Sei sulla pagina 1di 142

FRP REINFORCED CONCRETE AND ITS

APPLICATION IN BRIDGE SLAB DESIGN

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

candidate for the Ph.D. degree *.

 

(signed)

 

(chair of the committee)

 
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     
 
     

(date)

 

*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

1

List of Figures

3

List of Tables

10

Acknowledgements

11

List of Abbreviations

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

36

Description of Testing Program

37

Experimental Results

43

Qualitative Discussion

55

Chapter 3

Simulation of Crack Growth

78

Estimation of Crack Opening

78

Estimation of Crack Growth

83

Sensitivity Analysis of the Model and Variation of Crack

Growth Estimation

90

 

Simulation of Experiment Results

98

Chapter 4

Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of a Realistic FRP

Reinforced Concrete Slab

104

Analysis of Slab Strips

104

Analysis of Full Bridge Slabs

115

Empirical Design of Bridge Slabs

127

Chapter 5

Conclusions

130

Chapter 6

Future Research

134

References

136

List of Figures

Figure 2.1

Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers

38

Figure 2.2

Isorod by Pultrall

39

Figure 2.3

Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition

40

Figure 2.4

Cyclic Load Test Setup

41

Figure 2.5

Sketch of Data Acquisition System

42

Figure 2.6

Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5

44

Figure 2.7

Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5

45

Figure 2.8

Specimen C4 x 8.5 H5

45

Figure 2.9

Specimen C6 x 8.5 H5

46

Figure 2.10

Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5

48

Figure 2.11

Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5

49

Figure 2.12

Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5

50

Figure 2.13

Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5

51

Figure 2.14

Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5OL

51

Figure 2.15

Specimen C5 x 8.5 S5

52

Figure 2.16

Injecting Dye into Cracks

54

Figure 2.17

Typical Crack Profiles

54

Figure 2.18

Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD

56

Figure 2.19

Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for

Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN)

57

Figure 2.20

Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for

Group H Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN)

58

Figure 2.21

Elastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for

Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN)

58

Figure 2.22

Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of Cycles for

Group P Specimens (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN)

59

Figure 2.23

Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load

61

Figure 2.24

Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load

62

Figure 2.25

Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load

62

Figure 2.26

Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5H5 under Cyclic Load

63

Figure 2.27

Hysteresis of Beam C3x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load

63

Figure 2.28

Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load

Static Pre-Cracking

64

Figure 2.29

Hysteresis of Beam C4x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load

Fatigue Pre-Cracking

64

Figure 2.30

Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load

65

Figure 2.31

Hysteresis of Beam C6x8.5P5 under Cyclic Load

65

Figure 2.32

Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group H

66

Figure 2.33

Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in Group P

67

Figure 2.34

Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 KN

Beam C5x8.5H5

68

Figure 2.35

Effect of 30% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=20 KN

Beam C6x8.5H5

69

Figure 2.36

Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 KN

Beam C5x8.5P5

69

Figure 2.37

Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Pmax=22.3 KN

Beam C6x8.5P5

70

Figure 2.38

Elastic and Plastic CMOD under Ramp Load vs Number of

Cycles for Specimens C5x8.5H5OL, C5x8.5S5 and

C5x8.5H5M (Pmin=2.2 KN Pmax=15.6 KN)

71

Figure 2.39

Hysteresis of Beam C5x8.5S5 under Cyclic Load

73

Figure 2.40

Effect of 40% Overload on CMOD Overload Pmax=22.3 KN

Beam C5x8.5S5

73

Figure 2.41

Unit Width Pseudo Energy Loss vs Number of Cycles in

Specimen C5x8.5P5OL and C5x8.5S5

74

Figure 2.42

Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5M

75

Figure 3.1

Debonded Length Representation

79

Figure 3.2

A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Debonded Length

Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4

80

Figure 3.3

Fictitious Material Representation

82

Figure 3.4

A Typical Finite Element Mesh with Fictitious Material

Representation of Specimen C4x8.5P4

82

Figure 3.5

Assumed Stress Distribution at a Cracked Section

84

Figure 3.6

A “Hinge” Model

85

Figure 3.7

Verification of Hinge Model

88

Figure 3.8

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter C

for Beam C6x8.5H5 (m=3.76)

94

Figure 3.9

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Parameter m

for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10 .4 )

94

Figure 3.10

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Length a 0

for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10 .4 m=3.76)

95

Figure 3.11

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Initial Crack Spacing L

for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10 .4 m=3.76)

95

Figure 3.12

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus

E c for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10 .4 m=3.76)

96

Figure 3.13

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Concrete Elastic Modulus

E f for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10 .4 m=3.76)

96

Figure 3.14

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Width b

for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10 .4 m=3.76)

97

Figure 3.15

Sensitivity Analysis Results on Specimen Height h

for Beam C5x8.5H5 (C=6.76x10 .4 m=3.76)

97

Figure 3.16

Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number

of Cycles, Beam C3x8.5H5, C=6.76x10 .4 , m=3.48

99

Figure 3.17

Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number

of Cycles, Beam C4x8.5H5, C=6.76x10 .4 , m=3.57

100

Figure 3.18

Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number

of Cycles, Beam C5x8.5H5, C=6.76x10 .4 , m=3.76

100

Figure 3.19

Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number

of Cycles, Beam C3x8.5P5, C=6.76x10 .4 , m=3.39

101

Figure 3.20

Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number

 

of Cycles, Beam C4x8.5P5, C=6.76x10 .4 , m=3.55

101

Figure 3.21

Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number

of Cycles, Beam C5x8.5P5, C=6.76x10 .4 , m=3.74

102

Figure 3.22

Crack Length and Crack Opening Increment versus Number

of Cycles, Beam C6x8.5P5, C=6.76x10 .4 , m=3.88

102

Figure 3.23

Size Effect of Beam Width on Paris Equation

103

Figure 4.1

Slab Strip Model under One Wheel Load (Girder spacing

1.8m, 16M Bar at 100mm, Slab thickness 215mm)

106

Figure 4.2

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Wheel Load of

Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m, 16M Bar at 100mm)

107

Figure 4.3

Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck (Girder

spacing 1.8m, 16M Bar at 100mm, Slab thickness 215mm)

108

Figure 4.4

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of

Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m, 16M Bar at 100mm)

108

Figure 4.5

Slab Debonded Length Representation under One Axle Load

(Girder spacing 2.7m, 16M Bar at 100mm, Slab thickness 215mm)

109

Figure 4.6

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load

of Design Truck(Girder spacing 2.7m, 16M Bar at 100mm)

109

Figure 4.7

Slab Strip Model under One Axle Load of Design Truck(Girder

spacing 3.6m, 16M Bar at 100mm, Slab thickness 215mm)

110

Figure 4.8

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of

Design Truck (Girder spacing 3.6m, 16M Bar at 100mm)

110

Figure 4.9

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under One Axle Load of

Design Truck (Girder spacing 1.8m, 16M Bar at 150mm)

111

Figure 4.10

Bar Stress Under Design Truck Load with 16M Bars

112

Figure 4.11

Slab Model under Load of Design Truck, Lane Load and

Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8m, Slab thickness 215mm,

No Diaphragm)

120

Figure 4.12

Transverse Normal Stress Contours under Loads of Design Truck,

Lane Load and Self-Weight.

120

Figure 4.13

Slab Model under Load of Design Truck Only with Girders Fixed

Vertically (Girder spacing 1.8m, Slab thickness 215mm)

121

Figure 4.14

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only

with Girders Fixed Vertically.

121

Figure 4.15

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Truck Only

with Diaphrams.

122

Figure 4.16

Slab Model under Load of Design Truck, Lane Load and

Self-Weight (Girder spacing 2.7m, Slab thickness 215mm)

122

Figure 4.17

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Design

Truck, Lane Load and Self-Weight.

