This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

by

YUNYI ZOU

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Dissertation Adviser: Dr. Arthur Huckelbridge Supported by Saada Family Fellowship

Department of Civil Engineering CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

January, 2005

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)

Arthur Huckelbridge

________________________________________________

Clare Rimnac

________________________________________________

Dario Gasparini

________________________________________________

Robert Mullen

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

(date) _______________________

Nov. 11, 2004

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein.

Dedication

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 .

17 Figure 2.6 KN) 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 51 52 54 54 56 57 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C4 x 8.18 Figure 2.15 Figure 2.6 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.5 S5 Injecting Dye into Cracks Typical Crack Profiles Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.12 Figure 2.11 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C6 x 8.5 Figure 2.5 P5OL Specimen C5 x 8.4 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.5 H5 Specimen C3 x 8.3 Figure 2.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for 3 .9 Figure 2.19 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers Isorod by Pultrall Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition Cyclic Load Test Setup Sketch of Data Acquisition System Specimen C5 x 8.13 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5 P5 Specimen C5 x 8.List of Figures Figure 2.1 Figure 2.16 Figure 2.7 Figure 2.10 Figure 2.14 Figure 2.

36 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.5H5 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5P5 under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking Figure 2.3 KN Beam C5x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking Figure 2.33 Figure 2.26 Figure 2.31 Figure 2.2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.6 KN) Figure 2.3 KN 58 58 59 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 66 67 68 69 4 .35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.32 Figure 2.6 KN) Figure 2.23 Figure 2.34 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.6 KN) Figure 2.5H5 Figure 2.27 Figure 2.24 Figure 2.30 Figure 2.25 Figure 2.5H5 under Cyclic Load Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.

C5x8.6 Figure 3.5 H5M 69 70 71 73 73 74 75 Figure 3.5S5 Figure 2.5P5 Figure 2.2 Debonded Length Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length Representation of Specimen C4x8.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8.1 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.2 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 .5H5M (Pmin=2.5S5 Figure 2.3 KN Beam C6x8.5P5OL and C5x8.5 Figure 3.39 Figure 2.5S5 and C5x8.40 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 Figure 2.7 Figure 3.41 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8.Beam C5x8.4 Fictitious Material Representation A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4 79 80 82 Figure 3.3 KN Beam C5x8.5P4 82 84 85 88 Figure 3.37 Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.5S5 under Cyclic Load Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5OL.42 Specimen C5 x 8.6 KN) Figure 2.

57 Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76) Figure 3.76x10. m=3.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.4.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5.76 Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.76) Figure 3. m=3.76x10. C=6. Beam C4x8.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4 m=3.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6. C=6.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.4) Figure 3.76x10.76x10.76) Figure 3.4 m=3.76x10.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8. m=3.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.5H5 (m=3.5H5 (C=6.5H5.76x10. Beam C3x8.76x10.for Beam C6x8.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.5H5 (C=6. C=6. m=3.76) Figure 3.76x10. C=6.4 m=3.76) Figure 3.4.48 Figure 3.5H5 (C=6.4.76x10.5H5.5P5.4.4 m=3. Beam C5x8.12 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ec for Beam C5x8. Beam C3x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.4 m=3.39 94 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 99 100 100 101 6 .76x10.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.13 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus Ef for Beam C5x8.

7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 3. C=6.5P5. Slab thickness 215mm) 108 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 109 Figure 4.4. 16M Bar at 100mm) 107 Figure 4.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles.8m.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. C=6.8m. Beam C6x8. 16M Bar at 100mm) 109 Figure 4.5P5.7m.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of 7 .23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation Figure 4.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.5P5.76x10.4.4. 16M Bar at 100mm.5 Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load (Girder spacing 2.8m.8m. m=3.74 102 Figure 3.76x10.6 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.7m.76x10.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles. 16M Bar at 100mm) 108 Figure 4. C=6. Beam C5x8.6m. m=3. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 110 Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.88 102 103 Figure 3.Figure 3. Beam C4x8.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 16M Bar at 100mm. 16M Bar at 100mm. m=3.55 101 Figure 3.

No Diaphragm) Figure 4.7m.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.8m.12 Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck.9 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.10 Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8m.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. 16M Bar at 150mm) Figure 4. Lane Load and Self-Weight.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. Slab thickness 215mm. Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 110 111 112 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 124 8 .6m.Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.8m. Lane Load and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2. Figure 4. Figure 4.14 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically. (Girder spacing 3. Figure 4.13 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed Vertically (Girder spacing 1.11 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars Slab Model under Load of Design Truck.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.

Figure 4.20 Figure 4. 1.8 m Girder Spacing 124 125 Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 Figure 4.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.21 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.8m.23 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight 126 9 .

2 Table 3.List of Tables Table 2.1 Specimen Descriptions 40 Table 3.1 Table 3.3 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties Hinge Assumption Verification 81 83 89 10 .

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

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

13

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.

14

Chapter 1

Background and Introduction of the Problem

The advantages of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) include a high ratio of strength to mass, excellent fatigue characteristics, excellent corrosion resistance, electromagnetic neutrality, and a low axial coefficient of thermal expansion. Generally speaking, the disadvantages of FRP reinforcement include its higher cost, lower Young’s modulus (except for Carbon FRP), lower failure strain and lack of ductility. The

transverse coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is also much larger than the longitudinal CTE. The long-term strength of FRP can be as low as 70% of its short-term strength, and ultra-violet radiation can damage FRP. FRP reinforcement is also not effective for compression reinforcement because of the compression instability of the slender axial fibers. There is a lot of potential to apply FRP in bridge engineering for structural elements in corrosive environments with low ductility demand.

For decades, reinforced concrete slabs have been used as bridge decks both in United States and around the world. The relatively inexpensive concrete and steel

reinforcement have served very well in most respects. In recent years, rehabilitation of national highway bridges has been a priority, due to the aging and deteriorating superstructures. One of the major causes of superstructure deficiency is the corrosion of steel reinforcement. In this case, the excellent corrosion resistance and light weight of FRP make it potentially superior in long term performance to conventional reinforcing steel, and, particularly in the case of Glass FRP (GFRP), potentially competitive economically.

15

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

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

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

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

height 20 . For the same beam specimen under different R (=Kmin/Kmax). The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length.12. it appeared from the article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m1/2]m . 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. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. which is the fraction of the variance in the data that is explained by a regression. Baluch et al.1. 0. Therefore. It was believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete. 0. a compliance test was first performed so that crack length could be obtained. it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete. da C (∆K ) m = dN (1 − R)( K c − K max ) (1-4) where Kc is the fracture toughness of the material of interest at the appropriate thickness. Z.15 at R=0.12 and 3. The authors suggested that C might be related to R. 3. Similarly.3 respectively.2.significant errors of 100% although R2’s. The material parameter m was found to be 3. The material parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10-24 and 10-25. it was concluded that Foreman’s equation was not applicable in plain concrete. The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm. although the units were not stated explicitly.P. Foreman’s equation (1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors. however.

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

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.

22

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

23

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

24

All of the specimens failed in bond with concrete splitting around the test bars.fatigue loading. however. C. due to the damage to the bar. An embedment length of five diameters was used. eccentric pull-out tests were conducted. Other specimens were stored in an environmental chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20oC and 25oC for 20 cycles. The beam section was 100mmx180mm. The specimens were 300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete. It was found that GFRP specimens showed no reduction in bond strength after mechanical fatigue. while there was a 13% reduction with steel bars specimens. C. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue effects on the bonding between GFRP bars. At both the top and bottom of a specimen. Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN and 45 KN for 100. with one supplementary bar on each side.000 cycles. The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond beam. The load amplitude was 25 . Some of the bars tested are no longer manufactured. 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. The bar diameters were 10.E. which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles. The embedment lengths were selected to be about ten diameters or more. The slips at the loading end and free end were monitored. there was one protruding test bar. 12.1mm. steel bars and concrete.7mm and 16mm. caused more bond degradation in GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. In the test setup. Thermal fatigue. Basically. the protruding portion of the test bar was loaded.

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

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

27

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

28

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.

29

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

The product is commercially known as NEFMAC.6 and 1/3 scale were tested. The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23.13m (7 ft). The research covered both the AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab. 1989). 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. A two dimensional grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”. In either case. The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the research.Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids. In the prototype. impregnated within a vinyl ester resin. however. The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988. Models of 1/6. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains and deflections were well within the design limits. The ultimate load was five times as much as the HS25 criterion. The results showed that fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic reinforcement. and is composed of continuous high strength reinforcing fibers. which was fairly high. respectively. the spacing was fairly large. The maximum fatigue load was 60% of the static ultimate strength. In the isotropic reinforcement pattern. 31 . for those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements. the three beams were space at 2. The test was conducted under monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. the spacing in both directions was 437mm.

