15

PERFORMANCE OF DECOMMISSIONED
RC GIRDERS STRENGTHENED WITH FRP LAMINATES

Marco Arduini, Antonio Nanni, and Mariano Romagnolo



Abstract
FRP materials are becoming one of the major innovations in the construction industry. They are
widely used as externally bonded reinforcement for flexural and shear strengthening of members
because of durability, ease of installation, low maintenance costs, and excellent performance.
This paper presents both experimental and analytical investigations on reinforced concrete
girders removed from a bridge after 40 years of service. The girders were strengthened with
externally bonded FRP sheets and tested, with the principal objective of evaluating performance
on real-scale members. Comparisons between the experimental data, an analytical model and the
ACI design guidelines are presented in order to understand structural performance, allow
prediction, and address potential weaknesses in the design guidelines. In particular, it appears
that the FRP tensile strength reduction coefficients presently adopted may be appropriate only if
the member does not present D-regions. In the case of members with disturbances or
discontinuities, the interfacial shear stresses may require additional analysis and limitations.

Keywords: Composites, design guidelines, failure modes, fiber reinforced polymer (FRP),
flexure, reinforced concrete, interfacial stresses, repair, strengthening.

16
Brief Bios

Marco Arduini. Chief Executive Officer of Co-Force s.r.l., Reggio Emilia, Italy. He is member
ASCE, professional engineer and consultant since1997.

Antonio Nanni. V & M Jones Professor of Civil Engineering at University of Missouri-Rolla.
He is an active member in the technical committees of ACI (Fellow), ASCE (Fellow), ASTM
and TMS. He was the founding Chairman of ACI Committee 440 - FRP Reinforcement and is
the current Chairman of ACI Committee 437 Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete
Structures.

Mariano Romagnolo. Designer and control engineer for special maintenance operations within
the monitoring and maintenance unit in the engineering division of Autostrade S.p.A. He is the
Italian delegate for Europe CEN/TC/WG3 standards. Vice chairman Road Bridges and Other
Structures National Committee - PIARC and Member of the World Road Association.
17
1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the technology of strengthening flexural reinforced concrete (RC) members with
externally bonded FRP laminates has been widely deployed (Nanni 1993, Nanni and Dolan
1993, El-Badry 1996, JCI 1997, Saadatmanesh and Ehsani 1998, Dolan et al. 1999, Burgoyne
2001, Cosenza et al. 2001, Figueiras et al. 2001, Teng 2001). The advantages of this technology
include speed and ease of installation, durability of the material system, and efficient
performance.

Most of the experimental studies relative to FRP strengthening, as published to date, involve RC
elements that: are geometrically uniform, are of limited dimensions, have not been subjected to
natural ageing, and have concrete surfaces prepared under ideal conditions. In practice, it
usually occurs that the concrete is deteriorated, the internal steel reinforcement is corroded, and
the geometry of the member is not uniform. It is therefore important to determine the
effectiveness of FRP strengthening under field-type conditions that involve the repair of the
concrete and include discontinuities in the member.

For this purpose, an experimental research program for restoration and strengthening was carried
out on five bridge girders taken from a highway viaduct after a service life of about 40 years.
The structural performance was verified with flexural tests to failure. Different types of failure
modes were identified in the laboratory based on the level of strengthening. A numerical
simulation brought to light some interesting theoretical-practical aspects related to the
importance of geometrical and force discontinuities on potential FRP delamination.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

2.1 Specimen preparation

The Ponticello viaduct was one of the many bridges along the toll highway between the cities of
Milan and Genoa, Italy. It consisted of five 0.35 x 1.0 x 11.0 m (nominal) RC girders supporting
a 200-mm thick deck and inter-connected by a central transverse RC beam (see Figure 1). After
18
40 years of service, it was decided to completely reconstruct the bridge. The five girders were
separated from the deck and the transverse beam by saw-cutting (see cutting lines in Figure 1),
and transported to the Structures Laboratory of the University of Bologna for testing.