123

Figure 4.18

Slab Model under Load of Design Load and Self-Weight.

(Girder spacing 3.6m, Slab thickness 215mm)

123

Figure 4.19

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Design Load

and Self-Weight.

124

Figure 4.20

Maximum Crack Opening under Design Load in Model Bridge

124

Figure 4.21

Maximum Crack Opening Under Design Load and Ohio Legal

Load 5C1 in Model Bridge, 1.8 m Girder Spacing

125

Figure 4.22

Slab Model under Load of Ohio Legal Truck Load 5C1 and

Self-Weight (Girder spacing 1.8m, Slab thickness 215mm)

125

Figure 4.23

Transverse Normal Stress Contours Under Loads of Ohio Legal

Truck Load 5C1 and Self-Weight

126

List of Tables

Table 2.1

Specimen Descriptions

40

Table 3.1

Calibrated Debonded Length for Group P Specimens

81

Table 3.2

Calibrated Ficticious Material Properties

83

Table 3.3

Hinge Assumption Verification

89

Acknowledgements

I want to take this opportunity to thank my advisor Dr. Huckelbridge for his

guidance.

Throughout my research, I have enjoyed our discussions very much.

teaching will benefit me for years to come.

His

I also feel so fortunate and blessed to have Dr. Saada as my instructor and

sponsor. Nothing in this dissertation would be possible without his support. To me, he is

a role model for living and working.

List of Abbreviations

AASHTO

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials

ACI

American Concrete Institute

CMOD

Crack Mouth Opening Displacement

FE

Finite Element

FRP

Fiber-Reinforced Polymers

GFRP

Glass FRP

LEFM

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

LFD

Load Factor Design

LRFD

Load and Resistance Factor Design

RC

Reinforced Concrete

FRP Reinforced Concrete and its Application in Bridge Slab Design

by

Yunyi Zou

ABSTRACT

For

decades,

bridge

slabs

have

been

troubled

by

the

corrosion

of

steel

reinforcements.

The unique corrosion resistance of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymers)

bars makes them a promising alternative to steel bars.

Because of the relatively low

elastic modulus of FRP reinforcement, the post-cracking serviceability often is the

controlling factor in the flexural design of FRP reinforced concrete.

Since bridge deck

slabs are under repeated traffic loads, it is the post-cracking serviceability under cyclic

loads that becomes vital in the design and maintenance decision-making process.

Experiments

have

been

conducted

to

investigate

the

post-cracking

flexural

performance of FRP RC (reinforced concrete) under constant amplitude cyclic loading.

Each specimen tested was a beam with a single FRP bar at the bottom.

Two different

types of FRP bars were used.

The crack opening was monitored for specimens of

different size. Up to 2 million cycles of cyclic loads have been applied at 100% service

load levels.

It has been found that there are two stages in the crack growth of FRP

reinforced concrete. The first stage is early growth, which is characterized by increasing

crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD).

The second stage is the stabilization of

CMOD and crack length. No fatigue failure was encountered in the testing under service

loading and moderate overloads.

The effects of moderate overload on observed crack

growth were also investigated.

The performances of two different FRP bars were

compared. A model was proposed to predict long term crack growth in FRP R/C under

cyclic loading, based on the Paris equation.

Two FE (finite element) crack representations were examined.

One

was

a

debonded length representation. In this model it was assumed that there was a debonded

length around each crack, within which there was no tangential interaction between

concrete and reinforcement. Beyond the debonded length, the interface between concrete

and reinforcement was tied with no relative movement.

The other representation

examined was a fictitious material crack representation. A fictitious material was placed

in a triangular crack cross section, with a maximum width of 2.5mm (0.1 in). Then, the

modulus of elasticity of the fictitious material was calibrated, based on the observed

testing results, after crack growth had stabilized. Both representations have been used to

analyze bridge slabs. Finally, an empirical slab design was discussed.

Chapter 1

Background and Introduction of the Problem

The advantages of Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) include a high ratio of

strength

to

mass,

excellent

fatigue

characteristics,

excellent

corrosion

resistance,

electromagnetic neutrality, and a low axial coefficient of thermal expansion.

Generally

speaking, the disadvantages of FRP reinforcement include its higher cost, lower Young’s

modulus (except for Carbon FRP), lower failure strain and lack of ductility.

The

transverse

coefficient

of

thermal

expansion

(CTE)

is

also

much

larger

than

the

longitudinal CTE. The long-term strength of FRP can be as low as 70% of its short-term

strength, and ultra-violet radiation can damage FRP.

FRP reinforcement is also not

effective for compression reinforcement because of the compression instability of the

slender axial fibers. There is a lot of potential to apply FRP in bridge engineering for

structural elements in corrosive environments with low ductility demand.

For decades, reinforced concrete slabs have been used as bridge decks both in

United States and around the world.

The relatively inexpensive concrete and steel

reinforcement have served very well in most respects. In recent years, rehabilitation of

national highway bridges has been a priority, due to the aging and deteriorating

superstructures. One of the major causes of superstructure deficiency is the corrosion of

steel reinforcement.

In this case, the excellent corrosion resistance and light weight of

FRP make it potentially superior in long term performance to conventional reinforcing

steel, and, particularly in the case of Glass FRP (GFRP), potentially competitive

economically.

Serviceability covers many different aspects of structural performance related to

particular applications.

The most commonly encountered serviceability requirements in

RC structures are maximum deflection and crack opening control. Cracking is a complex

phenomenon, particularly in composite materials.

For quasi-brittle materials such as

concrete, the tensile stress gradually drops to zero after reaching a peak value.

There

exists an inelastic zone at the tip of the crack, known as the fracture process zone. Within

the fracture process zone, the stress decreases as it approaches the crack tip. Shah (1995)

summarized the interaction within the fracture process zone as microcracking, crack

deflection, aggregate bridging, crack face friction, crack tip blunting by voids, crack

branching, and etc. It has been reported that the measured fracture process zone is almost

independent of specimen thickness; the crack length generally is deeper on the sides than

in the middle. Consequently, it was pointed out that applicability of linear elastic fracture

mechanics (LEFM) is limited for plain concrete to large structures, with a relatively small

fracture process zone.

In the case of smaller scale structures, the aforementioned

complexity in concrete cracks deters the direct application of LEFM.

In the case of FRP RC beams under bending, as soon as cracking occurs, there is a

surge of forces in the bars.

Cracks tend to grow in fatigue load environments.

The

tensile forces in the bars and resultant compressive force in concrete increase as depth of

intact concrete and fracture process zone decrease. The relatively low Young’s modulus

of FRP, which is about one fifth of the Young’s modulus of conventional steel

reinforcement, will generate larger crack lengths and crack mouth opening displacements

(CMOD)

compared

with

conventional

steel

reinforcement,

particularly

so

if

reinforcement ratios are similar in magnitude for both cases. Consequently, the aggregate

bridging will be less, crack face friction will be smaller, and the zone of microcracking

will also be smaller due to suppression by concrete in compression. This is the essential

difference between plain concrete, conventional reinforced concrete (RC) and FRP RC,

which tends to make LEFM a good approximation for crack modeling for FRP RC.

P. Gergely and L. Lutz (1968) analyzed test results from various investigators on

crack openings in conventional reinforced concrete.

A multiple regression analysis was

performed on crack openings with respect to different variables.

It was found that steel

stress magnitude was the most important variable. The concrete cover was an important

variable but not the only secondary consideration.

Bar size was also found not to be a

major variable, and crack opening tended to increase with increasing strain gradient. The

significant variables identified were effective area of concrete, the number of bars,

concrete cover and stress level. The recommended equation for bottom crack in English

units was as follows.

w = 0.076β

f

s

3 d A c c
3
d
A
c
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; d c is the concrete

cover to bar center; f s is the tensile stress in steel bars; A c is the effective tension area of

concrete.

