 . Lane Load and Self-Weight.Figure 4. (Girder spacing 1.
Figure 4.8m. 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. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.
16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight. (Girder spacing 2.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 .7m. Figure 4.
Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3.Figure 4.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.6m. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) 123 .17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.
8m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa.w / Diaph. 0.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.8m Girder Spa.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.Figure 4.No Diaph.6m Girder Spa.2 2.No Diaph.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .7m Girder Spa. 0.No Diaph. 2. 3. CMOD (mm) 0.w / Disph. 3.6m Girder Spa.w / Diaph. 1.3 1.
22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight.0. 1.08 CMOD (mm) 0.04 0.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge. (Girder spacing 1.06 0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .02 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.8 m Girder Spacing Figure 4.1 Design Load Ohio Legal Load 5C1 0.8m.
In the current AASHTO LRFD design codes. When a crack is in the vicinity of a wheel load. and less load will be distributed across the remaining width of the bridge. As the majority of 126 . To compute the distribution factors. slab thickness.Figure 4. girder spacing and longitudinal stiffness of the bridge. For the critical girder. one girder of composite section is first analyzed under one lane of design load. the distribution factors are related to the span of bridge. between girders. there shall be a line of wheels at its centerline which constitutes majority of the distributed load. A cracked section has a smaller stiffness than the uncracked portion the slab in the transverse direction. The ratios of the moment and shear of single girder and multiple girders will be the distribution factor. design loads are first applied to a bridge. more load will be carried by the immediately adjacent girders. and the moment and shear of the critical girder are calculated.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight. Then.
006 for FRP bars in this 127 .000 Es f fu E f (4-1) where ffu is the design tensile strength.0018 × 60. at girder lines. The minimum primary reinforcement ratio was 0. ρ = 0. respectively. the generally smaller negative moments in the transverse direction. there is usually a haunch of 50mm or more. the bending moments are so small that they are usually ignored. as well as composite behavior assumptions typically require longitudinal reinforcement in bridge decks. In the longitudinal slab direction. Ef and Es are the elastic moduli of FRP and steel. ACI 440 defines the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement requirement as follows. as discussed below. The top flange is also typically encased in the concrete. At negative moment deck slab sections at girder lines. the effect of a crack in a slab on the other wheel should be insignificant.the load is from the wheel on the girder line. although temperature and shrinkage effects. are resisted by larger concrete sections. 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. As a result. Aside from transverse stress analysis of wheel or lane load 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.
For 215mm thick bridge deck slabs. The additional transverse constraint supplied by the girders and diaphragms enhances the strength and serviceability of bridge deck slabs. Therefore. According to the results of Perdikaris et al (1988. the temperature and shrinkage reinforcement should typically be 16M top and bottom at 300mm maximum spacing. 1989).6m (12 ft). The analysis results of this study indicate that reinforcement of 16M (#5) at 150mm (6 in) spacing is satisfactory for girder spans up to 3. it is proposed that the reinforcement should be a minimum of 16M spaced at 150mm. Empirical designs are often adopted in bridge deck slab design. In summary. Arching effect does play an important role in the performance of bridge slabs. FRP bridge deck slabs have considerable potential for improving corrosion resistance in bridge decks. particularly taking into account the arching effect of typical bridge deck slabs. the fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. 128 . Although this design seems to be simple. instead of ultimate strength. it has been demonstrated that the design criteria for bridge deck slabs should be serviceability. it is based on meeting serviceability (crack opening) requirements. and the arching effect on strength. for girder spacing up to 3. due to the generally low stress level of design traffic loads. Conventional strength design ignores fatigue effects on serviceability. and it does provide adequate strength.study. top and bottom in both directions. The analysis results have indicated that 16M at 150mm is satisfactory for maximum positive moment in the transverse direction. and enhances as well the secondary load path represented by arching action.6m 912 ft).
The somewhat larger predicted crack openings associated with FRP RC bridge decks should be considered admissible by bridge owners and inspectors. given the enhanced corrosion resistance. 129 .