The five girders exhibited a highly variable state of deterioration that depended primarily on the
position of each girder in the bridge. The two external girders were highly degraded. The
reinforcement was exposed and the stirrups, 12 mm in diameter spaced 200 mm on center, were
so seriously corroded that at some locations they had disintegrated (see Figure 2). The internal
girders revealed relatively less deterioration although the concrete surface was friable (see Figure
3). As shown in Figures 2 and 3, at mid-span of all girders, there remained the two stumps of the
central transverse beam after the cutting operations.

Table 1 describes the characteristics of the five girders. The first column shows the girder code.
The second column shows the girder relative position and condition prior to repair. The third
column gives the resisting cross-section followed by the original internal steel reinforcement in
the longitudinal direction (excluding the effects of corrosion). The position of the longitudinal
reinforcement is given in the first drawing of Figure 4, where it is shown that the bottom
reinforcement layer is straight till the support, whereas the second layer consists of 45-degree
bent bars.

While the center girder (labeled A in Figure 1) was left as is, restoration was carried out on the
four girders corresponding to most external positions (labeled, from left to right, C, B, D and E
in Figure 1). The first problem was that of the reconstruction of the concrete cover. Spalling and
degradation of the concrete cover in bridge girders is, in fact, typical requiring deep scarification
in order to expose the sound concrete substrate. The following operations were implemented for
the repair of the four girders B through E:

Mechanical scarification of deteriorated concrete up to a depth of 40-50 mm and cleaning
of the exposed reinforcement from any corrosion residue.
Application of a steel welded-wire mesh over the entire web (5-mm diameter wire at 100
x 100 mm spacing) tied to the existing stirrups at discrete points, with minimum
19
overlapping of 100 mm. The purpose of the mesh was double: to allow for the
application of the shotcrete layer in one pass without excessive rebound, and to provide
shrinkage-control reinforcement for the shotcrete layer.
Application of a shrinkage-compensated shotcrete (see three phases of the shotcreting
operation in Figure 5) with a nominal thickness of 50 mm. The aggregate for the
shotcrete mixture had a 2 to 4 mm maximum size
Casting of a top-mounted flange, 0.50 m wide and 0.25 m (nominal) deep, in
correspondence of the removed slab, using the same shrinkage-compensated mortar. The
flange was also added to girder A.

This addition of concrete on the top flange was motivated by the necessity of preventing
compression failure. In a sense, this was to replace the contribution that the concrete deck would
offer in the real situation.

The area of welded-wire mesh present in the additional top-flange and along the web was
obviously disregarded in the flexural and shear analyses for the following reasons: 1) the mesh
area is insignificant when compared to that of the rebars; and 2) there is no flexural continuity in
the mesh due to the presence of the transverse beam stumps, and no shear continuity since the
mesh does not wrap around the girder soffit.

After curing for about two weeks, the exposed surface of the shotcrete was hand cleaned with
sandpaper to remove rough spots. No sandblasting was used. The girders were then
strengthened with externally bonded carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets as summarized in Table 1 and
Figure 4. Columns 5 and 6 in Table 1 describe the two CFRP systems (one using dry fibers and
the other using pre-preg fibers) that were installed, with sequence of installation, number of
plies, position and dimensions as given. Both strengthening systems, coded CFRP1 and CFRP2,
are made of unidirectional high strength carbon fibers adhered in tensile zone of the girders using
a two-component epoxy resin (manual lay-up).

It resulted that girders B and D had the same level of strengthening (two plies type 1 and 2
adhered to the soffit of the girder), but with different CFRP systems. Girder E was strengthened
20
with three plies adhered to the soffit and had additional U-wrap anchors. Girder C had five plies
of flexural CFRP reinforcement (three adhered to the soffit and two to the bottom sides of the
web). Figure 4 shows type and installation sequence of the CFRP laminates.

2.2 Test set-up and experimental results

The girder cross-section and the loading set-up used for the tests are shown in Figures 4 and 6. It
was not possible to restore the original 11-m free span because the girder ends had been partly
removed during cutting operations. For this reason, girders were tested in a four-point bending
configuration over a free span of 9.0 m, with a constant moment region of 1.0 m.