In ACI 440.1R-01, 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.

To account for the difference in bonding between steel and FRP, a corrective coefficient

k b is introduced. The final equation of crack opening in millimeter is as follows.

w =

2.2 β k f 3 d A b f c c E f
2.2 β
k
f
3
d
A
b
f
c
c
E
f

(1-2)

Where E f is the Young’s modulus of FRP bar; 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; d c is the concrete cover to bar center; f f is the tensile stress in

FRP bars; A c is the effective tension area of concrete. The coefficient k b is assumed to be

one for FRP bars having bond behavior, similar to steel bars.

Many researchers have

suggested different values for different bar surfaces.

ACI 440.1R-01 listed values of k b

by Gao et al. to be 0.71, 1.00, 1.83 for three currently popular types of GFRP bars.

A

value of 1.2 was suggested for deformed FRP bars by the report, in the case of no

available experimental data.

Carpinteri et al (1993) used a LEFM to model a simply supported steel RC beam.

The total stress intensity factor is the superposition of K I due to the bending moment and

to the bar force. An energy concept was used to examine the steel yielding, bar slip and

crack growth under different conditions.

The total energy was calculated in terms of

bending moment and rebar force.

The relationship between rebar force and bending

moment was derived based on the relationship of energy release rate and stress intensity

factors. In the analysis of cyclic loading, three cases were discussed based on comparing

the magnitudes of peak moment with plastic flow moment, slippage moment and fracture

moment. It was assumed that cracks would propagate if the peak moment exceeded the

fracture moment.

Apparently, this model is more applicable to the case of low cycle

fatigue (relatively high rebar stress levels).

In early 1960s, P.C. Paris (1963) applied fracture mechanics to fatigue problems.

The proposed equation is as follows.

da

dN

=

C

(

K

)

m

(1-3)

Where a is the crack length; N is the number of cycles; K is the stress intensity factor

difference at maximum and minimum loading; C and m are material parameters.

Although Paris’s law was developed for steel, researchers have tried to verify if it was

also valid for concrete.

Considerable work done has been focused on plain concrete. The report by ACI

committee 215 provides general knowledge about fatigue strength of concrete and

reinforcement. Fatigue fracture of concrete is characterized by considerably large strains

and microcracking. The S-N curve of concrete is approximately linear between 10 2 and

10 7 cycles, which indicates that there is no apparent endurance limit for concrete.

The

fatigue strength for a life of 10 million cycles of load and a probability of failure of 50

percent, regardless of whether the specimen is loaded compression, tension or flexure, is

approximately 55 percent of the static ultimate strength.

Perdikaris et al. (1987) conducted experiments on single-edge-notched plain

concrete beams under four-point bending.

Crack length was also recorded based on the

CMOD compliance measurements.

It was concluded that the Paris equation results in

significant errors of 100% although R 2 ’s, which is the fraction of the variance in the data

that is explained by a regression, were close to one for different specimens.

It was

believed that large errors were part of the nature with exponentials.

Baluch et al. (1987) also tried to verify if the Paris equation is valid for concrete.

The experiments were three-point bending on single-edge-notched plain concrete beams

of 51mm wide x 152mm deep x 1360mm.

Similarly, a compliance test was first

performed so that crack length could be obtained.

For the same beam specimen under

different R (=K min /K max ), it was found that Paris equation is applicable in plain concrete.

The material parameter m was found to be 3.12, 3.12 and 3.15 at R=0.1, 0.2, 0.3

respectively. It was subsequently concluded that m was independent of R. The material

parameter C was reported to be on the order of 10 -24 and 10 -25 ; it appeared from the

article that the units of C was mm/[Pa m 1/2 ] m , although the units were not stated

explicitly.

The authors suggested that C might be related to R.

Foreman’s equation

(1967) which includes the effects of R was also explored by the authors.

da

=

C

(

K

)

m

 

dN

(1

R

)(

K

c

K

max

)

(1-4)

where K c is the fracture toughness of the material of interest at the appropriate thickness.

Different material parameters C and m were inferred under different R values for the

same type of specimen, however.

Therefore, it was concluded that Foreman’s equation

was not applicable in plain concrete.

Z.P. Bazant et al (1992) investigated the size effect in fatigue fracture of concrete.

The specimens under three-point bending were geometrically similar in length, height

and notch length. The thickness was constant for all beams. The results of fatigue tests

were presented with the plots of log(a/N) versus log(K/K If ).

Different lines were

obtained for different beam size, although they were parallel to each other. The authors

combined the Paris law with a size effect law, for fracture under monotonic loading; the

revised Paris law is a function of a size adjusted stress intensity function.

Due to the nature of cracks in concrete, a method of compliance calibration is

normally used in crack length determination for pure concrete.

However, it has been

questioned that effects of the fracture process zone will stiffen the crack, and true

compliance will be lower than the one obtained from a notched specimen. Therefore, the

crack length will presumably always be underestimated by compliance calibration

methods.

Swartz et al (1984) investigated the validity of the compliance calibration method,

utilizing a three point bending test setup. All specimens had small starter notches at mid-

span and they were precracked to a desired crack length using CMOD as a control.

It

took a couple of cycles for the specimen to achieve the desired crack length according to

the compliance calibration curve.

Dye would then be applied at the crack section.

The

test results showed that the compliance method consistently overestimated the actual

crack length. The surface cracks revealed by the dye correlated well with the crack depth

predicted by a calibrated compliance.

For ratios of crack length to beam height greater

than 0.26, the difference of average interior crack length and surface crack depth was

about 25mm.

Swartz et al (1981) also compared the effects of fatigue pre-cracking and static

pre-cracking. For the same notched plain concrete beams, one group was pre-cracked by

fatigue after one million cycles and the other group was statically pre-cracked to the same

crack depth.

Under three-point and four-point bending, it was reported that failure

strength and associated maximum stress intensity factor of the statically pre-cracked

beams are slightly higher than those of pre-cracked by fatigue. It was then concluded that

static pre-cracking was acceptable, even for fatigue testing.

Efforts have been made to predict the growth of cracks due to fatigue loading.

Balaguru and Shah (1981) proposed a model to simulate the increase of deflection and

crack opening for steel RC. The components included in the model were as follows: (a)

the cyclic creep of concrete; (b) the reduction of stiffness due to cracking and bond

deterioration; (c) reinforcing steel softening. The experimental data was cited from other

articles, which was limited to 100,000 or 50,000 cycles.

The rebar stress range was

between 69 MPa and 276 MPa (10 ksi and 40 ksi).

The maximum rebar stress utilized

was almost twice the rebar fatigue stress limit.

The crack opening was recorded

photographically.

It appeared that there were only five data points recorded within

100,000 cycles. The general trend of the model was that crack opening always increased

with the number of cycles applied. However, the motivation of using a stress range twice

the rebar fatigue stress limit may be questioned.

A limit of 100,000 cycles is generally

not enough in the fatigue test of reinforced concrete.

The finite element method has been widely used in reinforced concrete analysis.

There are two different approaches in crack modeling in finite element analysis. One is

smeared crack modeling, which is generally better when overall load/deflection behavior

is of primary interest.

Initially, the concrete is assumed to be isotropic.

The reinforced

concrete cracks when the stress reaches an assumed failure surface.

Instead of literally

representing the crack in the concrete FE mesh, the concrete member remains as a

continuum. The constitutive equations are then modified to reflect the cracked state.