In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD). ultimate strength is usually not crucial in the slab design.1. However. d. A minimum reinforcement ratio of 0. The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process. The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.25S for negative moment. top and bottom. In the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders. the width is taken as 660+0. requirements are then assumed to be met automatically.3-1. an equivalent width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4. b. such as crack opening and lateral load distribution.6.2.6m (12 ft). a. The design moment in the load factor design (LFD) methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width.) Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m.) The span length of a slab is less than 3. The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or membrane forces in typical bridge slabs.) The slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum.55S for positive moment and 1220+0.Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load.003 is required in both directions. c. The formula is in U.S. units. Due to serviceability requirements. The slab design was reduced to a prescription of isotropic reinforcement.) The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15. where S is the effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load. where the girder spacing is S. The crack control 32 . the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from the perspective of strength design. The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows.

For girder spacing S less than 3. The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature.06 + ( S 0. Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.A similar empirical design methodology is available in AASHTO (2000). Therefore. Mabsout el al (1997) reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56 ft). 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in the bridge design consulting industry.2 K g 0. The minimum amount of reinforcement is 0. the formulas for DF are as follows. In the current LRFD codes. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders. Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum 33 .6 S 0.3 K g 0. Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of distribution factors. girders are usually analyzed and designed individually.5. In the AASHTO LFD design codes. the AASHTO design codes have traditionally provided lateral distribution factors which account for the maximum possible portion of wheel load (half of axial load) acting on one girder.6m (12 feet).1 ) ( ) ( ) 14 L 12 Lt s3 S 0.570 mm2/mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0. simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed. the distribution factor (DF) is S/5.4 S 0.075 + ( (two or more design lane loaded) (1-6) where S is the girder spacing. Kg is longitudinal stiffness parameter and ts is slab thickness. L is the bridge span.380 mm2/mm of steel for each top layer.1 ) ( ) ( ) 9. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm. In other words. DF = 0. supported on multiple girders.5 L 12 Lt s3 (one design lane loaded) (1-5) DF = 0.

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

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

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

37 .0/ 2. Beams of different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement ratios. Therefore. the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8. Traditionally. the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC under service-level cyclic loading. The concrete was composed of type III cement. The nominal compressive strength target was 34. Description of the Testing Program FRP beams of identical depths and spans.9 MPa (4045 psi). Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear reinforcement is needed.5 inches). The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was 4.5/ 2. water. Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars.83. fine aggregate and coarse aggregates with weight proportions of 1. but with four different widths were fabricated. and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders is achieved. in specimens more representative of in-service applications.9 MPa (715 psi). The compressive strength from a cylinder test was 27.5MPa (5000 psi).0/ 0.

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

The beam widths were 76 mm. 102 mm. One specimen. C5x8. Similarly. test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and 215mm (8.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall. C6x8. ADS Composites Group (see Figure 2. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98.5S5. 39 .5P5.5P5. 127 mm and 152 mm (3.5H5M.5 inches) thick. 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.9 ksi) for #5 bars. For identification purposes. respectively. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with cracks adjacent to each other. One more specimen. of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar. C5x8. 4. of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking.5P5. C4x8.2). The bars are also sand coated.1x106 psi). C5x8. without a helical wrap along the length.5P5OL.Figure 2. One extra specimen. C5x8. they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as C3x8. for comparison purposes. to investigate the effect of multiple cracks.5P5. The modulus of elasticity is 42 GPa (6.

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

The beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. The resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi). The maximum cyclic service load was determined based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.2.75 mm.84 mm for beam widths of 76 mm.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2. in accordance with ACI 440. the predicted crack openings are 0. The minimum and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively.1R-01.80 mm and 0. 102 mm.20ffu for FRP bars. the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing frequency. The cracks within the pure bending region were monitored. 127 mm and 152 mm. According to ACI 440. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency 41 .Figure 2.1R-01. 0.68 mm. 0.4). Based on nominal kb value of 1. respectively.3 and 2.

Therefore.3 in the factored load.23.8 Hz. So. the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.5H5 and C6x8. for a bridge of 10. The overload was defined to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.5H5.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System 42 .000 ADTT (average daily truck traffic). the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0. For a truck with axle spacing of 3. Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening Displacement Gage MTS System Figure 2. However.23 Hz. the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was also investigated. For a bridge slab under traffic load.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.in carbon FRP. which is the product of 7. the overall frequency is 1.94 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. the frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests.94.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour. Therefore. The percentage of overload was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. for specimen C5x8.

and all cracks were stable. in order to track the evolution of crack development with increasing load cycle counts.270 mm (+0. The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was recorded under a ramp load and the first 20 cycles of cyclic load at the beginning of each test interval. Experimental Results (1) Group H . respectively.000 cycles. The first specimen tested was C5x8.5”). The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7.118 in to -0.050 in) and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0. within the pure bending region. which was near the theoretical neutral axis. Inc.5 inches) below the top of beam. After more cycles were applied.540 mm to -1.5H5. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became visible for all specimens. All eleven specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude. The specimen did not appear to have 43 .1000 in to -0.02B-20 and 632. for average curvature estimation. Two DCDTs were also fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam deflection.Static pre-cracking was used. there was no sign of distress with the specimen. the crack lengths became visually constant.039 in)). except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation. The maximum arm displacements of the instruments are +2. All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1. Two cracks appeared within the pure bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately after the test started. After the first test interval of 5. MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632.02C-20 were then installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers.

There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. After 10. Figure 2.000 cycles of this overload.5H5.6 Specimen C5 x 8. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the vicinity of the bearings.5 inches) to 165mm (6.any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles.300 N (5. It was also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. 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 20.5 inches). The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the specimen. Due to the larger bearing stress at both supports. corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi.5 H5 The second specimen tested was C3x8. the specimen was still in good condition. Pmax was increased to 22. The crack length was virtually the same. To investigate the effect of overload. The crack spacing was between 130mm (4. 44 .000 cycles.0 kips).

300 N (5.0 kips) for 15.7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5 45 . To investigate the effect of overload.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles.8 million cycles. Pmax was again increased to 22.5H5 was similar. up to 1. Figure 2.000 cycles. The average crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches).Figure 2.75 inches) below the top of beam. No addition distress was found in the specimen.8 Specimen C4 x 8. The tips of the cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1. Three initial cracks were generated at static pre-cracking.

Therefore.5H5 was somewhat different.9 Specimen C6 x 8. no new cracks appeared up to 140.600 N.600 N ( 3. Pmax was raised back to 20.000 N and 40. After an additional 35. however. Figure 2.000 additional cycles were applied. During the subsequent fatigue testing.) The Pmax was raised at that point to 20000 N (4. and Pmax was again lowered to its initial value of 15. with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.5 kips) to explore the effect of overload.000 cycles. (The single crack had ceased to grow in length.5 H5 46 . The newly formed crack was instrumented. at which point the CMOD gage debonded.The behavior of specimen C6x8.000 cycles of fatigue load at Pmax of 15. prior to 10. Extra load was added after the appearance of the first crack but no additional cracks appeared. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. the primary crack did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.000 cycles.5 kips). A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.

0 kips). A third crack was found around 400 cycles. Pmax was finally increased to 22.5P5.000 cycles. Pmax of 20. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1. After more cycles were applied. a total of 40. 47 . Three cracks appeared at static precracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region.000 testing cycles. No new cracks were found in the specimen. there was no sign of distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen. To investigate the effect of overload.To further investigate the overload effect. and all cracks were stable.75 inches) below the top of beam. After 10. the crack lengths became visually constant.300 N (5. with the second and third cracks monitored. The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270. (2) Group P .000.000 cycles of overload. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle count of 30. After the first run of 3. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.000 cycles were applied at this load level. the specimen was still in good condition.Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall.000 N (4.5 kips) was applied. ADS Composites Group The first specimen tested was C3x8. The average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).

000 N (6. existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared. 48 . only one crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles. After 200 cycles of overload. Within the pure bending region. After 3000 cycles of overload.5 inches).000 load cycles. 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. which resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress.10 Specimen C3 x 8. it was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point. A clip gage was immediately installed for the new crack. The average spacing was 200mm (8. the concrete cover started falling off. An additional crack appeared at load cycle 1000.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8.Figure 2.5k). as debonding became more pronounced.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application of 900. The tips of the initial cracks stopped at approximately 38mm (1.5P5. Excessive overload was tested at Pmax of 29. The general trend of their model was that crack opening always increased with the number of cycles applied.