A complete characterization was carried out on all constituent materials. The average values of
the test results as summarized in Table 2 were then used in the analytical calculations. Table 3
reports a summary of the flexural test results at ultimate including concrete and FRP strains,
load, and failure mode. The load versus mid-span deflection curves are plotted in Figures 7 and
8, the load versus FRP tensile strain behavior at mid-span is illustrated in Figure 9 and, finally,
the load versus concrete top strain curves at girder mid-span are shown in Figures 10 and 11.
These figures show envelopes as loading was applied in five cycles (typically three before and
two after steel reinforcement yielding). The load-unload cycle schemes were similar for all
specimens and were intended to confirm the stability of the test without affecting the
performance of the specimen.

The experiments revealed the following:

CFRP reinforcement did not contribute to an increase in the flexural stiffness of the
girders at the elastic stage.
There is no significant difference in performance between the two CFRP systems used.
The addition of two CFRP plies (girders B and D) increased the flexural capacity by
about 15%.
The addition of a third ply to the girder soffit (girder E) did not show any gain over the
girders with two plies (girders B and D) due to premature failure by delamination (see
21
Figure 12-c). This could also be attributed to the loss of tensile steel reinforcement due
to corrosion higher than for the other girders. The exact quantification of this area loss is
practically impossible.
Although corrosion of the existing longitudinal steel reinforcement in girders C and E
was high, a significant increase in load capacity was achieved (i.e., 30% for Girder C) as
a result of FRP strengthening.
In all cases, the U-wrap anchors appeared to be effective in preventing delamination
starting from the laminate terminations.
Looking at FRP tensile strain and concrete compressive strain, the assumption that girder
cross sections remain plane during loading was confirmed, at least in the range up to
1,200 kN (approximately 60-70% of the highest ultimate load). Significant deviations
were found at higher load levels due to localized cases of concrete and FRP-concrete
interface cracking.
In the case of girder C, the maximum load was limited by concrete crushing in the
compression zone (see Figure 12-a). For in-situ performance, due to the presence of a
concrete composite deck, failure would occur at a higher load and CFRP rupture or
delamination would remain the controlling factor.
Girders B and D reached tensile FRP rupture in correspondence with the transverse beam
location (see Figure 12-b). In that location, there are two significant disturbances/
interruptions, namely: the steel rebars of the transverse beam and the welded wire mesh
used in concrete restoration. These disturbances promote premature failure at levels of
strain below the nominal 0.015 mm/mm threshold used for CFRP.
The concrete restoration operations were satisfactory. No interface failure was noted
between the existing concrete (substrate) and the shotcrete.

3. ANALYSIS

Analysis of the experimental behavior was conducted using a model already presented in the
literature (Arduini et al. 1997, Arduini and Nanni 1997). The model is based upon the following
assumptions: plane sections remain plane, perfect bond between all materials, small
displacements, and specific constituent material laws (i.e., elasto-plastic steel reinforcement,
22
linear-elastic FRP laminates, and softening-elastic concrete). A girder was divided into 80
segments and the shear stresses at the FRP-concrete interface were calculated by imposing
equilibrium of the normal stresses adsorbed by the FRP material segment by segment, assuming
a triangular stress distribution.

The four diagrams of Figure 13 present a comparison between the experimental and analytical
results in terms of load-deflection behavior for all five girders. It is apparent that the model
offers a good prediction. The load vs. deflection curves obtained in the analysis are terminated
when one of the following five failure mechanisms is attained: a) maximum strain in the FRP
laminate (FRP tensile rupture); b) maximum compressive strain in concrete (concrete crushing);
c) maximum shear stress at the FRP-concrete interface (FRP peeling); d) excessive strain in the
steel reinforcement (steel reinforcement rupture); or e) maximum shear stress in concrete near a
support (concrete shear failure). For each girder, Table 4 shows key parameters calculated with
the analytical model corresponding to the maximum experimental load. They are: position of the
neutral axis and concrete, steel, and FRP strains. The last row in the Table 4 reports the
experimentally measured FRP strain at ultimate. A comparison between computed and
experimental ultimate FRP strains indicates that the experimental values are significantly lower
than their analytical correspondents, but maintain the same trend. The difference is due to these
reasons: a) local debonding of FRP, especially in the zone around the transverse beam stump, a
discontinuity region; b) concrete is not a homogeneous material in tension even if the model is
based upon the smeared crack approach; and c) strain gages were installed at mid-span but FRP
rupture or delaminations did not start at the gage position..