The other popular method is discrete cracking modeling, utilized when detailed

local behavior is investigated, as done early on by Ngo and Scordelis (1967). Based on

local stresses in the finite element mesh, some element nodes are separated to model a

discrete crack. Since it is costly and tedious, this method is generally only applicable in

certain special circumstances.

Darwin (1993) performed a review of finite element analyses on conventional

reinforced concrete.

The survey results are summarized as follows.

(a) Reinforcement.

Reinforcements can be modeled in three methods - (1) distributed reinforcement within

elements, (2) discrete bar element between element nodes, and (3) uniaxial element

embedded in the element.

In all cases, reinforcements and concrete are modeled as

separate materials.

Perfect bonding is always assumed.

Fortunately, load-deflection

behavior is not sensitive to the bonding unless the failure mode is bond slip, which is not

deemed to be a valid design. (b) Concrete under Tension. Tension stiffening and tension

softening have improved the numerical stability of simulation.

Tension stiffening was

first used to account for the residual tensile strength of concrete between cracks. Tension

softening uses the concept of fracture mechanics to achieve similar effects. (c) Concrete

in Compression. It was found that the overall performance of a model is more related to

the details of crack representation and shear retention after cracking, than the details of

different concrete constitutive models in compression.

(e) Load Increment.

It was

advised to take small load increments and assure that convergence is achieved at every

step.

Perfect bond models, however, are invalid for the purpose of crack analysis.

In

the vicinity of a crack, there is inevitable bond-slip between rebar and concrete. Efforts

have been made to model bonding. Manufacturers of FRP bars are aware of the necessity

to model the bond-slip of their bars.

Hughes Brothers, Inc. had sponsored a couple of

institutions to investigate the phenomenon.

A variety of results were obtained, as

different testing methodologies generated different results.

complexity of the issue.

This is an indication of the

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

fatigue loading.

C. Shield et al (1997) investigated the thermal and mechanical fatigue

effects on the bonding between GFRP bars, steel bars and concrete. The specimens were

300mm x 457mm x 1220mm. At both the top and bottom of a specimen, there was one

protruding test bar, with one supplementary bar on each side.

The embedment lengths

were

selected

to

be

about

ten

diameters

or

more,

in

order

to

ensure

sufficient

development length.

Some specimens were cycled under pullout loads between 18KN

and 45 KN for 100,000 cycles.

Other specimens were stored in an environmental

chamber for three and a half months while temperatures changed between -20 o C and

25 o C for 20 cycles.

Basically, eccentric pull-out tests were conducted.

The slips at the

loading end and free end were monitored.

All of the specimens failed in bond with

concrete splitting around the test bars.

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.

Thermal fatigue, however, caused more bond degradation in

GFRP specimens than in steel bar specimens. In the test setup, the protruding portion of

the test bar was loaded, which made it impossible to apply realistic number of cycles, due

to the damage to the bar.

C.E. Bakis et al (1998) investigated the effect of cyclic loading on bonding of

Glass FRP (GFRP) bars in concrete.

The experiment scheme was the RILEM bond

beam.

The beam section was 100mmx180mm.

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.

The bar diameters were 10.1mm, 12.7mm and

16mm.

An embedment length of five diameters was used.

The load amplitude was

selected to achieve 90%, 50% and 75% of the ultimate bond strength. The bar slip at the

free ends was recorded. In the case of CP bars, the residual slip after the first cycle was a

significant portion of slip at the end of the 100,000 cycles, ranging from 75% to 25%,

depending on the load magnitude.

It was found that the residual bond stiffness was

actually higher than the initial bond stiffness.

The actuator displacement verses load

observations also supported that conclusion. The authors suggested that slipping of bars

might aid the apparent interlocking with concrete. 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. This work was contradictory to the finding by C. Shield

et al. (1997) that cyclic loading did not enhance the bonding stiffness.

The experiment

setups were similar to each other for the two investigations, but the load levels were very

different.

Cosenza et al. (1997) discussed the bonding behavior between concrete and FRP

bars, and a survey of bond-slip models was presented.

FRP bars were categorized into

straight bars and deformed bars. Straight bars were smooth, grain-covered or sandblasted

prismatic rods.

Deformed bars were ribbed, indented, twisted or braided.

It was stated

that the bond was controlled by the factors including chemical bond, friction due to FRP

surface roughness, mechanical interlock of FRP bars against concrete, normal pressure

between FRP bars and concrete.

An effect of bar size has been observed, with the

average bond resistance decreasing as bar size increased. A top bar effect also exists for

FRP.

Longer embedment length resulted in lower average bond resistance.

Among

environmental conditions, bond strength was not closely related to temperature changes;

chemical conditions, however, such as high alkalinity were shown to be detrimental to

bonding.

Popular bond-slip models are the Malvars model, BPE model, modified BPE

model and CMR model. All of these models use exponential functions to model the first

branch of increasing bond stress and slip. The softening branch was modeled linearly, for

convenience. The authors stated that modified BPM model presented the best agreement

with the available experiment results.

A. Katz (2001) tested five different types of FRP bars.

Each FRP bar was

embedded in a concrete block and 450,000 cycles of cyclic loads were applied. Between

each 150,000 cycles, the specimens were immersed in water of 60 o C and 20 o C to

simulate a deterioration process.

At the end of the fatigue tests, a pullout test was

conducted for each specimen.

Three mechanisms of failure observed were abrasion of

rod surface, delamination of outer layer of resin, and abrasion of cement particles

entrapped between rod and concrete. It was concluded that helical wrapping of FRP bars

did not increase bond resistance under cyclic loading.

A sand covered bar surface did

improve bonding; such bars were able to maintain maximum loading for a relatively long

slip.

Flexural response of FRP reinforced concrete were reported by Benmokrane

(1996) and other investigators.

The general consensus is that at small load, the crack

pattern in FRP concrete is similar to that of steel reinforced concrete.

As the load

increases, however, there are more cracks with larger crack openings in FRP concrete

than in traditional steel reinforced concrete, for comparable reinforcement ratios.

This

behavior is expected, since FRP has a much lower modulus of elasticity, compared with

traditional steel reinforcement.

The moment /curvature diagrams of lightly reinforced

FRP beams are clearly bi-linear, with the bend point at the crack initiation moment level.

GFRP reinforced concrete beams were analyzed by Vijay and GangaRao (2001);

different modes of failure were compared.

The compression controlled failure mode

presented not only higher flexural strength, but also a more ductile failure than the

tension controlled failure mode.

This result was consistent with ACI 440.1R-01

suggested design criteria. A parameter DF was defined as the ratio of energy absorption

at ultimate strength to that at a limiting curvature value. To satisfy both the serviceability

deflection limit of L/180 and crack opening limit of 0.016 inches, the curvature limit was

set to be 0.005/d.

The parameter DF then became a unified indicator, covering both

serviceability and strength.

The tensile strength of concrete is typically assumed to

be

7.5

' f c
'
f
c

, with an assumed elastic modulus of 57000

' f c
'
f
c

(using U.S. units with stress

units

be

ε

cr

in

=

7.5

psi). The ' ' f 57000 f c c
psi).
The
'
'
f
57000
f
c
c

tensile

= 0.0013

strain

at

.

The

cracking

curvature

at

is

thus

assumed

first

cracking

ψ

cr

to

is

approximately

2ε

cr

/

h

= 0.0026 /

h

, for a symmetric section.

Vijay and GangaRao thus

have used twice the curvature at first cracking as the limiting curvature in their design

criterion.

Bridge decks of traditional steel reinforced concrete have been analyzed and

tested by many researchers, including Graddy et al.(1995). With the general purpose FE

program SAP as their primary analysis tool, they performed a sequence of linear finite

element analysis, utilizing a smeared crack representation.

was used for plain concrete, with Kupfer's (1969) criterion.