One initial crack of 130mm long was generated at static pre-cracking.5 P5 Specimen C5x8.000 cycles. with one crack of initial surface length 120mm (4. two new cracks appeared. One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.300 N (5.) The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of the beam at 1.000 cycles. (Unfortunately. By the end of the test. At around 900 cycles.5 inches) within the pure bending region.5P5 behaved somewhat differently. Pmax of 22.75 in).0 kips) was applied for 10. To investigate the effect of overload.Figure 2. The tip of the newer crack at midspan was dormant for about 100. and then began growing. The average crack spacing was 115mm (4. the concrete at the left bearing started crumbling. no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of this crack.11 Specimen C4 x 8. 49 .25 million cycles. between the first two cracks at the midspan region.

Figure 2. 50 . During the subsequent fatigue testing.000 cycles.000 cycles of this overload were applied. One new crack appeared within 400 cycles of overload. Pmax was raised to 29.000 N (6. no new cracks appeared up to 1.300. however.000 cycles of overload.12 Specimen C5 x 8. All cracks became stable and no addition signs of distress were found. there was no indication of severe distress. Subsequently. to avoid any plastic hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. as expected. Only one crack was generated at static pre-cracking. No extra load was initially added.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload.5 P5 The specimen C6x8. The two existing cracks then started branching. After 155. the specimen was still in good shape.5 kips).5P5 behaved similarly. After 50. The Pmax of the cyclic load was then raised to 22300 N (5.

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

The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4. there was no sign of distress within the specimen.000 cycles.000 N ( 6.75 inches). the specimen appeared to be intact after 30.000. Then. with two very close to each other.5 S5 52 . No new crack was generated during the test. At the end of 1. and five cracks appeared.0 kips).(4) Conventional steel RC A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel reinforcing.000 cycles. The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5. To further investigate the overload effect. Pmax was then increased to 29. As cyclic load testing started.000 cycles of this load level.5 inches) to 180mm (7 inches). Static pre-cracking was used. Pmax was first increased to 22. Figure 2. there was no visible growth of the cracks.15 Specimen C5 x 8.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress. The specimen was still in good shape after 150.300 N (5.

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

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

26mm. Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between group H and group P. at the suggested nominal kb value of 1. were between 0. the predicted service load crack openings.008 and 0. measured immediately after static pre-cracking. In group P.68 mm and 0. were 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8.17 mm for group H specimens C3x8.5H5. 0.15 mm. The experimental results show that the service load crack openings.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack opening prediction.16 mm. C5x8. The reinforcement ratios tested were 0.1R-01 criteria. were 0.5P5 and C6x8. C4x8.6 MPa (4000 psi). 0.16 mm and 0.84 mm for all four specimens.5H5 was 0. Specimen C6x8. 0. Based on these limited tests.5H5. for an FRP tensile strength of 655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27. a kb value of 0. The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is 55 .013. respectively. it appears that the modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static service load crack openings. C5x8.007 for specimens C3x8.5H5.010. the service load crack openings. although it was still slightly over-reinforced.5H5 and C6x8.5P5.0048.5P5.5H5. C4x8.17 mm. The opening of the single crack in specimen C6x8. 0. at least for the bars tested in this investigation. measured immediately after static pre-cracking.5H5 and C5x8.5H5. These experimental observations were only about 25% of the predicted value. As mentioned earlier. respectively. based on ACI 440. which was still less than 30% of the predicted value.5P5. respectively. 0.19 and 0.5H5.Quantitative Discussion The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0. C4x8. which displayed a somewhat different behavior than the other specimens.2. had the lowest reinforcement ratio. According to the limited test results.

18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD Figures 2. which disappears after unloading. 2. ∆Load CMOD Plastic CMOD Elastic CMOD Figure 2. with increasing load cycle counts. 56 .19. and tends to show a greater increase with the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.21 and 2.20.more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding.18). The elastic CMOD is calculated as the difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P. The elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same. The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD. which does not disappear after the removal of loading (see Figure 2. The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD. 2.

2 KN Pmax=15.5H5 C4 x8 . By the end of the tests of one million cycles.100 0.400 C3 x8 . with increasing load cycles counts.5H5 0.300 Elastic CMOD (mm) C6 x8 . As can be seen in Figure 2. Based on the experimental results. elastic CMOD tended to grow slowly at first.20.000 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5H5 0.respectively.19 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2. 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. the plastic CMODs were about one quarter of the elastic CMODs.200 0.19 and 2. Plastic CMOD tended to grow slowly throughout cyclic loading.5H5 C5x8 . but at a decreasing rate.6 KN) 57 . but then stabilize to a nearly constant value after a few thousand load cycles. 0.

05 0 1 10 100 10000 100000 100000 1E+07 0 Numbe r of Cycle s N 1000 Figure 2.5P 5 C 5x8.E+05 1.21 Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P 5 C 4x8.0.100 1.20 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 C3 x8 .5H5 C4 x8 .E+01 1.5H5 C6 x8 .E+03 1.5P 5 0.5H5 0.5H5 C5x8 .200 0.250 Elastic CMOD (mm) C 6x8.300 C 3x8.E+04 1.E+00 1.2 KN Pmax=15.15 CMOD (mm) 0.1 0.2 KN Pmax=15.150 0.6 KN) 58 .E+02 1.6 KN) 0.E+06 Number of Cycles N Figure 2.5P 5 0.

C4x8. C4x8.5P5 0.2 KN Pmax=15.5P5.5H5.1 0.0. during which the length and opening of a crack both increase with the number of cycles under the applied cyclic loading.5H5 and C5x8.2 C3 x8 .22 Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.5P5 C4 x8 .6 KN) Based on the above definitions and experiment results. the crack development stage appears to continue to a higher cycle count.15 CMOD (mm) C 5x8. It took specimens C6x8.5P5 0.05 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Numbe r of C ycle s N Figure 2. C5x8.5P5 about 10.5H5.000 cycles to exhibit fully developed cracks.5P5 approached the end of crack development between 3000 and 6000 cycles. The first stage is crack development.5P 5 C6 x8 . during this period of crack development. C3x8.5H5 and C6x8. Specimens C3x8. but the elastic CMOD grows much more markedly with increasing load cycles. the crack growth of FRP RC is herein further divided into two stages. With lower reinforcement ratios (wider bar spacings). 59 . Both elastic and plastic CMOD tend to grow with the number of cycles.5P5.

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

31 were similar to those of group H except for specimen C5x8.5P5. There are two sets of hysteresis for the two cracks in specimen C5x8.28. The characteristics of hysteresis of group P in Figure 2.8 4 1. The hysteresis slopes again decreased slightly with increasing load cycles.30 and 2.27.29.5P5.for the single crack.23 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8. The characteristics of the two cracks were almost identical.50 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 61 . showing no difference between cracks initiated by static precracking and by fatigue precracking.15 0.2 0. 16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2000 2 3 0 . This difference is believed to be attributable to secondary cracks.0 0 0 1.05 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2. 2. which is discussed later. One crack was generated by static precracking and the other was initiated during cyclic loading. 2. 2.1 0.

5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10 .1 Elastic CMO D (mm) 0.05 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 62 .0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.1 0.0 0 0 .05 0.15 0.15 0.0 0 0 2 8 0 .24 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.0 0 0 .0 0 0 9 8 8 .2 Figure 2.25 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.16 1 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 2 2 0 .0 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.0 0 0 1.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.0 0 0 2 .

000 140.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.05 0.3 0.2 0.26 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.15 0.5H5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 20.16 14 12 ∆Load (KN) 500 40.2 0.4 0.000 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 63 .27 Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.1 0.

000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.25 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.1 0.15 0.3 Elastic CMO D (mm) Figure 2.2 0.05 0.29 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 2000 310.28 Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.000 900.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Static Pre-Cracking 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1600 310.15 0.000 900.1 0.05 0.25 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load Fatigue Pre-Cracking 64 .2 0.

15 0.050.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.15 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.14 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 1 10.05 0.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 65 .2 0.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 1.000.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.30 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.000 600.1 0.31 Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.000 1.5P5 Under Cyclic Load 14 12 1 10 ∆Load (KN) 10.000 0.25 CMO D (mm) Figure 2.

The pseudo energy loss is due to many factors including cracking.5H5 C6 x8 . The pseudo energy loss per crack. damping.20E-05 8. 2. the product of bending moment and the opening angle of the crack is not the true energy at the section. To better quantify the evolution of hysteretic behavior.Since plane section is an assumption at a cracked section.32 Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H 66 . the area enclosed within hysteresis loops of bending moment versus rotation is defined as pseudo energy loss. was then calculated by dividing by the width of the specimen and plotted as a function of load cycle count (see Figure 2. The pseudo energy loss is one measure of energy loss or damage per cycle and it was tracked for each specimen as the number of load cycles increased.33.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 1E+07 Number of Cycles Figure 2.5H5 C4 x8 . etc.32 and 2.00E-06 4. From Figure 2.5H5 1. friction.00E-06 0.32 and 2. micro-cracking.5H5 1.33).00E-05 C3 x8 .60E-05 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) C5x8 . at unit width. it was apparent that the general trend of pseudo energy loss/cycle/beam width was downward with increasing load cycles.