Interface shear stresses become very high when stiffness changes or flexural cracks or cross-
section discontinuities are present. For example, high interface shear stresses can be found at the
end of the FRP reinforcement, especially when the laminate is thick or terminates in a high-
moment region. Again, high interface shear stresses can be found around all cracks in concrete,
changes in concrete cross section, or changes in the internal reinforcement. Figure 14 presents
the analytical distribution of the interfacial shear stress,
j,
for girders B, C, D and E at rounded-
off maximum experimental loads. Three peaks can generally be found: one is near the loading
point, not in the center zone where external bending action is constant, and the other two are near
23
the termination of the FRP reinforcement. Due to the particular geometry of the girders tested, it
is expected that peeling may occur if
j
were higher than the ultimate interface shear strength. As
shown in Figure 14, the model indicates the highest shear stress occurs under the applied load
and, for values corresponding to the rounded-off ultimate experimental loads, is approximately
3.5 MPa.

The model does not account for the effect of the U-wraps used for anchoring the FRP sheet
terminations. The wraps should considerably reduce the normal stresses at the FRP-concrete
interface and their presence should be accounted for in analysis as well as design.

4. COMPARISON WITH DESIGN RECOMMENDATION

It is common practice in strengthening design to consider the beam cross-section subjected to the
maximum bending moment. It is however imperative to check for different failure mechanisms
than can occur at cross-sections not subject to the maximum flexural action. In the design
method proposed by ACI 440 (2001), the ultimate capacity of a critical cross-section is based on
the level of strain attainable in the FRP laminate,
fud
. The strain in the FRP is limited directly
and indirectly by three coefficients:

Environmental reduction factor, C
E
. Because long-term exposure to various types of
environments can reduce tensile strength, creep-rupture strength, and fatigue endurance
of FRP laminates, the material properties used in design equations should be reduced
based on the environmental exposure condition. For carbon/epoxy systems, C
E
ranges
from 0.95 to 0.70 depending of exposure conditions.
Bond reduction factor,
m
. Cover delamination or FRP debonding can occur if the force
in the FRP cannot be sustained by the substrate or the adhesive. In order to prevent
debonding, a limitation should be placed on the normal strain level developed in the FRP
laminate. The
m
factor can be expressed as:

24

>
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
000 , 180 90 . 0
000 , 90
60
1
000 , 180 90 . 0
000 , 360
1
60
1
f f f
f f f fu
f f f
f f f
fu
m
t E n for
t E n
t E n for
t E n

where n
f
is the number of FRP plies, E
f
is the FRP elastic tensile modulus, and t
f
is the
thickness of one ply, and
fu
represent the ultimate tensile strain of the fiber (no fatigue
application
fu
= 0.95*
max
). For hand lay up, reference is typically made to the properties
of fibers rather than the gross laminate cross section.
Strength reduction factor, . The factor is an indirect limitation of the maximum
attainable strain. In fact, it is related to the mode of failure and the reliability of the
response of the structure based on the adopted load factors. For the case of interest,
varies between 0.7 and 0.9. The range is determined by the need to maintain a sufficient
degree of ductility in the member and it is based on the strain level in the steel,
s,
at the
time of ultimate failure (concrete crushing, FRP rupture, delamination or debonding) as
follows:

( )

< <


+

=
sy s
s sy
sy
sy s
s
for 70 . 0
005 . 0 for
005 . 0
20 . 0
70 . 0
005 . 0 for 90 . 0