A cracking stress of 0.1f c

Cracks were only deemed

possible in the directions parallel to the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement, i.e.,

the model failed to simulate nonorthogonal cracks.

New material parameters were

assigned

for

each

round

of

analysis.

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.

Canadian investigators have been active in the research of fiber reinforced

concrete and steel-free bridge deck system.

The transverse reinforcements are mainly

external steel straps or FRP bars. B. Bakht et al (2000) reviewed different types of straps.

They included fully studded straps, partially studded straps, cruciform straps, FRP bars

and diaphragms.

Three models of steel free slabs with different straps were tested to

failure under monotonic loading. The mode of failure was mostly punching shear failure

as expected, but at a much larger load.

An additional specimen was tested under 1000

cycles of pulsating load between 0 and 88 KN (20 Kips) prior to the static testing.

The

results of the latter static testing indicated that the forces in straps increased, due to

shakedown in the slab.

The authors concluded that actual failure loads of the steel-free

deck slabs are more than 10 times larger than the theoretical failure load attributable to

bending alone.

Similar research was conducted by Salem et al (2002).

A finite element model

was developed for a steel free concrete deck. The lateral reinforcement was a cruciform

strap. The concrete was fiber reinforced concrete, so as to control cracking due to creep

and shrinkage.

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, when the inertia of girders

was increased by 150%.

The position and location of the lateral straps were also

analyzed.

The ultimate load of the slab was insensitive to the strap position.

For

practical purposes, it was recommended to weld the straps to the top flange of girders.

Yost (2002) tested the performance of concrete slabs reinforced by FRP grids.

The product is commercially known as NEFMAC, and is composed of continuous high

strength reinforcing fibers, impregnated within a vinyl ester resin.

A two dimensional

grid sheet was formed with redundant “overlaying”.

The test was conducted under

monotonic loading with AASHTO HS25 truck load. The ultimate load was five times as

much as the HS25 criterion. The field testing of a bridge slab had shown that the strains

and deflections were well within the design limits.

The effects of pulsating and moving loads on traditionally reinforced concrete

slabs were studied by Perdikaris et al (1988, 1989).

The research covered both the

AASHTO orthotropic reinforced slabs and the Ontario isotropic reinforced slab.

In the

prototype, the three beams were space at 2.13m (7 ft).

The orthotropic reinforcement

pattern consisted of a top and bottom layer of transverse and longitudinal steel

reinforcing bars 19M (#6) spaced at 188mm and 376mm respectively.

In the isotropic

reinforcement pattern, the spacing in both directions was 437mm.

In either case, the

spacing was fairly large.

The restricting boundary conditions were considered in the

research.

Models of 1/6.6 and 1/3 scale were tested.

The maximum fatigue load was

60% of the static ultimate strength, which was fairly high.

The results showed that

fatigue life of slabs with isotropic reinforcement is twenty times that with orthotropic

reinforcement.

The factors of safety at static ultimate failure are 14 and 23, however, for

those of isotropic and orthotropic reinforcements, respectively.

Bridge slabs are constantly under traffic load. Due to serviceability requirements,

such as crack opening and lateral load distribution, ultimate strength is usually not crucial

in the slab design.

However, the AASHTO design methodology is still presented from

the perspective of strength design.

The design moment in the load factor design (LFD)

methodology was assumed to be (S+2)P/32 per foot of slab width, where S is the

effective span length of slab in feet and P is the design wheel load.

The formula is in

U.S. units.

In the AASHTO load and resistance factor design (LRFD), an equivalent

width of bridge slab was defined for strength design in AASHTO Table 4.6.2.1.3-1.

In

the case of a concrete slab over multiple girders, the width is taken as 660+0.55S for

positive moment and 1220+0.25S for negative moment, where the girder spacing is S.

The methodology is believed to simplify the bridge deck design process.

The Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code has recognized the in-plane or

membrane forces in typical bridge slabs.

The slab design was reduced to a prescription

of isotropic reinforcement.

The reinforcement pattern is orthogonal in the slab.

A

minimum reinforcement ratio of 0.003 is required in both directions, top and bottom.

The restrictions of the empirical design are as follows.

a.)

The span length of a slab is

less than 3.6m (12 ft).

b.)

The ratio of span to thickness does not exceed 15.

c.)

The

slab thickness is 225mm minimum and the spacing of the bars is 300mm maximum. d.)

Intermediate diaphragms will not be spaced at more than 8m.

The crack control

requirements are then assumed to be met automatically.

A

similar

empirical

design

methodology

is

available

in

AASHTO

(2000).

Reinforcement is required at both directions of each face.

The minimum amount of

reinforcement is 0.570 mm 2 /mm of steel for each bottom layer and 0.380 mm 2 /mm of

steel for each top layer. The maximum spacing of reinforcement is 450 mm.

The most common type of bridge is a concrete deck, supported on multiple

girders. Except in the case of large horizontal curvature, girders are usually analyzed and

designed individually. In other words, 1-D finite element analysis is common practice in

the bridge design consulting industry.

Therefore, 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. In the AASHTO

LFD design codes, simple formulas of load distribution factors are listed.

For girder

spacing S less than 3.6m (12 feet), the distribution factor (DF) is S/5.5.

In the current

LRFD codes, the formulas for DF are as follows.

DF =

DF =

0.06

+

(

0.075

+

S

S

K

g

)

0.4

(

)

0.3

(

14

L

12 Lt

3

s

)

0.1

(

S

S

K

g

)

0.6

(

)

0.2

(

9.5

L

12 Lt

3

s

)

0.1

(one design lane loaded)

(1-5)

(two or more design lane loaded)

(1-6)

where S is the girder spacing; L is the bridge span, K g is longitudinal stiffness parameter

and t s is slab thickness.

Many researchers have been involved in the evaluation of

distribution factors. The majority of the work has been finite element analysis of bridge

structures of steel reinforced concrete slabs on multiple girders.

Mabsout el al (1997)

reviewed finite element analysis of bridges and analyzed a bridge with a span of 17m (56

ft).

Concrete slabs may be modeled with shell elements or isoparametric continuum

elements.

Girders may be modeled as 3-D beam elements with rigid links to the slab.

Sometimes, the web may be modeled with shell elements and flanges may be modeled

with beam elements, or the entire girder may be modeled with shell elements.

It was

found that different models produced distribution factors similar to NCHRP 12-26

(1987), but all were less than AASHTO (1996).

The analysis results showed that the

distribution factor decreased, as the bridge span became larger.

In summary, the advantages of FRP make it a potentially better choice in

applications such as bridge deck slabs.

The performance of FRP RC under monotonic

loading has been understood fairly well.

ACI 440.1R-01 proposes to design for a

strength failure mode of concrete crushing, to achieve better ductility.

Some other

criteria which are serviceability oriented have been reported.

The serviceability of FRP RC, particularly in fatigue environments, deserves to be

further investigated before engineers can be expected to be confident with this fairly new

material.

The predicted maximum crack opening of FRP RC has been converted from

conventional RC, although the bond properties are different for steel and FRP. The Paris

law appears to be applicable in concrete, with a size effect being detected.

FRP itself

possesses excellent fatigue properties; the bond durability under cyclic loads, however,

has not been thoroughly investigated. There have been varying results, mostly based on

pullout tests, on residual bond strength following limited cyclic loads.

Verification with a different experimental methodology is needed.

The current

bridge design code is conservative in terms of load distribution.

Although the current

design methodology is strength oriented, serviceability is often the critical factor in

bridge deck slab design. The finite element method has been successfully used for a long

time in bridge structural analysis; analysis results are typically based on uncracked

concrete slab properties, which is generally reasonable for steel RC.

