- Page 1 and 2: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Page 3 and 4: FINAL REPORT RI02-002 Steel-Free Hy
- Page 5 and 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY New materials and
- Page 7 and 8: 3.4.1 Flexural-Sensitive Beam Speci
- Page 9 and 10: LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 2.1 Direct pul
- Page 11 and 12: Fig. 4.32 Fig. 4.33 Fig. 4.34 Fig.
- Page 13: control as well as monitoring of th
- Page 17 and 18: f GFRP allowable stress in the GFRP
- Page 19 and 20: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. BACKGROUND AND
- Page 21 and 22: continuous reinforcing bars, or com
- Page 23 and 24: pitting of steel bars results from
- Page 25 and 26: ehavior under different cover thick
- Page 27 and 28: 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 BOND
- Page 29 and 30: This test method has several disadv
- Page 31 and 32: of the behavior of the FRP. A numbe
- Page 33 and 34: applying tension to the reinforcing
- Page 35 and 36: each of the two types of GFRP, alon
- Page 37 and 38: second specimen was tested to 1,000
- Page 39 and 40: of failure, bond strength can be ma
- Page 41 and 42: The bar that had been exposed for 8
- Page 43 and 44: modeled one-dimensionally. At the o
- Page 45 and 46: The one bar-scale model presented b
- Page 47 and 48: esistance to crack growth in the ha
- Page 49 and 50: place forms made of concrete precas
- Page 51 and 52: perpendicular to the main reinforce
- Page 53 and 54: X = the distance in feet from load
- Page 55 and 56: where A=effective tension area, in
- Page 57 and 58: E=the effective length of slab resi
- Page 59 and 60: d c = Dist. From extreme tension fi
- Page 61 and 62: The unfactored wheel loads placed o
- Page 63 and 64: The cover of the bottom of the cast
- Page 65 and 66:
AASHTO AASHTO LFD LRFD MODOT NOTES
- Page 67 and 68:
2.4 DUCTILITY REALTED ISSUES FOR FR
- Page 69 and 70:
Based on experimental data, Vijay a
- Page 71 and 72:
Figure 3.1 GFRP Tensile specimen wi
- Page 73 and 74:
Two test configurations were used f
- Page 75 and 76:
correlation has been observed betwe
- Page 77 and 78:
3.3.1.2 Test Specimens Test specime
- Page 79 and 80:
This kind of specimen is not repres
- Page 81 and 82:
Figure 3.7 Casting operations for t
- Page 83 and 84:
Figure 3.9 Close-up photograph of m
- Page 85 and 86:
flexural beams were tested at UMC.
- Page 87 and 88:
Table 3.5 Flexural ductility test s
- Page 89 and 90:
Table 3.6 Experimental program for
- Page 91 and 92:
Data were recorded using a customiz
- Page 93 and 94:
thick and 1.5 in. wide stainless st
- Page 95 and 96:
The third slab used a hybrid reinfo
- Page 97 and 98:
Table 3.9 Reinforcement and spacing
- Page 99 and 100:
4. STATIC AND FATIGUE BOND TEST RES
- Page 101 and 102:
condition not exhibiting in real st
- Page 103 and 104:
u√f`c(MPa/√MPa) 3.2 2.8 2.4 2 1
- Page 105 and 106:
the loss of chemical bond, the curv
- Page 107 and 108:
of the embedded area had large bond
- Page 109 and 110:
Slip (in.) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
- Page 111 and 112:
negligible mechanical bearing. Only
- Page 113 and 114:
were not in full contact because of
- Page 115 and 116:
specimens without fatigue loading,
- Page 117 and 118:
110.00% 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00
- Page 119 and 120:
approximated by f ct = 6. 8( f c '
- Page 121 and 122:
42 was obtained. As mentioned previ
- Page 123 and 124:
FRC Plain d) Crack patterns in #4 G
- Page 125 and 126:
4FC3 Pullout N/A 4FG1 Splitting 0.0
- Page 127 and 128:
I.D. Ultimate Bond Strength u (psi)
- Page 129 and 130:
4.3.2 Theoretical Prediction of Bon
- Page 131 and 132:
e be be le C (a) Schematic pullout
- Page 133 and 134:
By assuming the concrete strength o
- Page 135 and 136:
esponse until failure is initiated.