Assuming C
E
=0.95 (indoor environment) and computing the values of
m
,
fu
, and , as shown in
Table 5, the corresponding ultimate design strain value,
fud
, and the corresponding ultimate
design load, F
ud
, that the girders B, C, D, and E could be designed for are listed in the Table 5.
The ratio F
tot
/F
ud
represents the safety factor against the real experimental collapse. From the
results obtained, the range varies from a minimum of 1.06 to a maximum of 1.13. It may be
argued that this ratio is too close to unity. In particular, if one were to set C
E
and both equal to
1.0, the experimental results should at least match the design values rather than falling below
them. It appears, therefore, that
m
may not provide sufficient precision in limiting the
maximum strain in FRP when debonding results from the presence of discontinuities. In this
25
case, it would be advisable to control of the shear stress at the FRP-concrete interface since this
would take into account discontinuities in force or geometry.

5. PROPOSED DESIGN CHECK

To conduct a safe design, an additional requirement is needed to identify the failure mechanisms
caused by singularities in the member. Not only maximum strain in FRP, concrete and steel at
the cross section subjected to maximum moment should be checked, but also the maximum shear
stress
j
at the FRP-concrete interface along the girder should be controlled. A threshold value
could be assumed as given in the literature for the adhesion strength between concrete and
smooth steel (European Standard 1991) that suggests
jd
=1.1 MPa.

Figure 15 presents the distribution of interface shear stress for girders B, D, C, and D at the value
of the applied load generating
j
at any one cross section higher than
jd
(the interface shear
strength is shown as a horizontal line in the diagram). Table 6 presents key parameters (i.e.,
neutral axis position and strain in concrete, steel and FRP) at the mid-span section of the four
girders for the loads indicated in the legend of Figure 15. It becomes apparent that the tensile
strain now reached in the FRP laminate is small and in any case lower than 0.24%. This is
because at the given levels of applied load, the longitudinal steel reinforcement is not yet
yielded. By comparing the new load values (first row in Table 6) with the experimental one
(first row in Table 4), one can recompute the safety factor. The safety factor now is in the range
1.12 to 1.41. This type of check forces the designer to examine the entire length of the member
rather than focusing on an individual cross section where the moment is maximum.

6. CONCLUSIONS

This study focuses on the flexural behavior of simply supported full-scale reinforced concrete
girders strengthened, after heavy concrete reconstruction, with externally carbon FRP sheets.
The girders were taken from a decommissioned bridge in service for 40 years. This speaks for
the uniqueness of the research project described in this paper.

26
If the concrete substrate is significantly deteriorated, the use of high quality repair mortar
(shotcrete) before the application of the externally bonded FRP reinforcement is a necessity. If
this is accomplished, the performance of the member is satisfactory and significant
improvements in flexural capacity can be attained.

The presence of singularities can influence the failure mode by causing delamination phenomena
at the FRP-concrete interface. Excessive FRP-concrete interfacial shear stress may be caused by
singularities such as: bending of longitudinal steel rebars, change in cross-section geometry,
intersection with transverse members, changes in FRP width and/or thickness, and application of
a concentrated load.

ACIs newly approved design guidelines provide a simple formula to take into account
delamination phenomena. This formula has been compared with experimental results and shown
some limitations in the presence of D-regions. An additional check consisting of the evaluation
of the interface shear stress can provide needed accuracy when discontinuities are present, even
if the design procedure becomes slightly more complex.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are grateful to: Pavimental S.p.A. for the preparation, restoration and strengthening
operations; the technical staff of the Laboratorio Resistenza Materiali University of Bologna
where the tests were conducted; and Mitsubishi Chemical/Sumitomo Corporation and MAC
S.p.A. for supplying the FRP systems.