Crack growth in FRP reinforced concrete is yet fully understood, particularly in

fatigue environments.

Investigation of FRP RC fatigue performance is crucial in

applications such as bridge slabs. In this study, experimental results on fatigue testing of

FRP RC will be presented.

Subsequently, the crack opening displacement and crack

growth will be modeled utilizing the finite element method and fatigue/fracture theory,

respectively.

A finite element model will be developed to simulation the crack opening

of the test specimens.

A fatigue model will be created to simulate the observed crack

growth under cyclic loading.

An empirical equation for final crack opening will be

proposed.

A sensitivity analysis on the crack growth model will also be conducted to

evaluate the effects, the uncertainty and the randomness of different parameters.

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.

Finally, the overall performance of an FRP RC slab on a single span bridge of

multiple girders will be analyzed. Under the condition of a cracked slab, the lateral load

distribution factor will be discussed. Other implications on the serviceability provisions

in ACI 440.1R-01 will be discussed.

Chapter 2

Experimental Analysis of FRP Reinforced Concrete under Fatigue Load

Motivation for the Testing Program

Due to its high corrosion resistance, FRP is set to be a promising alternative to

steel reinforcement in bridge decks. Typically a major concern in an FRP bridge slab is

its serviceability, rather than its strength.

Crack opening is one of the important

indicators of serviceability.

Crack opening and its growth in FRP RC are related to the

fatigue characteristics of FRP bar, concrete, and their interface. The bond-slip and crack

growth mechanisms at different rebar spacing have not yet been fully investigated.

The

behavior

of

FRP

reinforced

concrete

under

fatigue

loading

has

been

investigated thus far by simple pullout tests, or by RILEM beam bond tests, following an

interval of cyclic loading.

There are two shortcomings with these approaches.

One is

that the testing condition is not the actual working condition of rebar in an environment

such as a bridge deck.

A small bond length is normally used in a RILEM beam or a

concrete pull-out block.

Conclusions drawn under such conditions may not always be

applicable to typical in service conditions.

The second issue is that such tests are

sensitive to specimen imperfections. With portions of bar exposed, the bar is susceptible

to local damage due to unintentional stress concentrations and eccentricities which may

not be representative of in-service conditions; such variations can be especially critical in

fatigue testing.

The proposed experiment focused on fatigue-induced crack growth in FRP RC

under service-level cyclic loading, in specimens more representative of in-service

applications.

Specimens were actual beams reinforced with FRP bars.

Beams of

different widths were used to simulate bridge slabs of different bar spacing/reinforcement

ratios.

Traditionally, the minimum thickness of a bridge slab is 215 mm (8.5 inches).

Concrete bridge slabs are typically designed with sufficient depth such that no shear

reinforcement is needed, and so that the expected load distribution among bridge girders

is achieved.

Therefore, the performance of FRP reinforced concrete in the flexural

response modes is of primary interest to bridge deck designers.

Description of the Testing Program

FRP beams of identical depths and spans, but with four different widths were

fabricated.

The concrete was composed of type III cement, water, fine aggregate and

coarse

aggregates

with

weight

proportions

of

1.0/

0.5/

2.0/

2.83.

The

nominal

compressive strength target was 34.5MPa (5000 psi).

The compressive strength from a

cylinder test was 27.9 MPa (4045 psi). The tensile strength from a split-cylinder test was

4.9 MPa (715 psi).

Figure 2.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers The first set of FRP bars tested,

Figure 2.1 Aslan 100 GFRP by Hughes Brothers

The first set of FRP bars tested, which are reported herein, were Aslan 100 GFRP

made by Hughes Brothers, Inc. (see Figure 2.1).

As shown above, the bars are sand

coated with a helical wrap along the length. The reported tensile strength is 655 MPa (95

ksi) for No. 16 (#5) bars.

The reported modulus of elasticity is 40.8 GPa (5.92E6 psi).

To simulate a typical bridge slab section, beams were all 1830 mm (6 feet) long and

215mm (8.5 inches) thick.

The beam widths were 76 mm, 102 mm, 127 mm and 152

mm (3, 4, 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.

For

identification purposes, they are categorized as group H and they are labeled as

C3x8.5H5, C4x8.5H5, C5x8.5H5, C6x8.5H5, respectively.

The first letter C stands for

the constant amplitude; the beam size in U.S. units follows; H shows the manufacture of

the bars as Hughes Brothers, Inc.; the last number is the size, #5, of the FRP bar. Within

each beam, there was one No. 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.

Figure 2.2 Isorod by Pultrall The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP

Figure 2.2 Isorod by Pultrall

The second set of FRP bars tested were Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall, ADS

Composites Group (see Figure 2.2). The bars are also sand coated, without a helical wrap

along the length. The tensile strength is 674 MPa (98.9 ksi) for #5 bars. The modulus of

elasticity is 42 GPa (6.1x10 6 psi).

Similarly, test specimens were all 1830 mm (6 feet)

long and 215mm (8.5 inches) thick.

The beam widths were 76 mm, 102 mm, 127 mm

and 152 mm (3, 4, 5 and 6 inches) which represent typical bar spacing in bridge decks.

For identification purposes, they are categorized as group P and they are labeled as

C3x8.5P5, C4x8.5P5, C5x8.5P5, C6x8.5P5, respectively.

One extra specimen, C5x8.5P5OL, of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Isorod

was made to investigate the effect of overload pre-cracking.

One more specimen,

C5x8.5H5M, of section 127mmx215mm with bars of Aslan 100 was singled out with

cracks adjacent to each other, to investigate the effect of multiple cracks. One specimen,

C5x8.5S5, of section 127mmx215mm was made of 16M (#5) steel rebar, for comparison

purposes.

Specimen

Width (mm)

Height (mm)

Reinforcement

Test Sequence

C3x8.5H5

76

215

16M (Aslan 100)

2

C4x8.5H5

102

215

16M (Aslan 100)

3

C5x8.5H5

127

215

16M (Aslan 100)

1

C6x8.5H5

152

215

16M (Aslan 100)

4

C5x8.5H5M

127

215

16M (Aslan 100)

5

C3x8.5P5

76

215

16M (Isorod)

6

C4x8.5P5

102

215

16M (Isorod)

7

C5x8.5P5

127

215

16M (Isorod)

10

C6x8.5P5

152

215

16M (Isorod)

9

C5x8.5P5OL

75

215

16M (Isorod)

8

C5x8.5S5

127

215

Steel

11

Table 2.1 Specimen Descriptions

610mm 610mm 610mm 215mm 25mm FRP Figure 2.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition
610mm
610mm
610mm
215mm
25mm
FRP
Figure 2.3 Specimen Section Details and Loading Condition
Figure 2.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup The specimens were all under four point bending (see

Figure 2.4 Cyclic Load Test Setup

The specimens were all under four point bending (see Figure 2.3 and 2.4).

The

beam was loaded symmetrically with two loads at the third points. The cracks within the

pure bending region were monitored.

The maximum cyclic service load was determined

based on the creep rupture stress limit of 0.20f fu for FRP bars, in accordance with ACI

440.1R-01, resulting in a cyclic rebar stress level of 645 MPa (~20 ksi).

The minimum

and maximum loads were 2225 N (500 lb) and 15600 N (3500 lb) respectively.

The

resulting moments are greater than the theoretical cracking moments. Based on nominal

k b value of 1.2, the predicted crack openings are 0.68 mm, 0.75 mm, 0.80 mm and 0.84

mm for beam widths of 76 mm, 102 mm, 127 mm and 152 mm, respectively.