As more load cycles are applied. The permanent CMOD at zero load. The elastic CMOD disappears after unloading. The CMOD in an FRP RC member can be considered to consist of elastic and plastic portions. At the end of 2. The cracks generated either by static pre-cracking or during cyclic loading are single cracks with no branches. In addition. the crack opening formula in ACI 440 appears to overestimate the crack opening. FRP is a promising alternative to traditional steel reinforcement in bridge deck slabs. The CMOD convergence of FRP RC differentiates it from conventional steel RC.000. even for the case of widely spaced cracks. No fatigue failures were observed up to two million cycles. under constant load amplitude. the plastic CMOD remains after unloading. that bonding between concrete and FRP actually can be improved under cyclic loading. Current results from this investigation cannot confirm the results of other researchers. the elastic CMOD.000 cycles of full service load testing. experiences growth to stabilization. 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. generally increases with the number of load cycles. the permanent CMOD is less than half of the elastic CMOD.Chapter 5 Conclusions Based on the limited number of fatigue tests conducted. The general trend of elastic CMOD is that it grows with fluctuation until 130 . which is the plastic portion.
The sensitivity analysis illustrated that the model was most sensitive to the exponential parameter. on each side of a crack. was found to be a conservative estimate.convergence. which originated during cyclic testing. Tensile stress at the crack tip was included in the section stress distribution. A debonded length of 25mm (1 in) between the concrete and the FRP rebar. A size effect was observed. As the thickness of the specimen decreases. No tangential relative displacement was allowed between rebar and concrete beyond the assumed debonded length. The CMOD reduction encountered in the tests was possibly attributable to the effects of additional cracks. The model has been proved to predict crack growth in FRP RC reasonably well. the exponential parameter in the Paris equation decreased. A model which is based on the Paris equation was proposed to predict the evolution of crack growth. 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. two simplified finite element crack representations were developed to simulate the test specimen behavior. The stress intensity factor was assumed to be the sum of those for pure bending and for the concentrated force within the FRP bar. The second finite element representation is a fictitious material representation. The modulus of elasticity 131 . for several different reinforcement spacing. The first representation is a debonded length representation. To extend the findings to typical bridge deck slab design. and then to analyze realistic bridge deck slabs.
are instrumental in the serviceability of bridge slabs. was thus verified.of the fictitious material was calibrated based on the testing results at the crack stabilization stage. instead of ultimate strength. with much less effective arching action. 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. Top chord bars in the diaphragms were shown to be ineffective in reducing the predicted crack openings. The debonded length FE representation was used to analyze an AASHTO slab strip model. In the case of weak or absent diaphragms. however. when diaphragms were included in the model. due to the fact that a very large number of elements were required. 132 . Consequently. The fictitious material FE representation was used to analyze a complete bridge slab. larger crack opening will appear. By reducing the differential deflections between girders. arching action within the deck slab between adjacent girders is enhanced. The diaphragms. The results indicated that the stress in the FRP reinforcement was relatively low. Different reinforcement spacing generated somewhat different moduli of elasticity for the fictitious material. The assumption that bond fatigue strength is the critical issue in FRP bridge deck slab design. excessive deflections of interior girders will generate one larger compression “dome” covering more than two girders.
Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength. A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design. Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis. reinforcement.The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. since arching effect has typically been ignored. Reinforcement of 16M spaced at 150mm top and bottom in both directions appears to be satisfactory for girder spacing up to 3.6m. The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 .
alkaline or acidic solutions and saline solutions. They include seasonal temperature variation. The Paris equation may have to be revised. Stochastic models may be developed to describe the variations. The crack growth under loads of variable amplitude requires experimental investigation. a bridge slab is under moving traffic loads of variable amplitudes. under moving loads. In reality. The portions of stress 134 . The experimental work has been limited to beams with FRP reinforcement. there are many other environmental factors involved during the life span. The experiments should be extended to actual FRP reinforced concrete slabs. Although FRP concrete slab is corrosion resistant. Size effects under variable amplitude should be evaluated. The variable amplitudes may be quantified using root mean cube effective stress amplitudes.Chapter 6 Future Research The experiments conducted in this research were limited to loads of constant amplitude at a fixed location. water invasion. Development of accelerated testing techniques for durability would be a breakthrough for FRP technology. The complete empirical slab design algorithm deserves to be verified. The variability of cracking and crack growth is evident in the experiments. supported by multiple girders. The durability of FRP reinforced slabs under these conditions is instrumental to its applicability in bridge deck infrastructures.