50E-05 2.2. (The higher energy loss per cycle in specimen C5x8. as the width (bar spacing) of the specimen increased. which is analogous to the fracture behavior of metals. 67 .5P5 C4 x8 . the pseudo energy loss per cycle decreased.00E-05 5.00E-06 0.5P5 was apparently due to the small initial crack length.00E-05 C3 x8 .5P5 100000 1000000 Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5H5 and C6x8.33 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.5P5 C6 x8 .5H5.00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 C5x8 . The actual normalized areas contained within the hysteresis loops of specimens C5x8.5H5 were much smaller than those of specimens C3x8. Similarly in group P.50E-05 1.5H5 and C4x8.5P5 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 1.) 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. generally speaking. The dominant damage manifestation was the increase of plastic CMOD with increasing load cycles.

1 0. a 40% overload was applied after one million cycles of service level fatigue loading.34 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.5H5.34). It would appear that relatively modest overloads.The effect of overload cycles was also investigated in FRP RC. 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 aft er 10 .15 CMO D (mm) 0. The hysteretic behavior showed very little changes after 30.000 cycles of this 40% overload (see Figure 2.000 load cycles.2 0.36 and 2.000 cycles of this 30% overload (see Figure 2.5H5 68 . The hysteretic behavior of this specimen also showed very little change after 30. have a minimal impact on subsequent service level crack opening behavior. a 30% overload was applied after 180. Similar results were obtained in group P.5H5.0 0 0 OL Load (KN) 12 8 4 0 0. For specimen C5x8.3 KN Beam C5x8. as shown in Figure 2. up to 40% over service load levels. overloads were only applied in the second stage of crack evolution (characterized by stabilized cracks) in group H and P.35).000 cycles of service level fatigue loading. For specimen C6x8.25 Figure 2. Due to the fact that crack development typically occurs primarily within the initial 10.37.

1 0.3 0.0 0 0 cycles o f o verlo ad 20 Load (KN) 15 10 5 0 0 0.25 0.5H5 20 1.36 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.2 CMO D (mm) 0.1 0.3 Figure 2.2 0.5P5 69 .25 b efo re o verlo ad at 18 0 k cycles aft er 3 0 .3 KN Beam C5x8.000 OL 10 5 0 0 0.4 Figure 2.35 Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN Beam C6x8.25 million after 3000 OL 15 Load (KN) after 10.15 CMO D (mm) 0.05 0.

2 0.000 cycles.15 0. and CMOD started growing again.0 0 0 OL1 15 Load (KN) 10 5 0 0 Figure 2. At the same time. for the Isorod rebars. 70 . The elastic CMOD actually decreased as more cyclic loads were applied at service level.5P5 The effect of precracking by static overload is unique.3 KN Beam C6x8.37 0. The explanation is as follows: during static overload crack initiations.000 cycles of loading. but no additional plastic CMOD was generated. the hardening effect was offset by the accumulated fatigue damage. the bonding between concrete and rebar experiences inelastic hardening. no additional plastic CMOD was accumulated until about 10.05 0. at the working stress level.20 1 millio n after 50 0 0 OL1 after 50 .38.25 CMO D (mm) Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.1 0. Only after 10. as shown in Figure 2. there was fatigue hardening. In the subsequent loading cycles.

However. group P and the static overload crack initiation specimen. since crack measuring instrumentation had not yet been installed. the plastic CMOD due to the static overload hardening was not recorded. The actual total CMOD of specimen C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.5H5M Figure 2.5P5OL Elastic CMOD C5x8.10 0. which clearly indicated that there was inelastic hardening during overload.00 1 -0.5S5 Plastic CMOD C5x8.5P5OL was actually smaller that that of C5x8.5P5OL therefore should be larger than those of specimens C5x8.30 0.5P5OL Plastic CMOD C5x8.5S5 Elastic CMOD C5x8. C5x8.5H5 and C5x8.Comparing group H.05 Numbe r of Cycle s 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 Elastic CMOD C5x8.25 CMOD (mm) 0.05 0.6 KN) The conventional steel reinforced concrete specimen behaved differently from the FRP reinforced concrete specimens.5P5.35 0.20 0.5H5M (Pmin=2.5P5.15 0.5H5OL. steel reinforcement has a much larger modulus of elasticity.38 Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for Specimens C5x8. Compared with FRP bars. therefore the location of the neutral axis was 71 . 0.2 KN Pmax=15.5S5 and C5x8. the elastic CMOD of overload pre-cracked specimen C5x8.

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

01 0. unlike FRP RC.02 0.5S5 Under Cyclic Load 20 1 millio n aft er 10 0 0 OL 16 Load (KN) aft er 150 .06 Figure 2.02 0.08 0.000 280.03 CMO D (mm) 0.5S5 73 . At the same time.0 0 0 OL 12 8 4 0 0.05 0.000 1.000 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.000. 14 1 12 10 ∆Load (KN) 10. there was only a small amount of plastic CMOD induced by overload.degradation began as shown in Figure 2.04 0.40 Effect of 40%Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22300 N Beam C5x8.39 Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.06 C MO D (mm) 0.04 0.40.1 Figure 2.

5P5 and C5x8. the discussions have been limited to an individual crack in a specimen. to monitor the pseudo energy loss per cycle. there are cracks in close proximity to each other.00E-06 3.41 Unit Width Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Specimen C5x8. the pseudo energy loss per crack.00E-06 4.5S5 Thus far.5S 5 C5x8.41.5S5 is also smaller than that of C5x8. for specimen C5x8.The area enclosed within hysteresis loops was again calculated for specimen C5x8. The pseudo energy loss per crack at unit width for specimen C5x8. 7.5P5OL and C5x8. at unit width. 74 .00E+00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 C5x8.5S5 was plotted as a function of load cycle count in Figure 2.5S5 and C5x8.00E-06 2.5P5OL as the number of load cycles increased.00E-06 0.5P5OL and C5x8.00E-06 Energy Loss(N-m/mm) 5.00E-06 6. Due to the random nature of fatigue and cracking. sometimes.5P 5OL Numbe r of Cycle s Figure 2.5H5.00E-06 1. In addition to the same general trend of energy loss/cycle.

But. It appeared that the crack started growing as expected.000 cycles. the elastic CMOD started to decrease. Unfortunately.5H5M shown above in Figure 2. due to operation problems. as shown in the photo. At around one million cycles. no plastic CMOD was acquired. Comparing the elastic and plastic CMODs. The plots of elastic CMOD versus cycle count. 75 .. which was 115mm (4. it began to stabilize. the elastic CMOD became less.Figure 2. there was a crack at midspan. as the monitored ramp loading was applied at every 10.000 cycles. In specimen C5x8. they were very close to each other. until one million cycles had elapsed.42. as more cycles were applied.5 in) from the two monitored cracks. In addition. indicated that elastic CMOD started declining with number of cycles after 70. however. the crack growth at the beginning of the test was not captured. The crack spacing of 115mm was low compared with other specimens of same size.5 H5M In specimen C5x8.000 cycles. there was one crack right next to a monitored crack. at the expense of a larger plastic CMOD. after 10.42 Specimen C5 x 8. In other words.5P5.

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

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

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

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

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

The stress within the reinforcement bridging the crack surfaces can be taken into account by the tensile stress within the fictitious material. there is a fracture process zone near the tip of a crack.5P5 C4x8.1 Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens In the fictitious material model.3). to account 81 . Another benefit of the fictitious material is that it can include the interaction of two crack surfaces.17 0. will make this representation insensitive to crack length.5mm (0.21 0. Tensile stress within the fictitious material will be applied on the crack surfaces. however.the table below. Interestingly. It appears that a debonded length of 50mm per crack is conservative for all different specimens. The justification of the model is as follows.16 C3x8. a crack region is simulated as a triangular area filled with a fictitious material (Figure 3.19 0. A small base dimension.5P5 C5x8. The base dimension of the triangular area of fictitious material has been arbitrarily selected as 2. Specimen Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Crack Opening (mm) 0.22 0. As mentioned earlier.1 in).15 Debonded Length/Crack (mm) 50mm 38mm 50mm 25mm Total Debonded Length (mm) 200mm 75mm 100mm 50mm Table 3. The height is the true height of a crack. and the debonded length subsequently decreases.5P5 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.5P5 C6x8. after adding the debonded lengths of each crack within the pure bending region. It may be understood that the bonding is improved between FRP bar and concrete as beam width increases. The section modulus of uncracked FRP section is less dependent on the bar due to the low reinforcement ratio. the general trend was that the debonded length becomes smaller as beam width increases. The bar has been smeared into the concrete section.17 0.23 0.