REFERENCES

Arduini M., Di Tommaso A., and Nanni A., 1997, Brittle Failure in FRP Plate and Sheet
Bonded Beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94, No.4, July-Aug. 1997, pp. 363-370.
Arduini M., and Nanni A., 1997, Behavior of Precracked RC Beams Strengthened with Carbon
FRP Sheets, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, May 1996, Vol. 1, No. 2,
1996, pp. 63-70.
27
ACI Committee 440, 2002, Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems for Strengthening of Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, (under revision).
Burgoyne, C., Ed., 2001, Fifth International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-5), Thomas Telford,
London, UK, Vol. 1 and 2, 1151 pp.
Cosenza, E., G. Manfredi and A. Nanni, Editors (2001), Composites in Construction: A
Reality, Proc., Int. Workshop, Capri, Italy, ASCE, Reston, VA, 277 pp.
Dolan, C. W., Rizkalla, S. H., and Nanni, A., Eds., 1999, Fourth International Symposium on
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-
4), ACI SP-188, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1182 pp.
Figueiras, J., L. Juvandes and R. Furia, Editors (2001) Composites in Construction, Proc.,
CCC2001, Porto, Portugal.
El-Badry, M., Ed., 1996, "Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures,"
Proceedings ACMBS-II, Montreal, Canada, August 1996, pp. 1027.
European Standard ENV1992-1-1, 1991, Design of Concrete Structures Part 1.1 General
Rules and Rules for Building, Dec. 1991.
Japan Concrete Institute, 1997, Third International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Proceedings of the
Third International Symposium, Vols. 1 & 2, Oct. 1997, Sapporo, Japan; Publisher JCI,
Tokyo, Japan 728 and 809 pp.
Nanni, A., Ed. 1993, Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures:
Properties and Applications, Developments in Civil Engineering, Vol. 42, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 450.
Nanni, A. and Dolan, C.W., Eds., 1993, First International Symposium on Fiber Reinforced
Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-1)," ACI SP-138,
American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 977.
Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M., Eds., 1998, Second International Conference on Composites
in Infrastructure, Proc. ICCI, Tucson, AZ, Vols.1 & 2, 779 and 783 pp.
28
Teng, J.-G., Ed. (2001), FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Proc., CICE 2001, Hong Kong,
China, Vols. 1 & 2, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1730 pp.

NOTATIONS

As original bottom steel reinforcement
B flange width
b web width
C
E
environmental reduction factor
E elastic tangent modulus
E
f
FRP elastic modulus- dry fibers only
f
c
cylinder compressive strength
f
t
tensile strength
f
yt
yield strength
F
tot
experimental ultimate load
F
ud
design ultimate load
h flange height
H web height
n number of plies
t
f
laminate thickness - dry fibers only

m
bond reduction coefficient for flexure

cu
ultimate compressive strain (concrete)

fu
ultimate tensile strain (FRP)

fud
ultimate design tensile strain (FRP)

max
maximum tensile strain

s
strain in steel rebars

sy
strain at yielding in the steel rebars

n
Shear capacity

j
interface shear stress

jd
design interface shear strength
strength reduction factor

29
List of Tables

Table 1 Specimens and their characteristics .............................................................................................................30
Table 2 - Average material experimental values .........................................................................................................31
Table 3 Maximum experimental load and type of failure.........................................................................................31
Table 4 - Analytical model output at mid-span cross section......................................................................................32
Table 5 Design ultimate FRP strain recommended by ACI......................................................................................32
Table 6 - Design ultimate load controlled by interface shear and corresponding parameters at mid-span cross section
.............................................................................................................................................................................32