Structure types may include different configurations such as a sandwich type. The dynamic characteristics of FRP tendons under wave action should be studied. Low weight and excellent fatigue performance are also the advantages in this environment. In this study. The actually crack profile may be described by a fractal geometry. the normal crack length has been used.intensity factors in the Paris equation may be randomized by adding noise. light weight and ease in construction. The most promising structure modules should possess excellent load distribution. Being composite also makes it possible to have different forms. The model may be also extended to random loadings. FRP rods can be a direct substitute of steel reinforcement. The distribution of crack opening growth may be predicted by the model. the topside load has to be supported. In offshore structures. The variability of crack growth may be determined statistically. TLP tendons may also be composed of FRP. such as a tension leg platform (TLP). corrosion resistance is also one of the major concerns. Any reduction of the topside weight by using FRP composites will reduce the cost of supporting structure. 135 . in which case a crack profile may be simulated. which includes the weight of the accommodation module and production facilities. In a floating offshore platform.
American Concrete Institute. S. Masmoudi. 20. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. Benmokrane. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. USA. A. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. A. Vol.H. 1. M. Texas.. Bakis. M. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”.91. Houston. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. January 1998. 1987. Nanni. ACI Committee 215. Compilation 33. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. ACI Structural Journal. S. Chaallal. A. June 17-19. 2004 2.K.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. Vol. O. S. 1992 6.Bibliography 1. American Concrete Institute. American Concrete Institute. 1996 4.P. No. Boothby. “440. C. R. No. 2001 5. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”.B. Swartz. 80-87 8. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. 2000 3. S. JCTRER. pp. Shah. 136 . Committee 440. 1995 7. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Qureshy. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Al-Dulaijan. Baluch.2. B.E. pp 29-37.
Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”. American Concrete Institute.66.2. 2000.1. August 2000.4.2. Balaguru. No. Richard E. Hilsdorf. Journal of Composites for Construction. Frederick. pp 659-673. No. Causes.2. Ned H. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. L. B.5. Klingner.9. Graddy. E. Vol. Gergely. The University of Texas at Austin. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Cosenza. 137 . Publication SP-75.P. G. pp 139-147. August 1969. pp 40-51. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. M.P. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Vol. 15. 14. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. G. H. August. C. John C. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. P. Larralde. Vol. February. R.E. pp. 10. ACI Journal. Journal of Bridge Engineering. Shah. Mabsout. 17.3. Vol. H. No. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. C. pp 83-87. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. R.1. Lutz.3. Vol. Detroit. No. 1982 11. K. T. Philleo.5. Tarhini. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”.87-117. Editor S. 13. 1997. Vol. May. Center for Transportation Research.K. R. 1993. Kupfer. Journal of Composites for Construction. Bakht. Manfredi. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Burns. H. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. 12. S. 16. No. SP-20. American Concrete Institute. May 1997. pp137-144. J. A.
86. Vol. American Concrete Institute. P. Perdikaris. Shah. Houston.M.18.C. Transportation Research Board. USA. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”.C. Texas. Swartz. 64-69 22.C. Swartz.. Shah. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. pp. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete. S. P. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. Beim. 2. National Cooperative Highway Research Program.E.P. S. pp. Detroit. No. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”.N. P. 483-491. July-August 1989. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. S. 24. R. NCHRP Project No. Beim. S.4. 1987 19. 12-26. John Wiley & Sons. Perdikaris. Publication SP-75. Zokaie. 21. A. ASCE. K. Editor S. 1982 138 . Journal of Structural Engineering. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. March 1988. 20.E. No. ACI Structural Journal. Swartz. C. S. 1987. T.3. Washington D. Vol. June 17-19. S. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. Nutt... S. Oct. Perdikaris. Huang. 1997. pp. Shield.E. French. C. SEM-RILEM International Conference.K. Shah. 114.P. National research Council. S. Inc. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. A. C. C.M. pp 381-388.P. Vol. 1995 23. R. 591607.C.A. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”.
Vol. edited by P. Montreal.G. Experimental Mechanics. K.412-417. Experimental Mechanics.G.25. Transactions of ASME. ACI Structural Journal.98.C. M. C. Swartz. Banthia and P. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”. Canada.E. P.E. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”..S. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. 1985 30.V. F. November 1982. Vol. Hota V. pp. GangaRao. Vancouver. pp129- 134. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. June 1984. Journal of Basic Engineering. Vijay. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Paris. Fartash. Swartz. Hu. pp. Paris.6. Brett. No. P.24. Second Edition.528-534. Vol. P. 28. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. G. S. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”. Paris Productions Inc. N. 1963 29.85. 2002. Vol. C. S. H. Buckland.2. 26. Canada. 2001 139 . No. 27. No.K. J.H.11.22. Tada.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.