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

Two further assumptions are made in this simulation. Efic.20 Computed Crack Opening (mm) 0.24 0.20 Efic 27. of the fictitious material was calibrated for each specimen based upon the assumed triangular dimensions and upon the experimental results after the CMOD reached its maximum value. Also.5P5 C4x8.5P5 C5x8. tensile stress in concrete is excluded in the analysis.24 0.2.20 0.The Young’s modulus.5P5 Beam Width (mm) 75 102 127 152 Measured Final Crack Opening (mm) 0. different FRP bar types will generate different Efic due to differing bond-slip properties. the tensile stress is crucial in the evolution of cracks.4 MPa (1800 psi) Table 3.1 MPa (3500 psi) 13. However.20 0.6 MPa (2500 psi) 12. Different specimens resulted in different Efic values as shown in the Table 3. below. It is another possible indication of a size effect. Specimen C3x8.20 0. 83 . The first assumption concerns the stress distribution at the crack.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 C6x8.20 0. due to the fact that tensile strength is generally only about five to ten percent of the compressive strength. Normally.6 MPa (4000 psi) 24. since it is the stress distribution near the crack tip that dictates the stability of a crack.

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

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

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

after rearrangement. 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. ) ac hb 3 KI = 2P πac a c (1 − c ) 2 1 − ( ) 2 hb ac (3-12) 87 . the stress intensity factor is listed as follows: G( c ac . The stress intensity factor for pure bending is as follows. ∆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). da c = EI L dwc M ( L + wc ) 2 (3-9) Substituting into the Paris equation.12 − 1. the following equation is obtained.1( c ) 3 + 14. and N is the number of cycles.39( ac a a a ) + 7. KI = 6 M πac h 2 b [1. L is the spacing of cracks.32( c ) 2 − 13. E and I are the beam modulus of elasticity and moment of inertia respectively.ac = EI wc M L + wc (3-8) Taking the derivatives on both sides of the equation gives the following results.0( c ) 4 ] hb hb hb hb (3-11) In the case of a concentrated load on the crack surface.

hb is the beam height. ) = 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. c is the distance from the load to the crack edge.84(1 − c )5 + 0.39( c )3 − (1 − c ) 2 − 5.22( c ) + 34.64( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = −6.46 + 3.63 + 25.98( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb hb hb hb g1 ( g2 ( g3 ( g4 ( where ac is the crack length.06( c ) + 0.41( c )3 + 2(1 − c ) 2 + 5. 88 . α R α/2 D/2 D/2 ∆ Figure 3. M is the bending moment.54( c ) 2 − 14.17 − 28.G( a c a c a c a c ac .66( c ) 2 (1 − c ) 2 hb hb hb hb hb ac a ) = −3. D was 610mm (24 in). The following sketch is pure bending region of the experiment setup.52( c ) 2 hb hb ac a a a a 3 a a a ) = 6.7 Verification of Hinge Model Finite element models for the calibration of test specimens were also used to verify the hinge assumption. The angle α has the following expression.04(1 − c )5 + 1. P is the concentrated load.04( c ) 2 + 14.88(1 − c )5 − 2.16( c ) − 31.

01302 × 6 = 0. units) ac D 72 D (3-17) (3-16) The results of the finite element analysis are listed below in Table 3.006973 × 12 = 0.5P5 C6x8.5 72 0.5P5 0. the following equations are obtained. with relative differences all less than 10%.00127 = 0.006407 0. 1 8∆ = R D2 Equation (3-7) becomes the following.0011 5. we have the following equation. Specimen wc ac ∆L 72 Difference C4x8. sin α = 4∆ ≈α D (3-15) The following results are reached by equating equation (3-13) and (3-15).α= D 2 R (3-13) Also.S. the hinge assumption is justified.00696 0.3.5H5 C4x8.0011 5 72 Table 3.3 Hinge Assumption Verification 9% 8% 9% 89 .00654 0.01121 × 7.00128 = 0.5 72 0.5H5 C5x8. wc 8∆ 8∆L ∆L = 2 ( L + wc ) ≈ 2 = (U.00119 = 0.5P5 C5x8. sin α 2 ≈ ∆ D 2 (3-14) Due to the small magnitude of α.5 = 0.00109 5.

What is more important is that the trajectories of crack opening increment 90 . the parameters C and m in the Paris equation were investigated. Another difficulty will be the determination of initial crack length. using specimen C5x8.8. it is impossible to use a compliance calibration method. The modulus of elasticity for concrete is also variable. since crack length may not be uniform across the width direction. The property of an FRP bar is also subject to uncertainty in the manufacturing process and materials themselves.005mm and the final crack length differed by 5mm. 6. depending on the ingredients and curing process.51x10-5 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m . which will be determined based on experimental results. namely. 7.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. which was similar to the value reported by other researchers (Baluch et al 1987). 6. with possibly different initial crack lengths.3x10-17 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m in U. In the case of multiple cracks.S. The results were shown in Figure 3. For thin specimen such as 76 mm and 102 mm. the true crack length should be very close to the surface length. units.25x10-4. With three C values at the ratio of 1:1/3:1/9. a sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the response of the model to these variables. the exact spacing of cracks is random.6x10-17 and 3. 2.5H5 as a prototype. Since the initiation of cracks may be triggered by the presence of a random flaw within a structure. corresponding to 2x10-16.76. To address these variables with uncertainties. the opening increment only changed by 0. Three different C values were used. First. The parameter m was set to be 3.76x10-4.

The plots of this data are shown in Figure 3. The crack opening increment.86.01mm less. the model is insensitive to C. as suggested by Swartz et al (1984). C was therefore fixed at 6. Considering the difference of crack opening increments for different values of m values was only 3%. it was concluded that the model of crack opening growth is very sensitive to m although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to m. The difference between the maximum and minimum initial crack length was 38mm (1. if the initial crack length was overestimated by 25mm. did not change more than 0.9. Trajectories of crack length and opening growth were therefore generated for an array of initial crack lengths. 91 . The second set of tested parameters was initial crack length and crack spacing with C set at 6.76 and 3. Three different m values were subsequently specified at 3. The final crack opening increment might be 0.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m or 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m . the measured surface crack was always an estimate. however.76x10-4 and m at 3.5 in). and that each was completely different from the others.66. 3.003mm.76.were similar to each other. Obviously. All trajectories of crack opening growth were similar to each other and the final crack length was not affected. Due to the aforementioned difficulties. The discrepancy might be as much as 25mm.86. The results showed that the curve for crack opening growth became flat at m of 3. It was found that crack opening growth was sensitive to the initial crack length although the final crack opening increment is insensitive to initial crack length.

The trajectories of crack length growth for three widths of 121mm. with fixed C of 6.5MPa and 41. The width of specimen C5x8. and elastic modulus of FRP bars Ef . the values of Ef .5H5 was given an error of 6mm (0. With respect to a 15% increase of Ef.10 and 3.4MPa.13. This explains the fact that cracks within the pure bending region may have different crack opening growth curve.25 in). with 6mm increase in beam width and vice versa. As Ec increased from 27. 1.4MPa. Finally. The error for crack opening increment was about 0. The curve for crack length growth was not related to different crack spacing. Values of Ec were set at 27. yet all cracks stop at the same length.001mm less.12 and 3.6MPa to 41. however.002mm less. The plots are shown in Figure 3.76.6MPa.05mm more when crack spacing was 40mm larger.3Ef were examined. Since forms of specimens might deform during concrete placement. The next two tested parameters were elastic modulus of concrete Ec . 127mm and 133mm almost coincided with each other. Since manufactures of FRP usually gave the guaranteed Ef. 34.15Ef and 1. the sensitivity of the specimen size was investigated. The crack opening growth.76x10-4 and m of 3. The crack opening increment was approximately 0. with a difference of about 40mm. approximately. The height of specimen 92 . The plots are shown in Figure 3. was insensitive to concrete modulus of elasticity. the crack length would be 5mm shorter and the crack opening increment would be 0. the final crack length changed by 20mm although the trajectories were still similar to each other.Three different values of crack spacing were examined. final specimen size can be different from the nominal size.11.

with 6mm less beam height. to the parameter m in the Paris equation. Initial crack length should be measured accurately due to moderate sensitivity. and vice versa.C5x8. the prediction of growth of crack length and opening is subject to variability inherent with parameters such as modulus of elasticity.25 in).001mm less. however. such as moduli of elasticity for concrete and FRP. due to the nature of the exponential function. In summary. their sensitivities are low and the impacts on the model are of the same order as the resolution of data acquisition. 93 . specimen size and C and m in the Paris equation. The trajectory of crack length growth was about 5mm more with 6mm more beam height and vice versa. The plots are shown in Figure 3. For other variables. as long as the variability is within a reasonable range.14 and 3. The error of crack opening increment was about 0. The parameter C is the least sensitive parameter in the model.15. This model is most sensitive. and specimen size. crack length. The results of recorded crack opening growth will therefore not be substantially affected by the possible variation of beam size from the nominal size.5H5 was also given an error of 6mm (0.