According to ACI 440.1R-01, the performance of FRP is dependent on the testing

frequency. Endurance limit was found to be inversely proportional to loading frequency

in carbon FRP. Higher cyclic loading frequencies in the 0.5 to 8 Hz range corresponded

to higher bar temperatures due to sliding friction. For a bridge slab under traffic load, the

stress of a rebar reaches maximum when a truck axle load is applied on the top of the slab

at the same location. For a truck with axle spacing of 3.6m (12 feet) at 65 miles per hour,

the frequency of passing axles may be as high as 7.94. However, for a bridge of 10,000

ADTT (average daily truck traffic), the truck load is applied at a frequency of 0.23 Hz.

So, the overall frequency is 1.8 Hz, which is the product of 7.94 and 0.23. Therefore, the

frequency at which load was cycled was at 2 Hz in the tests. The percentage of overload

was decided based on traditional AASHTO load factor design. The overload was defined

to have the value of γ factor at 1 instead of 1.3 in the factored load.

Therefore, for

specimen C5x8.5H5 and C6x8.5H5, the effect of a modest (30% to 40%) overload was

also investigated.

Specimen Knife Edge Grouted to Specimen Crack Opening MTS Displacement System Gage
Specimen
Knife Edge Grouted
to Specimen
Crack Opening
MTS
Displacement
System
Gage

Figure 2.5 Sketch of Data Acquisition System

Static pre-cracking was used. The loading was stopped as soon as cracks became

visible for all specimens, except in the case of the overload pre-cracking investigation.

MTS clip-on crack opening displacement gages 632.02B-20 and 632.02C-20 were then

installed on the cracks which had been initiated as shown above.

The maximum arm

displacements of the instruments are +2.540 mm to -1.270 mm (+0.1000 in to -0.050 in)

and +3 mm to -1 mm (+0.118 in to -0.039 in)), respectively.

Two DCDTs were also

fastened on each side of the specimen in the mid-span to measure the relative beam

deflection, within the pure bending region, for average curvature estimation. All eleven

specimens were tested under the same initial cyclic load amplitude.

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, in order to track the evolution of crack

development with increasing load cycle counts.

Experimental Results

(1) Group H - Aslan 100 GFRP Rebar by Hughes Brothers, Inc.

The first specimen tested was C5x8.5H5.

Two cracks appeared within the pure

bending region after static pre-cracking and two more cracks were observed immediately

after the test started. The approximate crack spacing was 190mm (7.5”). After the first

test interval of 5,000 cycles, the crack lengths became visually constant.

After more

cycles were applied, there was no sign of distress with the specimen, and all cracks were

stable.

All crack tips stopped at approximately 38mm (1.5 inches) below the top of

beam, which was near the theoretical neutral axis. The specimen did not appear to have

any distress at the end of testing of one million cycles. The crack length was virtually the

same.

There was no concrete spalling near the rebar at the bottom of specimen. It was

also found that there was no scaling in the specimen – concrete surfaces were sound with

no loss of surface mortar and aggregates. To investigate the effect of overload, P max was

increased to 22,300 N (5.0 kips), corresponding to a rebar stress level of 25 ksi.

After

10,000 cycles of this overload, the specimen was still in good condition.

of this overload, the specimen was still in good condition. Figure 2.6 Specimen C5 x 8.5

Figure 2.6 Specimen C5 x 8.5 H5

The second specimen tested was C3x8.5H5. Three cracks appeared at static pre-

cracking and three more were observed at 20,000 cycles. The crack spacing was between

130mm (4.5 inches) to 165mm (6.5 inches).

The tips

of the cracks stopped at

approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the top of beam. Due to the larger bearing stress

at both supports, the concrete at the bearing locations started crumbling near the end of 2

million cycles of testing.

There was no sign of concrete distress elsewhere in the

specimen. No overload was applied due to the degraded condition of the concrete in the

vicinity of the bearings.

Figure 2.7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5 The behavior of specimen C4x8.5H5 was similar. Three

Figure 2.7 Specimen C3 x 8.5 H5

The behavior of specimen C4x8.5H5 was similar.

Three initial cracks were

generated at static pre-cracking. Two more cracks appeared at 6000 cycles. The average

crack spacing was between 130mm ( 4.5 inches) and 180mm ( 7 inches). The tips of the

cracks stopped at approximately 45mm ( 1.75 inches) below the top of beam, up to 1.8

million cycles. To investigate the effect of overload, P max was again increased to 22,300

N (5.0 kips) for 15,000 cycles. No addition distress was found in the specimen.

22,300 N (5.0 kips) for 15,000 cycles. No addition distress was found in the specimen. Figure

Figure 2.8 Specimen C4 x 8.5 H5

The behavior of specimen C6x8.5H5 was somewhat different.

Only one crack

was generated at static pre-cracking.

Extra load was added after the appearance of the

first crack but no additional cracks appeared.

During the subsequent fatigue testing, no

new cracks appeared up to 140,000 cycles, at which point the CMOD gage debonded.

(The single crack had ceased to grow in length, however, prior to 10,000 cycles.)

The P max was raised at that point to 20000 N (4.5 kips) to explore the effect of

overload.

A new crack appeared 700 cycles later.

The newly formed crack was

instrumented, and P max was again lowered to its initial value of 15,600 N ( 3.5 kips).

After an additional 35,000 cycles of fatigue load at P max of 15,600 N, the primary crack

did not show any sign of further growth induced by the 700 cycles of overload.

Therefore, P max was raised back to 20,000 N and 40,000 additional cycles were applied,

with both the primary crack and secondary crack remaining stable.

cycles were applied, with both the primary crack and seco ndary crack remaining stable. Figure 2.9

Figure 2.9 Specimen C6 x 8.5 H5

To further investigate the overload effect, P max was finally increased to 22,300 N

(5.0 kips).

A third crack was found around 400 cycles; a total of 40,000 cycles were

applied at this load level, with the second and third cracks monitored. All cracks became

stable and no addition signs of distress were noted.

(2) Group P - Isorod GFRP made by Pultrall, ADS Composites Group

The first specimen tested was C3x8.5P5.

Three cracks appeared at static pre-

cracking within the pure bending region and one outside the pure bending region.

The

average spacing was 150mm (6 inches).

After the first run of 3,000 cycles, the crack

lengths became visually constant. After more cycles were applied, there was no sign of

distress such as spalling and scaling with the specimen, and all cracks were stable.

No

new cracks were found in the specimen. The controlling system crashed at a load cycle

count of 30,000. All crack tips stopped at approximately 45mm (1.75 inches) below the

top of beam.

The specimen did not appear to have any distress at the end of 270,000

testing cycles.

To investigate the effect of overload, P max of 20,000 N (4.5 kips) was

applied. After 10,000 cycles of overload, the specimen was still in good condition.

Figure 2.10 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5 The second specimen was C4x8.5P5. With in the

Figure 2.10 Specimen C3 x 8.5 P5

The second specimen was C4x8.5P5.

Within the pure bending region, only one

crack appeared at static pre-cracking and one more was observed at 400 cycles.

A clip

gage was immediately installed for the new crack. An additional crack appeared at load

cycle 1000. The average spacing was 200mm (8.5 inches). The tips of the initial cracks

stopped at approximately 38mm (1.5 inches) below the top of beam after the application

of 900,000 load cycles. Excessive overload was tested at P max of 29,000 N (6.5k), which

resulted in 276 MPa (40 ksi) of rebar stress. 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. The general trend of their model was that crack opening

always increased with the number of cycles applied.

After 200 cycles of overload,

existing cracks started branching and a new crack appeared.

After 3000 cycles of

overload, the concrete cover started falling off, as debonding became more pronounced; it

was determined that the specimen had reached fatigue failure at that point.

Figure 2.11 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5 Specimen C5x8.5P5 behaved somewhat di fferently. One initial

Figure 2.11 Specimen C4 x 8.5 P5

Specimen C5x8.5P5 behaved somewhat differently. One initial crack of 130mm

long was generated at static pre-cracking.

One new crack appeared at 110 cycles.

At

around 900 cycles, two new cracks appeared, with one crack of initial surface length

120mm (4.75 in), between the first two cracks at the midspan region. The average crack

spacing was 115mm (4.5 inches) within the pure bending region.

The tip of the newer

crack at midspan was dormant for about 100,000 cycles, and then began growing.

(Unfortunately, no more gages were available to acquire the crack opening evolution of

this crack.)

The tips of all cracks stopped at approximately 50mm (2 inches) below the

top of the beam at 1.25 million cycles.

To investigate the effect of overload, P max of

22,300 N (5.0 kips) was applied for 10,000 cycles. By the end of the test, the concrete at

the left bearing started crumbling.

Figure 2.12 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5 The specimen C6x8.5P5 behaved similarly. Only one crack

Figure 2.12 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5

The specimen C6x8.5P5 behaved similarly.

Only one crack was generated at

static pre-cracking, as expected.

No extra load was initially added, to avoid any plastic

hardening of the concrete-rebar interface bonding. During the subsequent fatigue testing,

no new cracks appeared up to 1,300,000 cycles.

The P max of the cyclic load was then

raised to 22300 N (5.0 kips) to explore the effect of overload. One new crack appeared

within 400 cycles of overload.

After 50,000 cycles of overload, however, there was no

indication of severe distress. Subsequently, P max was raised to 29,000 N (6.5 kips). The

two existing cracks then started branching.

After 155,000 cycles of this overload were

applied, the specimen was still in good shape. All cracks became stable and no addition

signs of distress were found.

Figure 2.13 Specimen C6 x 8.5 P5 (3) Overload Pre-cracking In all tests to this

Figure 2.13 Specimen C6 x 8.5 P5

(3) Overload Pre-cracking

In all tests to this point, cracks had been generated with minimum possible static

loading, which is equivalent to fatigue pre-cracking. Experiments were also conducted to

investigate the case of overload pre-cracking.

Additional static overload was applied

after cracks had appeared, followed by cyclic load at service level.

For specimen

C5x8.5P5OL, there was no further growth of crack length during the course of fatigue

testing.

For specimen C6x8.5H5, crack lengths did continue developing during fatigue

testing

specimen C6x8.5H5, crack leng ths did continue developing during fatigue testing Figure 2.14 Specimen C5 x

Figure 2.14 Specimen C5 x 8.5 P5OL

(4) Conventional steel RC

A similar test was conducted for a specimen made with conventional steel

reinforcing. Static pre-cracking was used, and five cracks appeared, with two very close

to each other. The initial crack length was between 100mm (4 inches) and 120mm (4.75

inches).

The crack spacing was ranging between 140mm (5.5 inches) to 180mm (7

inches). As cyclic load testing started, there was no visible growth of the cracks. No new

crack was generated during the test. At the end of 1,000,000 cycles, there was no sign of

distress within the specimen.

To further investigate the overload effect, P max was first increased to 22,300 N

(5.0 kips).

The specimen was still in good shape after 150,000 cycles.

Then, P max was

then increased to 29,000 N ( 6.5 kips) which represented 200% of working stress; the

specimen appeared to be intact after 30,000 cycles of this load level.

stress; the specimen appeared to be intact after 30,000 cycles of this load level. Figure 2.15

Figure 2.15 Specimen C5 x 8.5 S5

For

all

specimens,

the

attempts

to

monitor

average

curvature

through

the

measurement

of

relative

displacements

within

the

test

section,

failed

to

produce

consistently usable results, particularly for large cycle counts.

First, the magnitude of

deflection at the mid-span, relative to the line of the two 1/3 span loading points, was

very small in magnitude (only on the order of a few thousandths of an inch), resulting in a

low resolution for the measured DCDT data to begin with.

It was also inevitable for

specimens to shift positions over time under the dynamic load, even though a minimum

non-zero load was maintained, and to exhibit some secondary torsional movement, due

primarily to minor imperfections in the specimen and supports, all of which contributed

to measurement difficulties. It was decided finally to utilize only the more reliable crack

gauge data in the subsequent analyses.

(5) Crack Profile Characterization

The crack profile may be investigated in the methods of laser holographic

interferometry, acoustic emission and dye penetration. For some specimens in group P,

the crack length profile was investigated using dye penetration. A notch was made at the

top of a crack for a specimen. The specimen was then loaded in the three point bending

mode, so as to open the crack. As the cracks opened up, rubber sheets were clamped to

each side of the specimen around the crack (see Figure 2.14). Black ink was injected into

the notch, penetrating the crack until reaching the tip the crack. After about two hours,

the reinforcement was cut off and the crack examined; the images of cross sections of

C4x8.5P5, C5x8.5P5 and C6x8.5P5 are illustrated in Figure 2.15.

Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54

Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks

Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54
Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54
Figure 2.16 Injectiing Dye into Cracks Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles 54

Figure 2.17 Typical Crack Profiles

Quantitative Discussion

The balanced reinforcement ratio is 0.0048, for an FRP tensile strength of

655MPa (95 ksi) and a concrete strength of 27.6 MPa (4000 psi).

The reinforcement

ratios tested were 0.013, 0.010, 0.008 and 0.007 for specimens C3x8.5H5, C4x8.5H5,

C5x8.5H5

and

C6x8.5H5,

respectively.

Specimen

C6x8.5H5,

which

displayed

a

somewhat different behavior than the other specimens, had the lowest reinforcement

ratio, although it was still slightly over-reinforced.

As mentioned earlier, the predicted

service load crack openings, based on ACI 440.1R-01 criteria, were between 0.68 mm

and 0.84 mm for all four specimens, at the suggested nominal k b value of 1.2.

The

experimental results show that the service load crack openings, measured immediately

after static pre-cracking, were 0.15 mm, 0.16 mm and 0.17 mm for group H specimens

C3x8.5H5, C4x8.5H5 and C5x8.5H5, respectively.

These experimental observations

were only about 25% of the predicted value. The opening of the single crack in specimen

C6x8.5H5 was 0.26mm, which was still less than 30% of the predicted value. In group P,

the service load crack openings, measured immediately after static pre-cracking, were

0.16 mm, 0.17 mm, 0.19 and 0.22 mm for group P specimens C3x8.5P5, C4x8.5P5,

C5x8.5P5 and C6x8.5P5, respectively.

Based on these limited tests, it appears that the

modified Gergely-Lutz equation may be overly conservative in predicting actual static

service load crack openings, at least for the bars tested in this investigation. According to

the limited test results, a k b value of 0.4 may be more realistic for initial static crack

opening prediction.

Another finding was that there was hardly any difference between

group H and group P.

The reason is that initial static CMOD at working stress level is

more related to the modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than the surface bonding.

The

elastic properties of two groups of FRP bars were approximately the same.

The growth of crack opening versus number of cycles may be represented by a

sum of an elastic CMOD and a plastic CMOD.

The elastic CMOD is calculated as the

difference of CMOD at maximum and minimum load, which disappears after unloading.

The residual CMOD at minimum load is the plastic CMOD, which does not disappear

after the removal of loading (see Figure 2.18), and tends to show a greater increase with

the number of applied load cycles than elastic CMOD does.

Load

Plastic Elastic CMOD CMOD
Plastic
Elastic
CMOD
CMOD

CMOD

Figure 2.18: Definitions of Elastic and Plastic CMOD

Figures 2.19, 2.20, 2.21 and 2.22 display the evolution of elastic CMOD and

plastic CMOD for each specimen in group H and P, with increasing load cycle