List of Figures

Figure 1 - Typical cross-section of the Ponticello viaduct...........................................................................................33
Figure 2 External girder E before repair (extensive corrosion damage) ...................................................................34
Figure 3 - Internal girder B before repair (deterioration of surface concrete only) .....................................................34
Figure 4 Cross section, reinforcement identification and load test set-up (dimension in cm) ..................................35
Figure 5 - Concrete surface repair (shotcreting) over welded-wire mesh....................................................................36
Figure 6 - Girder D ready for testing...........................................................................................................................37
Figure 7 Load vs. mid-span deflection behaviour of girders A, B and C .................................................................38
Figure 8 Load vs. mid-span deflection behaviour of girders A, D and E .................................................................38
Figure 9 Load vs. bottom FRP strain at mid-span of girders B, C, D, and E............................................................39
Figure 10 Load vs. top concrete strain at mid-span of girders A, B and C...............................................................40
Figure 11 Load vs. top concrete strain at mid-span of girders A, D and E...............................................................40
Figure 12 - a) Beam C: concrete crushing and FRP tensile rupture in the central section b) Beam
D: FRP tensile rupture in the connection zone due to wide crack near the transversal beam
c) Beam E: Failure by FRP peeling from one end to mid-span ........................................................41
Figure 13 - Load vs. mid-span deflection, comparison between experimental and numerical results.........................42
Figure 14 Interface shear stress distribution at maximum (rounded off) load for Girders B, C, D, and E ...............43
Figure 15 Interface shear stress distribution at load such that
j
>
jd
for Girders B, C, D, and E ............................43

30

Table 1 Specimens and their characteristics
Girde
r
Position/
condition
Geometry
(m)
Steel reinforcement
in tension zone
FRP Sequence, plies type, position, and dimensions of
FRP (m)
A Internal
(limited corrosion,
limited spalling)
Web:
H=1.0, b=0.32
Top flange:
h=0.26, B=0.48
825,
40 mm cover
625,
90 mm cover
None None
B Internal
(limited corrosion,
limited spalling)
825,
60 mm cover
625,
130 mm cover
CFRP2 : first ply, soffit, 9.0x0.3
: second ply, soffit, 6.0x0.3
: two single-ply U-wraps, web+soffit, 2.3x0.3
C External
(highly corroded,
significant
spalling)
6 25+422,
60 mm cover
625,
130 mm cover
CFRP2 : first ply, soffit, 9.0x0.3
: second & third plies, soffit, 6.0x0.3
: two single-ply U-wraps, web+soffit, 2.3x0.3
: two single-ply U-wraps, web+soffit, 2.3x0.3
: fourth & fifth plies, lower web, 9.0x0.3
D Internal
(limited corrosion,
limited spalling)
825,
60 mm cover
625,
130 mm cover
CFRP1 : first ply, soffit, 9.0x0.3
: second ply, soffit, 6.0x0.3
: two single-ply U-wraps, web+soffit, 2.3x0.3
E External
(highly corroded,
significant
spalling)







Web:
H=1.0, b=0.38
Top flange:
h=0.26, B=0.48
1020,
60 mm cover
524+120,
130 mm cover
CFRP1 : first ply, soffit, 9.0x0.3
: second & third plies, soffit, 6.0x0.3
: two single-ply U-wraps, web+soffit, 2.3x0.3
: two single-ply U-wraps, web+soffit, 2.3x0.3
N.B. Geometry refers to girders after repair; to refer to installation sequence (see Figure 4)

31


Table 2 - Average material experimental values
Material E
(GPa)
f
c

(MPa)
f
t

(MPa)

max

(%)
f
yt

(MPa)

(MPa)
t
f
(mm)
Original concrete 20 23 2.8* NA NA 2 NA
Cementitious Ready Mix
Mortar (top flange +shotcrete)
25 55 3.5* NA NA 4 NA
Steel rebars 210 NA 500 >10 400 NA NA
CFRP1 1 layer 235 NA 3500 1.5 NA NA 0.165
CFRP2 1 layer 230 NA 3430 1.5 NA NA 0.165
Notes: *cylinder splitting test; NA = Not applicable










Table 3 Maximum experimental load and type of failure
Girde
r

cu

(%)

fu

(%)
F
tot

(kN)
Type of failure
A 0.20 NA 1501 Yielding of reinforcement in the zone under constant flexural moment
B 0.17 0.34 1681 FRP tensile rupture in the connection zone with transverse beam
C 0.24 0.45 1978 Concrete crushing and FRP tensile rupture in the central section
D 0.26 0.55 1785 FRP tensile rupture in the connection zone with transverse beam
E 0.21 0.46 1553 Peeling of the longitudinal composite between U-wrap anchors on left side