76) Figure 3.76x10-4) 94 .Figure 3.5H5 (m=3.8 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C for Beam C6x8.5H5 (C=6.9 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m for Beam C5x8.

Figure 3.76) 95 .5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.11 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.10 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a0 for Beam C5x8.76) Figure 3.76x10-4 m=3.

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

Figure 3.76) 97 .76x10-4 m=3.76) Figure 3.14 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.5H5 (C=6.15 Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h for Beam C5x8.76x10-4 m=3.

units. which illustrates a size effect. The objective function was the minimum of the sum of the square of the differences between the model and the experimental data. all specimens except C6x8.19 to 3. Similar results are shown Figure 3. the result of crack length was always the surface crack length observed. 98 . For parameters C and m in Paris equation. In other words.16 to 3. The results are listed from Figure 3. the beam becomes less “brittle” as the width becomes smaller.76x10-4 mm/cycle/(MPa m1/2)m ( 2x10-16 in/cycle/(psi in1/2)m ). For both thin and thick specimens. The model is less sensitive to parameter C and initial crack length. Converting to unit of mm/cycle/(Pa m1/2)m. in that m decreases as the beam width decreases.5H5 were simulated due to the fact that there was excessive load at pre-cracking with C6x8.22.Simulation of Experiment Results Based on the sensitivity analysis.S.18. C is in the order of 10-25 which agrees with the results reported by Baluch (1987). The same analysis was performed for all specimens of group P.5H5. since m is the exponential term. using a brute force approach. The value of C is in the order of 10-16 in U. For specimens of group H. all three parameters were first determined so that the model best fits the experimental data. it is understood that parameter m is the most crucial one in the model. To simplify the model. A summary was shown in Figure 3. It was then determined that surface crack length could be used in the simulation of crack growth. As the goal was to simulate the experiments.23. a fixed value of C was set to be 6. the model is obviously more sensitive to m than C .

the radius of plastic zone starts decreasing and the state of stress approaches plane strain. however. C=6.5H5. As the width of a metallic specimen is small.16 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8. the depth of the fracture process zone is not related the state of stress. This size effect is therefore not caused by the fracture process zone. In the case of FRP concrete. and. Figure 3. a fracture process zone exists near the tip of the crack. When the specimen width increases. the size of the plastic zone is large and the specimen is in a plane stress state. m=3.This phenomenon is analogous to that of metallic materials.76x10-4.48 99 .

5H5.Figure 3. C=6.76 100 . m=3.5H5.76x10-4.76x10-4.57 Figure 3. C=6.17 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8. m=3.18 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.

5P5. m=3.5P5. C=6.19 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C3x8.76x10-4.76x10-4. m=3.39 Figure 3.Figure 3.55 101 . C=6.20 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C4x8.

76x10-4. m=3. C=6.76x10-4. m=3.74 Figure 3.22 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C6x8. C=6.21 Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number of Cycles Beam C5x8.88 102 .5P5.Figure 3.5P5.

8 m Value 3.2 200 150 100 50 Beam Width (mm) Figure 3.6 3.4 3.23 Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation 103 .4 Group H Group P 3.

Secondly. the fictitious material representation will be used to investigate the performance of an entire bridge deck. Analysis of Slab Strips Since a large number of elements are generated in the debonded length representation. the width of primary strip is 660+0. by applying the aforementioned behavioral parameters with finite element models. and resulting FRP stresses will be computed. The objective of the finite element analysis is to investigate and predict the performance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs under realistic conditions. where S is the girder spacing in millimeters.55S for positive moments. some empirical slab strip widths have been listed in AASHTO Table 4.1.6. To account for the effect of continuity. the debonded length representation will be used to analyze concrete slab strips.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. and to simulate a worst case scenario.2.3-1. due to its relative simplicity. From the AASHTO design guide. slabs of two spans over three girders will be analyzed. The arching effect will also be examined. First. There are diaphragms between the girders with an “X” configuration. it is not feasible to use it for an entire bridge deck. The values of strip width are based on experience. For a cast-in-place concrete slab. plus top and bottom chord 104 .

8 m.2.5-1 in AASHTO. For the purpose of simplicity. 2. 2.7 m (105 in).7 m (9 feet) and 3.7 m (66 in). and the width of the loading area is always 0. The wheel load is 71.8 m (6 feet). 105 . The rest of the interface between bar and concrete is defined to be fully attached.e. which represent the majority of bridges in service. due to the fact that normal reinforcing steel bar spacing is approximately 125mm in bridge slabs. The boundary conditions of the model are as follows. Design loads are AASHTO design truck loads and slab self weight. the intensity of the wheel pressure is always constant at 0.86 MPa (125 psi). The corresponding strip widths are 1. since a bridge slab is under a concentrated wheel load. 5) The steel girder is a typical W36x135 section. i. with a lateral spacing of 1. The initial crack length was set to be 150mm (6 in) which was the initial crack length of specimen C4x8.3 KN (16 kips) for an HS20 design truck load.6.5P5.1. All exterior girders were constrained in vertical and girder axial (longitudinal) directions at the bottom of the girder webs.5m (20 in). 3) One wheel of the design truck will be applied above the crack to represent the critical condition. 2) There is only one crack at the midpoint of each span. 4) The slab is 215 mm thick. Both the slab and rebar are modeled with 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. Only one exterior girder was constrained in transverse direction. the following assumptions are made. The distribution of the wheel load is approximated according to equation 3. The FRP bar spacing used in the strip model is 100mm. A distributed lane load is not required in the slab strip analysis per AASHTO. 1) The values of girder spacing are 1.2 m (86 in) and 2.bars. Debond is designated for a distance of 25 mm on each side of the crack.6 m (12 feet)..

It is obvious that the only area of compressive stress was around the loading at midspan. 16M Bar at 100mm. The diaphragm was composed of two cross bars and a bottom horizontal bar with a section area of 1600mm2 (2.8m (6 ft) was analyzed.1. one wheel load was applied first at the midspan of the slab as shown in Figure 4. the case of a girder spacing of 1.1 Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing 1.5 in2).First. The cross section area of the top bar of the diaphragm was set to be zero. The resulting stress contour is plotted in Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) 106 .2. Arching effect was not noticeable for the load case of one wheel load. Figure 4. To investigate the arching effect.8m.

107 . 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.3.Figure 4. implying there is significant arching effect in this case of an axle load.8m. The tensile stress also decreased significantly.2 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. From the stress contour plot. two wheel loads were applied to the slab strip as shown in Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.

with 16M bar spaced at 100mm were analyzed. 2.4 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.3 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 1. 108 . the effects of girder spacing were examined. 16M Bar at 100mm) Next.6m. 16M Bar at 100mm.6m girder spacing was also analyzed.7m and 3.8m.8m. To investigate the effects of rebar spacing. Two cases of girder spacing. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4. The results are illustrated below. the case of 150mm bar spacing at 3.Figure 4.

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

16M Bar at 100mm) 110 .Figure 4. 16M Bar at 100mm.7 Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m.6m. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.8 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.

regardless of the girder spacing. The difference in rebar spacing did not appear to have a very significant effect on the concrete compressive zone. The lateral stiffness of the girder and diaphragms supplies substantial lateral constraint to the bridge slab. The rebar stress obviously decreased at greater distances from the load center. the bar stress in the slab strip was studied.8m. In Figure 4. Much larger ultimate strength will be achieved when arching action is considered than would be the case when considering the theoretical bending strength of the slab alone. the bar stresses were plotted versus the distance from the center of the assumed wheel load.Figure 4. The magnitude of 111 . Next. The results imply that a composite bridge slab is different from a conventional multiple span continuous slab.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. 16M Bar at 150mm) From the contour plots from larger girder spacing.10.