- Page 137 and 138:
the bond specimens with respect to
- Page 139 and 140:
typical load - end slip response fo
- Page 141 and 142:
18 Deflection (mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- Page 143 and 144:
14 12 Deflection (mm) 0 2 4 6 8 10
- Page 145 and 146:
4.4.2.3 Stiffness Degradation Speci
- Page 147 and 148:
110 Number of Cycles 0 20,000 40,00
- Page 149 and 150:
10 9 Deflection (mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
- Page 151 and 152:
• Different bond mechanisms were
- Page 153 and 154:
index could be increased by as much
- Page 155 and 156:
0.4M u 0.8M u (a) VF4G (FRC beams)
- Page 157 and 158:
Table 5.1. Cracking moment and aver
- Page 159 and 160:
due to inadequate bond between the
- Page 161 and 162:
Moment (kN.m) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20
- Page 163 and 164:
As shown in Figures 5.5 through 5.7
- Page 165 and 166:
Specimen I.D. (1) Table 5.4. Compar
- Page 167 and 168:
m kN. ( n e Mom Deflection (in.) 0
- Page 169 and 170:
Based on the information provided b
- Page 171 and 172:
55 50 VP4C VP4C 450 45 400 40 VF4C
- Page 173 and 174:
Figure 5.18. Typical failure mode P
- Page 175 and 176:
Value used in this study Figure 5.1
- Page 177 and 178:
In the following sections, ductilit
- Page 179 and 180:
55 Curvature (1/in.) 0 0.0005 0.001
- Page 181 and 182:
6. ACCELERATED DURABILITY TEST RESU
- Page 183 and 184:
system, temperatures were varied fr
- Page 185 and 186:
observation was made by Tannous and
- Page 187 and 188:
6.3.1.2 Effect of environmental con
- Page 189 and 190:
3 Slip (in.) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
- Page 191 and 192:
1.4 1.2 Slip (in.) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.
- Page 193 and 194:
Slip (in.) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
- Page 195 and 196:
After specimens had been subjected
- Page 197 and 198:
% Reduction of Design Bond Strength
- Page 199 and 200:
freezing-and-thawing cycles, damage
- Page 201 and 202:
Coated with Epoxy Solution Ingress
- Page 203 and 204:
ebar chairs were placed. This is ex
- Page 205 and 206:
concrete beams and from 4% to 8% fo
- Page 207 and 208:
55 50 Deflection (in.) 0 0.2 0.4 0.
- Page 209 and 210:
Table 6.3 Beam durability results f
- Page 211 and 212:
55 50 DP8G VP8G 450 45 40 DP8G 400
- Page 213 and 214:
Figure 6.31 Comparison of Ultimate
- Page 215 and 216:
I.D. Table 6.7. Ductility index usi
- Page 217 and 218:
55 50 Curvature (1/in.) 0 0.0002 0.
- Page 219 and 220:
• With the addition of polypropyl
- Page 221 and 222:
shows the electronic test control f
- Page 223 and 224:
North Box Girder Support LVDT 1 Pot
- Page 225 and 226:
Figure 7.6 Stress contours on the u
- Page 227 and 228:
as these, it is not possible to eli
- Page 229 and 230:
potentiometers). The inset shows lo
- Page 231 and 232:
loops observed near zero load is ty
- Page 233 and 234:
GFRP/CFRP reinforced slab does as w
- Page 235 and 236:
More than a characteristic of the c
- Page 237 and 238:
Figures 7.18 and 7.19 show schemati
- Page 239 and 240:
profile of lower reinforcement mat)
- Page 241 and 242:
while a check of ultimate capacity
- Page 243 and 244:
Load Modifier The structure is duct
- Page 245 and 246:
(a) Truck Loads (multiple presence
- Page 247 and 248:
(d GFRP − c) ε GFRP = ε c , and
- Page 249 and 250:
the transverse CFRP reinforcement o
- Page 251 and 252:
0.003 0.85 f’ c c a=β 1 c C ε C
- Page 253 and 254:
unrealistic based on results of ser
- Page 255 and 256:
parameters are identical to the one
- Page 257 and 258:
spacing of at least 10 in. in the t
- Page 259 and 260:
values. The bond specimens with a p
- Page 261 and 262:
• CFRP reinforced specimens exhib
- Page 263 and 264:
GFRP bars can be used exclusively f
- Page 265 and 266:
ASTM C 1543-02, “Standard Test Me
- Page 267 and 268:
CAN/CSA-S6-00, 2000, “Canadian Hi
- Page 269 and 270:
Deflection,” Technical Report, De
- Page 271 and 272:
Mashima, M., and Iwamoto, K., 1993,
- Page 273 and 274:
Status of the Nation's Highways, Br
- Page 275:
Table AI-3: Results From Compressio