32

Table 4 - Analytical model output at mid-span cross section
Girder B C D E
Total maximum load (kN) 1681 1978 1785 1553
Neutral axis position from top (mm) 258.7 253.7 221.8 236.0
Compressive strain at the top (%) 0.21 0.28 0.28 0.22
Tensile strain in the steel rebar bottom layer (%) 0.82 1.09 1.30 0.97
Tensile strain in the CFRP at the bottom (%) 0.85 1.13 1.36 1.01
Measured FRP strain (%) 0.34 0.45 0.55 0.46




Table 5 Design ultimate FRP strain recommended by ACI
Girder B C D E
C
E
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

m
0.900 0.804 0.900 0.797

0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

fud
[%] 1.275 1.140 1.273 1.128
F
ud
(kN) 1592 1758 1584 1415




Table 6 - Design ultimate load controlled by interface shear and corresponding parameters at mid-span cross
section
Girder B C D E
Total maximum load (kN) 1500 1400 1500 1100
Neutral axis position from top (mm) 437.8 453.7 437.8 423.0
Compressive strain at the top (%) 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11
Tensile strain in the steel rebar at the bottom layer (%) 0.22 0.19 0.22 0.22
Tensile strain in the CFRP at the bottom (%) 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.24


33





Figure 1 - Typical cross-section of the Ponticello viaduct
(nominal dimensions in cm)
34



Figure 2 External girder E before repair (extensive corrosion damage)


Figure 3 - Internal girder B before repair (deterioration of surface concrete only)

35






Figure 4 Cross section, reinforcement identification and load test set-up (dimension in cm)
36


(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 5 - Concrete surface repair (shotcreting) over welded-wire mesh

37




Figure 6 - Girder D ready for testing
38


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mid-span deflection [mm]
Total load [kN]
Beam A
Beam B
Beam C

Figure 7 Load vs. mid-span deflection behaviour of girders A, B and C


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mid-span deflection [mm]
Total load [kN]
Beam A
Beam D
Beam E

Figure 8 Load vs. mid-span deflection behaviour of girders A, D and E



39

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
FRP strain at mid-span [ ]
Total load [kN]
Beam B
Beam C
Beam D
Beam E

Figure 9 Load vs. bottom FRP strain at mid-span of girders B, C, D, and E

40


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
-3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
Top concrete strain []
Total load [kN]
Beam A
Beam B
Beam C

Figure 10 Load vs. top concrete strain at mid-span of girders A, B and C


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
-3000 -2500 -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0
Top concrete strain []
Total load [kN]
Beam A
Beam D
Beam E

Figure 11 Load vs. top concrete strain at mid-span of girders A, D and E

41


(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 12 - a) Beam C: concrete crushing and FRP tensile rupture in the central section b) Beam D: FRP
tensile rupture in the connection zone due to wide crack near the transversal beam
c) Beam E: Failure by FRP peeling from one end to mid-span

42


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mid-span deflection [mm]
Total load [kN]
Beam A
Beam A: Analytical


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mid-span delfection [mm]
Total load [kN]
Beam C
Beam C: Analytical


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mid-span deflection [mm]
Total load [kN]
Beam B
Beam D
Beams B and D: Analytical

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mid-span deflection [mm]
Total load [kN]
Beam E
Beam E: Analytical

Figure 13 - Load vs. mid-span deflection, comparison between experimental and numerical results

43

0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Distance from support [mm]
Interface shear stress i [MPa]
Beams B and D: Ftot=1800 kN
Beam C: Ftot=2000 kN
Beam E: Ftot=1600 kN

Figure 14 Interface shear stress distribution at maximum (rounded off) load for Girders B, C, D, and E


0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Distance from support [mm]
Interface shear stress i [MPa]
Beams B and D: Ftot=1500 kN
Beam C: Ftot=1400 kN
Beam E: Ftot=1100 kN
Interface ultimate condition

Figure 15 Interface shear stress distribution at load such that
j
>
jd
for Girders B, C, D, and E