120 3. 100mm bar Spa. which was well less than the tensile strength of the bars.10 Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars 112 . Bar Stress (MPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 0. 100mm Bar Spa. The remaining issues. therefore. 3. which should produce a fatigue life of over 10 million cycles.3 ksi).2 0.7m Girder Spa. 100mm Bar Spa.6m Girder Spa.0MPa (13. 150mm Bar Spa.1 MPa (10.4 Distance from Wheel Load (m) Figure 4.6m (12ft) girder spacing and 150mm rebar spacing was about 89. rather than the static ultimate strength.4 0. are durability and serviceability.8 1 1. Considering the fact that slabs are under constant traffic load.0 ksi).6 0. 100 1. it was verified that fatigue and serviceability under repeated loads are the critical factors in slab design. The compressive stress levels in concrete itself was only about 10% of the ultimate strength. The maximum rebar stress at 3.8m Girder Spa. There would be no fatigue failure expected with FRP bars under the calculated stress levels.2 1.stress at the assumed 3. including crack opening and slab deflection.6m Girder Spa.6m (12ft) girder spacing and the 100mm rebar spacing was about 71. 2.

5 in2).055mm (0. which should be acceptable.0019 in).19mm (0.00202 in). To further investigate the top diaphragm bar effect. a top diaphragm bar. The maximum deflection under axle load only increased to 0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load decreased only slightly more.051mm (0. was added at each diaphragm location. to 0.0073 in).21mm (0.0023 in). as it represents a deflection/span ratio of less than 1/8000. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0. the cross section area of that bar was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2).18mm (0. having a cross section area of 1600 mm2 (2.051mm (0. 113 .0072 in).058mm (0.0020 in).5mm suggested in ACI 440. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.0022 in). under the self-weight and the axle load of a design truck. The maximum crack opening due to the design axle load decreased to 0.8m girder spacing.0083 in). which directly connected the top of the webs of adjacent girders. the maximum total crack opening under load center was 0. To further decrease the crack opening of an FRP reinforced slab. diaphragms were placed at each end of the slab with two diagonal bars plus a bottom bar. which obviously implied that restraint from the diaphragms played a very minor role in controlling crack openings and slab deflections. Compared with the maximum 0.0085 in). The maximum total crack opening under the load center only increased to 0. At the girder spacing of 1. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. the entire diaphragm was removed. The maximum deflection under the axle load was 0.048mm (0. Finally. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load alone was 0.22mm (0. the initial crack opening was very conservative for the 1.8m (6 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm.To analyze the crack opening of the slab strip.

Diaphragms were removed for the 114 .5 in2). or even to the presence of lateral diaphragms at all.080mm (0.53mm (0. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.4mm (0. the maximum crack opening due to axle load only decreased to 0. The maximum crack opening due to axle load only was 0.7m (9 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. Analysis was also performed for the case of a girder spacing 3. The maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.00303 in). which was still within the crack opening limits suggested by ACI 440. With diaphragms of two cross bars and a bottom bar.0032 in).108mm (0. The maximum deflection under the axle load was virtually the same.021 in).0031 in). Since the changes in crack opening and slab deflection were so small.089 mm (0.055 in). the maximum total crack opening under the load center was 0. it was concluded that serviceability of concrete slabs in this strip model are insensitive to the addition of top bars to the diaphragms. The spacing for 16M bar was then increased to 150mm.6m (12 ft) with 16M bars spaced at 100mm. with the same cross section area 1600 mm2 (2. The maximum slab deflection under the axle load was 0. the maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0. which. the maximum crack opening due to the axle load only was 0.0050 in) under the selfweight and axle load of the design truck. should be acceptable. Even after the cross section area of the top was increased to 6450 mm2 (10 in2). When a top bar was added to the diaphragm.13 mm (0.0042 in).A similar analysis was conducted for the case of a girder spacing 2. The maximum deflection under axle load was 1. again.077mm (0.0035 in) under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck.077mm (0.

which is composed of one axle load of 53.4m and 1. The results from the slab strip analyses with debonded length representation indicate that a 16M FRP bar. 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). somewhat arbitrary. presumably. The strip width is. 1.0063 in). it is then imperative to more fully investigate a complete bridge slab.sake of simplicity. The axle spacings are 3.62 KN (17 kips). due to its simplicity and. under the self-weight and axle load of the design truck. there are four legal loads.6m (12 ft). Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs The slab strip model is quite often utilized in slab design. under the design truck load and lane loads. at 150mm spacing. and the predicted crack opening is only 33% of the limit suggested by ACI 440. and due to their ineffectiveness. is sufficient flexural reinforcement for concrete slabs with girder spacing up to 3.5mm (. namely an opening of less than . The maximum total crack opening at the load center was 0.2m.38 KN (12 kips) followed by four axle loads of 75. The heaviest legal truck load is a 5C1. 115 .02 in). Since the ultimate goal of a design is to ensure that the long-term serviceability of bridge slabs is satisfactory. In the State of Ohio. however. which is also within the suggested design limits in ACI 440.6m.16 mm (0. The predicted FRP rebar stress is quite low. its expected conservatism.2m. 9.

but were later added to evaluate their effectiveness. the slab was supported by three girders.27m (14 ft). The model bridge was single span of 18. especially including discrete rebars. The spacing between the first axle and the second axle is 4. It is therefore meaningful to compare the performances of bridge slabs both under the AASHTO design load and a maximum Ohio legal load.producing a total length of 15. It is considerably different from the AASHTO design truck or AASHTO design lane load. There was again one initial crack assumed midway between girders. Similar to slab strip model. it was possible to model the entire bridge and evaluate final elastic crack opening and deflection. One wheel load was located on top of each crack location. which was calibrated for final CMOD from the experimental program. The second and third axles are 142. The front axle load is 35. The spacing between the 116 . Cross bar diaphragms were first not included in the model. and bar stresses in slabs were generally much smaller.6 KN (8 kips). the calibrated fictitious material representation will tend to provide an upper bound estimate of the expected crack opening. With the fictitious material representation. Due to the large size of the structure.5 KN (32 kips).5m. which would generate too many elements. The slab thickness was 215mm (8.3m (60 ft) long. such as 5C1. it would not be realistic to model it using the debonded length representation. Since the experiments were conducted with bars under full service load 140MPa (20 ksi). The design truck is composed of three axles.5 in). The design load in the analyses consisted of the AASHTO design truck and the design lane load.

minimum spacing of 4.27m (14 ft) would be the critical condition. actually less than that predicted by the full deck model.15m (30 ft). The slab and the fictitious material were modeled with the 20-node quadratic brick element in the FE program ABAQUS. Since the slab strip is always a narrow strip. The lateral spacing between wheels of each axle is 1. with 16M FRP bar at 100mm spacing. In the case of single span bridge. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0. The maximum predicted crack opening under the design load was 0.053mm. using the fictitious material model.11. in the bridge model.second axle and the third axle varies between 4. In Figure 4. For comparison purposes. The second axle of the design truck was placed at midspan of the bridge as shown in the model in Figure 4.12. the model and stress contours are shown for the case of a 1. The lane load is a uniformly distributed load with the intensity of 9. with no diaphragms.8m (6 ft) girder spacing. relative to the actual imposed stress field.05m (10 ft). spanning the two girder spacings. a slab strip model under the same condition was created.4. To verify the hypothesis that the girder stiffness is the cause of the discrepancy in 117 .11 and 4. girders underneath the slab strip represent a comparatively large stiffness in the model.27m (14 ft) and 9. Compared with Figure 4. The transverse distribution width may be assumed to be 3. it can be seen that the actual zone of concrete under compression is larger than the width of the assumed slab strip.8m (6 ft).081mm.35 KN/m (0. It is also apparent that there was only one large “dome” of concrete under compression.64 Kips/ft).

The crack opening predictions of the bridge model at different rebar spacings were calculated for girder spacings of 1.8m (6 ft) to 3. which was smaller than that of the slab strip model.6m (15 ft).058mm. As the girder spacing changed from 1.8m.19. The single “dome” was split into two again. The results of crack opening prediction versus reinforcement spacing are plotted in Figure 4.20.7m and 3. The arching effect was indicated by two compression “domes” around the axle. The contours of transverse normal stress were plotted in Figure 4. there was always one compression “dome”. Without diaphragms. From the model and results shown in Figure 4. 2.041mm. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0. and excessive crack opening predictions. the concrete compressive stress zone had decreased significantly. The models and stress contours are shown in Figures 4. The crack opening predictions from the slab strip model and bridge model with diaphragms are similar.13 and 4.crack opening prediction. The solid lines represented the crack opening predictions of bridges with diaphragms at 4.6m.6m (12 ft). as expected. all three girders were fixed vertically for the entire length of the bridge.15 through 4. the excessive deflections of the interior girder tend to produce in one large “dome” of concrete under compression.15. Finally. The maximum predicted crack opening was 0.6m spacing. while the hidden lines of the same color represent the results 118 . diaphragms were added to the bridge model at the spacing of 4. as an indication of the arching effect.14.

Although the primary purpose of diaphragms is to provide lateral stability for the girders.41mm. the spacing 150mm of 16M FRP bar would appear to be satisfactory up to a 3. the diaphragms also contribute to the load distribution within the bridge superstructure and crack control within the deck slab.6m (12 ft) girder spacing. The model is shown in Figure 4. The serviceability of the bridge model under a realistic load – Ohio legal load 5C1 was also investigated. the final plastic crack opening contribution is typically less than 25% of the elastic contribution.22 for the bridge model with 1. The concrete compressive zone was similar to that of AASHTO design load.of the same model without diaphragms.6m (12 ft). Based on the results of the fatigue experiments conducted at service load levels. or only 82% of the suggested ACI 440 limit. for 16M FRP rebars at 150mm spacing. Even at a girder spacing 3. Using maximum crack opening as the criterion. the maximum final crack opening was 0. 119 . Even including an impact factor of 1. the conservative estimate of final total crack opening is only 0. Nevertheless.21 mm.8m girder spacing. It can be seen that the crack opening increased by 30 to 50% after diaphragms were removed.3. the maximum crack opening under the Ohio legal load 5C1 was about 2/3 of the crack opening of AASHTO design load at different reinforcement spacing.21. as shown in Figure 4. and may be estimated conservatively as half of the elastic crack opening.

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

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.Figure 4. Slab thickness 215mm) Figure 4.

Figure 4.16 Slab Model under Load of Design Truck. (Girder spacing 2. Slab thickness 215mm) 122 . Lane Load and Self-Weight.7m.Figure 4.15 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only with Diaphrams.

Slab thickness 215mm) 123 . Lane Load and Self-Weight.17 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design Truck.Figure 4. (Girder spacing 3.6m.18 Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight. Figure 4.

No Diaph. CMOD (mm) 0. 1. 3.2 2.6m Girder Spa. 0.3 1.19 Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load and Self-Weight.7m Girder Spa.w / Diaph.w / Disph.w / Diaph. 0.1 0 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 Reinforcement Spacing (mm) Figure 4.No Diaph.6m Girder Spa.Figure 4. 2.8m Girder Spa.7m Girder Spa.No Diaph.8m Girder Spa. 3.20 Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge 124 .

06 0.04 0.08 CMOD (mm) 0.22 Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and SelfWeight. 1. (Girder spacing 1.21 Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal Load 5C1 in Model Bridge.8m.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 0.0. Slab thickness 215mm) 125 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current strength based bridge slab design results in excessive 133 .The analysis results indicated that slab strip model and complete bridge slab model are similar in the estimation of maximum crack opening. A conservative empirical design method is quite often appropriate in the bridge deck slab design.6m. Serviceability is deemed to be critical in ridge slab design instead of ultimate strength. Both the serviceability (crack opening) requirements and the strength are met as illustrated in the analysis. 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. reinforcement.

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

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

ACI Committee 215. JCTRER. B. Chaallal. Texas. “ Flexural Response of Concrete Beams Reinforced with FRP Reinforcing Bars”. USA. “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges”. Swartz. Journal of Composite Technology & Research. “AASHTO LRFD bridge construction specifications”. 2001 5. Benmokrane. S. 1992 6.K. Azad “ Fatigue Crack Propagation in Plain Concrete”. Qureshy. Houston. S. Committee 440. Shah. 20. S.91. Al-Zahrani “ Effects of Cyclic Loading on Bond Behavior of GFRP Rods Embedded in Concrete Beams”. “ Considerations of Design of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fatigue Loading”. Bakis. O. C. January 1998. “440.B. No.2.. 2000 3. 1996 4. Vol. 2004 2. Al-Dulaijan. pp. 80-87 8. A. American Concrete Institute. pp 29-37. American Concrete Institute.1R-01: Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”. R.Bibliography 1. A. Fracture of Concrete and Rock.H. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Boothby.P. 1995 7. Baluch. Vol. 1987. Nanni. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. “Fiber Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement”. ACI Structural Journal. Masmoudi. A. 1. 136 . American Concrete Institute. M. S. M. SEM-RILEM International Conference. No.E. June 17-19. Compilation 33.

G. R. Tarhini. John C. C. 16. Rusch “Behavior of Concrete under Biaxial Stress”. Vol. Richard E. August 1969. August.5.3. B. Tayar “ Finite Element Analysis of Steel Girder Highway Bridges” Journal of Bridge Engineering. Klingner. Center for Transportation Research. May. Gergely.1. 1982 11. FHWA/TX-95+1305-3F. Hilsdorf. Vol. K. 10. H. H. 1997. Mechanism and Control of Cracking in Concrete. 13. pp 139-147.K. Ned H.P. G. A. Realfonzo “Behavior and Modeling of Bond of FRP Rebars to Concrete”. Silva-Rodriguez “ Bond and Slip of FRP Rebars in Concrete”.9. M. Journal of Bridge Engineering. February. J. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. Causes. SP-20. Shah “ A Method of Predicting Crack Widths and Deflections for Fatigue Loading”. Journal of Composites for Construction. Cosenza. Lam “ Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-Free Deck Slabs”. Graddy. No.1. Publication SP-75. The University of Texas at Austin. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Editor S. Philleo. Journal of Composites for Construction.2. C. 2000. Balaguru. S. E. 15. 1993.87-117.5. pp 40-51. American Concrete Institute. Vol. August 2000.4. P. Larralde. pp. Vol. Bakht. 17.66. Frederick. 14. L.E. Lutz. May 1997. Kupfer. American Concrete Institute. “ Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members”. R. ACI Journal. No. T. “ Factors Affecting the Design Thickness of Bridge Slabs”. Shah. No. R. Vol. pp 83-87. Detroit. 137 . No. 12. Manfredi.3.P. Katz “ Bond to Concrete of FRP Rebars after Cyclic Loading”. H. pp137-144.2. Burns. pp 659-673. Mabsout. Vol.2. No.

Shah. 114. Zokaie.A. Editor S. Texas.C. Vol.C. Ouyang “Fracture Mechanics of Concrete: Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete.P. Retika “ Thermal and Mechanical Fatigue Effects on GFRP Rebar-Concrete Bond”. R. Calomino “ Kinetics of Crack Growth in Plain Concrete”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1995 23. 21. 2.C. 20. Non-Metallic(FRP) reinforcement for Concrete Structures. S. C. American Concrete Institute.M.18.3. S. Shield. 1997. Perdikaris.P.. A. Shah. Rock and Other Quasi-Brittle Materials”. Schamber “ Distribution of Wheel Loads on highway Bridges”. S. 591607. June 17-19. pp. 24. NCHRP Project No. Washington D.K. John Wiley & Sons. pp 381-388.M. 12-26. pp. March 1988.4. P. 86. “ RC Bridge Decks under Pulsating and Moving Load”. July-August 1989. Huang. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Vol. 64-69 22. K. ASCE. SEM-RILEM International Conference. Vol. Perdikaris. Shah. pp. C.E..E. A. 1982 138 . No. Oct. S. S. National research Council. 1987. Inc. Fatigue of Concrete Structures. C. Bousias“ Slab Continuity Effect on Ultimate and Fatigue Strength of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck Models”. Fracture of Concrete and Rock. Swartz. T. Hu “ Crack Growth and Fracture in Plain Concrete – Static Versus Fatigue Loading”. Beim. S. S. French. Perdikaris. 483-491. 1987 19. ACI Structural Journal. Swartz. No.E. C. P.P. USA. Swartz. P.C. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. R.. Houston. Detroit. S. Transportation Research Board.N. Beim. Publication SP-75. Nutt.

1985 30. Paris. Vol. pp129- 134. Canada. Banthia and P.2. No. J. K. “ Bending Behavior and Deformability of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Members”. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference on Short and Medium Span bridges. Experimental Mechanics. Hu. Huang “ Stress-Intensity Factor for Plain Concrete in Bending-Prenotched versus Precracked Beams ”. Brett. 2002.H. H. 27.. ACI Structural Journal. Paris Productions Inc. 26.98. Experimental Mechanics. Buckland. P.85. edited by P. Vijay. C.528-534.6.E. Vol. pp. S. November 1982. Fartash. Vancouver. No. Vol.S. C. pp.G. Erdogan “ A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”.22.C. Transactions of ASME.G. Swartz.K. Second Edition.412-417. 2001 139 . G. Hota V. N. Yost “ Structural Reinforcement of Bridge Decks Using Rigid FRP Grids”.11.24.V. GangaRao. S. P. Paris. Journal of Basic Engineering. Swartz. Canada. Go “ Validity of Compliance Calibration to Cracked Concrete Beams in Bending”. June 1984. 28. M.E. Vol. No. F. Irwin “ The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook”.25. P. 1963 29. Montreal. Tada.

Are you sure?

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

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd