Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plates For Repair or Retrofit of Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete Girders

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
February 20th , 20 _____

_____________ 03
I,______________________________________________,
Matthew W. Bolduc
hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the
degree of:
Masters of Science
________________________________________________
in:
Civil Engineering
________________________________________________
It is entitled:
Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plates for Repair or
________________________________________________
Retrofit of Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete Girders
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Approved by:
________________________
Bahram M. Shahrooz
________________________
Richard A. Miller
________________________
James A. Swanson
________________________
________________________
Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plates for
Repair or Retrofit of Prestressed and Reinforced
Concrete Girders
A thesis submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
in the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering
2003
by
Matthew W. Bolduc
B.S., University of Cincinnati, 2000
Committee Chair: Bahram Shahrooz, Ph.D., P.E.

ABSTRACT
Viable retrofit schemes are necessary to delay or offset replacement of deteriorating
concrete bridge members. Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) pultruded plates can be
especially effective when retrofitting bridge members where stiffness, fatigue resistance, ease
of installation, and weathering characteristics are a concern.
The research reported in Chapter 1 was undertaken to examine the influence of
fatigue loading, prior cracking, and patch materials on flexural performance of reinforced
concrete members retrofitted with externally bonded CFRP plates. Moreover, experimental
data from the six reinforced concrete beams tested as part of this research are expected to
further evaluate available design equations for external retrofitting of reinforced concrete
structures. The test results do not suggest a significant effect of fatigue loads; show that
existing cracks do not significantly impact the strength of retrofitted members; and indicate
that patch materials can reduce the available bond strength, and require additional surface
preparation.
The research reported in Chapter 2 presents a novel design approach utilizing
externally bonded CFRP plates developed in an attempt to overcome construction errors in a
member removed from an adjacent box girder bridge. The design methodology was
evaluated based on data from testing of a retrofitted girder along with previous tests on as-is
girders. Test data suggest appreciable improvements in terms of load carrying capacity and
stiffness of the retrofitted girder. The relatively simple retrofit plan developed could have
been used to delay replacement of the deficient girders.
The research reported in Chapter 3 is aimed at filling some of the gaps in the
available test data through retrofitting and testing of a 18.3 m (60 ft) prestressed box girder
retrofitted with CFRP composite plates with mechanical anchors. Prior research on the use
of CFRPs for retrofitting of existing structures has predominantly focused on mildly

reinforced concrete members, and application to prestressed members is rather limited.
Moreover, data regarding performance of mechanical anchors for enhancing bond
characteristics of CFRP composites are scant. After a description of the design procedure,
the test data are used to evaluate the design method, current design recommendations, and
performance of mechanical anchors.

This page intentionally left blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables....................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures....................................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1: Further Studies into Potential Impacts of Fatigue, Cracking, and Patch
Materials on Performance of CFRP Flexural Retrofits ..................................................... 1
1.1 Abstract .............................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Research Significance.......................................................................................... 2
1.3 Introduction....................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Description of Test Specimens ........................................................................... 3
1.5 Overview of Experimental Program.................................................................... 4
1.5.1 Test Matrix.......................................................................................... 5
1.5.2 Retrofit Calculations............................................................................ 6
1.5.3 Retrofit Application Procedure ............................................................ 7
1.5.4 Damage and Patch Method ................................................................. 8
1.5.5 Instrumentation................................................................................... 9
1.6 Testing Procedure............................................................................................... 9
1.6.1 Beam 1 ................................................................................................ 9
1.6.2 Beam 2 ................................................................................................ 9
1.6.3 Beam 3 .............................................................................................. 10
1.6.4 Beam 4 .............................................................................................. 10
1.6.5 Beam 5 .............................................................................................. 11
1.6.6 Beam 6 .............................................................................................. 11
1.7 Test Results ...................................................................................................... 12
1.7.1 Description of Failure Types ............................................................. 12
1.7.2 Description of Test Results................................................................ 13
1.7.2.1 Beam 1 ............................................................................... 13
1.7.2.2 Beam 2 ............................................................................... 14
1.7.2.3 Beam 3 ............................................................................... 14
1.7.2.4 Beam 4 ............................................................................... 15
1.7.2.5 Beam 5 ............................................................................... 17
1.7.2.6 Beam 6 ............................................................................... 17
1.7.3 Capacity ............................................................................................ 17
1.7.4 Bond Quality .................................................................................... 19
1.7.4.1 Initiation of Local Debonding ............................................ 20
1.7.4.2 Ultimate Load .................................................................... 21
1.7.4.3 Debonding Failure ............................................................. 22
1.7.5 Discussion ......................................................................................... 22
1.8 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 24
1.9 Acknowledgements........................................................................................... 26
1.10 References ...................................................................................................... 27
Tables..................................................................................................................... 28
Figures.................................................................................................................... 32
i
Chapter 2: Externally Bonded Composite Plates to Overcome Construction Errors –
Design Concepts and Verifications.................................................................................. 52
2.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................ 53
2.2 Research Significance........................................................................................ 53
2.3 Introduction..................................................................................................... 53
2.3.1 Description of Bridge ........................................................................ 53
2.3.2 Summary of Previous Testing............................................................ 55
2.4 Description of Test Specimen........................................................................... 58
2.5 Overview of Experimental Program.................................................................. 59
2.5.1 Retrofit Calculations and Method ..................................................... 59
2.5.2 Retrofit Application Method ............................................................. 61
2.5.3 Loading Configuration ...................................................................... 63
2.5.4 Instrumentation................................................................................. 63
2.5.5 Testing Procedure.............................................................................. 64
2.6 Test Results ...................................................................................................... 64
2.6.1 Measured Prestress Loss..................................................................... 64
2.6.2 Failure of CFRP Retrofit ................................................................... 65
2.6.3 Comparison of Results to Previous Test ............................................ 66
2.6.4 Retrofit Performance and Discussion of Failure................................. 67
2.6.5 Design Re-Considerations ................................................................. 68
2.7 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 69
2.8 Acknowledgements........................................................................................... 70
2.9 References ........................................................................................................ 71
Tables..................................................................................................................... 72
Figures.................................................................................................................... 73
Chapter 3: Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plates with Mechanical

Anchorages for Strengthening of Prestressed Concrete Box Girders.............................. 89
3.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................ 90
3.2 Research Significance........................................................................................ 90
3.3 Introduction..................................................................................................... 90
3.4 Description of Test Specimen........................................................................... 92
3.5 Overview of Experimental Program.................................................................. 93
3.5.1 Retrofit Design Calculations.............................................................. 93
3.5.2 Retrofit Application........................................................................... 94
3.5.3 Loading Configuration ...................................................................... 97
3.5.4 Instrumentation................................................................................. 98
3.5.5 Testing Procedure.............................................................................. 98
3.6 Test Results ...................................................................................................... 99
3.6.1 Ultimate Capacity ............................................................................. 99
3.6.2 Description of CFRP Plate Failure .................................................... 99
3.6.3 Local Debonding............................................................................. 102
3.6.4 Measured Prestress Loss................................................................... 102
3.6.5 Comparison of Test Results to Theoretical Model........................... 103
3.6.6 Performance of Mechanical Anchors ............................................... 104
3.7 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................. 105
3.8 Acknowledgements......................................................................................... 106
3.9 References ...................................................................................................... 107
ii
Tables................................................................................................................... 108
Figures.................................................................................................................. 109
Appendices for Chapter 1............................................................................................... 124

Appendix A.1: Material Test Summary................................................................. 125
Appendix A.2: 60 kip Test Frame......................................................................... 129
Appendix A.3: Retrofit Design Calculations ......................................................... 139
Appendix A.4: Nomenclature ............................................................................... 149

Appendix B.1: MEG-124-6.78 County Box Girder Retrofit Design..................... 153
Appendix B.2: Measured Prestress Loss Calculations ............................................ 165
Appendix B.3: Nomenclature ............................................................................... 169

Appendix C.1: Material Test Summary ................................................................ 173
Appendix C.2: B27x48 Box Girder Retrofit Design Calculations ......................... 176
Appendix C.3: W18x97 Spreader Beam ............................................................... 197
Appendix C.4: Measured Prestress Loss Calculations............................................ 203
Appendix C.5: B27x48 Box Girder Expected Capacity Calculations..................... 207
Appendix C.6: Nomenclature............................................................................... 212
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables for Chapter 1

Table 1.1. Material Properties .......................................................................................... 28
Table 1.2. Comparison of ODOT Specification and Published Properties for EMACO
R320 CI Troweable Mortar Product .................................................................................. 29
Table 1.3. Beam 4 Flexural Stiffness Throughout Fatigue Loading.................................... 30
Table 1.4. Deflections and Plate Strains at Midspan.......................................................... 31
Table for Chapter 2

Table 2.1. Material Properties .......................................................................................... 72
Table for Chapter 3

Table 3.1. Material Properties ........................................................................................ 108
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures for Chapter 1

Figure 1.1. Test Specimen Cross Sections.......................................................................... 32
Figure 1.2. Loading Configuration .................................................................................... 33
Figure 1.3. Test Matrix...................................................................................................... 34
Figure 1.4. Instrumentation Diagram ................................................................................ 35
Figure 1.5. Plate Failure Modes ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 1.6. Beam 1 Cracking Pattern................................................................................. 37
Figure 1.7. Beam 2 Cracking Pattern and Plate Failure Modes .......................................... 38
Figure 1.10. Beam 5 Cracking Pattern, Plate Failure Modes, and Damage & Patch Area .. 41
Figure 1.11. Beam 6 Cracking Pattern and Damage & Patch Area .................................... 42
Figure 1.12. Beam 1 Load-Deflection Curve ..................................................................... 43
Figure 1.18. Ultimate Capacities ....................................................................................... 49
Figure 1.19. Load-Strain Curve Beam 2 ............................................................................ 49
Figure 1.20. Deflection of Retrofitted Specimens at Initiation of Local Debonding, at
Ultimate Load, and at Debonding Failure .......................................................................... 50
Figure 1.21. Midspan Plate Strains at Ultimate Load......................................................... 50
Figure 1.22. Load-Deflection Curves for All Retrofitted Specimens................................... 51

Figure 2.1. Bridge Cross-Section (Zhang, 1999)................................................................ 73
Figure 2.2. Bridge Layout (Zhang, 1999) .......................................................................... 73
Figure 2.3. Crack Pattern of Girder #9 (Zhang, 1999) ...................................................... 74
Figure 2.4. Plan of Girder End .......................................................................................... 75
Figure 2.5. Cross Section of Retrofit Critical Section......................................................... 76
Figure 2.6. Retrofit Formwork .......................................................................................... 77
Figure 2.7. Comparison of Loading Configurations........................................................... 78
Figure 2.8. Placement of Clip-gages and Wire-potentiometers........................................... 79
Figure 2.9. Placement of Foil-gages ................................................................................... 80
Figure 2.10. Discontinuity in Bottom Surface at West Critical Section ............................. 81
Figure 2.11. Debonded CFRP Plates at West End............................................................. 81
Figure 2.12. Crack Pattern on South Face at West Critical Section ................................... 82
Figure 2.13. Crack Pattern on North Face at West Critical Section................................... 82
Figure 2.14. Cracks Observed on South Face Just Prior to Ultimate Load......................... 83
Figure 2.15. Bending Moment Diagram Under Test Load-configuration.......................... 83
Figure 2.16. Load-Deflection Curve at West Load Point ................................................... 84
Figure 2.17. Load-Deflection Curve at West Quarter Point .............................................. 85
Figure 2.18. Load-Deflection Curve at Midspan ............................................................... 86
Figure 2.19. Load-Deflection Curve at East Load Point .................................................... 87
Figure 2.20. Load-Deflection Curve at East Quarter Point................................................ 88
v
Figure 3.1. Retrofit Girder............................................................................................... 109
Figure 3.2. Anchor Zone Detail....................................................................................... 110
Figure 3.3. Retrofit Formwork ........................................................................................ 111
Figure 3.4. Loading Configuration .................................................................................. 112
Figure 3.5. External Instrumentation Diagram ................................................................ 113
Figure 3.6. Locations of Vibrating-wire Strain-gages........................................................ 114
Figure 3.7. Measured Midspan Load-Deflection Response .............................................. 115
Figure 3.8. Failure of CFRP Plate #2 in West Anchor Zone............................................ 116
Figure 3.9. Location of Plate Splitting Failure and Material Defects ................................ 117
Figure 3.10. Observed Cracks and Local Plate Debonding .............................................. 118
Figure 3.11. Midspan Strain Profile at Various Loads...................................................... 123
Figure 3.12. Theoretical versus Tested Load-Deflection Curves ...................................... 123
vi
CHAPTER 1
FURTHER STUDIES INTO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FATIGUE,

CRACKING, AND PATCH MATERIALS ON PERFORMANCE OF CFRP
FLEXURAL RETROFITS
1
1.1 ABSTRACT
The reported research was undertaken to examine the influence of fatigue loading,
prior cracking, and patch materials on flexural performance of reinforced concrete members
retrofitted with fiber reinforced polymer composite plates. Moreover, experimental data
from the six reinforced concrete beams tested as part of this research are expected to further
evaluate available design equations for external retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures.
The test results do not suggest a significant effect of fatigue loads; show that existing cracks
do not significantly impact the strength of retrofitted members; and indicate that patch
materials can reduce the available bond strength and require additional surface preparation.
1.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The reported research addresses a number of important issues that could impact
performance and strength of reinforced concrete members retrofitted with fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) composites. Research results provide additional data for enhancement of
available design guidelines for strengthening of existing concrete structures with FRP
composites.
1.3 INTRODUCTION
A recent analysis of the 1999 National Bridge Inventory performed by the Portland
Cement Association reveals that 36.4% of the nation’s bridges, and 30.1% of Ohio’s bridges,
are deficient. For economical purposes viable retrofit schemes are necessary to delay or offset
replacement of deteriorating members. Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are a good option
for repair or retrofit of concrete members for numerous reasons. FRP materials possess high
strength-to-weight ratios resulting in ease of installation and insignificant additions to dead
loads. These materials also have high environmental and fatigue resistance resulting in
extended life cycles. The case can even be made that their unobtrusive profiles provide
superior aesthetic qualities compared to traditional bolted steel plate retrofits (e.g., Lagoda
2
and Lagoda, 2000). Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) pultruded plates can be
of installation, and weathering characteristics are a concern. Extensive research has been
conducted in recent years to determine properties of FRPs and to develop accurate design
equations for their use. Most of this research has been static tests of retrofits applied to
uncracked and undamaged test specimens, yet actual applications are certainly to be applied
to members exhibiting some degree of cracking and deterioration. Recently, design methods
for FRP strengthening schemes have been developed (e.g., ACI 440, 2001; fib, 2001);
however, considering the newness of such design guidelines, additional qualifications,
including tests exploring the effects of existing cracks, damaged concrete areas, and fatigue
loading, are necessary before these design schemes are widely accepted.
Six reinforced concrete beams were tested to determine the effects of existing cracks,
patched concrete, and fatigue loading on CFRP flexural retrofits applied to identical flexural
members. The six tested specimens were (1) virgin reinforced concrete beam, (2) virgin
beam with CFRP retrofit, (3) cracked beam with CFRP retrofit, (4) cracked beam with
CFRP retrofit fatigued 1,000,000 cycles at service load, (5) cracked, damaged, and patched
beam with retrofit, and (6) damaged and patched reinforced concrete beam. Baseline
specimens were tested to determine the strength of a virgin beam and a beam that had been
damaged and patched. Identical retrofit schemes involving CFRP plates were applied to four
beams to determine the effects of cracking, fatigue, and concrete patching on retrofit
performance. The research program along with important observations and results are
presented herein.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS
The test specimens consisted of six reinforced concrete beams, each being 4572 mm
(180 in.) in length with a rectangular cross section measuring 254 mm. (10 in.) wide by
3
305 mm (12 in.) deep. The size of the specimens was chosen because similar beams were
used in a previous research project and reinforcing cages were available. Details of the cross
sections are shown in Figure 1.1. Steel reinforcement consisted of three No. 7 longitudinal
bars at a depth of 256 mm (10.1 in.) and No. 3 stirrups spaced at 127 mm (5 in.). The
diameter of a No. 7 bar is 22.2 mm (0.875 in.), while the diameter of a No. 3 bar is
9.52 mm (0.375 in.). Grade 60 reinforcing steel (nominal yield strength equal to 414 MPa
(60 ksi)) was used. Tensile coupons were cut from extra longitudinal bars and tested in
accordance with ASTM Specification A-370. The average yield stress, ultimate stress, and
rupture strains were found to be 468 MPa (67.9 ksi), 793 MPa (115 ksi), and 21%,
respectively. All beams were cast in a single pour using concrete with a design strength of
41.4 MPa (6000 psi). Construction of formwork and casting of beams was conducted at the
University of Cincinnati (U.C.) College of Applied Sciences High Bay by U.C.
Infrastructure Institute students and faculty. Seven 152x305 mm (6x12 in.) cylinders were
cast and tested in accordance with ASTM Specifications C 39/C 39M and C 496. The
average compressive strength and tensile strength were found to be 66.1 MPa (9580 psi) and
4.72-MPa (684 psi), respectively. Unidirectional carbon fiber reinforce polymer (CFRP)
plates, with thin rectangular sections measuring 102x1.17 mm (4x0.046 in.), were used for
the retrofits. The CFRP plates were of the pultruded variety with an ambient cured epoxy
resin and a pre-sanded bonding surface. Tension specimens of the CFRP plate were
prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM Specification D-3039. This material was
linearly elastic until failure with ultimate tensile stress and modulus of elasticity of 2440 MPa
(354 ksi) and 128 GPa (18600 ksi), respectively. Material properties are summarized in
Table 1.1, and detailed results of material tests are provided in Appendix A.1.
1.5 OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
To evaluate the effectiveness of CFRP plates used for flexural strengthening of
4
reinforced concrete beams, six 4572 mm (180 in.) long reinforced concrete beams were
tested at U.C.’s Large Scale Testing Facility. For this purpose a steel test frame was
fabricated from steel members available from a previous research project. The testing
configuration is shown in Figure 1.2 with details given in Appendix A.2. Each beam was
simply supported and loaded with a 267 kN (60 kip) servo-controlled hydraulic actuator at
midspan. Load was transferred to the top flange of the beam through a 38.1x133x267 mm
(1.5x5.25x10.5 in.) steel bearing plate with the long and medium directions running parallel
and transverse to beam span, respectively. This three point loading configuration had a
center-to-center span measuring 4216 mm (166 in.). Supports were semi-circular steel
rollers with a 50.8x254 mm (2x10 in.) flat bearing area and a 25.4 mm (1 in.) radius round.
For the fatigue test, slightly different supports were utilized. Reinforced neoprene bearing
pads measuring 50.8x152x254 mm (2x6x10 in.) were utilized as supports with a center-to-
center span of 4318 mm (170 in.). At midspan, load was applied directly by the hydraulic
actuator’s clevis plate measuring 127 mm (5 in.) square.
1.5.1 Test Matrix
The test matrix, as shown in Figure 1.3, consisted of the following six flexural
specimens:
Beam 1: This specimen was a reinforced concrete beam without FRP retrofit loaded to
failure. This beam was tested to establish a baseline for comparison against all
other specimens.
Beam 2: A CFRP retrofit was applied to this specimen before any loading. The purpose of
this test was to determine the strength of a retrofit on an uncracked beam.
Beam 3: This specimen was loaded past cracking to a point developing approximately 2/3 of
measured steel yield stress; then unloaded, retrofitted, and loaded to failure. This
beam was tested to determine the effectiveness of a CFRP retrofit on a badly
5
cracked, but otherwise undamaged, beam.
measured steel yield stress; then unloaded, retrofitted, fatigued at service load for
1,000,000 cycles, and loaded monotonically to failure. This specimen was tested
to determine the effectiveness of a CFRP retrofit under fatigue loading.
measured steel yield stress; then unloaded, damaged by removing four arbitrary
areas of the bottom concrete up to the level of reinforcement, patched, retrofitted,
and loaded to failure. This tested was performed to determine the effectiveness of a
CFRP retrofit on a cracked, damaged, and patched beam.
measured steel yield stress; then unloaded, damaged by removing four arbitrary
areas of the bottom concrete up to the level of reinforcement, patched, and loaded
to failure. This beam furnished a baseline for a damaged and patched beam
without retrofit, i.e., the effectiveness of the patch alone.
1.5.2 Retrofit Calculations
ACI Committee 440 has developed a report “Guide for the Design and Construction
of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures” (2001). This
document provides guidelines for the behavior and design of reinforced concrete members
strengthened with externally bonded fiber reinforced polymer materials. A retrofit scheme
was developed following ACI 440 recommendations (2001) using design concrete, steel, and
CFRP plate material properties. For the retrofit design, a target 20% increase in live load
was chosen. The single point load at the beam’s midspan was considered as the live load.
Appendix A.3 shows step-by-step calculations for the retrofit design. The selected retrofit
scheme called for a single 102x1.14 mm (4x0.045 in.) unidirectional CFRP plate bonded to
6
the beam’s bottom face and terminating 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) from the centerline of supports.
During the timeframe of this project, sections of the ACI 440 document dealing with
flexural retrofit schemes were revised. One of the changes would have called for external
transverse reinforcement at the plate ends to prevent concrete cover delamination. The
specimens did not have such transverse reinforcement. As presented later, the beams did not
experience cover delamination at the plate ends.
1.5.3 Retrofit Application Procedure
Beams 2, 3, 4, and 5 were retrofitted with a proprietary unidirectional CFRP plate
bonded to the concrete tension surface using two-part epoxy. For ease of installation, the
beams were inverted and supported at quarter points during retrofit process. The following
procedure, approved by the plate supplier, was used to apply the CFRP plates.
1) The plate was cut to length using table shears. It is also possible to score the plate in
the field using a utility knife and a metal straightedge.
2) Any surface discontinuities were removed from the concrete using a hand grinder.
The concrete surface was checked with a yardstick for levelness.
3) The concrete surface was roughened to a uniform coarse texture and any loose
material was removed by heavy sanding with coarse sandpaper. (For Beam 4 a hand
grinder was used instead).
4) The concrete surface was cleaned thoroughly with a non-residual de-greaser. A
phosphate free TSP substitute and stiff bristle brush were used. The concrete was
rinsed well and allowed to dry overnight so that it was free of apparent moisture.
5) The location of the plate was marked on the concrete using a permanent marker.
6) The sanded side of plate was thoroughly cleaned by wiping in one direction with a
clean white rag and MEK (an acetone substitute), then allowed to dry.
7
7) The concrete surface was cleaned thoroughly by wiping in one direction with a clean
white rag and MEK (an acetone substitute), then allowed to dry.
8) The two-part epoxy was applied to both concrete and the sanded side of the plate
using a proprietary pneumatic mixing gun. The epoxy was spread to a uniform thin
layer using a 3.18 mm (0.125 in.) V-notch trowel.
9) The plate was installed starting at one end and moving along the plate until
complete. Sufficient pressure was applied by hand to remove any air pockets and
excess epoxy. Using a hard rubber roller, the plate was pressed again to ensure proper
contact. All excess epoxy was removed.
At least ten days elapsed between application of plate and testing to allow the epoxy to
achieve full strength. The supplier required an epoxy curing period of one to two days, but a
longer period was used to prevent possible failures due to inadequate epoxy capacity.
1.5.4 Damage and Patch Method
Beams 5 and 6 were damaged to represent spalling of the bottom concrete surface.
Concrete was removed from four locations along the bottom of the beam at depths up to
31.8 mm (1.25 in.), i.e., the level of the longitudinal reinforcing steel. Figures 1.10 and 1.11
show the damaged regions for Beams 5 and 6, respectively. Concrete removal was done
utilizing a chipping hammer with the beams in an inverted position. The edges of all
damaged regions were saw cut to a depth of at least 6.35 mm (0.25 in.). A wire brush and
compressed air were used to clean any loose concrete from the damaged areas. Subsequently,
a fiber-reinforced, polymer-modified, shrinkage-compensated repair mortar was used to
patch the holes following the manufacturer’s recommended procedure. The patch material
was wet cured for 2 days under plastic sheeting following manufacturers specifications.
Subsequently the patch was sounded with a hammer to ensure integrity. The repair mortar
chosen was EMACO R320 CI because its material properties were closest to those specified
8
in the ODOT Supplemental Specification 843 “Patching Concrete Structures with
Troweable Mortar.” A comparison of the EMACO R320 CI published material properties
and requirements of Supplemental Specification 843 are shown in Table 1.2. Note that no
concrete patch product available at time of testing met all ODOT requirements.
1.5.5 Instrumentation
All beams were instrumented to monitor (a) load at midspan, (b) deflections at the
quarter points and midspan, (c) longitudinal steel strains at midspan, and (d) longitudinal
concrete strains on the bottom face at quarter points. Additionally, for the retrofitted beams,
strain-gages were placed to measure longitudinal CFRP plate strains at the quarter points and
midspan. The load was measured using a 267 kN (60 kip) load cell at the load point.
Strains were measured using foil strain-gages with a gage length of 25.4 mm (1 in.). The
strain-gages on the reinforcing steel were bonded to the bottom of the bars and coated with
silicon before casting of the beams. Displacements were measured using wire-
potentiometers. Data were collected electronically approximately every 2 seconds using a
data acquisition system. See Figure 1.4 for the instrumentation layout.
1.6 TESTING PROCEDURE
1.6.1 Beam 1
This specimen was tested to establish the baseline strength of the reinforced concrete
beams. This beam was loaded to 33.4 kN (7.5 kips) unloaded, loaded to 53.4 kN (12 kips),
unloaded, and then loaded past the maximum load capacity. The 53.4 kN (12-kip) load
corresponded to the maximum allowable factored live load calculated using design material
properties. The test was paused to document cracks at loads of 33.4, 35.6, 44.5, 53.4, 66.7,
89, 111, and 133 kN (7.5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, and 30 kips).
1.6.2 Beam 2
In order to establish the strength of a CFRP retrofit applied to a virgin beam, this
9
specimen was retrofitted with a single CFRP plate before being subjected to any loading.
The beam was loaded to 53.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded, and then loaded to failure. The tests
were paused to mark cracks at loads of 33.4, 53.4, 66.7, 89, 111, 133, and 156 kN (7.5, 12,
15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 kips).
1.6.3 Beam 3
This specimen was tested to establish the strength of a CFRP retrofit applied to a
cracked beam. The beam was loaded to 53.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded, loaded to 89.0 kN
(20 kips), and then unloaded in order to induce cracking. The 89.0 kN (20 kip) load
corresponded to about 2/3 the actual load at which yielding of the longitudinal bars
occurred, this was also a load at which significant cracking had occurred. The specimen was
then removed from the reaction frame, and a single CFRP plate was applied. The beam was
then loaded to 55.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded, loaded to 89.0 kN (20 kips), unloaded, and
then loaded to failure. The tests were paused to document cracks at loads of 33.4, 53.4,
66.7, 89, 111, and 133 kN (7.5, 12, 15, 20, 25, and 30 kips).
1.6.4 Beam 4
This beam was tested in order to establish the fatigue resistance of a CFRP retrofit
applied to a cracked beam. To induce cracking, the beam was loaded to 53.4 kN (12 kips),
unloaded, loaded to 89.0 kN (20 kips), and then unloaded. Subsequently, the specimen was
removed from the reaction frame, and a single CFRP plate was applied. The beam was
loaded to 66.7 kN (15 kips) and unloaded to establish initial stiffness. The 66.7 kN (15 kip)
load corresponded to the maximum allowable factored live load calculated using design
material properties (i.e., the nominal design load). The load was then cycled between
4.45 kN (1 kip) and 66.7 kN (15 kips) for 650,000 cycles. At 250,000, 500,000, and
650,000 cycles, a static test was performed to establish stiffness. The static test consisted of
slowly loading the beam to the maximum service load and then unloading. Data were
10
collected during all static tests. After 650,000 cycles, with the specimen exhibiting no
apparent decrease in stiffness, the upper load was increased to 77.8 kN (17.5 kips). The
increased load corresponded to the maximum allowable factored live load calculated using
measured material properties. At 750,000 and 1,000,000 cycles a static test, similar to that
used after earlier tests, was performed to establish stiffness. The fatigue loading was
performed at a rate of 2 cycles per second over a period of twenty days. After completing
1,000,000 cycles, the beam was loaded to 55.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded, loaded to 89.0 kN
(20 kips), unloaded, and then loaded to failure. The final tests were paused to document
cracks at loads of 33.4, 53.4, 66.7, 89, 111, 133, and 151 kN (7.5, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, and
34 kips).
1.6.5 Beam 5
Beam 5 was cracked, damaged, and subsequently patched to establish the strength of
a CFRP retrofit of a cracked and damaged concrete beam. The virgin reinforced concrete
beam was loaded to 53.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded, loaded to 89.0 kN (20 kips), and then
unloaded. Upon unloading, the specimen was removed from the reaction frame and the
concrete was damaged and patched at four locations using the previously described method.
Figure 1.10 shows the locations of the damaged areas of concrete. Subsequently, a single
CFRP plate was applied and the beam was loaded to 55.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded, loaded to
89.0 kN (20 kips), unloaded, and then loaded to failure. Tests were paused to document
cracks at loads of 33.4, 53.4, 66.7, 89, 111, and 133 kN (7.5, 12, 15, 20, 25, and 30 kips).
1.6.6 Beam 6
Beam 6 was cracked, damaged, and subsequently patched to establish the strength of
a cracked and damaged concrete beam. The virgin reinforced concrete beam was loaded to
53.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded, loaded to 89.0 kN (20 kips), and then unloaded. At this
point, the specimen was removed from the reaction frame and the concrete was damaged and
11
patched at four locations similar to those on Beam 5. Figure 1.11 shows the locations of the
damaged areas of concrete. The beam was then loaded to 55.4 kN (12 kips), unloaded,
loaded to 89.0 kN (20 kips), unloaded, then loaded to failure. Tests were paused to
document cracks at loads of 33.4, 53.4, 66.7, 89, and 111 kN (7.5, 12, 15, 20, and 25 kips).
1.7 TEST RESULTS
1.7.1 Description of Failure Types
The test specimens without FRP retrofits, Beams 1 and 6, failed in flexure as would
be expected of under-reinforced concrete beams with sufficient shear reinforcement. At
considerable deflections, and just prior to ultimate load, the concrete in the compression
zone at midspan began to crush. Beyond the ultimate load, the load gradually decreased as
the displacement at midspan was increased.
All of the CFRP retrofitted beams, Beams 2 to 5, failed similarly. After the concrete
at midspan had begun to crush, with some audible warning the plate debonded. The
debonding action initiated near the badly cracked midspan and propagated towards one end.
th
This plate failure process happened over a period of approximately 1/30 of a second (the
frame rate of the digital camera used to record the tests). In all tests, one end of the plate
remained bonded to the beam. Because the hydraulic actuator was in stroke control at the
time of plate debonding, the midspan deflection held constant and the load dropped. Figure
1.5 shows the typical plate failure depicted on Beam 2. Figures 1.6 through 1.11 document
the crack patterns, plate failure modes, and damaged and patched areas (where applicable)
for all test beams. The type of plate failure observed in this experiment, initiated by an
intermediate crack with failure generally occuring in the layer of concrete adjacent to epoxy-
to-concrete interface, has been reported by Teng et. al., (2002) as occurring in a limited
number of previous studies involving shallow flexural members. This debonding failure
mode is termed “intermediate crack-induced interfacial debonding” by Teng et al. (2002).
12
To further distinguish between the debonding failure modes, the following phrases will be
utilized in this paper.
Interfacial Failure: A mixture of thin concrete cover removal approximately 3.18 mm
(0.125 in.) thick, epoxy-to-concrete interface failure, and epoxy-to-plate interface failure.
Predominantly consisting of thin concrete removal.
Deep Concrete Removal: Occurring near midspan, where a layer of concrete over 6.35 mm
(0.25 in.) deep was torn free with the plate. Unless otherwise noted, the depth of concrete
removal was no more than 12.7 mm (0.5 in.).
Plate Internal Delamination: A thin layer of fibers and resin separated from the main body
of the plate and is left bonded to the concrete. Failure occurs within the plate in a plane
parallel to the plate’s bonded surface.
For all specimens, initial loading to 53.4 kN (12 kips) and unloading caused a
permanent deflection of approximately 1.2 mm (0.05 in.). In this initial loading sequence, a
slight kink and reduction in stiffness are also noticeable in the load deflection curves at a load
of approximately 18 kN (4.05 kips) signifying the onset of cracking. Figures 1.12 through
1.17 document the load deflection behavior of all test beams. In these figures, the loads
marked as “Expected capacity” are the unfactored expected capacities calculated per ACI 318
(1999) and ACI 440 (2001) using measured material properties and accounting for self-
weight.
1.7.2 Description of Test Results
1.7.2.1 Beam 1
This specimen reached its maximum capacity at a load of 144 kN (32.6 kips) and a
midspan deflection of 59.2 mm (2.33 in.). As shown in Figure 1.12, at maximum capacity
the concrete was visibly crushing in the compression zone at midspan. The beam was
pushed past ultimate to a maximum deflection of 169 mm (6.67 in.); by this point large
13
areas of concrete had spalled off the top flange near midspan, and the beam had lost nearly
half its load carrying capacity. Upon removal of load, large chunks of concrete were easily
removed (with hand and hammer) up to the level of reinforcing bars at midspan.
1.7.2.2 Beam 2
Just below a load of 156 kN (35 kips) slight cracking noises were audible. At
156 kN (35 kips) the plate was checked for debonding by tapping with a piece of metal. It
was found that an area of the plate had debonded extending approximately 419 mm
(16.5 in.) east and 422 mm (16.6 in.) west of midspan (see Figure 1.7). Also, over much of
this region a gap opening approximately 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) was noticeable between the plate
and concrete when inspected closely from the sides. Beam 2 reached its maximum capacity
at a load of 170 kN (38.2 kips) and a midspan deflection of 50.3 mm (1.98 in.); at this load
the plate began to fail by debonding. The load-deflection curve is shown in Figure 1.13.
For 7 seconds before failure, loud cracking and tearing noises could be heard. Then the plate
violently ripped free at midspan with the debonding extending to the east end. The west end
of the plate remained bonded to the beam. By this point, the concrete had begun to visibly
crush. Figure 1.13 shows the plate immediately after debonding, the plate outline is traced
over for clarity. Note the cloud of dust in the figure above the free end of the plate. As seen
in Figure 1.7, most of the debonding consisted of interfacial failure with deep concrete
failure occurring at midspan, and some plate internal delamination failure at the east end and
west of midspan.
1.7.2.3 Beam 3
This beam reached its maximum capacity at a load of 167 kN (37.5 kips) and a
midspan deflection of 53.2 mm (2.09 in.). At this point the concrete below the load point
had visibly begun to crush. Also, as shown in Figure 1.14, a step in the bottom surface along
a flexural-shear crack became apparent. At this step, the vertical elevation of the bottom
14
surface of the beam was lower towards midspan and higher towards the support. This step
followed a crack running transversely across the bottom of the beam. At a higher deflection
of 65.2 mm (2.66 in.) the plate debonded with a loud ripping sound. The east end of the
plate remained bonded. As seen in Figure 1.8, the debonding consisted mostly of interfacial
failure with a substantial patch of deep concrete removal to the east of midspan and some
plate internal delamination at the west end.
1.7.2.4 Beam 4
As previously discussed, this beam was fatigued for 1,000,000 cycles. Initially the
load was cycled between 4.45 kN (1 kip) and 66.7 kN (15 kips). The 66.7 kN (15 kips)
load corresponded to the maximum allowable factored live load calculated using design
material properties. At 250,000, 500,000, and 650,000 cycles, a static test was performed to
establish stiffness. After 650,000 cycles, no reduction in stiffness was apparent. As can be
seen in Table 1.3, for tests conducted at 0, 250,000, 500,000 and 650,000 cycles completed,
2 2 2
the measured flexural stiffness, EI, ranged from 8355 kN-m (2.91E6 k-in. ) to 8922 kN-m
(3.11E6 k-in.2) with the stiffness apparently increasing with higher fatigue cycles. By
comparison the expected flexural stiffness, calculated using design material properties and a
cracked transform section analysis, is 8780 kN-m2 (3.06E6 kip-in2). If the initial stiffness
test is ignored, the stiffness varies by 0.9%; if initial test is included, the stiffness varies by
6.8%. The stiffness should not increase and the trend was most likely caused by
experimental errors. Such errors may be due to the accuracy of the displacement transducer,
possibly the thermal properties of the neoprene bearing pads causing variations in the bearing
stiffness for different tests, and exact positioning of the beam for the initial tests versus that
for the fatigue tests.
After 650,000 cycles, with the specimen exhibiting no apparent decrease in stiffness,
the upper load was increased to 77.8 kN (17.5 kips). This increase load corresponded to the
15
maximum allowable factored live load calculated using measured material properties. Table
1.3 shows that after 750,000 cycles the stiffness dropped to 8674 kN-m2 (3.02E6 kip-in2)
and then, after 1,000,000 cycles, increased to 8793 kN-m2 (3.06E6 kip-in2). Although these
values are less than those for tests performed at 250,000, 500,000, and 650,000 cycles, they
are not lower than the stiffness obtained before any cyclic loading. Hence, the effects of
cyclic loading on stiffness were inconclusive.
During the final subsequent static test, at a load of 165 kN (37 kips), concrete
crushing at midspan was visibly and audibly apparent. Beam 4 reached its maximum
capacity at a load of 169 kN (38.0 kips) and a midspan deflection of 61.4 mm (2.42 in.).
Past this point, the load gradually decreased as the midspan deflection was increased. Loud
crackling sounds were heard approximately 1.5 and 2 minutes before plate failure. The
CFRP plate debonded at a deflection of 77.7 mm (3.06 in.) with the east end remaining
bonded. As seen in Figure 1.9, the debonding consisted mostly of interfacial failure with
some plate internal delamination at the west end. Four small patches of deep concrete failure
occurred at midspan with depths up to 28 mm (1.1 in.). Also, the plate split transversely for
a distance of 46 mm (1.8 in.) from its southern edge. As seen in Figures 1.9 and 1.15, this
plate rupture occurred where a flexural-shear crack had caused a step in the bottom surface of
the beam. This step is probably where the debonding failure initiated. The strain in the
CFRP plate at midspan when debonding and rupture occurred was 7.20 milli-strains. This
strain is much below the measured tensile rupture strain of 19.1 milli-strains. It is possible
that the fatigue loading greatly weakened the strength of the CFRP plate material, but
previous research on similar materials suggest a much higher fatigue resistance (e.g., ACI
440, 2001). Sebastian (2001) has shown that very high stress gradients occur bonded plates
near large cracks, such as those present where the plate ruptured. Thus, it is probable that at
the rupture point, the step in the beam’s surface had induced a higher stress in the plate than
16
that measured at midspan.
1.7.2.5 Beam 5
As shown in Figure 1.16, this specimen reached its maximum capacity at a load of
163 kN (36.6 kips) and a midspan deflection of 46.1 mm (1.81 in.). At this point, ripping
noises were heard and the load dropped to 155 kN (34.9 kips) when the plate apparently
partially debonded. The midspan deflection was increased another 4.1 mm (0.16 in.)
without any substantial increase in load, then the plate fully debonded. As shown in Figure
1.10, debonding was mostly a mix of interfacial failure and epoxy-to-concrete interface
failure. Some plate internal delamination occurred at midspan and at the eastern end, a
small patch of deep concrete failure with an average of 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) occurred west of
midspan, and the western plate end remained bonded. Poor bond, where epoxy-to-concrete
interface failure was predominant (i.e., areas where very little to no patch was removed from
the beam when the plate debonded), occurred over approximately half the debonded area
including three of the four patched areas.
1.7.2.6 Beam 6
Beam 6 reached its maximum capacity at a load of 139 kN (31.2 kips) and a
midspan deflection of 69.5 mm (2.74 in.). At the maximum load, concrete was visibly
crushing and spalling off in the compression zone near midspan. The beam was loaded past
its ultimate load to a total midspan deflection of 123 mm (4.84 in.) to determine the
behavior of the patch. As seen in Figure 1.17, the patch material held up very well and, even
under severe deflections and cracking, did not exhibit any separation from the surrounding
concrete.
1.7.3 Capacity
All members exceeded their calculated nominal and expected capacities as shown in
Figure 1.18. The expected load capacities, calculated using measured material properties, for
17
the beam without and with retrofit were 118 kN (26.5 kips) and 147 kN (35.0 kips),
respectively. The actual ultimate loads were 144, 170, 167, 169, 163, and 139 kN (32.4,
38.2, 37.5, 38.0, 36.6, and 31.2 kips) for Beams 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. Beam 1
and 6 exceeded the expected capacity, calculated using measured material properties, by 22%
and 18%, respectively. Beams 2, 3, 4, and 5 exceeded the expected capacity by 15%, 13%,
15%, and 10%, respectively. Thus, ACI 318 (1999) and ACI 440 (2001) design
recommendations provides conservative strength estimates, with estimates for specimens
without retrofits being more conservative than for retrofitted specimens.
The expected percent increase in strength due to a retrofit, calculated using measured
material properties, was 24%; actual tested increases above baseline were less. Comparison of
Beams 2, 3, and 4 to their baseline (i.e., Beam 1) shows increases in strength as 18%, 16%,
and 17%, respectively. Comparison of Beam 5 to its baseline (i.e., Beam 6) shows a 17%
increase in capacity when a damaged beam is retrofitted. The reason that retrofits did not
provide the expected percent increase in capacity is because the specimens without retrofit
exceeded their expected capacities by a larger degree than specimens with retrofits. For
comparison, the lowest ultimate load for a retrofitted specimen was 163 kN (36.6 kips) for
Beam 5, while the expected capacity of the beams without retrofit was 118 kN (26.5 kips),
showing a 38% actual capacity with retrofit above expected capacity without retrofit.
Comparison of Beam 1 to Beam 6 shows a 3.5% decrease in strength for a virgin
beam versus a damaged and patched beam. This difference in capacity is within the limits of
experimental accuracy.
Comparison of Beam 2 to Beam 3 shows a 1.8% decrease in strength between
retrofit on an uncracked versus cracked beam. This difference in capacity is within the limits
of experimental accuracy.
Comparison of Beam 3 to Beam 4 shows a 1.2% increase in strength when a cracked
18
beam is retrofitted and fatigued 1,000,000 times. This small increase is within the limits of
experimental accuracy but is perhaps the results of better surface preparation; instead of
removing loose concrete with coarse sandpaper, the surface of Beam 4 was prepared with a
hand-grinder possibly resulting in a better substrate bond.
Comparison of Beam 3 to Beam 5 shows a 2.4% decrease in capacity from retrofit
applied to a cracked beam versus cracked, damaged, and patched beam. This difference in
capacity is within the limits of experimental accuracy.
1.7.4 Bond Quality
Bond of the FRP to the concrete is important because it is the only load transfer
mechanism. For composite action of the section (i.e. a linear strain profile) analytical and
experimental studies have shown that high shear and normal forces must be transferred
through this bond interface (e.g., Roberts, 1989; Shen et al., 2001; Teng et. al., 2002). To
quantify bond quality for comparison between various tests, three points of interest on the
load-deflection curves, and corresponding plate strains, will be discussed. (1) The first signs
of local debonding at midspan, marked as “Begin local debonding of CFRP” on their
respective load deflection diagrams (Figures 1.13 to 1.16), is where the plate strain at
midspan dropped below the strain in the rebar, signifying that the section was no longer
behaving compositely. A representative plot of load versus strain in the steel and CFRP is
shown for Beam 2 in Figure 1.19. This and similar plots were used to determine the
initiation of local debonding for all retrofitted specimens. (2) The point of ultimate load is
marked as “P max” on the respective load deflection diagrams (Figures 1.12 to 1.17). For all
retrofitted specimens, this was where the plate strain was at a maximum. (3) The point
where the plate fully debonded is marked at “Debonding failure of CFRP” on the respective
load deflection diagrams. This point was where the plate fully debonded from the concrete
with an accompanied sudden drop in load capacity. A summary of load, midspan deflection,
19
and plate strain at midspan at these three points is given in Table 1.4. The midspan
deflections at initiation of local debonding, ultimate load, and debonding failure are
compared in Figure 1.20 for all retrofit specimens. Deflections are compared instead of
loads because the load-deflection curves tended to flatten out at higher loads, and small
changes in load corresponded to moderate to large changes in deflection. Midspan plate
strains at ultimate load are compared in Figure 1.21. Plate strains are an indication of the
amount of composite action existing in the section.
1.7.4.1 Initiation of Local Debonding
The data show that the initiation of local debonding for Beam 2 occurred at a lower
deflection of 27.2 mm (1.07 in.) versus 40.9 mm (1.61 in.) and 40.5 mm (1.59 in.) for
Beams 3 and 5, respectively. Because load deflection curves for all retrofits are very similar
past this deflection (Figure 1.22), it is probable that this behavior was caused by very
localized debonding of the plate near the strain-gage, causing the plate strain to appear low;
or by cracking over the steel strain-gages, causing localized strain peaks in the reinforcing
steel. As noted previously for Beam 2, at a load of 156 kN (35 kips) the plate had partially
debonded at midspan. It is probable that the formation of cracks in the this specimen,
which was retrofitted before cracking, suddenly released stored strain energy and caused
stress concentrations in the interface layer, resulting in earlier local debonding than for the
specimens retrofitted after cracking (Beams 3 and 4). The retrofitted specimen undergoing
the highest deflection before local debonding was Beam 4 with local debonding initiating
after the ultimate load at a midspan deflection of 64.9 mm (2.56 in.), 37% higher than the
deflection for Beam 3. This behavior may be due in part to the reduced stiffness of the
member from fatigue loading (i.e., extensive cracking and fatigue induced reductions in
material stiffnesses), but may also be due to the different surface preparation for Beam 4.
Instead of removing loose concrete with coarse sandpaper, the surface was prepared with a
20
hand-grinder possibly resulting in a better substrate bond.
1.7.4.2 Ultimate Load
Ultimate loads were reached at deflections of 50.3 mm (1.98 in.), 53.2 mm
(2.09 in.), 61.4 mm (2.42 in.), and 46.1 mm (1.81 in.) for Beams 2, 3, 4, and 5,
respectively. Plate strains at ultimate load were 7.57, 8.53, 8.87, and 5.78 milli-strains for 2,
3, 4, and 5, respectively. For comparison, calculations per ACI 440 (2001) using measured
material properties showed an expected plate strain of 9.40 milli-stains at failure with full
composite action. Note that ACI 440 recommends an additional FRP strength reduction
factor of 0.85 applied to the plate force at ultimate. This reduction factor, although not
directly stated in the publication, seems to account for noncomposite action in the section.
Applying this reduction directly to the strain gives a value of 7.99 milli-strains. Beams 3 and
4 exceeded this reduced strain signifying conservative design for these two specimens. For
Beams 2 and 5, the design assumption was unconservative with Beam 2 developing 95% of
the reduced design strain and Beam 5 developing only 72% of the reduced design strain.
Beam 2 reached ultimate load at 5.4% lower deflection and 11% lower plate strain
than Beam 3. This phenomenon, along with the inability of Beam 2 to develop the reduced
design plate strain, signify poor bond quality for a retrofit applied to an uncracked beam. It
is probable that when the cracks open for the first time, the released strain energy negatively
affected the bond.
Beam 4 reached ultimate load at the highest deflection and with the highest plate
strain; respectively 13.3% and 3.9% higher than Beam 3. Again, this trend is probably due
to softening from fatigue loading and also the difference in surface preparation.
Beam 5 reached ultimate load at a deflection and plate strains respectively 13% and
32% lower than Beam 3. These lower strains, along with the inability to achieve the reduced
design plate strain, are indications of poor bond quality between the epoxy and patch
21
material.
1.7.4.3 Debonding Failure
The ability of the member to undergo large deflections, and corresponding large
curvatures, is another indication of bond quality. Debonding failure, when the plate
suddenly tore free of the concrete accompanied by a sudden drop in load carrying capacity,
occurred at midspan deflections of 53.8, 65.2, 77.7, and 50.2 mm (2.12, 2.57, 3.06, and
1.98 in.) for Beam 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. For Beams 2 and 5, plate debonding occurred
at midspan deflections that were 3.5 and 4.1 mm (0.14 and 0.16 in.) greater than the
corresponding value at ultimate load. For Beams 3 and 4 debonding occurred at midspan
deflections greater than those at ultimate by 12 and 16.3 mm (0.47 and 0.64 in.),
respectively. For Beams 2 and 5, the smaller increases in midspan deflection past ultimate
are another indication of poor bond quality. For Beams 3 and 4, the larger increases in
midspan deflection past ultimate are another indication of good bond quality.
1.7.5 Discussion
The retrofitted virgin specimen (Beam 2) exhibited the highest capacity, which was
1.8% higher than the retrofitted cracked specimen (Beam 3). This trend would seem to
signify that the best retrofit performance is that applied to an uncracked beam, but Beam 2
exhibited poorer bond quality than Beam 3 including earlier initiation of local debonding, a
lower deflection and plate strain at ultimate load, and a lower deflection at debonding. It is
probable that the formation of cracks in Beam 2, which was retrofitted before cracking,
suddenly released stored strain energy and caused stress concentrations in the interface layer,
resulting in poorer bond quality than for the specimen retrofitted after cracking (Beams 3).
As previously discussed, fatigue loading at full service load did not cause any apparent
reduction in stiffness for Beam 4. When the fatigued retrofit failed, the CFRP plate partially
split transversely to the span. The strain in the CFRP plate at midspan when this rupture
22
occurred was 7.20 milli-strains, much smaller than the measured tensile rupture strain of
19.1 milli-strains. Although it is possible that the CFRP’s strength was greatly reduced by
fatigue loading, it is more probable that at the rupture point the step in the beam’s surface
had induced a higher stress in the plate than that measured at midspan. Fatigue loading did
not reduce the effectiveness of the retrofit. For Beam 4, a higher deflection at initiation of
local debonding, a higher deflection and plate strain at ultimate, and a higher deflection and
plate strain at failure signify a better bond quality when compared against all other retrofitted
specimens. This trend is most likely the result of the different concrete surface preparation.
For Beam 4 a hand grinder was used to remove loose concrete and roughen the surface,
whereas for all other retrofit specimens heavy sanding was utilized.
Bond quality was poorest for the retrofit applied to the cracked, damaged, and
patched specimen (Beam 5). Although the initiation of local debonding occurred at a similar
deflection as that of the cracked and retrofitted specimen (Beam 3), the ultimate load and
corresponding deflection of the retrofitted and damaged specimen were respectively 2.4%
and 13% lower than the cracked and retrofitted specimen. Also, low plate strains at ultimate
load, and a low deflection at plate debonding failure were indicators of poor bond quality.
The plate debonding failure modes for the retrofitted damaged specimen (Beam 5) also
showed poor bond between the epoxy and patch material. Possible remedies to improve
bond quality between the patch and epoxy are to more thoroughly roughen the patch before
application of retrofit through heavy sandblasting, high-pressure water blasting, or creating
transverse grooves in the patch material with a hand grinder. High-pressure water blasting
has been seen to significantly increase bond capacity over sanding (e.g., Toutanji and Oritz,
2001); and creating grooves in the concrete transverse to the span with a hand grinder has
been demonstrated as a method that significantly increases bond quality over sandblasting
only (e.g., Grace, 2001).
23
1.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Six reinforced concrete beams were tested to determine the effectiveness of FRP
flexural retrofits on beams in various conditions. Baseline specimens were tested to
determine the strength of a virgin beam and a beam that had been damaged and patched.
Identical retrofit schemes were applied to four beams to determine the effects of cracking and
also patching on retrofit performance. The six specimens tested were (1) virgin reinforced
concrete beam, (2) virgin beam with CFRP retrofit, (3) cracked beam with CFRP retrofit,
(4) cracked beam with CFRP retrofit fatigued 1,000,000 cycles at service load, (5) cracked,
damaged, and patched beam with CFRP retrofit, and (6) damaged and patched reinforced
concrete beam. Based upon the preceding data, the following conclusions and observations
are drawn.
1) Guidelines set by ACI 440 (2001) produced conservative strength estimates for
retrofit strength calculations. However, for beams without retrofits, design
calculations produced more conservative results than for retrofitted beams. As
predicted, all retrofitted beams reached the ultimate state of concrete crushing after
steel yielding and before plate debonding. The retrofit with lowest capacity; applied
to the cracked, damaged, and patched specimen (Beam 5); exceeded the predicted
ultimate load by 10%. When compared against the expected capacity of a beam
without retrofit, Beam 5 shows a 38% increase in capacity with retrofit. For all
retrofitted specimens except that applied to the virgin beam (Beam 2), localized
debonding did not occur until the expected capacity had been exceeded. As
previously discussed, it is believed that cracking caused low apparent onset of initial
debonding in Beam 2, and that this debonding was very localized. Plate strains at
the ultimate load for all retrofitted specimens were less than that predicted for fully
composite action. This behavior has been included in design calculations by a
24
reduction to plate contribution at ultimate that apparently accounts for
noncomposite action due to localized debonding.
2) Existing cracks in a member before retrofit did not significantly alter retrofit capacity,
but did affect bond quality. A 1.8% decrease in ultimate strength was found from
retrofitting an uncracked versus cracked beam (Beam 2 versus Beam 3), this
difference is within experimental accuracy. The cracked specimen (Beam 3)
exhibited better bond quality including higher deflections before local debonding
and higher plate strain at ultimate load.
3) Fatigue loading did not reduce the effectiveness of the retrofit. For Beam 4, a higher
midspan deflection at initiation of local debonding and a higher plate strain at failure
signify a better bond quality when compared against all other retrofitted specimens.
This trend is most likely the result of the different concrete surface preparation. For
Beam 4 a hand grinder was used to remove loose concrete and roughen the surface,
but for all other retrofitted specimens heavy sanding was utilized. Further studies
would be helpful to determine the effects of fatigue loading on retrofit performance.
4) Bond quality for the retrofit applied to the cracked, damaged, and patched specimen
(Beam 5) was poor. The ultimate load and corresponding deflection of this
specimen were respectively 2.4% and 13% lower than the cracked and retrofitted
specimen (Beam 3). Other indicators of poor bond quality included a low plate
strain at ultimate load, a low midspan deflection when plate debonding failure
occurred, and the fact that the plate debonding failure exhibited poor bond quality
between the epoxy and patch material. Possible remedies to improve bond quality
between the patch and epoxy are to more thoroughly roughen the patch before
application of retrofit through heavy sandblasting, high-pressure water blasting, or
creating transverse grooves in the patch material with a hand grinder.
25
1.9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Ohio Department of Transportation under contract number 9769 sponsored
the study reported herein. The contents of this paper reflect the opinion and views of the
authors who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein.
This paper does not reflect the views or policies of ODOT, and does not constitute a
standard, specification, regulation, or recommendation. The authors acknowledge Lloyd
Welker at ODOT. Fabrication of specimens was conducted at University of Cincinnati
College of Applied Science branch with tremendous help from Dr. Herbert Bill. With the
cooperation of Mr. Bob Thompson, CFRP plates and epoxies were supplied by Fiber
Reinforced Systems, located in Columbus, Ohio. The faculty, staff, and many current and
former graduate students at the University of Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute were
influential in the achievement of this project.
26
1.10 REFERENCES
ACI 318 (1999). “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-99) and
Commentary (318R-99),” American Concrete Institute.
ACI 440 (2001). “Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures,” Draft, American Concrete Institute.
fib, (2001). “Design and Use of Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement (FRP EBR) for
Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Final Draft, Progress Report of fib EBR group,
International Concrete Foundation.
Grace, N.F. (2001). “Strengthening of Negative Moment Region of Reinforced Concrete

Beams Using Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Strips,” ACI Structural Journal, ACI, Vol.
98, No. 3, pp. 347-358.
Lagoda, G., and Lagoda M. (2000)“Bridge Strengthening by Reinforcement Bonding –

th
Strength and Aesthetics,” 16 Congress of IABSE, Structural Engineering for Meeting Urban
Transportation Challenges, Lucerne, Switzerland, September 18-21, pp. 384-385.
Roberts, T.M. (1989). “Approximate Analysis of Shear and Normal Stress Concentrations
on the Adhesive Layer of Plated RC Beams,” The Structural Engineer, The Institute of
Structural Engineers, Vol. 67, No.12, pp. 229-232.
Sebastian, W.M. (2001). “Significance of Midspan Debonding Failure in FRP-Plated

Concrete Beams,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 7, pp. 792-798.
Shen, H.S., Teng, J.G., and Yang, J. (2001). “Interfacial Stresses in Beams and Slabs Bonded
with Thin Plate,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 4, pp. 399-406.
Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F., Smith, S.T., and Lam, L. (2002). FRP Strengthened RC Structures.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Toutanji, H., and Oritz, G. (2001). “The Effect of Surface Preparation on the Bond
Interface Between FRP Sheets and Concrete Members,” Composite Structures, Vol. 53, No. 4,
pp 457-462.
27
Table 1.1. Material Properties
No. 7 Reinforcing Bars* Design Measured
Yield Stress (MPa) 413 468

Ultimate Stress (MPa) 413 793
Rupture Strain (%) 21
Concrete
Compressive Stress (MPa) 41.4 66.1

Rupture Stress (MPa) 4.00 4.72
CFRP Plate

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 124 128
Thickness (mm) 1.14 1.17
Width (mm) 102 102
*Diameter of No. 7 bar is 22.2 mm
28
Table 1.2. Comparison of ODOT Specification and Published Properties for EMACO
R320 CI Troweable Mortar Product
Mortar properties not meeting ODOT Spec. shown in bold.
ODOT
Standard EMACO
Compressive Strength (MPa) Spec. 843 R320 Cl
1 day 12.4 12.4

7 day 37.9 34.5
28 day 48.3 48.3
Split Tensile Strength (MPa)
7 day 3.79 3.45

28 day 5.17 5.17
Flexural Strength (MPa)
7 day 7.58 7.24

28 day 10.3 10.0
Shrinkage
Max % +0.3 0.12

Min % 0
Bond Strength (MPa)
28 day 10.3 15.9
Chloride Ion Permeability
Max (Coulombs) 500 760
Modulus of Elasticity (MPa)
Min 24133 22064

Max 27580
29
Table 1.3. Beam 4 Flexural Stiffness Throughout Fatigue Loading
Number of Cycles
Competed EI (kN-m2)
0 8355
250,000 8845
500,000 8897
650,000 8922
750,000 8674
1,000,000 8793
30
Table 1.4. Deflections and Plate Strains at Midspan
Begin Local Debonding Ultimate Load Debonding Failure

Load Deflection Plate Load Deflection Plate Load Deflection Plate
(kN) (mm) milli-Strain (kN) (mm) milli-Strain (kN) (mm) milli-Strain
Beam 2 136 27.6 3.40 170 50.3 7.57 157 53.8 5.42
Beam 3 158 40.9 6.74 167 53.2 8.52 154 65.2 6.86
Beam 4 165 64.9 8.21 169 61.4 8.87 151 77.7 7.20
Beam 5 157 40.5 5.41 163 46.1 5.78 157 50.2 3.95
31
WITHOUT RETROFIT WITH RETROFIT
254 mm 254 mm
2 No. 3* 2 No. 3*
256 mm
305 mm
3 No. 7* 3 No. 7*
Stirrups CFRP plate 102x1.14 mm

No. 3* @ 127 mm
Clear cover to stirrups = 28.6 mm

*Diameter of No. 3 bar is 9.52 mm
Diameter of No. 7 bar is 22.2 mm
Figure 1.1. Test Specimen Cross Sections
32
Figure 1.2. Loading Configuration
33
Beam 1
l Reinforced concrete baseline
l 254x305 mm section
l 4216 mm span
Beam 2
l CFRP plate retrofit
Beam 3
l Cracked
Beam 4
l Cracked
l Fatigued 1,000,00 cycles
Beam 5
l Cracked
l Damaged and patched
Beam 6
l Cracked
l Damaged and patched
Figure 1.3. Test Matrix
34
ALL BEAMS
Elevation
BEAMS WITHOUT RETROFIT

Bottom Face
BEAMS WITH RETROFIT

Bottom Face
CFRP plate
Wire-potentiometer (displacement)
Strain-gage applied to CFRP plate bottom
Strain-gage applied to concrete bottom face
Strain-gage applied to longitudinal steel
Figure 1.4. Instrumentation Diagram
35
Figure 1.5. Plate Failure Modes
Beam 2 shown.
36
South Face Cracks (viewed facing north) East g
North Face Cracks (viewed facing south) West g
Cracks:
89 kN load
133 kN load
Ultimate load
0 200 400 mm
Scale: 1:20
Figure 1.6. Beam 1 Cracking Pattern
37
Concrete removed up to 28.6mm depth

Plate Failure Modes (viewed looking up) West g
419 mm 422 mm
This area debonded prior to
156 kN load
Cracks: Plate Failure Modes:

89 kN retrofit load Interfacial Deep Concrete
133 kN retrofit load Plate Internal
Ultimate load Still Bonded
Delamination
0 200 400 mm
Scale: 1:20
Figure 1.7. Beam 2 Cracking Pattern and Plate Failure Modes

Plate width shown slightly exaggerated.
38
Plate Failure Modes (viewed looking up) Bottom surface discontinuity along crack at failure
West g
Concrete removed up to 28.6 mm depth Concrete removed up to 38.1 mm depth

89 kN cracking load Interfacial Deep Concrete
Delamination
0 200 400 mm
Scale: 1:20

39
Plate Failure Modes (viewed looking up) Step in bottom surface along crack at failure West g
Splitting Failure in Plate (viewed looking up) West g
2381 mm 46 mm

89 kN cracking load Interfacial Deep Concrete
Delamination
Split 0 200 400 mm
Scale: 1:20

40
Poor bond areas shown white

Plate Failure Modes (viewed looking up) West g
Damage & Patch (viewed looking up) West g
Cracks: Damage & Patch: Plate Failure Modes:

89 kN cracking load Saw cut to 6.35 mm depth Interfacial Deep Concrete
133 kN retrofit load Chiseled to 25.4 mm depth Plate Internal
Delamination
0 200 400 mm
Scale: 1:20
Figure 1.10. Beam 5 Cracking Pattern, Plate Failure Modes, and Damage & Patch Areas
41
Damage & Patch (viewed looking up) West g
Cracks: Damage & Patch:

89 kN load Saw cut to 6.35 mm depth
111 kN load Chiseled to 25.4 mm depth
Ultimate load
0 200 400 mm
Scale: 1:20
Figure 1.11. Beam 6 Cracking Pattern and Damage & Patch Areas
42
180
Pmax = 144 kN Beam 1
160
140
120
Nominal calculated
Expected capacityload
Load (kN)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Figure 1.12. Beam 1 Load-Deflection Curve
43
180
Begin local debonding of CFRP Beam 2
Pmax = 170 kN
160 Debonding failure of CFRP
140 Expected
Nominal capacity
calculated load
120
Load (kN)
100
80 picture to go here,
need to transfer
video first.
60
40
CFRP plate immediately
after debonding
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 1.13. Beam 2 Load-Deection Curve
44
180
Pmax = 167 kN
140 Nominal calculated

120
Loading to 89 kN
Load (kN)
100 before retrofit

shown gray
80
60
40
3 mm step
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
45
180
Begin local debonding of CFRP
Beam 4
Pmax = 169 kN
Expected
Nominal capacity
calculated load
140
120
Loading to 89-kN
Loading to 89 kN
before
before retrofit
Load (kN)
retrofit shown
100 shown
gray in gray
80
60
40
3 mm step
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
46
180
Pmax = 163 kN
Nominal calculated
140
Interfacial failure
over patch material Epoxy-to-patch
120 interface failure
Loading
Loading toto89-
89 kN
Load (kN)
100 before
kN before
damage/patch
damage/patch
and retrofit
and retrofit
80 shown in gray
shown gray
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
47
180
Pmax = 139 kN Beam 6
160
140
120
Expected
Nominal capacity
calculated load @ Deflection = 114 mm
Load (kN)
100
Loading to89-
Loading to 89 kN
kN before
before
80
damage/patch
damage/patch
shown gray
shown in gray
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
48
Ultimate Load (kN)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Load (kN) R/C per ACI 318-99 using
101
design material properties
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0
CFRP retrofit per ACI 440 using
Nominal
design material properties
121
Beam 2
R/C per ACI 318-99 using average
Calculated
measured material properties
118
2.5
CFRP retrofit per ACI 440 using average
Expected
147
measured material properties
R/C baseline
144
Beam 1
49
CFRP retrofit
170
milli-Strain at Midspan
CFRP retrofit after cracking
167
7.5
Figure 1.18. Ultimate Capacities CFRP retrofit after cracking,
Begin local debonding of CFRP

169
fatigued 10^6 cycles

Experimental
Figure 1.19. Load-Strain Curve Beam 2

CFRP plate strain
Average rebar strain
CFRP retrofit after cracking, damaging,
and patching
163
10
R/C after cracking, damaging,
139
and patching
Beam 2 Beam 3 Beam 4 Beam 5 Beam 6
100.0
Initiation of local debonding Deflections at Ultimate
Ultimate load Beam 1: 59.2 mm
Debonding failure Beam 6: 69.5 mm
77.7
80.0
Midspan Deflection (mm) 65.2 64.9

61.4
60.0
53.8 53.2
50.3 50.2
46.1
40.9 40.5
40.0
27.6
20.0
0.0
Beam 2 Beam 3 Beam 4 Beam 5
Figure 1.20. Deflection of Retrofitted Specimens at Initiation of Local Debonding,

Ultimate Load, and Debonding Failure
10.00
9.40
8.87
8.52
milli-Strain in Plate at Ultimate Load
8.00 7.57
7.43
5.78
6.00
Per ACI 440 using average mesured
CFRP retrofit after cracking,

CFRP retrofit after cracking,
CFRP retrofit after cracking
Per ACI 440 using design
damaging, and patching
4.00
fatigued 10^6 cycles
material properties
material properties
CFRP retrofit
2.00
0.00
Beam 2 Beam 3 Beam 4 Beam 5
Calculated Experimental
Figure 1.21. Midpan Plate Strains at Ultimate Load
50
180
Retrofit Beams
last test only shown
160
140
120
Load (kN)
100
80
60
Beam 2
40 Beam 3
Beam 4
20
Beam 5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 1.22. Load-Deflection Curves for All Retrofitted Specimens
51
CHAPTER 2
EXTERNALLY BONDED COMPOSITE PLATES TO OVERCOME

CONSTRUCTION ERRORS – DESIGN CONCEPTS AND
VERIFICATION
52
2.1 ABSTRACT
Fiber reinforced composites have been used to increase flexural, shear, or axial
strength of deficient reinforced concrete members. The use of such composites in other
applications has been somewhat limited. Construction errors in debonding of prestressing
strands resulted in unreinforced sections at the ends of the girders in an adjacent box girder
bridge. A novel design approach utilizing externally bonded carbon fiber reinforced
composites was developed in an attempt to overcome these construction errors. The design
methodology was evaluated based on data from testing of a retrofitted girder along with
previous tests on as-is girders. Test data suggest appreciable improvements in terms of load
carrying capacity and stiffness of the retrofitted girder. The relatively simple retrofit plan
developed herein could have been used to delay replacement of the deficient girders.
This paper outlines a novel retrofit technique to overcome deficiencies associated
with construction errors in debonding of prestressing strands in prestressed girders. The
design methodology developed herein is expected to benefit the bridge engineering
community by avoiding unnecessary replacement, or at least delaying replacement, of such
deficient girders.
2.3 INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes previous research performed by the University of Cincinnati
and is borrowed from Zhang (1999) and Miller (1999) with permission of the authors.
2.3.1 Description of Bridge
Bridge MEG-124-6.78, built in 1994, was located in Meigs County, Ohio on State
Route 124 east of Salem Center. The structure was a single span, composite, adjacent box
girder bridge consisting of nine box girders (eight CB21-48 and one CB21-36) with a
composite concrete deck with a minimum thickness of 140 mm (5.5 in.). The structure had
53
o
a span of 13.7 m (45 ft) and a 45 right forward skew. The bridge cross-section and layout
are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. The girders have been numbered for
convenience.
During May of 1995, the creek running under the bridge flooded and submerged the
structure. After the flood subsided, a neighboring property owner inspected the bridge and
noticed cracking in one of the exterior girders near a support. The detection of the crack
does not imply that the flooding was the cause of cracking; rather the flood caused the
neighbor to inspect the structure. The neighbor notified Ohio Department of
Transportation District 10. Subsequently, District 10 engineers inspected the bridge and
found diagonal cracking in the obtuse corner, and less severe cracking near the acute corner,
of girder #9 (Figure 2.3). To summarize, the inspection revealed the following:
1) Girder #9 exhibited diagonal and straight cracks on its exposed side. These cracks
continued transversely across the bottom of the member. Because the girders were
adjacent, it was unclear whether these cracks continued up the girder’s unexposed
side. The most severe cracking occurred at the northwest corner where they
appeared as shear cracks (i.e., diagonal). Moreover, less severe flexural cracks (i.e.,
vertical) were visible at the other end of the girder. In both cases the cracks formed
approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) from the obtuse corner.
2) The two adjacent girders (i.e., girders #7 and #8) had transverse cracks along their
bottom surfaces as well. It was unclear whether the cracks continued up the sides
due to the proximity of adjacent girders. As with girder #9, the cracking occurred
approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) from the obtuse corner.
3) The abutments were poorly finished at time of construction resulting in a wavy,
instead of flat, appearance.
54
4) The bearing pads were not properly shimmed and it was possible to remove some of
the bearing pads from under the girders.
5) The approach slab in the southeast corner of the bridge had a large bump.
Due to the observed problems, the ODOT engineers decided to close the southeast
bound lane (i.e., the lane passing over the cracked members) while the cause of cracking was
investigated and until the bridge could be replaced. First, the bridge would be tested under
static and dynamic loads in an attempt to ascertain the reason for cracking. Then, during
replacement, the specimens would be removed for subsequent destructive testing.
2.3.2 Summary of Previous Testing
Attempting to evaluate the cause of cracking through nondestructive methods, the
bridge was subjected to static and dynamic truck load tests. Four loaded dump trucks, each
with two single axles and an approximate total weight of 134 kN (30 kips), were used in
various configurations during this phase of testing. Although the nondestructive testing did
not determine the cause of cracking, it did eliminate a number of possibilities, all of which
suggested that normal traffic overloading should not have caused the cracking. The major
findings are summarized in the following. Additional details are provided elsewhere (Miller,
1999).
1) Ten static load combinations were applied to determine load distributions. The
results compared well with design values. Thus, the failure was not due to
overloading of the edge girders because of improper load distributions.
2) The end of the girder with loose bearing pads did twist under loading, but the
amount was not enough to cause significant torsional stresses as shown by a finite
element analysis. Therefore, torsion due to the improperly placed bearing pads was
not the cause of cracking.
55
3) Dynamic tests were conducted by running the dump trucks over the bridge at speeds
of 19.3, 48.3, and 72.4 km/hour (12, 30, and 45 Mph). Results showed that the
dynamic impact factor used for design was reasonably correct.
4) The bridge was on a coal route, and coal trucks using the bridge were found to be
effectively twice as heavy as the dump trucks. Experimental assessment of the coal
truck loading showed a dynamic magnification factor of 35%, which is higher than
the maximum design value of 30% but within experimental accuracy. Considering
the reasonable dynamic factor, and that the coal truck loading was similar to the
alternate military design load, the coal trucks did not appear to be the source of
cracking.
5) The original bridge design was conducted using the AASHTO “Standard
Specification for Highway Bridges” (1992), which does not have separate
distribution factors for shear to account for skew in the member. An analysis was
conducted using the AASHTO “Guide Specification for Distribution of Loads for
Highway Bridges” (1994), which does have separate distribution factors for shear to
account for skew in the member. The wheel load shear distribution factor was found
to change from 0.698 to 1.05. However, even with the higher distribution factor, a
30% impact factor, and allowing for 20% overload, the girders should still have been
adequate in shear.
As reported by Zhang (1999), when the bridge was dismantled, four girders were
removed and kept for subsequent destructive testing to determine the cause of cracking.
Two of the retained girders (#7 and #8) were cracked and two of them (#3 and #5) did not
show any sign of cracking. The contractor determined a removal procedure in consultation
with the UC research team, ODOT District 10, and the ODOT Department of Structural
Engineering. A concrete saw was used to cut through the slab, shear keys, and tie rods.
56
Holes were drilled at the end of each girder and epoxy-embedded threaded rods were used in
conjunction with lifting plates to lift the girders and swing them sideways slightly. From this
position steel angle “bandages” were placed around the ends of the cracked girders to avoid
damage during lifting and transportation. Upon removal, inspection of the girders showed
crack patterns on all three cracked girders (#7, #8, and #9) similar to those seen on girder #9;
approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) from the obtuse corner diagonal cracks had occurred, and on the
opposite face were vertical cracks, some of which had turned diagonal. Subsequently, the
girders were transported to the testing facility.
An uncracked girder (#5) and a cracked girder (#7) were tested at the University of
Cincinnati’s outdoor structural testing facility located at Prestressed Services, Inc., in
Melbourne, Kentucky. Load was applied by a pair of hydraulic actuators hung on fixed load
frames spaced 6.4 m (21 ft) apart. Because the existing cracks appeared to be shear induced,
a loading scheme was decided upon to maximize shear at the point of cracking. To this end
it was decided to place one of the load points 1.83 m (6 ft) from one randomly chosen
obtuse corner. Thus, the other load point was 8.2 m (27 ft) from the same obtuse corner.
Two bearing pads at each end supported the specimens matching the 45O skew.
Instrumentation consisted of (a) a pair of 1780 kN (400 kip) capacity load cells
placed between the girder and the actuator clevis plates; (b) wire-potentiometers at both load
points, both quarter points, and at midspan to measure displacements; (c) two displacement
transducers at the support nearest the load point to measure rotations; (d) two strain-gages
placed on the prestressing strand at midspan; and (e) a total of 13 clip-gages at various
locations along the girder to measure concrete strain and crack openings.
The uncracked specimen, girder #5, was tested first. Load was applied with the
actuator nearest midspan moving in 1.27 mm (0.05 in.) increments in displacement control.
This corresponded to approximately 8.9 kN (2 kip) increments in the elastic range. At a
57
load of 102 kN (23 kips) at each load point, flexural cracks had formed on both sides of the
member at mid-span and at the end furthest from the load point. At the next load
increment, 111 kN (25 kips), flexural cracking occurred on both sides of the member at the
end nearest the load point. Further loading caused these cracks to become diagonal, and
inspection showed they were connected across the bottom of the member. Loading was
continued until 231 kN (52 kips) was applied at each load point. Additional midspan
cracking was noted, but was minimal. The cracks at each end had opened wide and there
was significant spalling of concrete along the crack in the bottom flange. For safety reasons
the test was stopped.
The cracked specimen, girder #7, was tested following the same procedure used for
girder #5. Propagation of the existing cracks first occurred at a load of 49 kN (11 kips) per
load point. Flexural cracking was first noted at a load of 147 kN (33 kips) per point. The
load deflection behavior of the two girders was very similar.
After testing, spalled concrete was removed from the bottom of girder #5 and the
cause of cracking was revealed. Mild steel reinforcement, provided only in the ends of the
member, terminated at this point. Also, all but one of the prestressing strands had been
intentionally debonded from this point into the members’ ends. The debonded strands were
wrapped with plastic sheathing. The only bonded strand was that closest to the obtuse
corner. Thus, it was concluded that the cracking occurred at an essentially unreinforced
section caused by a construction error. Figures 2.4 (a) and (b) show the girder end as
designed and as built.
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMEN
An additional uncracked girder, removed from Bridge MEG-124-6.78, was kept in
outdoor storage at Prestressed Services, Inc., in Melbourne, Kentucky. This girder was of
identical construction to the previously tested CB21-48 box girders with a 13.7 m (45 ft)
58
span and 45O skewed ends. As found by Zhang (1999), the girders were constructed with an
error that produced an unreinforced section approximately 1219 mm (4 ft) measured from
the obtuse corner. For the purpose of this report, the previously untested and uncracked
specimen, girder #3, was retrofitted and tested. The retrofit was achieved using
unidirectional carbon fiber reinforce polymer (CFRP) plates, with thin rectangular sections
measuring 102x1.17 mm (4x0.046 in.). The CFRP plates were of the pultruded variety with
an ambient cured epoxy resin and a pre-sanded bonding surface. Tension specimens of the
CFRP plate were prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM Specification D-3039. This
material is linearly elastic until failure with measured ultimate tensile stress and modulus of
elasticity of 2440 MPa (354 ksi) and 128 GPa (18600 ksi), respectively. The manufacturer’s
published values, an ultimate stress and modulus of elasticity of 2068 MPa (300 ksi) and 124
GPa (18000 ksi), respectively, were used in design calculations, as most designers would have
access to these values only. Material properties are summarized in Table 2.1, and detailed
results of CFRP material tests are provided in Appendix A.1.2.
2.5.1 Retrofit Calculations and Method
Prior to retrofit design, the previously tested girders were inspected. Measurements
were taken of the location of the large crack at the unreinfoced sections on the previously
tested girders (#5 and #7) and on the cracked but untested girder (#3), all of which were still
in storage. An average distance of 914 mm (36 in.) measured to the base of the crack from
the obtuse corner was found. For the purpose of this report, this section, located 914 mm
(36 in.) from the obtuse corner at both ends of the girder, will be referred to as the “critical
section.” The retrofit design was developed using concepts of reinforced concrete theory, the
AASHTO “Standard Specification for Highway Bridges” (1996), and ACI Committee 440
(2001) design recommendations. Externally bonded CFRP flexural reinforcement,
59
consisting of 102x1.14 mm (4x0.045 in.) plates, was designed to resist the worst of two cases
at the critical section.
1) φM n ≥ 1.2M cr (AASHTO Spec. Eq. 8-62)
2) φM n ≥ M u , v
where: M n = Nominal design strength of section with CFRP plate retrofit.
Mcr = Moment causing cracking of the section.
M u ,v = Ultimate factored moment on section under AASHTO load cases,
adjusted to include effects of tensile force in bottom flange due to
shear on the cracked section.
φ = 0.70 per ACI 440 Eq. 9-9 for brittle failure modes.
The CFRP plates were detailed to develop themselves and the reinforcing steel or
prestressing-strands in both directions from the critical section. The maximum of two
lengths, measured in both directions from the critical section, was chosen for the CFRP
plates. These two lengths were:
1) The development length of the reinforcing steel, lds, or prestressing strands, ldp , plus
the anchorage length, La, of the CFRP plates. This selection was made to keep the
very high interfacial shear and normal forces that exist over the anchorage length of
FRP plates (e.g., ACI 440, 2001) outside of the transition zone.
2) The bond length, Lb, of the CFRP plate necessary to prevent the concrete from
failing due to interfacial shear and normal stresses.
Thus, extending from the critical section towards the support, plates should have a length,
Ld1; and extending towards midspan, the plates should have a length, Ld2. As shown in
Figure 2.4(c) and described above,
60
 l + La
Ld 1 ≥ max  ds
 Lb
(2.1)
l + La
Ld 2 ≥ max  dp
 Lb
A fiber analysis was used to predict the flexural response of the critical section by
utilizing the computer program RESPONSE (Collins and Mitchell, 1991). Detailed
calculations are given in Appendix B.1. Figure 2.5 shows the cross-section of the retrofit
critical section used for calculations. The result of these calculations was that ten CFRP
plates should be bonded to the girder’s bottom flange at both ends of the girder. The plates
should extend from the critical section at least Ld1 = 734 mm (28.9 in.) towards the support
and Ld2 = 2290 mm (90.2 in.) towards midspan. Due to an error in the initial design
calculations (see Appendix B.1) only eight plates were used in the actual retrofit scheme.
Actual plate lengths were slightly more than calculated to be conservative and account for
field tolerances. The actual plate lengths, measured from the critical section, were 762 mm
(30 in.) towards the supports and 2337 mm (92 in.) towards midspan. Note that the
762 mm (30 in.) length towards the support was the longest possible length without
interference from the bearing pads. Figure 2.4 shows (a) the original design, (b) the as build
condition, and (c) the applied retrofit. This diagram is representative of both ends of the
member.
2.5.2 Retrofit Application Procedure
The following procedure was used to apply the CFRP plates, two at a time, to the
bottom flange of the box girder.
1) Plates were cut plate to length using table shears. It is also possible to score the plate
in the field using a utility knife and a metal straightedge.
61
2) The concrete surface was checked for any surface discontinuities with a yardstick.
No discontinuities over 1.58 mm (1/16 in.) were found.
3) The concrete surface was sandblasted until the surface had a uniform rough
appearance.
4) The locations of plates were marked on the concrete using a permanent marker.
5) The sanded side of plate was cleaned thoroughly by wiping in one direction with a
clean white rag and acetone, and then allowed to dry.
6) The concrete surface was cleaned thoroughly by wiping in one direction with a clean
white rag and acetone, and then allowed to dry.
7) Two-part epoxy was applied to both the concrete and the sanded side of the two
plates using a proprietary pneumatic mixing gun, and spread using a 3.18 mm
(1/8 in.) V-notch trowel.
8) The two plates were placed epoxy side up, side by side, on a straight 19x190 mm
(1x8 in.) board, and positioned on a pair of saw horses beneath the girder.
9) The pair of plates and the supporting board were pressed into place using two
threaded rod/board rigs at the ends and two compression straps wrapped around the
girder. Figure 2.6 depicts the formwork used to hold the plates as the epoxy set.
After applying a few of the plates using this procedure, it was felt that steps 8 and 9
were probably unnecessary and that the wet epoxy would be capable of keeping the
plate in place. For continuity purposes, the entire procedure was used for all plates.
Using the described procedure, and preparation of the concrete surface (steps 2 & 3),
it was possible for a two-person crew to apply two pairs of plates in half a day. Four half
days were used to apply all of the CFRP plates. Although the supplier suggests an epoxy cure
62
time of 1 to 2 days, 10 days were allowed to elapse before testing to prevent premature epoxy
failure.
2.5.3 Loading Configuration
To evaluate the effectiveness of the CFRP retrofit scheme, the retrofitted girder was
loaded to failure at the University of Cincinnati’s Large Scale Test Facility (UCLSTF). Load
was applied via two 1334 kN (300 kip) hydraulic jacks reacting against steel frames. The tie-
down configuration at UCLSTF allows for even spacing of the steel reaction frames at
1.22 m (4 ft) intervals. In an attempt to best replicate the previous destructive testing, the
load points were placed at a 6.10 m (20 ft) spacing with one load point 1.83 m (6 ft) from a
randomly chosen obtuse corner. Load at both points was transferred to the girder through a
stiffened W12x40 steel section with a length of 1143 mm (45 in.) placed between the girder
and hydraulic jack. To ensure adequate bearing and levelness, a layer of hydrostone (quick
setting gypsum cement) was cast between the steel section and the top surface of the test
specimen. Two reinforced neoprene bearing pads, each measuring 457x229x76.2 mm
(18x9x3 in.), were placed under each end and shimmed to provide proper bearing. Pedestals
and bearing pads matched the 45O skew of the member. The loading configurations used for
the retrofit test and in previous testing are compared in Figure 2.7. Compass directions will
be used for description of testing procedure and results. The specimen was placed with its
long axis running east to west. The load was applied near the west support.
The specimen was instrumented in a method very similar to that of Zhang (1999)
with additional strain gages placed on the CFRP plates. Instrumentation consisted of (a)
electronic pressure transducers, which were calibrated against known loads, placed in line
with both hydraulic jacks to measure applied loads; (b) wire-potentiometers at both load
63
points, both quarter points, and at midspan to measure deflections; (c) a total of 7 clip-gages
to measure concrete strains and crack openings; and (d) a total of 13 foil type strain-gages
with 25.4 mm (1 in.) gage lengths to measure strains in the FRP plates. Locations of the
clip-gages and wire-potentiometers are shown in Figure 2.8, while locations of foil-gages are
shown in Figure 2.9.
2.5.5 Testing Procedure
The specimen was loaded with two hydraulic jacks via a hand controlled electronic
hydraulic pump. Pressure was slowly introduced to the system, resulting in equal force at
both load points, at a rate of approximately 0.445 kN/second (0.1 kips/second) in the linear
response range. In the following text, the load is given as that at each load point.
The girder was initially loaded to 196 kN (44 kips) and unloaded. During this test
loading was paused to inspect for and document cracks at loads of 89.0, 97.8, 107, 116, 124,
133, 142, 151, 164, 178, and 196 kN (20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37, 40, and 44 kips).
Upon unloading, two clip-gages were installed over cracks near midspan, one on each side of
the bottom flange, to measure the loss of prestressing force (Figure 2.8). Subsequently, the
girder was reloaded to failure. The test was paused to inspect and document cracks at loads
of 178, 200, 214, 227, 227, 245, and 267 kN (40, 45, 48, 51, 55, and 60 kips).
2.6 TEST RESULTS
2.6.1 Measured Prestress Loss
Prestress losses were measured by monitoring the relationship between crack width
and applied load. Crack widths were measured with the use of two clip-gages. Calculations
are given in Appendix B.2. The resulting calculated prestress loss was 16%.
64
2.6.2 Failure of CFRP Retrofit
The first signs of vertical cracks were visible within the southeast support zone at a
load of 116 kN (26 kips) during the initial loading sequence. These cracks are not believed
to be due to loading, and were perhaps due to the widening of existing micro-cracks. At the
load of 196 kN (44 kips), during the initial loading sequence, two large flexural cracks
opened on both the north and south face of the girder just west of the east load point. Upon
reloading, at 178 kN (40 kips) a large diagonal crack opened at the west critical section.
Quite a number of flexural cracks were visible on both sides of the east load point when the
load was 245 kN (55 kips). Just before the load reached 267 kN (60 kips), loud tearing
noises were heard from the plates at the west end. The loading was continued until 302 kN
(68.0 kips) when the retrofit failed with all of the CFRP plates at the west end suddenly
debonding. Debonding happened simultaneously for all eight of the western plates. The
debonding action initiated at the crack at the critical section (which ran transversely across
the bottom of the member) and propagated west. Thus, the plates were debonded west of
the critical section and remained bonded east of the critical section. As shown in Figure
2.10, a large step in the bottom surface of the girder was apparent across the crack at the
western critical section with the surface towards midspan displaced approximately 15.9 mm
(5/8 in.) downward. The step in surface geometry extended across the entire girder width.
Upon debonding the plates removed a thin layer of concrete cover with an approximate
thickness of 3.18 mm (1/8 in.) as seen in Figure 2.11. Figure 2.12 shows the formation of
excessive shear cracks on the south face at the western critical section. Figure 2.13 shows the
large shear cracks that formed on the north face near the western critical section. This
cracking apparently produced a strut-like action causing the step in the bottom flange, which
apparently pushed the plates downward leading to their ultimate debonding. The crack
65
marked as “a” on Figures 2.12 and 2.13 is where the step in the bottom surface occurred.
Note that the step in surface geometry extended across the entire girder width. Cracking did
not occur at the east critical section.
2.6.3 Comparison of Results to Previous Test
As compared to the previous test of the identical uncracked girder conducted by
Zhang (1999), a significant increase in the load necessary to cause cracking at the critical
section was observed. In the previous test of the girder without retrofit, a load of 111 kN (25
kips) caused formation of a large crack at the critical section. With the retrofit, this cracking
load increased 60% to 178 kN (40 kips). Actually, the member resisted a load of 196 kN
(44 kips) without visible cracking at the critical section under initial loading, but upon
reloading the crack was apparent at 178 kN (40 kips). Also of significance is that in the
retrofit test cracks never formed at the east critical section, while in the tests without retrofits
cracks at the east critical section had not only formed but had opened wide.
An appreciable increase in the maximum tested capacity of the member with retrofit
was observed. The test without retrofit was stopped at 231 kN (52 kips) because of concerns
over excessive cracking and deflections. The ultimate load for the retrofitted girder was
298 kN (67 kips) at which point the plates debonded. This load corresponds to a 29%
increase in maximum tested load capacity.
The extent of flexural cracking was much more pronounced in the retrofitted
specimen due to the increased load that the member was able to sustain. Flexural cracking
was apparent throughout the high moment zone around the east load point. Figure 2.14
shows the cracks on the south face of the member observed and documented before ultimate
load. Cracks on the north face were very similar. The observed crack patterns illustrated in
Figure 2.14 correspond to the high moment region as shown in the bending moment
66
diagram under applied loading, shown in Figure 2.15. Flexural cracking was minimal in the
two previous tests without retrofits.
A comparison of the load deflection diagrams displays the true effectiveness of the
retrofit. Figures 2.16 to 2.20 plot the load-deflection behaviors of the previous uncracked
girder test versus those of the retrofitted girder at the load points, quarter points, and
midspan. Apparent in all the load-deflection diagrams is an increase in initial stiffness,
maximum load, and associated maximum deflections. The measured midspan deflection for
the test without retrofit at the maximum tested load of 210 kN was 48 mm, the midspan
deflection in the retrofit specimen at the same load was 31 mm. This equates to a 35%
increase in stiffness. Thus, the strength, stiffness, and also the ductility were increased after
retrofitting the girder with CFRP plates.
2.6.4 Retrofit Performance and Discussion of Failure
The CFRP retrofit was designed to resist AASHTO load cases as applied to the
bridge from which the member was removed, not the loading condition used during the
actual test. To evaluate the retrofit performance of the test specimen, the concepts used in
the retrofit design need be applied to the tested load configuration. As discussed in
Appendix B.1, the moment diagram was shifted towards the supports a distance of
jd /( 2 tan θ ) = 0.343 m (1.125 ft) to account for the additional tensile forces in the CFRP
plates due to shear. Figure 2.15 shows the bending moment diagram as a function of the
applied load at each point. Note that the moment is calculated at the critical sections and
also at a distance of 0.343 m (1.125 ft) towards midspan from the critical section, the latter
being the moment at the critical section after accounting for the moment diagram shift.
Thus, the adjusted moment on the critical section at failure was 667 kN-m (492 kip-ft).
This moment is close to the predicted nominal moment of 679 kN-m (501 kip-ft) calculated
67
in Appendix B.1 for the implemented retrofit system using eight CFRP plates. Therefore,
performance of the retrofit was acceptable, with the actual ultimate moment of the retrofit
being 98% of the predicted nominal moment.
Design calculations called for a ten-plate retrofit to sufficiently resist the AASHTO
load cases as applied to the bridge from which the girder was removed. If the behavior of the
tested eight-plate retrofit is extrapolated to the ten-plate retrofit, the latter would resist 98%
of its design moment. This value corresponds to a nominal moment of 817 kN-m (603 kip-
ft). Applying the 0.7 resistance factor gives the factored nominal moment, φM n = 572 kN-
m (422 kip-ft). Thus, the ten-plate retrofit should have exceeded the factored ultimate
moment adjusted for shear, M u ,v = 550 kN-m (406 kip-ft).
2.6.5 Design Re-Considerations
Although the retrofit section was nearly capable of developing the predicted moment
capacity of the eight-plate retrofit, the failure was nonductile and very sudden. The clip-gage
placed on the upper flange near the east load point (i.e., the point of maximum moment)
read a maximum compressive strain in the concrete of 1.23 milli-strains at failure. This
strain corresponds to the actual strain in the concrete topping at failure. The strain does not
need to be adjusted for self-weight effects because the strain in the concrete topping under
self-weight (i.e., when the gage was applied) is zero due to the construction sequence (i.e.,
the precast section resists all of the self-weight moment). Ideally, for a ductile failure, the
steel at the maximum moment would yield followed by the concrete developing its full
compressive strain of 3 milli-strains at failure.
One method of increasing the bond capacity of bonded fiber plates, and hence
increasing the ductility at failure, is by using mechanical anchorage in addition to the epoxy
adhesive to connect the plates to the concrete. Tests performed at the University of
68
Cincinnati subsequent to this project, using similar CFRP plate material and epoxy adhesive,
suggest that epoxy embedded threaded rods passing through the CFRP plate, with a nut and
oversize washer tightened to provide sufficient clamping capacity, can improve the shear
resistance of the bond by over 50% (e.g. Curtis et. al., 2002). Furthermore, a layer of carbon
fabric applied transverse to and over the CFRP plates in conjunction with epoxy embedded
threaded rods was seen to improve the shear resistance by 150% (e.g. Curtis et. al., 2002).
Use of mechanical anchorage may be warranted to improve failure ductility after further
research into the effectiveness of mechanical anchorages is conducted.
Bridge MEG-124-6.78, a single span, composite, adjacent box girder bridge was
built with a construction error which resulted in the cracking of some of the girders under
service loads. Previous nondestructive bridge tests conducted by Miller (1999) and
destructive tests on two of the girders by Zhang (1999) identified the construction error.
Essentially the girders were built with an unreinforced section near each end. A retrofit
scheme was developed and applied to one of the uncracked girders removed from the bridge.
The retrofit system consisted of carbon fiber reinforced polymer plates bonded to the bottom
flange. The retrofitted member was instrumented and tested in a four point bending
configuration closely resembling that used by Zhang (1999) so that original and retrofitted
girders could be compared. Based upon the presented discussions and test data, the following
conclusions are drawn.
1) The retrofit scheme delayed the onset of cracking at the unreinforced section nearer
the load points, and prevented cracking at the unreinforced section further from the
load points.
69
2) The retrofit scheme increased the maximum tested load and corresponding deflection
of the member, and also increased the stiffness of the member.
3) By accounting for tensile forces in the reinforcement due to shear, it was possible to
develop a CFRP retrofit scheme that performed at 98% of its expected strength.
Thus, the design model was accurate and reliable.
4) Failure occurred suddenly with the CFRP plates fully debonding followed by an
immediate drop in the load. Concrete in the upper flange had not yet begun to crush
at failure. To develop a more ductile failure mode, the use of mechanical anchorage
is suggested.
2.8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
standard, specification, regulation, or recommendation. Special thanks to Mr. Don Bosse at
Prestressed Services Inc. in Melborne, Kentucky for providing storage of the test specimen
and sandblasting equipment. With the cooperation of Mr. Bob Thompson, CFRP plates
and epoxies were supplied by Fiber Reinforced Systems, located in Columbus, Ohio. The
faculty, staff, and many current and former graduate students at the University of Cincinnati
Infrastructure Institute were influential in the completion of this project, notably Mr. Rick
Eder for providing assistance with the CFRP plate application.
70
2.9 REFERENCES
AASHTO (1992). “Standard Specification for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition,”

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
AASHTO (1994). “Guide Specifications for Distribution of Loads for Highway Bridges,”

Collins, M. and Mitchell, D (1990). Prestressed Concrete Structures. Prentice Hall. Including
the RESPONSE program.
Curtis, K., Huber, D., and Øyen, P.E., (2002). “Use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Composite for Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” REU Final Report,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
MacGregor, J.G., (1997). Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design. Prentice Hall.
Miller, R.A., (1999). “Instrumentation of Bridge #MEG 124-6.79,” Report to Sponsors:

Ohio Department of Transportation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
PCI (1999) “PCI Design Handbook, Fifth Edition,” Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute.
Zhang, W., (1999). “Testing of Bridge #MEG-124-6.78,” M.S. Thesis, University of

Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
71
Reinforcing Bars Design Measured
Yield Stress (MPa) 413

Ultimate Stress (MPa) 413
Topping Concrete
Compressive Stress (MPa) 27.6
Precast Concrete
Compressive Stress (MPa) 37.9
CFRP Plate

Width (mm) 102 102
72
Figure 2.1. Bridge Cross-Section (Zhang, 1999)
Figure 2.2. Bridge Layout (Zhang, 1999)
73
Figure 2.3. Crack Pattern of Girder #9 (Zhang, 1999)
Cracks enhanced in photograph.
74
Strands debonded
Prestressing strands
Mild steel
(a)
Strands debonded
(b)
Ld1 Ld2
Pair of
CFRP plates
Critical
914 mm Section
(c)
Figure 2.4. Plan of Girder End

(a) As designed, (b) as built with construction error, and (c) with applied CFRP retrofit.
75
1220
127 444 76.2 444 127 Topping

f'c = 27.6 MPa
3 No. 6 bars
152 65.5 mm clear cover
76.2 6 No. 4 bars
25.4 mm clear to void
686
343 Precast section
f'c = 37.9 MPa
114
8 - 102x1.14 mm CFRP plates
All dimensions in mm
Figure 2.5. Cross Section of Retrofit Critical Section
76
A B
Girder
Pedestal
A B
ELEVATION
Wood board
38x64 mm
Threaded rod
6.35 mm
diameter
CFRP plates
Wood board
Wood board 19x190 mm
64x38 mm
SECTION A-A
PVC pipe halved

25.4 mm O.D.
Wood board
19x190 mm
Wood board
38x64 mm
Compression strap
Wood board
64x38 mm
SECTION B-B
Figure 2.6. Retrofit Formwork
77
1.83 m 6.40 m
13.7 m span
(a)
1.83 m 6.10 m
EAST
13.7 m span
(b)
Figure 2.7. Comparison of Loading Configurations

(a) Previous test and (b) current test.
78
(a)
West Load Point East Load Point
Girder
Pedestal
Strong floor (b)
East Load Point West Load Point
(c)
Wire-potentiometer to measure displacements (centered under girder)

Clip-gage to measure concrete strain profile at critical section (50.8 mm from top or bottom of girder)
Clip-gage to measure concrete compressive strain (centered on top flange 305 mm west of east load point)
Clip-gage placed on bottom of beam to measure crack openings (locations provided in Appendix B.2)
Figure 2.8. Placement of Clip-gages and Wire-potentiometers

(a) Plan view, (b) south elevation, and (c) north elevation.
79
S x
West
Critical
Section
W 1
2 34 6 7 8 9
5
10
(a)
East
Critical
Section
11
12
13
(b)
Gage number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Location* x (mm) 914 178 256 356 911 1981 3050 3150 3226 914 11581 11579 11582
*Locations measured from west obtuse corner
(c)
Figure 2.9. Placement of Foil-gages

Bottom of girder viewed looking up (a) west end,
(b) east end, and (c) measured locations.
80
EAST
towards midspan
Bottom surface of beam
16 mm step
Debonded CFRP plates
Figure 2.10. Discontinuity in Bottom Surface at West Critical Section

Viewed facing north.
3.2 mm layer of removed concrete
Crack at critical section
WEST
Figure 2.11. Debonded CFRP Plates at West End

Viewed facing south.
81
Critical Section
a EAST
Figure 2.12. Crack Pattern on South Face at West Critical Section
WEST
Critical Section
a
Figure 2.13. Crack Pattern on North Face at West Critical Section
82
West Critical East Critical
Section Section
Figure 2.14. Cracks Observed on South Face Just Prior to Ultimate Load
M=4.14P
M=2.93P
M=2.24P
E.L.P.
M=1.83P M=1.83P
W.L.P.
M=1.49P
W.C.S.
E.C.S.
1.52 m 6.01 m 3.31 m 1.52 m
0.343 m 0.571 m 0.343 m
Figure 2.15. Bending Moment Diagram Under Test Load-configuration

Moments (M) given in kN-m as function of load at each point (P) in kN.
83
350
300
250
Load at Each Point (KN)
200
150
100
50
Test without FRP
Test with FRP

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
West Load Point Deflection (mm)
Figure 2.16. Load-Deflection Curve at West Load Point
84
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Test without FRP
Test with FRP

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
West Quarter Point Deflection (mm)
Figure 2.17. Load-Deflection Curve at West Quarter Point
85
350
300
250
Load at each point (KN)
200
150
100
50
Test without FRP
Test with FRP

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 2.18. Load-Deflection Curve at Midspan
86
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Test without FRP
Test with FRP

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
East Load Point Deflection (mm)
Figure 2.19. Load-Deflection Curve at East Load Point
87
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Test without FRP
Test with FRP

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
East Quarter Point Deflection (mm)
Figure 2.20. Load-Deflection Curve at East Quarter Point
88
CHAPTER 3
USE OF CARBON FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER PLATES WITH

MECHANICAL ANCHORAGES FOR STRENGTHENING OF
PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BOX GIRDERS
89
3.1 ABSTRACT
Prior research on the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites for
retrofitting of existing structures has predominantly focused on mildly reinforced concrete
members, and application of FRP composites to prestressed members is rather limited. As a
result, recommended design provisions for external strengthening of existing structures have
not been extensively evaluated against test results from prestressed members that are
retrofitted with external FRP composites. Moreover, data regarding performance of
mechanical anchors for enhancing bond characteristics of FRP composites are scant. The
reported research was aimed at filling some of the gaps in the available test data through
retrofitting and testing of a 18.3 m (60 ft) prestressed box girder retrofitted with carbon FRP
composites with mechanical anchors. After a description of the design procedure, the test
data are used to evaluate the design method, current design recommendations, and
performance of mechanical anchors.
The reported research provides data regarding performance of prestressed members
retrofitted with mechanically anchored carbon fiber reinforced polymer plates. The research
is expected to fill a major gap in the state-of-the-art knowledge because most of the previous
studies have focused on strengthening of mildly reinforced members, and because possible
benefits of mechanical anchors have not been studied in the past with the exception of a few
limited tests.
3.3 INTRODUCTION
The 1999 National Bridge Inventory performed by the Portland Cement Association
reveals that 36.4% of the nation’s bridges and 30.1% of Ohio’s bridges are deficient. Viable
and economical retrofit schemes are necessary to delay or offset replacement of deteriorating
members. Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are a good option for repair or retrofit of
90
concrete members for numerous reasons. FRP materials possess high strength-to-weight
ratios resulting in ease of installation and insignificant additions to dead loads. These
materials also have high environmental and fatigue resistance resulting in extended life cycles.
The case can even be made that their unobtrusive profiles provide superior aesthetic qualities
(e.g., Lagoda and Lagoda, 2000). Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) plates can be
of installation, and weathering characteristics are a concern. Extensive research has been
conducted in recent years to determine properties of FRPs, and to develop robust design
equations for their use. Most of this research has been conducted on small to medium size
test specimens that easily fit in small to medium sized laboratories. FRP retrofits have also
been applied to bridges and tested nondestructively. In such field tests, the test parameters
cannot be controlled accurately, and the ultimate strength is estimated from measured live-
load response in conjunction with analytical studies. Additionally, previous retrofitted
bridge tests have almost exclusively been performed on non-prestressed bridges, yet many of
the nation’s concrete bridges are of the prestressed type. Total sales of prestressed members
in the U.S. and Canada surpassed 1 billion dollars in 1973 (e.g., Collins and Mitchell,
1990), and many of these members are reaching the extent of their design life. Design
methods for FRP strengthening schemes have been recently developed (e.g., ACI 440, 2001;
fib, 2001). The ACI 440 recommendations can be applied directly to prestressed members,
although these recommendations do not provide means or examples of calculations.
Considering the newness of such design guidelines, additional qualifications, including
destructive tests of large scale prestressed concrete specimens, are necessary before design
schemes are widely accepted. Moreover, means such as mechanical anchorages are needed to
improve the bond strength of CFRP plates to the concrete substrate.
91
To provide detailed data regarding the flexural response and effectiveness of a
prestressed girder retrofitted with CFRP plates, a full-scale Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT) B27x48 prestressed concrete box girder was fabricated and tested.
A retrofit scheme was developed to increase the live load flexural strength of the member by
20%. Mechanical anchors were used to fasten the CFRP plate to the girder in an attempt to
increase the failure ductility. This paper provides an overview of the research program along
with important observations based upon the test results.
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMEN
The test specimen consisted of an ODOT B27x48 prestressed concrete box girder.
The specimen had a length measuring 18.3 m (60 ft) and a cross section measuring 0.686 m
(27 in.) deep by 1.22 m (48 in.) wide. Prestressing was achieved with sixteen 12.7 mm
(0.5 in.) diameter 1862-MPa (270 ksi) low relax prestressing strands. Allowing for 152 mm
(6 in.) at each end for bearing, the center-to-center span of the girder was 18.0 m (59 ft).
See Figure 3.1 for the cross section and span details. The box girder was fabricated at
Prestressed Services Inc. in Melborne, Kentucky for the purpose of this research. A member
of the research team was on site to supervise fabrication and install four embedded vibrating-
wire strain-gages at midspan.
The specimen was fabricated using concrete with a design compressive strength of
37.9 MPa (5500 psi). Two concrete cylinders were cast during fabrication of the specimen.
These cylinders were tested at the time of the girder test in order to determine the concrete’s
compressive strength and stress-strain relationship. The ultimate compressive strength of the
concrete at time of testing was found to be 66.0 MPa (9570 psi) with an initial modulus of
elasticity of 36.2 GPa (5253 ksi).
Unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) plates, with thin rectangular
sections measuring 102x1.17 mm (4x0.045 in.), were used for the retrofit. The CFRP plates
92
were of the pultruded variety with an ambient cured epoxy resin and a pre-sanded bonding
surface. The supplier’s design values were an ultimate tensile stress of 2068 MPa (300 ksi)
and a modulus of elasticity of 124 GPa (18,000 ksi). Tension specimens of the CFRP plate
were prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM Specification D-3039. This material is
linearly elastic until failure. The average measured ultimate tensile stress and modulus of
elasticity were 2372 MPa (344 ksi) and 145 GPa (21087 ksi), respectively. Measured
material properties, and those used for design, are summarized in Table 3.1; detailed results
of material tests are provided in Appendix C.1.
3.5.1 Retrofit Design Calculations
ACI Committee 440 has developed a report entitled “Guide for the Design and
Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures”
(2001). This document provides guidelines for the behavior and design of reinforced
concrete members strengthened with externally bonded fiber reinforced polymer materials.
The recommendation states that the design guidelines can be applied to prestressed
members, but does not provide equations or examples for this purpose. A retrofit scheme
was developed following ACI 440 recommendations using design concrete, steel, and CFRP
plate material properties. For the retrofit design, a target 20% increase in live load capacity
was chosen. For the design analysis, the loading used during testing was considered along
with AASHTO (1996) LFD load factors. A fiber analysis of the girder’s section was used to
predict the flexural response of the member by utilizing the computer program RESPONSE
(Collins and Mitchell, 1991).
FRP flexural retrofits are commonly known to fail when the FRP material debonds
from the concrete surface. For FRP retrofits where epoxy is used as the only load transfer
mechanism between the FRP and concrete, failure tends to happen suddenly and can be
93
possibly catastrophic. The use of mechanical anchorage zones at the ends of FRP plate
retrofits has been shown to provide a more ductile failure mode. Shahrooz and Boy (2001)
have shown that after the plate debonds, mechanical anchorage zones at the ends of the
plates prevent total separation of the FRP plates, causing the debonded length of the plate to
act as a tension-tie. Thus, the FRP continues to contribute to the flexural resistance. In this
project, mechanical anchorage zones were designed as part of the retrofit scheme. Appendix
C.2 shows step-by-step calculations for the retrofit design.
The resulting retrofit design called for four 102x1.14 mm (4x0.045 in.) CFRP plates,
each with a length of 14.3 m (47 ft), bonded to the bottom flange of the girder. Mechanical
anchorage consisted of twelve 6.5 mm (1/4 in.) diameter concrete anchors embedded in the
concrete a depth of 25.4 mm (1 in.) evenly spaced over the last 1.68 m (66 in.) of each
plate’s end. The anchors were the HILTI Kwik-Con II+ proprietary fastening system.
These anchors were chosen because of their ease of installation (a hole is predrilled and then
the anchors are fastened by screwing directly into the concrete) and the availability of their
existing published load ratings. An anchor diameter of 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) was chosen
because the required embedment depth is only 25.4 mm (1 in), keeping the anchors (and
any necessary drilling) below the level of prestress strands. Figure 3.1 shows the retrofit in
elevation and section views. Figure 3.2 shows the anchor zone details.
3.5.2 Retrofit Application
The following steps were used to apply the CFRP plate retrofit system. Estimated
times are given in parentheses following each step. For steps that were repeated, estimated
times are given for the final repetition, i.e., when the two-person crew was most adjusted to
the task.
94
A) Beam Preparation
1) The concrete surface was sandblasted until the surface had a uniform rough
appearance. This step was conducted at Prestressing Services Inc. prior to the
girder’s transportation to the University of Cincinnati’s Large Scale Test Facility
(UCLSTF). (3 hours – 2 people)
2) The concrete surface was checked for any surface discontinuities with a yardstick. All
discontinuities over 1.58 mm (1/16 in.) were ground smooth using an electric hand
grinder. (3 hours – 1 person)
3) Dust was removed from the concrete surface by wiping in one direction with a clean
white rag and water, and then allowed to dry for 24 hours. (3/4 hour – 2 people)
4) The locations of plates were measured and marked on the concrete surface. First the
locations were marked by a chalk line, and then a permanent marker was used. (3
hours – 2 people)
5) The concrete surface within the plate outlines was cleaned thoroughly by wiping in
one direction with a clean white rag and acetone, then allowed to dry. (1 hour – 2
people)
B) Miscellaneous Preparation
1) Formwork was developed to aid in plate application. Materials were purchased and
the formwork was built. Formwork is shown in Figure 3.3. (8 hours – 1 person)
2) Formwork was set in place on girder. (1/6 hour – 2 people)
3) Staging yard for plates was identified. Tarps were laid in staging area and beneath
girder. (1 hour – 1 person)
C) Plate Application Procedure (repeated a total of four times)
1) Plate was measured and cut by scoring with a utility knife. (1/4 hour – 2 people)
95
2) Sanded side of plate was thoroughly cleaned by wiping with acetone and a clean rag
in one direction. (1/4 hour – 2 people)
3) Two-part epoxy was applied to the sanded side of the plate using a proprietary
pneumatic mixing gun and spread using a 3.18 mm (1/8 in.) V-notch trowel. (1/2
hour – 2 people)
4) Two-part epoxy was applied to the girder within marked areas using a proprietary
pneumatic mixing gun and spread using a 3.18 mm (1/8 in.) V-notch trowel. (1/2
hour – 2 people)
5) Plate was carried to beneath girder and formwork was loosely attached to support the
plate, see Figure 3.3 (a). (1/6 hour – 2 people)
6) Plate was aligned directly beneath marked position. Formwork at one end was
tightened applying pressure in order to hold the plate end against the girder. Starting
at this end the plate was pressed to the beam by hand working towards the loose end.
As each formwork was passed it was tightened to secure the plate. See Figure 3.3 (b)
and (c). This step was felt necessary because without the supporting formwork the
plate tended to slip and pull free from the concrete under its own hanging weight. (1
hour – 2 people).
7) Hand pressure was again applied along the length of the plate. Excess epoxy was
removed. Exposed side of plate was wiped clean with a rag and acetone. (1 hour – 2
people)
8) The entire length of plate was pressed with a small hard roller to ensure sufficient
bond and even pressure. (1/3 hour – 1 person)
D) Anchor Application
1) Anchors were installed one week after plates were applied. Anchor zones were
measured and marked with a chalk-line. (1/2 hour – 2 people)
96
2) Stirrup locations within the anchor zone along the bottom flange were identified
with a rebar locator and marked with a permanent marker. (1/2 hour – 1 person)
3) Anchor holes were drilled using a hammer-drill. Where anchors would be over or
close to a stirrup location the anchor was relocated a maximum of 19.0 mm (3/4 in.)
relative to the span direction. (3 hours – 2 people)
4) Anchors were placed, first with a magnetic driver attached to a power drill and then
tightened by hand using a socket wrench. (1 hour – 1 person)
The total estimated time for a crew familiar with the job was 44 person-hours.
3.5.3 Loading Configuration
A symmetric four-point loading scheme was selected in order to induce a constant
moment in the central region of the girder. Load was applied via two 1334 kN (300 kip)
hydraulic jacks reacting against steel frames. The tie-down configuration at UCLSTF allows
for an even spacing of the steel reaction frames at 1.22 m (4 ft) intervals. The load frames
were places at 6.10 m (20 ft) about the center of the girder. Load at both points was applied
through a stiffened W18x97 steel section with a length of 1143 mm (48 in.) placed between
the beam and hydraulic jack. The W18x97 steel spreader beams were specifically fabricated
for this purpose. To ensure adequate bearing and levelness, a layer of hydrostone (quick
setting gypsum cement) was cast between the steel section and top surface of the test
specimen. Supports consisted of four reinforced neoprene bearing pads, each measuring
457x229x76.2 mm (18x9x3 in.), placed upon concrete pedestals. Two bearing pads were
placed under each end of the girder and shimmed to provide proper bearing. The loading
configuration is shown in Figure 3.4 and drawings and design calculations of the fabricated
steel spreader beam are given in Appendix C.3. Compass directions will be used in
description of the test results. The girder was oriented with the span running east to west.
97
Instrumentation for the girder test consisted of (a) a pressure transducer in-line with
each hydraulic jack to measure applied load; (b) wire-potentiometers at both quarter points,
both load points, and at midspan to measure deflections; (c) four embedded vibrating wire
strain-gages at midspan to measure concrete strains; (d) a clip-gage at top-center to measure
concrete compressive strain; (e) two clip-gages placed over cracks during testing to measure
crack openings; (f) a total of eight foil-gages to measure CFRP plate strains, one on each
plate at midspan and one on each of the two inside plates at the quarter points; (g) a total of
three foil-gages on the concrete bottom flange to measure concrete strains, one at midspan
and one at each quarter point. Data were collected electronically at a rate of approximately 2
seconds using a data acquisition system. Figure 3.5 shows the external instrumentation
layout, note that the CFRP plates have been numbered for convenience. Figure 3.6 shows
the location of the embedded vibrating wire strain-gages.
3.5.5 Testing Procedure
The specimen was loaded with two hydraulic jacks via a hand controlled electronic
hydraulic pump. Pressure was slowly introduced into the system, resulting in equal force at
both load points, at a rate of approximately 0.445 kN/second (0.1 kip/second) in the linear
response range. In the following text, the given load is that at each load point. The
specimen was loaded to 37.8 kN (8.5 kips) and unloaded. This test was performed to check
the instruments. Subsequently, the specimen was loaded to 156 kN (35 kips) and unloaded.
This test was paused at 111, 133, and 156 kN (25, 30, and 35 kips) to mark and document
cracks. After the beam was unloaded, two clip-gages were applied, one on the north face and
one on the south face, over cracks near midspan. The specimen was reloaded to 249 kN
(56 kips) and unloaded. This test was paused to mark and document cracks at 169, 191,
222, and 249 kN (38, 43, 50, and 56 kips). Then, the specimen was reloaded to 302 kN
98
(68 kips) at which point the jacks used to apply load reached their maximum stroke of
305 mm (12 in). This test was paused to mark and document cracks at 267, 284, and
302 kN (60, 64, and 68 kips). Upon unloading, a permanent deflection of approximately
50.8 mm (2 in.) had occurred at midspan. Steel plates were placed between the retracted
jacks and load frame to provide additional stroke. In addition, the CFRP plates were
checked for areas of local debonding by sounding with a piece of metal. The specimen was
then loaded to approximately 320 kN (72 kips) at which point the jacks again ran out of
stroke. This test was paused to mark and document cracks at loads of 311 and 320 kN (70
and 72 kips). Upon unloading, additional steel plates were placed between the retracted
jacks and load frame to provide additional stroke, and the plates were checked for areas of
local debonding. The specimen was then reloaded until failure.
3.6 TEST RESULTS
3.6.1 Ultimate Capacity
The ultimate capacity was achieved at a load and deflection of 326 kN (73.2 kips)
and 427 mm (16.8 in.), respectively. Then, as the displacement was slightly increased to
429 mm (16.9 in.), the specimen failed when CFRP plate #2 debonded (see Figure 3.5 for
plate numbering). The load vs. midspan deflection response is shown in Figure 3.7. The
debonding action initiated near the midspan and very quickly propagated towards the
western end where the plate tore free from the anchor zone. The debonding terminated at
the western most of the east anchors; hence, the plate remained bonded within the east
anchor zone. Plates #1, #3, and #4 remained bonded.
3.6.2 Description of CFRP Plate Failure
The type of plate failure mode observed in this experiment, initiated by an
intermediate (i.e., away from the plate ends) crack with failure generally happening in the
layer of concrete adjacent to the epoxy-to-concrete interface, has been reported by Teng et.
99
al., (2002) as occurring in a limited number of previous studies involving shallow flexural
members. This debonding failure mode is termed “intermediate crack-induced interfacial
debonding” by Teng et al. (2002). To further distinguish between the debonding failure
modes, the following phrases will be utilized in this paper.
Interfacial Failure: A mixture of thin concrete cover removal approximately 3.18 mm
(0.125 in.) thick, epoxy-to-concrete interface failure, and epoxy-to-plate interface failure.
Predominantly consisting of thin concrete removal.
Poor Bond: A mixture of thin concrete cover removal approximately 3.18 mm (0.125 in.)
thick, epoxy-to-concrete interface failure, and epoxy-to-plate interface failure.
Predominantly consisting of epoxy-to-concrete interface failure.
Plate Internal Delamination: A thin layer of fibers and resin separated from the main body
of the plate and is left bonded to the concrete. Failure occurring within the plate in a plane
parallel to the plate’s bonded surface.
When CFRP plate #2 debonded it tore free of the west anchor zone. The anchors
were staggered in two lines, and the plate split along these lines. A detail of the failure at the
west anchor zone is given in Figure 3.8. As seen in this figure, two thin strips of the plate
(marked “a” and “b” in the figure), in line with the anchors and extending the length of the
anchor zone, were separated from the main body of the plate and remained bonded to the
girder. The central portion of the plate, marked “c” in the figure and located between the
two lines of anchors, was pulled towards midspan (moving from the initial position marked
“d” to the final position “e” as shown on the diagram) and remained attached (i.e., jammed
between the mechanical fasteners) but not bonded to the girder. Also, as seen in Figure 3.8,
much of the plate failure within the anchor zone occurred as plate internal delamination.
The total length of the northern split in the plate, marked “f” in Figure 3.8, was
approximately 7.86 m (25.8 ft) measured from the west end of the plate. The total length of
100
the southern split in the plate, marked “g” in the figure, was approximately 5.79 m (19 ft).
The rest of the plate failure occurred almost exclusively as interfacial failure. Two areas of
poor bond failure extended approximately from 8.69 to 8.90 m (28.5 to 29.2 ft) and 9.81 to
10.9 m (32.2 to 35.75 ft) as measured from the west end of the plate.
It is suitably noted that during the application of the CFRP plates an apparent
material defect was observed in plate #2. The CFRP material consists of two layers of epoxy-
resin and carbon fibers with a glass mesh plane in between. In plate #2, this glass mesh was
exposed as a line along lengths of the sanded surface. The plate did not appear thinner at
these points, although precise measurements (i.e., with a caliper) of the thickness were not
taken. The locations of these defects was measured and noted. Figure 3.9 compares the
locations of the material defects versus the locations where the plate split at failure. Along the
line marked “Material defect (traces)”, the glass mesh was visible for a few centimeters
approximately every meter. The long line of material defects, marked “h”, nearly lines up
with the plate split, marked “f”. According to measurements taken of the material defects
before plate application and the splits in the plate after failure, the distance between the two
was 3.2 mm (1/8 in.). Two theories regarding the effect of the material defect on the plate
splitting may be hypothesized, although neither decisively.
1) The measured difference between the defect and the split was due to improper field
measurements, and the defect and the split were along the same line. Hence, the
material defect was directly related to the splitting of the plate.
2) The measurements were correct and the material defect was unrelated to the failure.
The fact that failure occurred in plate #2 only seems to support hypothesis (1), since plate #2
was the only plate with the observed material defects. The facts that the plate split in three
other locations where the material defect was not observed, that plate splits occurred about
the lines of anchors, and that the two outer splits terminated at anchor locations seem to
101
support hypothesis (2); suggesting that the anchors were the cause of the plate splitting.
Additional studies regarding possible impacts of anchor holes on behavior, strength, and
mode of failure of CFRP plates are warranted.
3.6.3 Local Debonding
Upon unloading from the 302, 320, and 326 kN (68, 72, and 73.2 kips) load cycles,
the plates were checked for local debonding by sounding with a piece of metal. Locally
debonded areas sounded hollow and locations were marked on the beam. After the test,
these locations along with the marked cracks were recorded to produce Figures 3.10 (a)
through (e). Note that for plate #2, debonded areas at failure are not marked for clarity of
the exposed cracks. The figure shows that before failure numerous areas of localized
debonding had occurred on all plates. Of special interest is the large area of localized
debonding on plate #2, just west of midspan. The eventual failure of the plate probably
propagated from this location. Careful examination of the figure reveals that many of the
locally debonded areas terminate at, and occur between, cracks on the girder’s bottom
surface. This observation suggests that the cracks cause stress concentrations in the interface
layer and promote the debonding process.
The strain profile at midspan for various loads is shown in Figure 3.11. Note that
the strain at the bottom of the section is the average strain measured from the four CFRP
plates. The measured strains show a very linear profile, even just prior to failure at a load of
325 kN (73 kips). Hence, the section was apparently acting compositely up to failure, which
seems to contradict the large extent of localized debonding near midspan shown in Figures
3.10 (a) through (e). Under load the locally debonded areas appear to have been transferring
shear through aggregate interlock or by other means.
3.6.4 Measured Prestress Loss
Prestress losses were measured by monitoring the relationship between crack width
102
and applied load. Crack widths were measured with the use of two clip-gages. Calculations
are given in Appendix C.4. The resulting calculated prestress loss was 9.0%.
3.6.5 Comparison of Test Results to Theoretical Model
A theoretical flexural model of the B27x48 box girder, with and without the applied
four CFRP plate retrofit, was developed as described in Appendix C.5. Concepts of
reinforced concrete theory and the ACI Committee 440 (2001) design recommendations
were utilized to develop a fiber analysis model for input into the computer program
RESPONSE (Collins and Mitchell, 1991). The measured (tested) concrete and CFRP plate
material properties were used as applicable. Because reinforcing bars and prestressing strands
were not tested, material values conforming to ASTM specifications were used. In order to
establish a load-deflection response for comparison to test results, the midspan deflection
relationship for the pre-retrofit and retrofit section was predicted by double integration of
the moment-curvature relationship obtained in RESPONSE. Note that fully composite
action (i.e., perfect bond between the CFRP and concrete) was assumed for the retrofit
model, as suggested by the experimental data (Figure 3.11). The double integration method
has been found to provide reasonably accurate predictions of load-deflection behavior (e.g.,
Gillum et al., 1998). Figure 3.12 shows the predicted and tested load-deflection curves for
the member. There is a very good correlation between the tested and expected load-
deflection behavior in the linear portion of the curve, i.e., up to a load of approximately
170 kN (38.2 kips). Past this point the model slightly underestimates the stiffness of the
girder. The inconsistency is most likely due to the assumed properties of the prestressing and
mild steel reinforcement. The analysis indicates expected ultimate loads of 232 kN
(52.1 kips) and 273 kN (61.3 kips) for the girder without and with retrofit, respectively.
Hence, the expected increase in ultimate capacity is 17.6% after the retrofit. If AASHTO
(1996) LFD load group IA load factors are applied, the expected increase in live load
103
capacity is found as 20.7%. The computed deflections corresponding to ultimate load are
848 mm (33.4 in.) and 335 mm (13.2 in.) for the pre-retrofit and retrofit girders,
respectively. Significantly lower deflections after retrofitting attest to the benefits of CFRP
retrofits for increasing the overall stiffness.
The measured ultimate load of 326 kN (73.2 kips) is 19.4% higher than the
expected ultimate load of 273 kN (61.3 kips). Part of the reason for the conservative results
is probably due to the prestressing strand’s actual post-yield behavior being stronger and
stiffer than the assumed values, while part of the reason is surely due to the ability of the
CFRP to undergo higher strains than predicted before debonding. ACI 440 (2001)
recommendations forecast (with the recommended 0.85 FRP flexural strength reduction
factor) that the plates would debond at a strain of 7.45 milli-strains, while the plate actually
debonded at a strain of 8.50 milli-strains. Thus, ACI 440 calculations proved reasonable and
conservative.
3.6.6 Performance of Mechanical Anchors
The mechanical anchorage zones were designed to transfer force from the CFRP
plates to the girder after the epoxy-to-concrete bond had failed. The anchors did not
perform as expected. As explained in Section 3.6.2 and shown in Figure 3.8, after
debonding CFRP plate #2 immediately ripped free from the anchor zone. Testing
performed at the University of Cincinnati subsequent to this project, using similar CFRP
plate material, suggests that epoxy embedded threaded rods passing through the CFRP plate,
with a nut and oversize washer tightened to provide sufficient clamping capacity, can
improve the shear resistance of the bond by over 50% (Curtis et. al., 2002). Analytical
studies and tests of tensile specimens presented in the same report suggest that this increase
in bond capacity is due to the clamping force provided by the anchors, and not through
bearing of the CFRP plate against the anchors. This observation is due to the fact that the
104
unidirectional CFRP material does not have sufficient shear capacity to transfer any
reasonable loads through bearing. Further research in this area is warranted.
Full-scale testing of an ODOT B27x48 box girder was conducted to determine the
effectiveness of a flexural retrofit scheme consisting of four unidirectional carbon fiber
reinforced polymer plates bonded to the bottom flange of the girder. The retrofit scheme
included mechanical anchorage zones at the ends of the plates in an attempt to improve the
ductility. An analytical model was developed to predict the necessary strength of the
mechanical anchors. An analytical model was developed to predict ultimate loads and load-
deflection behavior of the girder with and without the applied retrofit scheme. Based upon
the discussions and data presented herein, the following conclusions are drawn.
1) Application of the CFRP retrofit was simple and quick. The total retrofit was
performed by a two-person crew in approximately 44 person-hours. This time is
expected to be reduced with more experience. Except for the sand blasting
equipment and proprietary epoxy gun, the application process did not involve any
heavy machinery or specialized equipment.
2) Available, simple, conservative design recommendations of ACI 440 are easily
applicable to prestressed members. The tested ultimate capacity of the retrofit girder
was 19.4% higher than that predicted by ACI 440 design recommendations.
3) The measured response of the retrofitted girder correlated well to a relatively simple
analytical model. Such models can be used to provide additional understanding of
the retrofit schemes above and beyond that provided by design guidelines. The
analytical model showed an increase of 20.7% in allowable live load capacity after
retrofit.
105
4) CFRP flexural retrofits tend to fail as a result of debonding of the plates. This mode
of failure can be sudden and catastrophic. The tested anchorage scheme failed due to
the CFRP plate splitting and pulling free of the anchors immediately after
debonding. It is possible that the anchorage system failed due to the inability of the
unidirectional CFRP material to transfer load to the anchors, due to a material defect
observed in the CFRP plate, or due to a combination of both. Further research is
warranted to develop proper means of anchoring the CFRP plates to the concrete
surface.
3.8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
standard, specification, regulation, or recommendation. Special thanks to Mr. Don Bosse
and the staff at Prestressed Services Inc. in Melborne, Kentucky for coordinating fabrication
of the test specimen to include placement of the embedded gages and for providing
sandblasting equipment. With the cooperation of Mr. Bob Thompson, Fiber Reinforced
Systems, located in Columbus, Ohio, supplied CFRP plates and epoxies. The faculty, staff,
and many current and former graduate students at the University of Cincinnati
Infrastructure Institute were influential in the achievement of this project, notably Ms. Julie
Pack for providing extensive assistance with the CFRP plate application and documentation
of the test results.
106
3.9 REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Collins, M. and Mitchell, D (1990). Prestressed Concrete Structures. Prentice Hall. Including
the RESPONSE program.
Curtis, K., Huber, D., and Øyen, P.E., (2002). “Use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Composite for Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” REU Final Report,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
fib, (2001). “Design and Use of Externally Bonded FRP Reinforcement (FRP EBR) for
Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Final Draft, Progress Report of fib EBR group,
International Concrete Foundation.
Gillum, A.J., Cole, J., Turer, A., Shahrooz, B.M., (1998). “Bond Characteristics of Portland
Cement Overlays on Sealed Existing Bridge Decks,” Report No. UC-CII 98/02, Cincinnati
Infrastructure Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Lagoda, G., and Lagoda M. (2000)“Bridge Strengthening by Reinforcement Bonding –

th
Strength and Aesthetics,” 16 Congress of IABSE, Structural Engineering for Meeting Urban
Transportation Challenges, Lucerne, Switzerland, September 18-21, pp. 384-385.
Mattock, A.H., (1979). “Flexural Strength of Precast Concrete Sections by Programmable

Calculator,” PCI Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Shahrooz, B.M., and Boy, S., (2001). “Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Bridges with
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites,” Report No. UC-CII 01/01, Cincinnati
Infrastructure Institute.
107
Concrete Design Measured
Compressive Stress (MPa) 37.9 66

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) N/A 36.2
CFRP Plate

Width (mm) 102 102
Mild Reinforcing Steel
Tensile Yield Stress (MPa) 414

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 200
Prestressing Steel
Tensile Ultimate Stress (MPa) 1862

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 196
108
Bearing pads (typ.)
Girder
Strong
floor Anchor (typ.) CFRP plates Pedestal (typ.)
1.83 m 1.68 m 11.0 m 1.68 m 1.83 m

Anchor zone Anchor zone
ELEVATION
127 mm 965 mm 127 mm
44.4 mm
140 mm 6 - No.5 bars* 50.8 mm
419 mm
127 mm 16 - 12.7 mm diameter 1861 MPa low relax strands

50.8 mm
4 - 102x1.17 mm CFRP plates

*Diameter of No.5 bar = 15.9 mm
SECTION
(anchors not shown)
Figure 3.1. Retrofit Girder
109
TO MIDSPAN
Neoprene washer
thickness = 2.36 mm
Steel washer
thickness = 3.18 mm
Steel anchor
diameter = 6.35 mm
length = 31.8 mm
12 spaces
at 140 mm
31.8 mm
typ.
Figure 3.2. Anchor Zone Detail

Viewed facing up.
110
(a)
(b)
Wood board - 38.1x63.5 mm
Threaded rod
diameter = 6.35 mm
CFRP plates
Wood board - 63.5x38.1 mm
(c)
Figure 3.3. Retrofit Formwork

(a) Elevation showing formwork loosely supporting plate, (b) elevation showing formwork tightened, and (c) section.
111
(a)
EAST
5.94 m 6.10 m 5.94 m
(b)
Figure 3.4. Loading Configuration

Viewed (a) facing north-east, and (b) facing north.
112
SOUTH FACE
(viewed facing north)
Locations measured from 4.42 5.94 8.99 12.04 13.56

center of west support (m)
4
3
2
1
BOTTOM SURFACE
(viewed facing up)
Wire-potentiometer to measure displacements

Clip-gage placed over crack to measure crack opening (both sides, locations provided in Appendix C.4)
Clip-gage placed on top-center of beam to measure concrete strain
Foil-gage placed on CFRP plate to measure plate strain
Foil-gage placed on concrete to measure concrete strain
Figure 3.5. External Instrumentation Diagram
113
CL
88.9 mm
241 mm
222 mm
222 mm
50.8 mm
SECTION AT MIDSPAN
Location of vibrating-wire strain-gage

Location of prestessing strand or longitudinal reinforcing steel
Figure 3.6. Locations of Vibrating-wire Strain-gages

Viewed facing east.
114
350
300
250
Load per Point (kN)
Debonding failure
200 of CFRP plate #2
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Figure 3.7. Measured Midspan Load-Deflection Response
115
PLATE #2 a
WEST END c
d e b
f
g
Anchor
Plate Internal Delamination
Interfacial Failure
Plate Still Bonded or Bond not Exposed

0 60 120 mm
Split in Plate Scale: 1:6
Figure 3.8. Failure of CFRP Plate #2 in West Anchor Zone

Plan view.
116
Distances
from west 1.52 m 7.49 m 13.94 m
plate end
1.68 m 5.79 m 7.85 m 10.49 m 14.07 m
30.2 mm
f h
4.8 mm
3.2 mm
28.6 mm
4.8 mm
30.2 mm
25.4 mm
Splitting failure in plate

Material defect Vertical scale = 1:2
Material defect (traces) Horizontal scale = 1:80
Figure 3.9. Locations of Plate Splitting Failure and Material Defects

Plan view.
117
Figure 3.10. (a) Observed Cracks and Local Plate Debonding
118
Figure 3.10. (b) Observed Cracks and Local Plate Debonding
119
Figure 3.10. (c) Observed Cracks and Local Plate Debonding
120
Figure 3.10. (d) Observed Cracks and Local Plate Debonding
121
Figure 3.10. (e) Observed Cracks and Local Plate Debonding
122
P=151 kN
P=187 kN
P=245 kN
Height on Section (mm)
P=280 kN
P=307 kN
P=325 kN
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strain*100
Figure 3.11. Midspan Strain Profile at Various Loads
350
300
Load per Point (kN)
250
200
150
100
Expected Pre-retrofit
50 Expected Retrofit
Test Data
0
0 150 300 450 600 750 900
Figure 3.12. Theoretical versus Tested Load-Deflection Curves
123
APPENDICES FOR
CHAPTER 1
124
APPENDIX A.1
MATERIAL TEST SUMMARY
125
Appendix A.1.1. Rebar Tensile Specimen Test Results
Rebar Tensile Specimen Test Results
Gage Length (in) Fy Fu Rupture
The reinforcing bars were 60 grade deformed
Specimen original rupture (ksi) (ksi) Strain
steel. Specimens were fabricated and tested per
ASTM Specification A 370 “Standard Test Methods R1* 1.96 2.37 0.208
and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel R2 1.98 2.38 67.65 114.65 0.203
Products.” The 0.002 offset method was used to R3 1.97 2.39 68.2 115.21 0.214
determine Fy. Strain data were collected with a
strain-extensometer. Strain data appeared Average: 67.925 114.93 0.208
incorrect (the modulus of elasticity was much too
low), probably due to the use of an incorrect gage
*Specimen R1 was loaded quickly past yield,
factor, so a multiplication factor for the strain data
unloaded, and loaded to failure. Stress-strain
was used to adjust modulus of elasticity to
relationship appears different from other two
29,000-ksi. Note that this correction does not
specimens. For this reason, R1 data were not used for
affect the ultimate stress nor rupture strain, and
Fy or Fu calculations.
only very slightly affects yield stress calculations.
100 100 100
Rebar Coupon R1 Rebar Coupon R2 Rebar Coupon R3
75 75 75
Stress (ksi)
Fy = 67.6-ksi Fy = 68.2-ksi
Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi)
50 50 50
25 25 25
0 0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain (in/in) Strain (in/in) Strain (in/in)
126
Appendix A.1.2. CFRP Tensile Specimen Test Results
CFRP Tensile Specimen Test Results
CFRP plates were of the pultruded unidirectional type with an ambient cured epoxy resin. Specimens were fabricated and tested
per ASTM Specification D 3039/D 3039M “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials.”
Maximum Maximum Modulus of
Thickness* Width* Area Force Stress Elasticity
Specimen (in) (in) (in2) (kips) (ksi) (ksi) Notes
T1 0.047 0.993 0.0467 16.02 343.1 19,204 broke explosively at grips, strain gaged
T4 0.046 0.996 0.0455 17.00 373.9 broke explosively at grips
Average: 354.0 18,655
Standard Deviation: 16.85 484.7
*Thickness and width measured at three points along specimen and averaged.
350 350 350
CFRP Tensile Specimen T1 CFRP Tensile Specimen T2 CFRP Tensile Specimen T3
300 300 300
E = 19204 E = 18473
E = 18287
250 R2 = 0.9976 250 2
R = 0.9978 250 2
R = 0.9969
Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi)
200 200 200

150 150 150
100 100 100
50 50 50
0 0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain (in/in) Strain (in/in) Strain (in/in)
127
Appendix A.1.3. Concrete Mix Design and Test Results
6000-psi Concrete Mix Design
Weight Volume
(lbs/yard3) (ft3)
Cement (Type 1) 705 3.58

Water (w/c=0.43) 303 4.86
Fine Aggregate 1218 7.4
Coarse Aggregate (#8) 1884 11.14
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SPLIT CYLINDERS

Tensile
Load Stress Load Stress
Specimen (lbs) (psi) Specimen (lbs) (psi)
C1 288399 10200 C5 80396 711
C2 277620 9819 C6 82459 729
C3 260415 9210 C7 69200 612
C4 257381 9103
Average: 9583 Average: 684

Standard Deviation: 518 Standard Deviation: 63.1
Specimens were 6"x12" cyclinders cast during concrete pour and wet cured under
plastic with beams for two weeks. Tests were performed following ASTM
Specifications C 39/C 39M "Standart Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens," and C 496 "Standard Test Method for Splitting
Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens."
128
APPENDIX A.2
60 kip Test Frame
129
134
Top Beam
W10x49
124
Extender
W8x24
95
Column
W8x67
Bearing 4615/16
Plate 4515/16
Beam
Roller 3315/16
Support 301/4
Load Cell
21
14
Concrete
Pedestal Floor Beam
W14x68
48 in.
Designed for use with 60-kip actuator and tie-down conguration as provided
at University of Cincinnati Large Scale Test Facility. Elevations for R/C Beam
static tests are shown in inches.
Appendix A.2.1. 60 kip Test Frame Elevation
130
BRACE DETAIL
(quantity 6)
3/8" thick rubber bearing
3 wood screws
both sides
4"x4" lumber
1/2" thick
1 plywood
both sides
1/2" bolt
2"x4" lumber
1/2" Epoxy
embeded
2 threaded
rods
Fatigue test setup identical to static test setup (as shown in Figure 1.2) except:
1 - Bearing plate not used at load point
2 - Reinforced neoprene bearing pads measuring 1.5x5.25x10.5 in.
used as supports
3 - Bracing system constructed of timber to prevent momement of specimen
Appendix A.2.2. Fatigue Test Setup
131
as built rotate
bolt pattern 90o
both sides
Appendix A.2.3. 60 kip Test Frame Shop Drawings
132
133
134
Appendix A.2.4. 60 kip Test Frame Design Calculations
135
136
137
138
APPENDIX A.3
RETROFIT DESIGN CALCULATIONS
139
Problem Statement: Design and detail a CFRP plate retrofit for the shown reinforced
concrete section. The beam is simply supported with a span of 166 in. Loading consists
of selfweight (dead load) and a point load at midspan (live load). A 20% increase in live
load capacity is desired. Use ACI 440 Committee Report (October 2001) and ACI 318
(1999) for calculations. Neglect initial strains in section at time of retrofit (i.e. ε bi = 0 ,
where ε bi is the initial strain at bottom of concrete section due to all existing loads at
time of retrofit) since member will be supported and the moment at midspan will be
approximately zero.
b
εc
c β 1c 0.85f’c
d
h
As
εs
As fs
Af ffe
εfe
Af = n tf bp
Reinforced Concrete Strain Diagram Stress Diagram
Cross Section (Equivalent Concrete Stress
(Shown After Retrofit) Distribution using Whitney
Stress Block)
Figure A.3.1
Dimensions Concrete Steel CFRP plate

b = 10 in f'c = 6000 psi fy = 60,000 psi f*fu = 300,000 psi
d = 10.06 in Es = 29,000,000 psi Ef = 18,000,000 psi
h = 12 in As = 1.8 in2 tf = 0.045 in
L = 166 in Av = 0.22 in2 @ 5 in bp = 4.0 in
Where: b = width of section

d = distance from extreme compression fiber to tensile reinforcement
h = depth of section
L = span length measured center-to-center of bearing
140
f′ c = specified compressive strength of concrete
fy = yield stress of steel reinforcement
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement
As = area of longitudinal steel reinforcement
Av = area of shear steel reinforcement
f*fu = ultimate tensile strength of FRP reinforcement as reported by the
manufacturer
Ef = tensile modulus of elasticity of FRP
tf = thickness of plate
bp = width of FRP plate
Af = area of FRP plate
εc = strain level in concrete

Initial calculation.
6000 − 4000
β 1 = 0.85 − 0.05 = 0.75 (ACI 318-99 Sect. 10.2.7.3)
1000
Ec = 57000 f 'c = 57000 6000 = 4,415,000 psi (ACI 318-99 Sect. 8.5.1)
Where: β1 = concrete factor
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
Determine capacity before flexural retrofit.

Per ACI 318-99 calculations:
φM n = 875 k − in
φVn = 35 .8 kips
Where: φ = strength reduction factor
Mn = nominal flexural strength of section
Vn = nominal flexural strength of section
Find the live load capacity, PLL , under three-point loading due to flexure at midspan:
0.15
wDL = (12 × 10) = 0.0104 kips / in
12 3
0.0104 × 166 2
M DL = = 35.8 k − in
8
141
PLL × L
φM n = 1.4M DL + 1.7
4
4 × (875 − 1.4 × 35.8)
⇒ PLL = = 11.7 kips
1.7 × 166
Where: wDL = self weight of section
MDL = moment due to dead load
Find capacity due to shear conservatively taken at supports:
0.0104 × 166
VDL = = 0.86 kips
2
P
φVn = 1.4VDL + 1.7 LL
2
2 × (35.8 − 1.4 × 0.86)
⇒ PLL = = 40.7 kips
1.7
Where: VDL = shear force at section due to dead load
∴ PLL = 11.7 kips governed by flexural capacity.

Design CFRP plate flexural retrofit for a 20% increase in live load capacity.
Desired capacity:
PLL = 1.2 × 11.7 = 14.0 kips
14.0 × 166
⇒ φM n = 1.4 × 35.8 + 1.7 × = 1,039 k − in
4
Since PLL = 14.0 kips < 40.7 kips the shear capacity will not be exceeded with retrofit.
Check that retrofit capacity will not exceed strengthening limits established by ACI 440
Section 8.2:
(φRn )existing ≥ (1.2 S DL + 0.85 S LL )new (ACI 440 Eq. 8-1)
Where: Rn = nominal capacity of a member

SDL = dead load acting on a member
SLL = live load acting on a member
For flexural capacity increase:
(φRn )existing = (φM n )existing = 875 k − in
(1.2 S DL + 0.85 S LL )new = (1.2 M DL + 0.85 M LL )new
 14 ×166 
= 1.2 × 35.8 + 0.85 ×  = 537 k − in
 4 
142
Since 875 k-in > 537 k-in O.K.
Try a single 4” x 0.045” CFRP plate.
Determine design material properties after environmental exposure reduction:
C E = 0.85 (ACI 440 Table 8.1)
f fu = C E f fu* = 0.85 × 300000 = 255,000 psi (ACI 440 Eq. 8-3)
ε fu = C E ε *fu = 0.85 × 0.01667 = 0.01417 (ACI 440 Eq. 8-4)
Where: CE = environmental-reduction factor

ffu = design ultimate tensile strength of FRP reinforcement
εfu = design rupture strain of FRP reinforcement
ε∗fu = ultimate rupture strain of FRP reinforcement
Because material is linear until failure:
f fu 255,000
Ef = = = 18,000,000 psi (ACI 440 Eq. 8-5)
ε fu 0.01417
Determine the bond dependent coefficient, κ m , of the CFRP plates:
nE f t f = 1 × 18,000,000 × 0.045 = 810,000
1  nEf tf 
κm = 1 −  ≤ 0.90 for n E f t f ≤ 1,000,000
60ε fu  2,000,000  (ACI 440 Eq. 9-2)
1  810,000 
⇒ κm = 1 −  = 0.700
60 × 0.01417  2,000,000 
Where: n = number of plies of FRP reinforcement
The maximum strain or effective strain in the CFRP plate at the ultimate-limit state,εfe,
and the effective stress level in the plate, ffe, are given by:
h−c
ε fe = ε cu   − ε bi ≤ κ m ε fu (ACI 440 Eq. 9-3)
 c 
f fe = E f ε fe (ACI 440 Eq. 9-4)
Where: εcu = ultimate concrete compressive strain = 0.003

c = depth of neutral axis measure from top of section
143
Apply this to the given cross section assuming failure is governed by crushing of concrete
after yield of steel:
From the sum of the forces acting on section:
0.85 f ' c β 1c b = f y As + f fe A f (A.3.1)
From strain distribution in the section

εf 0.003
= (A.3.2)
h−c c
Combining Equations (A.3.1), (A.3.2), and (ACI 440 Eq. 9-4):
h−c
0.85 f ' c β 1c b = f y As + 0.003 Ef A
c
(A.3.3)
12 − c
⇒ (0.85 × 6000 × 0.75 × 10) c = 60 × 1.8 + 0.003 18,500,000 × 0.18
c
Solving (A.3.3) ⇒ c = 3.45 in
Check that effective strain in plate is less than κ m ε fu :
κ m ε fu = 0.7 × 0.01417 = 0.00992
c 3.45
ε fe = 0.003 = 0.003 = 0.00742 < 0.00993 O.K.
h−c 12 − 3.45
Check that strain in steel is above yield:
60,000
εy = = 0.00207
29,000,000
d −c 10.06 − 3.45
ε s = 0.003 = 0.003 = 0.00575 > 0.00207 O.K.
c 3.45
Where: εy = yield strain of longitudinal steel reinforcement
εs = strain in longitudinal steel reinforcement
The nominal flexural capacity is given by:
 β c  β c
M n = As f s  d − 1  + ψ f A f f fe  h − 1  (ACI 440 Eq. 9-11)
 2   2 
Where: ψ f = FRP reinforcement additional material strength reduction
factor
fs = stress in steel reinforcement
f fe = 18,000,000 × 0.00742 = 134,000 psi (ACI 440 Eq. 9-4)
144
 0.75 × 3.45   0.75 × 3.45 
⇒ M n = 1.8 × 60,00010.06 −  + 0.85 × 0.18 × 134,00012 − 
 2   2 
= 1,166,000 lb − in = 1,166 k − in
Determine the strength reduction factor and factored nominal moment:
φ = 0.90 for ε s ≥ 0.005 (ACI 440 Eq. 9-5)
∴ φM n = 0.90 × 1166 = 1,050 k − in

Check serviceability of section under service loads. Per ACI 440 Section 9.4 stress in
steel under service loads should not exceed 0.8fy to prevent excessive cracking and
deformations.
From a cracked transform section analysis:
Es
ns = = 6.57 y NA ,top
Ec
Ef d
nf = = 4.98 h
Ec
nsAs
I trans = 693 in 4
nfAf
y NA ,top = 4 in
Figure A.3.2
Where: nf = modular ratio of elasticity of FRP reinforcement to concrete

ns = modular ratio of elasticity of reinforcing steel to concrete
Itrans = moment of inertia of cracked transform section
y NA,top = depth of neutral axis measured from the top of the section
The moment at midspan under service loads, M service , is:
14 × 166
M service = 35.8 + = 617 k − in
4
The stress in the steel is found from:
M service (d − y NA,top ) 617 × (10.06 − 4)
f s = ns = 6.57 = 35.4 ksi < 0.8 f y = 48 ksi
I trans 693
O.K.
145
Since φM n = 1050 k − in > 1039 k − in a single plate retrofit provides sufficient
increase in flexural capacity.
Determine cutoff points of CFRP plate

Per ACI 440 Section 12.1.1, it is necessary to provide sufficient shear area to prevent
debonding due to concrete interfacial and normal stresses. According to Brosens and van
Gemert as presented by Teng et. al. (2002), the ultimate load, Pu, on a bonded plate due
to concrete shear failure is given by:
Pu = 0.5b p Lb f ctm (Teng et. al. Eq. 2.10)
Where: Lb = bond length

fctm = concrete tensile strength
The ultimate load on the plate is equal to the force at debonding, which is directly related
to the strain at debonding, ε fe , through the relationship Pu = t f b p E f ε fe . Solving these
relationships and applying the ACI 440 recommended safety factor of two gives the
allowable bond length as:
t f E f ε fe
2 Lb = 4 (A.3.4)
f ctm
Teng et. al. (2002) gives the concrete tensile strength as 0.53 f 'c (MPa). Thus, the
concrete tensile strength is taken as f ctm = 0.53 41.4 = 3.41 MPa = 494 psi . Solving
(A.3.4) gives:
0.045 × 18,000,000 × 0.00992
2 Lb = 4 = 65.1 in
494
To be conservative, the plate should extend this length past the point where the factored
moment on the beam is equal to the pre-retrofit resistance (i.e., the plate is developed for
every section resisting any moment above pre-retrofit capacity). The equation defining
the moment, M, along the span is found from
M ( x) =
(1.4wDL )x (L − x ) + (1.7 PLL )x (A.3.5)
2 2
Where: x = distance of section as measured from a support
146
Solving this equation for the pre-retrofit resistance, M = 875 k-in, and the retrofit load,
PLL = 14 kip, gives x = 69.4 in. Thus, to provide a sufficient shear area, the plates should
terminate no further than 69.4 − 65.1 = 4.3 in from the centerline of the supports.
Per ACI 440 Section 12.1.2 the plate should extend a distance d past the point along the
span corresponding to the cracking moment, Mcr, under factored loads.
From a gross transform section analysis (section shown in Figure A.3.3), where I trans , gross
is the uncracked transform moment of inertia:

y NA ,top
I trans , gross = 1619 in 4
d h
y NA ,top = 6.35 in
(ns-1)As
nfAf
Figure A.3.3
The cracking rupture stress, fr, of the concrete is taken as:
f r = 7.5 f ' c = 7.5 6000 = 581 psi (ACI 318 Eq. 9-9)
Then the cracking moment, Mcr, is found by:
f r (h − y NA,top ) 581(12 − 6.35) 1

M cr = = × = 166 k − in
I trans , gross 1619 1000
The equation defining the moment along the span is given by (A.3.5). Plugging in values,
setting equal to the cracking moment, and solving for M = Mcr, gives the location
corresponding to the cracking moment, xcr = 12.6 in
∴ The plate should terminate no further than xcr − d = 12.6 − 10.02 = 2.58 in from the
centerline of supports.
ACI 440 Section 12.1.2 states that transverse reinforcement should be provided if the
factored shear force at the termination point is greater than 2/3 the concrete shear stress.
147
This is to prevent premature concrete cover delamination. The ultimate shear, Vu, at the
termination point is conservatively taken as that at support:
PLL 14
Vu = 1.4VDL + 1.7 = 1.4 × 0.86 + 1.7 = 13.1 kips
2 2
Concrete shear stress, Vc , is given by:
6000
Vc = 2 f ' c bw d = 2 12 × 10.02 = 18.6 kips
1000
Since Vu = 13.1 kips > 12.4 kips = 2 / 3Vc external transverse reinforcement should be
provided to prevent concrete cover delamination.
Retrofit should consist of a single CFRP plate terminated 2.5 in from centerline of
supports.
148
APPENDIX A.4
NOMENCLATURE
149
As = area of longitudinal steel reinforcement
b = width of section
c = depth of neutral axis measure from top of section
CE = environmental-reduction factor
ffe = stress level in FRP reinforcement attained at section failure
f*fu = ultimate tensile strength of FRP reinforcement as reported by the
manufacturer
fr = rupture stress of concrete
fs = stress in steel reinforcement
h = depth of section
Itrans = moment of inertia of cracked transform section
Itrans,gross = moment of inertia of uncracked transform section
L = span length measured center-to-center of bearing
Lb = bond length of FRP reinforcement
M = moment at a section
Mcr = moment causing flexural cracking at section
MDL = moment due to dead load
MLL = moment due to live load
150
M service = moment at midspan under service loads
n = number of plies of FRP reinforcement
nf = modular ratio of elasticity of FRP reinforcement to concrete
ns = modular ratio of elasticity of reinforcing steel to concrete
PLL = allowable live load

Pu = ultimate load resisted by plate
Rn = nominal capacity of a member
SDL = dead load acting on a member
SLL = live load acting on a member
tf = thickness of plate
VDL = shear force at section due to dead load
Vn = nominal flexural strength of section
Vu = ultimate shear load acting at section
wDL = self weight of section
x = distance of section as measured from a support
xcr = distance of the section corresponding to M*cr as measured from a support
y NA,top = depth of neutral axis measured from the top of the section
β1 = concrete factor
εbi = initial strain at bottom of concrete section due to all existing loads at time of
retrofit
εc = strain level in concrete
εcu = ultimate concrete compressive strain = 0.003
εfe = strain level in FRP reinforcement attained at section failure
εy = yield strain of longitudinal steel reinforcement
εs = strain in longitudinal steel reinforcement
κm = bond dependent coefficient for flexure
φ = strength reduction factor
ψf = FRP reinforcement additional material strength reduction factor
151
APPENDICES FOR
CHAPTER 2
152
APPENDIX B.1
MEG-124-6.78 COUNTY BOX GIRDER RETROFIT DESIGN
153
Retrofit Design Philosophy
The design of a retrofit for the MEG-124-7.68 box girder is presented using concepts
of reinforced concrete theory, the AASHTO “Standard Specification for Highway
Bridges” (1996), and ACI Committee 440 (2001) design recommendations. For the
purpose of these calculations, the critical section will be considered as the section 5 ft.
from the centerline of supports (i.e., 3 ft. from the obtuse corner) at both ends of the
beam. This value was the average measured location of the unreinforced section. The
critical section has no prestressed reinforcement, and has mild steel only in the top flange
and composite slab. Externally bonded CFRP flexural reinforcement, consisting of
4x0.045 in. plates, will be designed to resist the worst of two cases.
1. φM n ≥ 1.2M cr (AASHTO Spec. Eq. 8-62)
2. φM n ≥ M u ,v
Where: M n = Nominal design strength of section with CFRP plate retrofit.

Mcr = Moment causing cracking of the section.
M u ,v = Ultimate factored moment on section under AASHTO load cases
adjusted to include effects of tensile force in bottom flange due to

shear on a cracked section.
φ = strength reduction factor, 0.70 per ACI 440 (Eq. 9-9) for
brittle (i.e., nonductile) failure mode.
CFRP plates will be detailed to develop the prestress-strands towards midspan, and the
mild reinforcing steel towards the supports.
Calculation Method
A fiber analysis was used to predict the flexural response of the critical section by
utilizing the computer program RESPONSE (Collins and Mitchell, 1991). The section
geometry shown in Figure B.1.1 was input. Note that fillets within the void were ignored
for simplicity, the web is modeled as a single blocks, and the top flange width is slightly
less than that of the bottom flange to approximate concrete area removed by saw cuts on
the test specimen. The black circles represent mild reinforcing steel, and the black
rectangle at the bottom of the section represents the CFRP plates. As is the area of mild
154
reinforcing steel, and Af is the area of CFRP plate. Three models were developed in
RESPONSE for the purpose of this analysis.
1) The precast section, shown in dark gray in Figure B.1.1 and not including the
CFRP plates, was used to determine the initial strains in the precast section at the
time the topping concrete was poured, and at the time of retrofit.
2) The composite section, the entire section shown in Figure B.1.1 excluding the
CFRP plates, was used to determine the cracking moment capacity.
3) The retrofit section, the entire section shown in Figure B.1.1 including the CFRP
plates, was used to determine the effectiveness of retrofits by varying the number
of plates, N.
Figure B.1.1. Cross Section
Initial strains in the section during casting of slab and at time of CFRP retrofit
were found by conducting a RESPONSE analysis involving the precast section (i.e., the
dark gray section in Figure B.1.1) under load from self-weight and weight of topping
concrete. The weight of the section, including the topping, was found as 0.851 kip/ft. This
load resulted in a dead load moment of 85.1 kip-ft at the critical section at the time the
topping was poured, which was also the dead load moment at the time of the CFRP
application. Under this moment, the initial strain profile ranged linearly from –0.096 to
0.087 milli strains from top to bottom of the precast section (compression being
negative). These values were input into the composite and retrofit models as initial strains
155
for the precast section. For both the composite and retrofit models, the composite topping
had an initial strain of zero, and for the retrofit model the CFRP plates had an initial
strain of zero.
The RESPONSE program allows the input of multiple concrete material types.
For this analysis the “High Strength” concrete model was chosen because it provides
better material behavior estimates than the simpler “Parabolic” model (e.g., Collins and
Mitchell, 1991). The following properties were input into RESPONSE, where f ' c is the
concrete ultimate compressive stress and ε 'c is the corresponding strain.
Precast Beam: f ' c = 5500 psi ε ' c = 2.08 milli strains

Composite Topping: f ' c = 4000 psi ε ' c = 1.94 milli strains
Reinforcing bars were modeled as elastic-perfectly-plastic with modulus of elasticity, E =
29,000 ksi, and yield stress, fy = 60 ksi. The CFRP plates were modeled as linear elastic
with a modulus of elasticity, Ef = 18,000 ksi.
Determine 1.2Mcr
The modulus of rupture, f r , for normal weight concrete is found as
f r = 7.5 f ' c = 556 psi (AASHTO Spec. Section 8.15.2.1)
From the composite model of the critical section (i.e., without CFRP retrofit), the
cracking moment, Mcr, (i.e., the moment causing a stress equal to fr in the tension face)
was found in RESPONSE as:
M cr = 180 k − ft
Therefore,
1.2 M *cr = 216 k − ft
Determine Mu,v
According to reinforced concrete theory as explained by the truss analogy, shear
on a cracked concrete section results in tensile forces in the longitudinal reinforcement in
addition to those caused by flexure. This increase in tensile force can be accounted for by
shifting the moment diagram a distance of jd /( 2 tan θ ) towards the supports
(MacGregor, 1997), where jd is the depth to the FRP reinforcement from the centroid of
the compression zone and θ is the angle of the shear compression struts. For the purpose
156
of this analysis, a value of θ = 45 O was used because this angle was approximately the
value seen during previous inspection and testing (e.g., Zhang, 1999). The value jd was
taken conservatively as 27 in. (i.e., the entire depth of the section). These values result in
a shift of the moment envelop 1.125 ft. towards the supports. The computer program
ConspanLA was used to find the moment envelope of the member. The bridge from
which the test girder had been removed was analyzed under AASHTO LFD load cases
HS20 and Alt. Military. A printout of the ConspanLA inputs is given at the end of this
appendix. The moment due to self-weight (including the 1.3 AASHTO load factor) was
added to find the ultimate moment envelope as shown in Figure B.1.2.
900
Critical Section ML
MLL
800 MD
MDL
700 Mu
Mu
Factored Moment (k-ft)
Mu,v
Mu,v
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Location Along Memeber(ft)
Figure B.1.2. Bending Moment Diagram
The result of including the tension force due to shear is that the ultimate moment at the
critical section adjusted for shear, Mu,v = 406 k-ft. The increased moment is 17% larger
than the the ultimate moment without accounting for shear effects, i.e., Mu = 347 k-ft.
Determine number of required CFRP plates
The number of CFRP plates should be such that
1.2 M cr 216
 φ = = 308 k − ft
0 .7
M n ≥ max 

M u ,v 406 ⇐ governs
= = 580 k − ft
 φ 0 .7
Determine design material properties for CFRP plate after environmental exposure
reduction factor.
157
C E = 0.85 (ACI 440 Table 8.1)
ε fu = C E ε *fu = 0.85 × 0.01667 = 0.01417 (ACI 440 Eq. 8-4)

f*fu = ultimate tensile strength of the FRP material as reported
by the manufacturer
Because material is linear until failure
f fu 255,000
Ef = = = 18,000,000 psi (ACI 440 Eq. 8-5)
ε fu 0.01417
Determine the bond dependent coefficient, κ m , of the CFRP plates.
nE f t f = 1 × 18,000,000 × 0.045 = 810,000
1  nEf tf 
κm = 1 −  ≤ 0.90 for n E f t f ≤ 1,000,000
60ε fu  2,000,000  (ACI 440 Eq. 9-2)
1  810,000 
⇒ κm = 1 −  = 0.700
60 × 0.01417  2,000,000 
Since FRP strengthening schemes are known to debond before reaching fracture strain,
the nominal moment is taken as that causing a strain in the plate equal to the predicted
debonding strain per ACI 440. The maximum strain in the CFRP plate at the ultimate-
limit state and the effective stress level in the plate, ε fe , will be governed by debonding at
an effective plate strain given by κ m ε fu . ACI 440 suggests an additional strength
reduction of ψ = 0.85 applied to the plate contribution at failure. Thus, the ultimate state
is that predicted by the RESPOSE model of the retrofit section when the strain in the
plate is equal to:
ε fe = ψκ m ε fu = 0.85 × 0.7 × 0.01417 = 0.00843
158
By varying the CFRP plate area and solving for the moment causing the
preceding strain, RESPONSE was used to create Table B.1.1.
Table B.1.1. Strength of Various Retrofits
Af Mn
2
N (in ) (k-ft)
4 0.72 273
6 1.08 388
7 1.26 445
8 1.44 501
9 1.62 558
10 1.8 615
12 2.16 727
Due to an oversight during original calculations, the debonding strain was not reduced by
the ψ factor. From the RESPONSE analysis of the section with 8 CFRP plates, with an
ultimate plate strain, ε fe = κ m ε fu = 0.7 × 0.01417 = 0.00992 , the nominal moment is:
M n = 589 k − ft > 580 k − ft

Therefore, an 8-plate retrofit scheme was chosen although a 10-plate retrofit scheme
would be the minimum to satisfy the desired strengthening scheme.
Detail retrofit scheme
The CFRP plates should be detailed to develop themselves and the reinforcing steel
or prestressing-strands in both direction from the critical section. The maximum of two
lengths, measured in both directions from the critical section, was chosen for the CFRP
plates. These lengths were:
1) The development length of the reinforcing steel, lds, or prestressing strands, ldp ,
plus the anchorage length, La, of the CFRP plates. This selection was made to
keep the very high interfacial shear and normal forces that exist over the
anchorage length of FRP plates (e.g., ACI 440, 2001) outside of the transition
zone.
2) The bond length, Lb, of the CFRP plate necessary to prevent the concrete from
failing due to interfacial shear and normal stresses.
159
Extending from the critical section towards the support, plates should have a length, Ld1.
Extending towards midspan, the plates should have a length, Ld2. As shown in Figure
B.1.3 and described above,
l + L a
Ld 1 ≥ max  ds
 Lb
l + La
Ld 2 ≥ max  dp
 Lb
where: lds = development length of non-prestressed steel reinforcement
ldp = development length of prestressing strand reinforcement
La = anchorage length of FRP reinforcement
Figure B.1.3. Length of CFRP Plates

The prestressing strand development length was taken from the Design Aid 11.2.6
in the PCI Design Handbook (1999) as ldp = 78.3 in. for a 7-wire, ½ in-diameter, 270 ksi
low relaxation strand.
The development length of grade 60 deformed No. 5 mild reinforcing steel was
determined per AASHTO section 8.25.
 0.04 Ab f y 0.04 × 0.31 × 60000
 = = 10.0 in.
 f ' c 5500
l ds = max 0.0004d b f y = 0.0004 × 0.625 × 60000 = 15.0 in.
 12 in.


160
Where: Ab = area of individual steel reinforcing bar
db = diameter of steel reinforcing bar
⇒ l ds = 15.0 in .
The plate anchorage length was calculated using Teng and Chen’s (e.g., Teng, et
al., 2002) proposed bond model. The CFRP plate’s effective length, Le , is found as
Ef tf 124000MPa × 1.143mm
Le = = = 151.7 mm = 5.97 in.
f 'c 37.92 MPa
Section 3.8.1 of this reference recommends using an anchorage length of two times the
calculated effective length. Thus, the anchorage length of the CFRP is La = 11.9 in .
It is necessary to provide sufficient shear area to prevent debonding due to
concrete interfacial and normal stresses. According to Brosens and van Gemert as
presented by Teng et. al. (2002), the ultimate load, Pu, on a bonded plate due to concrete
shear failure is given by:
where: bp = width of plate

to the strain at debonding, ε fe , through the relationship Pu = t f b p E f ε fe , where tf is the
thickness of the plate. Solving these relationships gives the bond length necessary to
prevent concrete interfacial failure as:
t f E f ε fe
Lb = 2
f ctm
(A.3.4) for Lb gives:
0.045 × 18,000,000 × 0.00843
Lb = 2 = 28.9 in.
473
161
Note that ACI 440 suggests a strength reduction factor of 0.5 for bond strength. Because
insufficient bond length is available towards the supports, the 0.7 strength reduction
factor already applied to the moment is deemed sufficient for test purposes. Therefore,
the necessary development lengths are:
l + La = 15 + 11.9 = 26.9 in.
Ld 1 ≥ max  ds
 Lb = 28.9 in. ⇐ governs
 l + La = 78.3 + 11.9 = 90.2 in. ⇐ governs
Ld 2 ≥ max  dp
 Lb = 28.9 in.
Final Retrofit Scheme
To satisfy the above calculations, the retrofit scheme was chosen as that shown in
Figure B.1.4. Note that the chosen plate lengths are slightly more than required for
conservativeness and to allow for field tolerances. Also, note that 30 in. is the maximum
possible plate length from the critical section towards the supports due to the location of
the bearing pads. The plates will be applied in pairs for ease of installation.
Figure B.1.4. Final Retrofit Scheme
162
Printout of ConspanLA Input:
PROJECT DATA
------------
Project : Meigs Box Girder
Designer : Matt Bolduc
Date : Feb/7/2002
User job number:
State : OH State Job #:
Comments : this analysis used to get AASHTO loading for Meigs Co. bridge
Design Mode: : AASHTO STANDARD (LFD)-US Units
File Name: : \\riverwind\students\mmbolduc\Desktop\Conspan_meigs00.csl
BRIDGE LAYOUT CONCRETE PROPERTIES

------------- -------------------
Overall width , ft = 35.000 Precast C.I.P.
Left curb , ft = 2.000 f'c ,psi = 5500.000 4500.000
Right curb , ft = 2.000 Wc ,pcf = 150.000 150.000
curb-to-curb width, ft = 31.000 Ec ,ksi = 4496.060 4066.840
Number of spans = 1 f'ci,psi = 4000.000
Number of lanes = 2 Eci ,ksi = 3834.250
Lane width , ft = 12.000
Topping thickness , in = 6.000
Suppl. thickness , in = 0.000
Haunch thickness , in = 0.000
Haunch width , in = 0.000
Bridge c/s, MI , in4 = 1632874.63
SPAN DATA
---------
Precast length , ft = 45.000
Bearing-to-bearing, ft = 45.000
Release span , ft = 45.000
BEAM DATA
---------
No ID Loc-prev Area M.I Height Yb B-topg B-Trib
ft in2 in4 in in in ft
1 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 6.000
2 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 4.000
3 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 4.000
4 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 4.000
5 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 3.500
6 AB_B-II 36 3.000 620.9 85152.0 33.00 16.29 36.00 3.500
7 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 4.000
8 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 4.000
9 AB_B-II 48 4.000 752.9 110498.0 33.00 16.33 48.00 2.000
163
LOADS ON PRECAST
----------------
UNITS: (Point: kips, Location: ft)
(Line: klf)
DIAPHRAGM LOADS (kips, ft)

---------------
LOADS ON COMPOSITE
------------------
(Line: klf)
(Area: ksf, Width: ft)
LOADS ON SUPPLEMENTAL
------------------
(Line: klf)
(Area: ksf, Width: ft)
LIVE LOADS
----------
ID: HS20 Truck (Type: Truck Load)
ID: Military Truck (Type: Truck Load)
LIVE LOAD LIBRARY: Default.cs4

2 ID : HS20 Truck
Description: HS20 Truck as in AASHTO-STANDARD
Type : Truck Load
Uniform Load Intensity, klf Location,ft Length,ft
Preceding Load 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trailing Load 0.00 0.00 0.00
First Axle Magnitude = 8.00 k, Wheel Spacing = 6.00 ft, Truck Width = 10.00 ft
# Magnitude, k Max Spacing,ft Min Spacing,ft Increment,ft
1 32.00 14.00 14.00 0.00
2 32.00 30.00 14.00 16.00
3 ID : Military Truck
Description: Military Truck as in AASHTO-STANDARD
Type : Truck Load
Uniform Load Intensity, klf Location,ft Length,ft
Preceding Load 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trailing Load 0.00 0.00 0.00
First Axle Magnitude = 24.00 k, Wheel Spacing = 6.00 ft, Truck Width = 10.00 ft
# Magnitude, k Max Spacing,ft Min Spacing,ft Increment,ft
1 24.00 4.00 4.00 0.00
164
Appendix B.2
Measured Prestress Loss Calculations
165
Calculation Philosophy:
The following equation gives the stress, σ, at any distance, y, measured from the
neutral axis of a prestressed section bending about a single axis:
P * P * ey My
σ = + − (B2.1)
Ag I I
where: Ag = gross area of prestressed section

I = gross moment of inertia of section about axis of bending
M = applied moment
P* = prestressing force
e = eccentricity of prestress force about neutral axis
Solving this relationship for the instant the crack opens, i.e. σ = 0 , gives:
 
 
My  1 
P* =   (B2.2)
I 1 ey
 + 
 Ag I 
Initial Calculations:
The following section properties were obtained from the section geometry at midspan.
Note that ybottom is the height of the neutral axis measured from the bottom of the section.
Ag = 816.8 in.2 I = 67341 in.4 y bottom = 14.73 in. e = 12.98 in.
Gage Locations:
The clip gages were placed over cracks on the bottom face of the girder as shown in
Figure B.2.1.
166
Figure B.2.1. Clip-gage Locations
Taking x as the distance from the gage center to the center of the west support gives:
x1 = 26.18 ft x 2 = 25.63 ft
With y being the vertical distance to the bottom surface measured from the neutral axis:
y1 = y 2 = 14.73 in.
Determine Load to Open Cracks:
The following plot shows the clip-gage readings vs. the applied load. Straight
lines are drawn through the data; the steep line represents the behavior before cracks open
and the shallow line represents the behavior after cracks open. The intersection of the two
lines is approximately the load at which the crack opens.
40
crack #1
35
crack #2
Applied Load (kips)
30
P1=25.8k
25
20 P2=24.9
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
6
Strain (in/in*10 )
Figure B.2.2 Clip-gage Readings
167
Determine Moment to Open Cracks
The total moment on the section is given by:
wx x−8
M = ( L − x) + (9.6 + )P for 8 < x < 28 ft (B2.3)
2 5
Where: w = self weight per length
L = span length measured center-to-center of supports.
P = applied load
Solving (B2.3) this with L = 45 ft , w = 0.851 kip / ft , and P1 and P2 from Figure B.2.2
gives:
M 1 = 551 k − ft = 6613 k − in M 2 = 538k − ft = 6457 k − in
Where M1 and M2 are the moments at the location of clip gage 1 and clip gage 2,
respectively.
Determine Prestress Loss:
Solving (B2.2) with the appropriate variables gives the prestress forces as:
P1 * = 346 kips P2 * = 327 kips
The measured steel prestress after losses, fse, can be found by dividing the prestress force
by the number of strands (14) and the area per strand (0.153 in.2), giving:
f se1 = 162 ksi f se 2 = 153 ksi
Thus, the average measured prestress after losses is 158 ksi. Taking the initial prestress as
0.70f’s, where f’s is the ultimate stress of prestressing steel, gives the average measured
prestress loss as 31 ksi or 16.4%.
168
APPENDIX B.3
NOMENCLATURE
169
Ab = area of individual steel reinforcing bar
Af = area of FRP reinforcement
Ag = area of uncracked prestressed section
As = area of non-prestressed steel reinforcement
db = diameter of steel reinforcing bar
f*fu = ultimate tensile strength of the FRP material as reported by the manufacturer
fr = modulus of rupture of concrete
f’s = ultimate stress of prestressing steel
fse = measured steel prestress after losses
I = moment of inertia of uncracked section about axis of bending
jd = depth to FRP reinforcement from centroid of compression zone
ldp = development length of prestressed-strand reinforcement
lds = development length of non-prestressed steel reinforcement
La = anchorage length of FRP reinforcement
Ld1 = necessary CFRP plate bond length measured from critical section towards
support
Ld2 = necessary CFRP plate bond length measured from critical section towards
midspan
Le = effective bond length of FRP reinforcement
170
M = applied moment
Mcr = cracking moment capacity
Mn = nominal design strength of section
Mu = ultimate factored moment on section under AASHTO load cases
Mu,v = ultimate factored moment on section under AASHTO load cases, adjusted to
include the tensile contribution due to shear
N = number of CFRP plates
P = applied load
P* = prestress force
Pu = Ultimate axial load on FRP plate
tf = thickness of FRP plate
w = self weight per length
x = distance to section measured from support
y = distance from neutral axis
ybottom = height of neutral axis measured from the tension face
ε’c = concrete strain corresponding to maximum compressive stress
εfe = strain level attained at section failure
ε∗fu = ultimate rupture strain of the FRP reinforcement
σ = stress in concrete
θ = angle of shear compression struts
ψ = additional FRP strength reduction factor
171
APPENDICES FOR
CHAPTER 3
172
APPENDIX C.1
MATERIAL TEST SUMMARY
173
Appendix C.1.1. CFRP Tensile Specimen Test Results
CFRP plates were of the pultruded unidirectional type with an ambient cured epoxy resin. Specimens were fabricated and tested
per ASTM Specification D 3039/D 3039M “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials.”
Maximum Maximum Modulus of

Thickness* Width* Area Force Stress Elasticity
Specimen (in) (in) (in2) (kips) (ksi) (ksi) Notes
Average: 344.0 21,087

Standard Deviation: 37.19 1460.9
*Thickness and width measured at three points along specimen and averaged.
400 450 350

T2 T3 T4
E = 20054 ksi 400 E = 22120 ksi E = 19241ksi
350 300
R2 = 0.9979 350 R2 = 0.9905 R2 = 0.9973
300 250
300
Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi)
Stress (ksi)
250
250 200
200
200 150
150 150
100
100 100
50
50 50
0 0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain (in./in.) Strain (in./in.) Strain (in./in.)
174
Appendix C.1.2. Concrete Test Results
Specimens consisted of 6x12-in cylinders cast during fabrication of box girder and
wet cured in a water bath until time of testing.
Strength Results
Ultimate Ultimate
Load Stress
Specimen (lbs) (psi)
C1 272624 9642
C2 268468 9495
Average 9569
Experimental Stress-strain Curve (Specimen C2)
5
E = 5252.8x
2
R = 0.9995
4
stress (ksi)
0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.001
strain
175
APPENDIX C.2
B27X48 BOX GIRDER RETROFIT DESIGN CALCULATIONS
176
Retrofit Design Philosophy
The design of a retrofit for an ODOT B27x48 box girder is presented using
concepts from the AASHTO “Standard Specification for Highway Bridges” (1996) and
ACI Committee 440 (2001) design recommendations. Externally bonded CFRP flexural
reinforcement, consisting of 4x0.045 in. plates, will be designed to increase the live load
flexural resistance by 20%. The loading configuration used for testing (see Figure 3.4)
will be considered for design purposes. The shear capacity under increased loading will
be checked. An anchorage scheme will be developed for the ends of the CFRP plates.
Equations to predict the necessary anchor strength are derived. Specified design material
properties and those provided by material suppliers are used for all calculations.
Flexural Calculation Method
A fiber analysis was used to predict the flexural response of the section at
midspan by utilizing the computer program RESPONSE (Collins and Mitchell, 1991).
The following section geometry was input, note that N represents the number of CFRP
plates, As is the area of non-prestressed steel reinforcement, Ap is the area of prestressed
reinforcement, and Af is the area of CFRP plates.
Figure C.2.1. Cross Section
177
Mitchell, 1991). The following properties were input into RESPONSE, where f ' c is the
concrete ultimate compressive stress, ε ' c is the corresponding strain, and f r is the
modulus of rupture.
f ' c = 5500 psi ε ' c = 2.08 milli strains f r = 556 psi
A tension stiffening factor of zero was used such that the steel contribution to force in the
tensile zone is not accounted for. This zero tension factor follows standard AASHTO
flexural strength computations and produces conservative results. Reinforcing bars were
modeled as elastic-perfectly-plastic with modulus of elasticity, Es = 29,000 ksi, and yield
stress, fsy = 60 ksi. The CFRP plates were modeled as linear elastic with a modulus, Ef =
18,000 ksi. Ultimate stress in the plate was limited to that corresponding to the strain
causing debonding as predicted by ACI 440 (2001) and described in the following text.
RESPONSE uses the Ramberg-Osgood function to model prestressing strands. This
material model requires the modulus elasticity of the prestressing strand, E p , the ultimate
stress of the prestressing strand, f’s, and three curve fitting variables to be input. The
following values, recommended by Mattock (1979), were utilized:
E p = 28500 ksi f ' s = 270 ksi A = 0.025 B = 118 C = 10
Because no material tests were performed on the prestressing strands, the above values
are the defaults recommended by Mattock. A prestressing strand prestrain of 5.30 milli
strains was used, corresponding to an assumed total prestress loss of 20%. A typical
RESPONSE output, including additional calculations, is provided at the end of this
appendix.
Determine Strength of Section without Retrofit
RESPONSE was used to analyze the section without CFRP plates to determine
the pre-retrofit flexural strength. The result was that:
M n = 1227 kip − ft
φM n = 1104 kip − ft with φ = 0.9
Where: φ = strength reduction factor
178
The self-weight of the section was calculated as w = 0.793 kip/ft resulting in a midspan
moment under self weight of 345 kip-ft. Applying load factors to determine the allowable
live load moment, and using the governing AASHTO LFD load group IA:
φM n ≥ 1.3M DL + 2.20M LL (C2.1)
1104 − 1.3 × 345

⇒ M LL = = 298 kip − ft
2 .2
Where: MDL = moment at section due to dead load
MLL = moment at section due to live load
Determine number of CFRP plates necessary
Initial strains in the section at the time of CFRP retrofit were found using
RESPONSE to analyze the pre-retrofit section at midspan under self-weight. Under the
dead load moment, the strains at midspan were found as -0.124 milli strains at the top of
the section and -0.138 milli strains at the bottom. These values were used to input a linear
initial strain profile into RESPONSE for the retrofit models. Note that the initial strains
were applied to the concrete, steel, and prestressing strands, but not the CFRP plates.
Since FRP strengthening schemes are known to debond before reaching the FRP’s
fracture strain, the nominal moment is taken as that causing a strain in the plate equal to
the predicted debonding strain per ACI 440. To predict the debonding strain, it is
necessary to perform the following calculations.
Determine design material properties for CFRP plate after environmental
exposure reduction:
C E = 0.85 (ACI 440 Table 8.1)
ε fu = C E ε *fu = 0.85 × 0.01667 = 0.01417 (ACI 440 Eq. 8-4)

f*fu = ultimate tensile strength of the FRP material as reported
by the manufacturer
179
f fu 255,000
Ef = = = 18,000,000 psi (ACI 440 Eq. 8-5)
ε fu 0.01417
Determine the bond dependent coefficient, κ m , of the CFRP plates:
nE f t f = 1 × 18,000,000 × 0.045 = 810,000
1  nEf tf 
κm = 1 −  ≤ 0.90 for n E f t f ≤ 1,000,000
60ε fu  2,000,000  (ACI 440 Eq. 9-2)
1  810,000 
⇒ κm = 1 −  = 0.700
60 × 0.01417  2,000,000 
The maximum strain in the CFRP plate at the ultimate-limit state and the effective stress
level in the plate will be governed by debonding at an effective plate strain given by
ε fe = κ m ε fu = 0.7 × 0.01417 = 0.00992 . ACI 440 suggests an additional FRP strength
reduction of ψ = 0.85 applied to the plate contribution at failure. Thus, the nominal
moment capacity (i.e., Mn) is taken as that predicted by RESPOSE when the strain in the
plate is equal to ψε fe = 0.00843 .
Varying the CFRP plate area, and solving for the moment causing the preceding
strain, RESPONSE was used to create the following table.
Table C.2.1. Flexural Strength of Various Retrofits
baseline 3 plates 4 plates 5 plates 6 plates

Mn (kip-ft) 1227 1340 1396 1451 1506
MLL (kip-ft) 298 344 367 390 412
% increase MLL 15.5 23.2 30.7 38.3
Therefore, a four plate retrofit scheme was chosen, resulting in an increase in live load
moment capacity of 23.2%.
180
Check Serviceability Requirements
The retrofitted section needs to be checked for serviceability requirements at a
total service moment of M DL + M LL = 345 + 367 = 712 k − ft . Results from the
RESPONSE model will be checked against serviceability limits at this load.
Per AASHTO section 9.15.2.2, concrete compression at service load is governed
by 0.6 f 'c = 3300 psi . The compressive stress at service load is found in RESPONSE as
1348 psi. Thus, concrete compression is O.K.
Per AASHTO section 9.15.2.2, tension in the precompressed tensile zone is
governed by 6 f ' c = 445 psi . The tensile stress in the concrete bottom flange is found in
RESPONSE as 309 psi. Thus, concrete tension is O.K.

ACI 440 section 9.5.2 gives a CFRP fatigue limit of 0.55 f fu = 140 ksi . The
tensile force in the CFRP plates at service load is 4 ksi. Note that this value is low
because the section is prestressed and the service load is lower than that necessary to
open the cracks. Also, the plates are only resisting the live load portion of the moment.
Check the Shear Capacity of Retrofit Beam
The bending moment and shear at a section a distance, x, measured in ft from
either support, are described as a function of the load at each load point, P, by the
following equations.
wx (C2.2)
M DL = ( L − x)
2
 Px for 0 < x < 19.5 (C2.3)
M LL = 
19.5 P for 19.5 ≤ x < L 2
L
VDL = w( − x ) (C2.4)
2
 P for 0 < x < 19.5
VLL = 
0 for 19.5 ≤ x < L 2 (C2.5)
Where: w = section self weight = 0.793 kip/ft

L = Span length, measured from center-to-center of bearing =
59 ft
181
VLL = shear force at section due to externally applied loads
Solving (C2.1) and (C2.3) for the ultimate factored load on the retrofit section at
midspan, PLL, as:
(φM n − 1.3M DL ) (0.9 × 1396 − 1.3 × 345)
PLL = = = 18.8 kips
2.2 × 19.5 42.9
The shear capacity and shear demand (under factored loads) were solved at multiple
sections along the girders length following the AASHTO “Standard Specification for
Highway Bridges” (1996). The computer program SPAN 6.0 was used to solve for some
of the necessary variables. A printout of the SPAN analysis is included at the end of this
Appendix. Shear resistadnce is governed by the following equation:
Vu ≤ φ (Vc + Vs ) (AASHTO Eq. 9-26)
Where: Vu = 1.3VDL + 2.2VLL
 Vi M cr
 Vci = 0.6 f ' c b' d + Vd +
Vc = lesser of  M max
VCW = (3.5 f ' c + 0.3 f pc )b' d + V p

Av f sy d
Vs =
s
φ = 0.9 for shear
b' = 10 in
d = 0.8h = 21.6 in.
Vd = shear on section due to unfactored dead load
Vi = factored shear force at section due to externally applied

loads occurring simultaneously with M max
M cr = moment causing flexural cracking at section due to

externally applied loads (calculated with SPAN 6.0)
M max = Maximum factored moment at section due to externally
applied loads
f pc = compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestress
forces only (after allowance for all prestress losses) at
extreme fiber of section where tensile stress is caused by
182
externally applied loads (calculated with SPAN 6.0)
Vp = vertical component of effective prestress force at section =
0.0 kip
f sy = 60,000 psi
 3 in. for 0 < x < 0.5 ft


s = stirrup spacing = 12 in. for 0.5 ≤ x < 1.0 ft
 18in. for x > 1.0 ft

Figure C.2.2 shows the shear capacity (the lower limit defined by the two gray lines) and
the shear demand (the black line). The retrofit girder is adequate in shear because the
demand never exceeds the capacity.
250
Vu
phi*(Vcw+Vs)
200 phi*(Vci+Vs)
Shear (kips)
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from support (ft)
Figure C.2.2. Shear Demand and Resistance

Determine Cutoff Points of CFRP Plates
Per ACI 440 Section 12.1.1, it is necessary to provide sufficient shear area to
prevent debonding due to concrete interfacial and normal stresses. According to Brosens
and van Gemert as presented by Teng et. al. (2002), the ultimate load, Pu, on a bonded
plate due to concrete shear failure is given by:
where:
bp = width of plate
183
Lb = bond length
fctm = Concrete tensile strength
to the strain at debonding, ε fe , through the relationship Pu = t f b p E f ε fe , where tf is the
thickness of the plate. Solving these relationships and applying the ACI 440
recommended safety factor of two gives the required bond length as:
t f E f ε fe
2 Lb = 4 (C2.6)
f ctm
(C2.6) gives:
0.045 × 18,000,000 × 0.00992
2 Lb = 4 = 71.3 in.
451
To be conservative the plate should extend this length past the point where the factored
moment on the beam is equal to the pre-retrofit resistance. The equation defining the
factored moment, M, along the span is found from equations (C2.2) and (C2.3) as:
 1.3wx
 ( L − x) + 2.2 PLL x for 0 < x < 19.5
M ( x) =  2 (C2.7)
1.3wx
 ( L − x) + 2.2 × 19.5PLL 19.5 ≤ x < L 2
 2
Solving this equation for the pre-retrofit factored resistance, φM n = 1104 k-ft, and under
the retrofit live load, PLL = 18.8 kips, gives x = 17.6 ft. Thus, to provide a sufficient shear
area, the plates should terminate no further than 17.6 − 71.3 12 = 11.6 ft from the
supports.
According to ACI 440 section 12.1.2, the CFRP plates should extend a distance d
past the point along the span corresponding to the cracking moment, M*cr, under factored
loads to prevent concrete cover delamination. The cracking moment was found in the
SPAN analysis as M*cr = 883 k-ft. Solving (C2.7) with M = M*cr and PLL = 18.8 kips
gives the location corresponding to the cracking moment, xcr = 13.6 ft . Therefore, to
184
keep the termination point outside of the cracked region, the plates should terminate no
further than xcr − d = 13.6 − 25 / 12 = 11.5 ft from the supports.
ACI 440 Section 12.1.2 states that external transverse reinforcement should be
provided if the factored shear force at the termination point is greater than 2/3 the
concrete shear stress. This recommendation is to prevent premature concrete cover
delamination. Because anchors should prevent this type of failure, this recommendation
will not be utilized.
Therefore, The plate should terminate no further than 11.5 ft from the centerline
of supports as governed by concrete cover delamination.
Derivation of Anchorage and Plate Forces
Previous research conducted at the University of Cincinnati (e.g., Shahrooz and
Boy, 2001) has shown that anchors at the ends of a FRP plate can prevent the plate from
fully debonding. When the midspan of the plate debonds, the debonded length will act as
a tension-tie between the anchor zones at the end of the plate. Thus, the FRP plate will
continue to provide some contribution to the moment resistance. According to the
previous research, simplified equations can predict the force in a plate acting as such a
tension-tie. Two components contribute to the lengthening of the debonded length of
plate, and therefore induce forces in the plate. The first component is that due to the
lengthening of the bottom fiber of the beam. Shahrooz and Boy (2001) show that this
component is small in comparison with the second component, and hence it will be
ignored for simplicity. The second component is the lengthening due to rotation of the
beam at each anchor point. As shown in the Figure C.2.3 of an elastic member, the
elongation of the plate at each anchor point is θ 1 h where h is the distance of the FRP
plate from the neutral axis, θ 1 is the rotation at each anchor point, and the angle of
rotation is small. Since anchor points should be outside of the cracked section of the
beam, h can be taken at the distance of the plate from the neutral axis of the uncracked
section. Note that the deformed shape is exaggerated and is shown with dashed gray
lines, and that the neutral axis is shown with a dash-dot line.
185
P P
b b
δ
θ1
a L1 a
L
Figure C.2.3. Elastic Flexural Member
As shown in Figure C.2.3, a is the distance to the edge of the anchor zone measured from
the centerline of the support, b is the distance to the load point measured from the
centerline of the support, and δ is the deflection at midspan. The total elongation of the
plate is 2θ 1 h . Thus, the strain in the plate is given by 2θ 1 h L1 , where L1 is the length of
the plate, and the force in the plate is given by:
2θ 1 hA f E f
F= (C2.8)
L1
The rotation at the anchor point must be derived for the given loading conditions. The
following text shows the derivation for an elastic and then fully plastic member under the
4 point loading scheme shown in Figure C.2.3.
Elastic Beam: Derivation for an elastic beam (Figure C.2.3) begins with the governing
differential equation for bending:
EI dθ = M dx (C2.9)
Where: EI = flexural stiffness of elastic section
Applying the moment function described by (C2.3):
dθ
EI = Px for 0 ≤ x ≤ b
dx
(C2.10)
dθ
EI = Pb for b ≤ x ≤ L / 2
dx
The boundary condition is given by:
L
@x = ; θ =0 (C2.11)
2
186
Integrating (C2.10), applying boundary condition (C2.11), and realizing that θ is
continuous through x = b gives:
1  Px 2 Pb 
θ=  + (b − L) for 0 ≤ x ≤ b
EI  2 2  (C2.12)
1  PbL  L
θ=  Pbx −  for b ≤ x ≤
EI  2  2
Setting θ 1 equal to θ @ x = a gives:

θ1 =
P
[
2 EI
]
a 2 + b(b − L ) for a ≤ b (C2.13)
The deflection at midspan for the applied loading can be found in a structural mechanics
text as:
Pb
δ = (3L2 − 4b 2 ) (C2.14)
24 EI
Substituting P from (C2.13) into (C2.14) and solving for θ 1 gives
12 (a 2 + b 2 − bL)
θ1 = δ (C2.15)
b (3L2 − 4b 2 )
Plugging this into equation (C2.8) gives the force in the plate for an elastic beam as:
24 A f E f h (a 2 + b 2 − bL)
F= δ (C2.16)
L1 (3L2 − 4b 2 )
Fully Plastic Beam: The angle of rotation at the anchor points in a fully plastic beam
(i.e., plastic hinges formed at the load points) is simply given by the following equation
(for a ≤ b ):
δ
θ1 = (C2.17)
b
Hence, from equation (C2.8) the force in the plate for a fully plastic beam is given by:
2Af E f h
F= δ (C2.18)
bL1
As explained by Shahrooz and Boy (2001) the force in each plate, F, is bound by the
previous equations depending on whether the beam is assumed to be elastic or fully
plastic, with a good approximation being the average of the two.
Determine Anchorage Scheme
Note that the derived equations are dependent upon section geometry and the
midspan deflection only. To establish a reasonable deflection for use in the above
equations, the midspan deflection relationship for the fully composite section (i.e.,
behavior before the plates debond) was predicted by double integration of the moment-
187
curvature relationship obtained in RESPONSE for the four-plate retrofit. The double
integration method has been found to provide reasonably accurate predictions of load-
deflection behavior (e.g., Gillum et al., 1998). The following graph shows the predicted
response of the member.
60
load at each jack (kips)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0
midspan deflection (in)
Figure C.2.4. Predicted Midspan Load-deflection Curve
The predicted midspan deflection at ultimate load for the retrofit girder, i.e., the
deflection when the plates debond, is 15.5 in., as shown in the load-deflection plot. Thus,
the anchors should be designed to resist midspan deflections higher than 15.5 in.
To keep the anchor zone outside the cracked zone at ultimate load, the distance a
will be taken as 11.5 ft, i.e., a distance d towards the supports measured from xcr (derived
previously). From the loading and chosen anchorage configuration a = 138 in., L1 = 432
in., L = 708 in., and b = 234 in. Using these values and the given material properties (i.e.,
A f = 0.18 in 2 , and E f = 18000 ksi ) and solving equations (C.2.16) and (C.2.18) gives
the force in a single plate as:

F = 11.6 kips elastic
F = 13.5 kips plastic
F = 12.6 kips average
To account for approximations, design anchors to resist 120% of the average load, i.e.,
use F = 15.1 kips.
188
The anchors will consist of the HILTI Kwik-Con II+ fastening system. These
anchors were chosen because of their ease of installation (a hole is predrilled and then the
anchors are fastened by screwing directly into the concrete) and availability of existing
published load ratings. An anchor diameter of ¼ in. was chosen because the required
embedment depth is only 1 in., keeping the anchors (and any necessary drilling) below
the level of the prestressing strands. The ultimate shear strength of a single fastener is
2430 lbs when used in 5500 psi concrete. This shear strength was interpolated from
published ultimate shear strengths of 2550 and 2400 lbs for 4000 and 6000 psi concrete,
respectively. To be conservative use twelve anchors in each plate to produce a total
anchored shear resistance of 29.2 kips, nearly double the predicted plate force at
debonding. Use a spacing of 5.5 in. between anchors to avoid proximity effects between
anchors.
Final Design
Four CFRP plates, each with a total length of 47 ft, should be bonded to the
bottom flange using structural epoxy. Anchor zones, one at each end of the plate, should
consist of twelve ¼ in. HILTI Kwik-Con II+ fasteners embedded a depth of 1 in. into the
concrete. The anchors should be spaced at 5.5 in., resulting in an anchor zone length of
66 in. at each end of each CFRP plate. Thus, the plates should terminate a distance of 6 ft
from the centerline of the supports. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the dimensions and details
of the retrofit scheme.
189
Output from RESPONSE Analysis of 4 CFRP Plate Retrofit
RESPONSE output is enclosed in the black box, calculations are not.
STRAND
SECTION PROPERTIES CONCRETE PROPS PROPS
27 depth of section 5500 f'_c 28500 E
2 height of strands 3966479.4 E_c 0.025 A
-0.124 top prestrain (milli-strain) 3 n 118 B
-0.138 bottom prestrain (millistrain) 0.0020799 epsilon'_c 10 C
5.163037 strand prestrain (milli-strain) 1.2811111 k
556.21489 f_cr
including prestrain concrete stress strand plate

Moment Curvature @-Axis Bottom Top Bottom Top @strand in strand bottom top stress stress
COMMENTS ft*kip rad/10^6in [-------Milli-Strain------] [-------Milli-Strain------] -------psi------- (ksi) (ksi)
-58.11 -22.26 0.037 -0.263 0.338 -0.401 0.214 -0.356 4.807 -1590.56 -- 136.94 -4.73
5.3 -14.84 0 -0.2 0.2 -0.338 0.076 -0.308 4.855 -1340.67 301.45 138.31 -3.60
174.62 -7.42 0 -0.1 0.1 -0.238 -0.024 -0.223 4.940 -944.02 -95.20 140.72 -1.80
344.15 0 0 0 0 -0.138 -0.124 -0.138 5.025 -547.37 -491.84 143.14 0.00
513.68 7.42 0 0.1 -0.1 -0.038 -0.224 -0.053 5.110 -150.73 -888.41 145.55 1.80
683.67 14.84 0 0.2 -0.2 0.062 -0.324 0.032 5.195 245.92 -1284.63 147.96 3.60
service load 711 0.216 -0.216 0.078 -0.340 0.046 5.209 309.39 -1347.96 148.35 3.89
f_cr 815.65 20.62 0 0.278 -0.279 0.14 -0.403 0.099 5.262 555.31 -1597.04 149.84
787.05 22.26 0.022 0.323 -0.278 0.185 -0.402 0.140 5.304 -- -1593.09 151.02
738.65 29.68 0.111 0.511 -0.29 0.373 -0.414 0.314 5.477 -1640.46 155.89
764.06 37.1 0.172 0.673 -0.328 0.535 -0.452 0.461 5.624 -1790.31 160.02
789.54 44.52 0.236 0.837 -0.365 0.699 -0.489 0.610 5.773 -1935.90 164.19
814.95 51.94 0.3 1.001 -0.401 0.863 -0.525 0.759 5.922 -2077.17 168.33
839.73 59.36 0.366 1.167 -0.435 1.029 -0.559 0.910 6.073 -2210.18 172.50
864.82 66.78 0.432 1.333 -0.47 1.195 -0.594 1.061 6.224 -2346.59 176.63
889.63 74.2 0.498 1.499 -0.504 1.361 -0.628 1.213 6.376 -2478.52 180.71
914.12 81.62 0.564 1.666 -0.538 1.528 -0.662 1.365 6.528 -2609.79 184.76
938.24 89.04 0.631 1.833 -0.571 1.695 -0.695 1.517 6.680 -2736.45 188.74
961.91 96.46 0.698 2 -0.604 1.862 -0.728 1.669 6.832 -2862.28 192.64
985.09 103.88 0.765 2.168 -0.637 2.03 -0.761 1.822 6.985 -2987.16 196.47
1007.67 111.3 0.833 2.336 -0.67 2.198 -0.794 1.975 7.138 -3110.97 200.19
1029.61 118.72 0.901 2.504 -0.702 2.366 -0.826 2.129 7.292 -3229.89 203.78
1050.83 126.14 0.97 2.672 -0.733 2.534 -0.857 2.282 7.445 -3343.90 207.23
1071.28 133.56 1.038 2.841 -0.765 2.703 -0.889 2.436 7.599 -3460.23 210.54
1090.89 140.98 1.108 3.011 -0.795 2.873 -0.919 2.591 7.754 -3567.92 213.70
1109.85 148.4 1.178 3.181 -0.826 3.043 -0.950 2.746 7.909 -3677.67 216.66
1127.69 155.82 1.248 3.351 -0.856 3.213 -0.980 2.901 8.064 -3782.28 219.43
1144.61 163.24 1.319 3.522 -0.885 3.384 -1.009 3.058 8.221 -3881.79 222.01
1160.59 170.66 1.39 3.694 -0.914 3.556 -1.038 3.215 8.378 -3979.58 224.39
1175.65 178.08 1.461 3.866 -0.943 3.728 -1.067 3.372 8.535 -4075.55 226.56
1189.82 185.5 1.534 4.038 -0.971 3.9 -1.095 3.529 8.692 -4166.35 228.53
1203.14 192.92 1.606 4.211 -0.998 4.073 -1.122 3.687 8.850 -4252.08 230.32
190
1215.66 200.34 1.679 4.384 -1.026 4.246 -1.150 3.845 9.008 -4338.98 231.91
1227.45 207.76 1.752 4.557 -1.052 4.419 -1.176 4.004 9.167 -4417.75 233.33
1238.56 215.18 1.826 4.731 -1.079 4.593 -1.203 4.163 9.326 -4497.48 234.60
1249.06 222.6 1.9 4.905 -1.105 4.767 -1.229 4.322 9.485 -4572.18 235.72
1259.01 230.02 1.974 5.079 -1.131 4.941 -1.255 4.481 9.644 -4644.75 236.71
1268.47 237.44 2.048 5.254 -1.157 5.116 -1.281 4.641 9.804 -4715.09 237.59
1277.5 244.86 2.123 5.429 -1.183 5.291 -1.307 4.801 9.964 -4783.14 238.37
1286.15 252.28 2.198 5.604 -1.208 5.466 -1.332 4.961 10.124 -4846.31 239.06
1294.46 259.7 2.273 5.779 -1.233 5.641 -1.357 5.122 10.285 -4907.19 239.66
1302.49 267.12 2.348 5.954 -1.258 5.816 -1.382 5.282 10.445 -4965.73 240.20
1310.26 274.54 2.423 6.129 -1.283 5.991 -1.407 5.442 10.605 -5021.84 240.68
1317.81 281.96 2.498 6.304 -1.308 6.166 -1.432 5.602 10.765 -5075.47 241.11
1324.51 289.38 2.574 6.481 -1.333 6.343 -1.457 5.764 10.927 -5126.55 241.50
1332.12 296.8 2.649 6.656 -1.358 6.518 -1.482 5.924 11.087 -5175.02 241.84
1338.97 304.22 2.726 6.833 -1.381 6.695 -1.505 6.087 11.250 -5217.27 242.16
1345.19 311.64 2.803 7.01 -1.404 6.872 -1.528 6.249 11.412 -5257.24 242.45
1351.94 319.06 2.879 7.187 -1.428 7.049 -1.552 6.411 11.574 -5296.47 242.72
1358.6 326.48 2.956 7.363 -1.452 7.225 -1.576 6.572 11.735 -5333.14 242.96
1365 333.9 3.032 7.54 -1.475 7.402 -1.599 6.734 11.897 -5365.84 243.19
1371.3 341.32 3.109 7.717 -1.499 7.579 -1.623 6.896 12.059 -5397.41 243.40
1377.54 348.74 3.186 7.894 -1.522 7.756 -1.646 7.059 12.222 -5425.18 243.60
1383.71 356.16 3.263 8.071 -1.545 7.933 -1.669 7.221 12.384 -5450.52 243.79
1389.81 363.58 3.34 8.248 -1.569 8.11 -1.693 7.383 12.546 -5474.34 243.97
MAXIMUM 1395.52 370.95 3.422 8.43 -1.586 8.292 -1.710 7.550 12.713 -5489.60 244.14
191
Output from SPAN Analysis
University of Cincinnati PHONE: (513) 556-9117 | SHEET OF
College of Eng, 643 Baldwin Hall Cincinnati, OH 45231 | JOB NO
SPAN v6.0 Simple-Span Concrete Bridge Beam Design Program | Date 09/23/10
(c) Copyright LEAP Software, Inc, 1992. All rights reserved. | BY MB
--------------** EDUCATIONAL LICENSE. NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE. **--------------
State : OH State Job No :
Project : FRP Second Girder
File : MATT.SPN
PRECAST DATA: GENERAL BRIDGE DATA: GIRDER DATA:

------------- -------------------- ------------
Section: ODOT B2748 System : Box Beam Loc: INTERIOR
Type:MULTI-BEAM Bridge width = 48.00 ft Lane width = 11.00 ft
Height = 27.00 in Curb-left = 2.00 ft No. of lanes = 4
Flange width = 48.00 in Curb-right = 2.00 ft No. of beams = 12
Flange thick = 5.50 in Cant-left = 2.00 ft Trib-left = 24.00 in
Shear width = 10.00 in Cant-right = 2.00 ft Trib-right = 24.00 in
Vol/Surface = 2.00 in Curb-to-curb = 44.00 ft Beam Spacing = 4.00 ft
DECK DATA: LOAD DATA: (A) DEAD LOAD (B) LIVE LOAD
---------- ---------- Type AASHTO
B/U: Thick = 0.00 in Type On Precast On Composite Axle HS20 TL
Width = 48.00 in UDL 0.000 Klf 0.000 Klf
Gap: Thick = 0.00 in K @ ft K @ ft
Width = 0.00 in CL 1.00 29.50 0.00 0.00
Eff. Width = 48.00 in CL 1.00 14.50 0.00 0.00 UDL: 0.000 Klf
LOAD EQUATIONS: Gamma Beta Beta D.F. ( Art. 3.22.2 )

---------------
Service Load = 1.00*(1.00*DL+1.00*0.350*(LL+I)) Group I
Factored Load = 1.30*(1.00*DL+1.67*0.350*(LL+I)) Group I
SECT PROPERTIES: SPAN DATA:

--------------- PRECAST COMPOSITE ----------
------- --------- Overall Length = 60.00 ft
Area = 678.8 in2 678.8 in2* Release Span = 60.00 ft
Total Height = 27.00 in 27.00 in Design Span = 59.00 ft
Mom of Inertia = 64649 in4 64649 in4* Clear Span = 58.00 ft
Ht. of c.g. = 13.61 in 13.61 in * Shoring : NONE
Density = 150.0 pcf 150.0 pcf
Self-weight = 707.1 plf 707.1 plf
At 28-Days: MISCELLANEOUS:
Strength = 5500 psi 3500 psi --------------
Max comp,top = 2200 psi 1400 psi Kern pts: Upper = 20.61 in
Max comp,bot = 2200 psi Lower = 6.50 in
Max tens,top = -190 psi -177 psi Trans len mult: Bonded =1.0
Max tens,bot = -445 psi Debonded=1.0
Elasticity = 4496.0 Ksi 3587.0 Ksi Dev len mult: Bonded =1.0
Crack. tens. = -556.2 psi Debonded=2.0
At Release: Impact: Moment = 1.272 COMPUTE
Strength = 4000 psi Shear = COMPUTE
Max comp,top = 2400 psi Phi: Flexure = 1.00
Max comp,bot = 2400 psi Shear = 0.90
Max tens,top = -474 psi w/bonded stl Shielding Incr = 5.00 ft
Max tens,top = -190 psi
Max tens,bot = -190 psi
Elasticity = 3834.0 Ksi
* Total transformed using Ect/Ec = 0.7978
192
PRESTRESSED STEEL: 16 strands, 1/2 -270K-LL LO RELAX fpy,Ksi=243.0
Straight.
END PATTERN (Ycg= 2.00 in):
16 @ 2.00 in
Strand Dia = 0.5000 in Ult strength(f's) = 270 Ksi

Strand Area = 0.1530 in2 Initial prestress = 0.75*f's = 202.5 Ksi
Total strand area = 2.448 in2 Initial pull = 495.7 K = 30.98 K/str
Trans len,basic = 2.08 ft Dev len, basic = 6.00 ft (Eq 9-32)
Trans len,bonded = 2.08 ft Dev len, bonded = 6.00 ft
Trans len,debonded= 2.08 ft Dev len, debonded = 11.99 ft
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REINFORCING STEEL: Tension steel: fy = 60K fs = 24K. Shear steel: fsy = 60K
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midspan: Strand area= 2.45 in2 Ycg= 2.00 in P-init= 495.7 K Ecc= 11.61 in
Hours to release = 18 Rel. Humid. (RH) = 75% Es = 28000 Ksi Eci = 3834 Ksi
AASHTO LOSSES: Release Final (Art. 9.16.2)

Steel relaxation RET* 1600 psi CRs (Eq 9-10) 3404 psi
Elastic shortening ES 7307 psi ES (Eq 9-6) 7307 psi (Fcir= 1001 psi)
Concrete shrinkage SH (Eq 9-4) 5750 psi
Concrete creep CRc (Eq 9-9) 11566 psi (Fcds= -63 psi)
------ ------
Total 8908 psi ( 4.4%) 28026 psi (13.8%)
* Steel relaxation before release - Ref: PCI Journal Vol 20, No.4, Jul-Aug 1975
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHIELDING AND REDUCED INITIAL PULLS: (Max Shield Len = 18.00 ft)
NONE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICE LOAD MOMENTS:
TRANS .10L .20L .30L .40L DEPRESS .50L USER

1.58ft 5.90ft 11.80ft 17.70ft 23.60ft 29.50ft 29.50ft 29.50ft
Self wt. ,Kft 32.1 110.8 196.9 258.4 295.4 307.7 307.7 307.7
DL-Prec. ,Kft 2.4 8.9 17.7 23.4 26.3 29.3 29.3 29.3
Deck ,Kft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-Comp. ,Kft 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Eff. LL+I ,Kft 41.4 140.3 242.7 307.3 344.1 348.1 348.1 348.1
193
RELEASE STRESSES ( Loss = 4.4% ) :
TRANS .10L .20L .30L CRIT .40L DEPRESS USER

PREST.
Prec-top -441.4 -441.4 -441.4 -441.4 -441.4 -441.4 -441.4 -441.4
Prec-bot 1856.5 1856.5 1856.5 1856.5 1856.5 1856.5 1856.5 1856.5
SELF WT.
Prec-top 106.0 301.4 515.5 668.5 704.5 760.2 790.8 790.8
Prec-bot -107.8 -306.4 -524.0 -679.5 -716.1 -772.7 -803.8 -803.8
TOTAL
Prec-top -335.4 -140.0 74.1 227.1 263.1 318.8 349.4 349.4
Prec-bot 1748.7 1550.1 1332.5 1177.0 1140.4 1083.7 1052.7 1052.7
As-top,in2 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL STRESSES ( Loss = 13.8% ) :

PREST.
Deck-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-top -397.8 -397.8 -397.8 -397.8 -397.8 -397.8 -397.8 -397.8
Prec-bot 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1
SELF WT.
Deck-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-top 79.9 275.3 489.4 642.3 734.1 764.7 764.7 764.7
Prec-bot -81.2 -279.8 -497.4 -652.9 -746.2 -777.3 -777.3 -777.3
DL-PREC.
Deck-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-top 5.9 22.0 44.0 58.0 65.4 72.7 72.7 72.7
Prec-bot -6.0 -22.4 -44.7 -59.0 -66.4 -73.9 -73.9 -73.9
DECK
Deck-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-bot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DL-COMP.
Deck-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-bot 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
LL+I
Deck-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-top 102.8 348.6 603.2 763.9 855.3 865.1 865.1 865.1
Prec-bot -104.5 -354.3 -613.1 -776.4 -869.3 -879.3 -879.3 -879.3
TOTAL
Deck-top 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prec-top -209.3* 248.1 738.8 1066.4 1256.9 1304.7 1304.7 1304.7
Prec-bot 1481.5 1016.6 517.8 184.8 -8.8 -57.3 -57.3 -57.3
194
VERTICAL SHEAR (Vu @ H/2= 0.0K E for fpc= 0.00 in Art 9.20.2.3 Bw=10.00 in)
SUPP-FIN .02L TRANS H/2 .04L .06L .08L

0.00ft 1.18ft 1.58ft 1.63ft 2.36ft 3.54ft 4.72ft
Vd,K 22.4 21.5 21.2 21.2 20.7 19.9 19.0
Md,Kft 0.0 25.9 34.5 35.4 50.8 74.7 97.7
Ml,Kft 0.0 31.1 41.4 42.4 60.6 88.7 115.2
Vu,K 84.3 84.3 84.3 84.3 82.8 80.4 78.0
Mu,Kft 0.0 101.1 134.7 138.1 197.7 289.7 377.1
Mmax,Kft 0.0 75.2 100.1 102.7 146.9 215.0 279.5
Vu @ Mu,K 87.6 85.2 84.4 84.3 82.8 80.4 78.0
Vi,K 65.3 63.7 63.2 63.1 62.1 60.6 59.0
fpe,psi 401.6 1349.2 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1
fd,psi -0.0 -65.4 -87.2 -89.4 -128.3 -188.8 -246.7
Mcr,Kft 335.1 684.3 803.9 803.0 787.6 763.7 740.8
d,in 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Vci-com,K 10000.0 612.1 539.6 526.0 365.0 246.2 186.6
Vci-min,K 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5
Vci,K 10000.0 612.1 539.6 526.0 365.0 246.2 186.6
fpc,psi 151.0 507.4 629.2 629.2 629.2 629.2 629.2
Vp,K 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vcw,K 76.2 102.9 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1
Vc,K 76.2 102.9 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1
Vs-reqd,K 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vs-max,K 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3
Av-com,in2/F 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Av-min,in2/F 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Av,in2/F 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Vs-crit,K 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2
Max spc,in 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25
.10L .20L .25L .30L .40L DEPRESS USER

5.90ft 11.80ft 14.75ft 17.70ft 23.60ft 29.50ft 29.50ft
Vd,K 18.2 14.0 10.9 8.8 4.7 0.5 0.5
Md,Kft 119.6 214.6 252.6 281.8 321.7 336.9 336.9
Ml,Kft 140.3 242.7 279.8 307.3 344.1 348.1 348.1
Vu,K 75.6 63.5 56.2 50.0 37.5 25.0 25.0
Mu,Kft 460.0 805.9 935.8 1033.6 1165.3 1193.7 1193.7
Mmax,Kft 340.4 591.3 683.1 751.8 843.6 856.8 856.8
Vu @ Mu,K 75.6 63.5 56.2 50.0 35.2 22.7 22.7
Vi,K 57.4 49.5 45.2 41.2 30.5 22.2 22.2
fpe,psi 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1 1673.1
fd,psi -302.2 -542.2 -638.2 -711.9 -812.6 -851.2 -851.2
Mcr,Kft 718.8 623.8 585.8 556.6 516.8 501.5 501.5
d,in 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Vci-com,K 150.6 77.4 60.8 50.5 34.5 24.6 24.6
Vci-min,K 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5
Vci,K 150.6 77.4 60.8 50.5 34.5 31.5 31.5
fpc,psi 629.2 629.2 629.2 629.2 629.2 629.2 629.2
Vp,K 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vcw,K 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1 112.1
Vc,K 112.1 77.4 60.8 50.5 34.5 31.5 31.5
Vs-reqd,K 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.1 7.2 0.0 0.0
Vs-max,K 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3 148.3
Av-com,in2/F 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00
Av-min,in2/F 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Av,in2/F 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Vs-crit,K 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2 74.2
Max spc,in 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25 20.25
195
HORIZONTAL SHEAR calculation not performed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ULT. CAPACITY: f'c= 5500 psi f'ct= 3500 psi Gamma*=0.28 Beta1= 0.78
fcr= -556.2 psi (Art. 9.18.2.1 and 9.15.2.3) Beff,in= 48.00

A*s, in2 0.8505 2.4480 2.4480 2.4480 2.4480 2.4480 2.4480 2.4480
Ycg, in 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
d, in 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
p* (=A*s/bd) 0.00071 0.00204 0.00204 0.00204 0.00204 0.00204 0.00204 0.00204
f*su, Ksi 266.6 260.2 260.2 260.2 260.2 260.2 260.2 260.2
a, in 1.01 2.84 2.84 2.84 2.84 2.84 2.84 2.84
Mu-Comp, Kft 462.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8
Mu-Max, Kft 2480.3 2480.3 2480.3 2480.3 2480.3 2480.3 2480.3 2480.3
Mu-prov'd,Kft 462.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8 1251.8
Mu-req'd, Kft 134.7 460.0 805.9 1033.6 1165.3 1193.7 1193.7 1193.7
Crkg Mom, Kft 882.5 882.5 882.5 882.5 882.5 882.5 882.5 882.5
Crkg Ratio 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMBER AND DEFLECTIONS : ( Ref: PCI Design Handbook - 3rd Ed., Table 4.6.3 )
Release Mult Erection Mult Final
Prestress : 1.44 1.80 2.59 2.45 3.52

Self weight : -0.83 1.85 -1.54 2.70 -2.25
SDL-Precast : -0.06 3.00 -0.18
Deck weight : 0.00 2.30 0.00
SDL-Composite : 0.00 3.00 0.00
------- ------- -------
Total : 0.60 0.99 1.09
Positive value indicates upward deflection
196
APPENDIX C.3
W18X97 SPREADER BEAM
197
AS BUILT:
3/4” thick plate
3/8” weld
Appendix C.3.1. Spreader Beam Drawings
198
Appendix C.3.2. Spreader Beam Calculations
199
200
201
STRENGTH AS BUILT
202
APPENDIX C.4
MEASURED PRESTRESS LOSS CALCULATIONS
203
Calculation Philosophy:
The following equation gives the stress, σ, at any distance, y, measured from the
neutral axis of a prestressed section bending about a single axis:
P * P * ey My
σ = + − (C4.1)
Ag I I
where: Ag = gross area of prestressed section

I = gross moment of inertia section about axis of bending
M = applied moment
Solving this relationship for the instant the crack opens, i.e. σ = 0 , gives:
 
 
My  1 
P* =  (C4.2)
I 1 ey 
 + 
 Ag I 
Initial Calculations:
The following section properties were obtained from the SPAN 6.0 analysis
described in Appendix C.2. Note that ybottom is the height of the neutral axis measured
from the bottom of the section.
Ag = 678.8 in.2 I = 64649 in.4 y bottom = 13.61 in. e = 11.61 in.
Gage Locations:
The locations of the clip gages are shown in the Figure C.4.1.
204
Figure C.4.1. Location of Clip-gages
Taking x as the distance from the gage center to the nearest support gives:
3 3
x1 = 352 in. x 2 = 351 in.
4 8
With y being the distance from the gage center to the section centroid:
y1 = 10.98 in. y 2 = 11.98 in.
Determine Load to Open Cracks:
The following plot shows the clip-gage readings vs. the applied load. Straight
lines are drawn through the data; the steep line represents the behavior before cracks open
and the shallow line represents the behavior after cracks open. The intersection of the two
lines is approximately the load at which the crack opens.
35
crack #1
30 crack #2
Applied Load (kips)
25
P1=19.8kip
20
15
P2=16.5kip
10
0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Strain (in/in)
Figure C.4.2. Clip Gage Readings
205
Determine Moment to Open Cracks
The total moment on the section is given by:
 wx
 2 ( L − x) + Px for 0 < x < 234
M = (C4.3)
wx
 ( L − x) + 234 P 234 ≤ x < L 2
 2
Solving this with L = 708 in., w = 0.0661 kip / in. , and P1 and P2 from Figure C.4.2 gives:
M 1 = 8774 kip − in. M 2 = 8001 kip − in.
Where M1 and M2 are the moments at the locations of clip gage 1 and clip gage 2,
respectively.
Determine Prestress Loss:
Solving (C4.2) with the appropriate variables gives the prestressing forces as:
P1 * = 433 kip P2 * = 409 kip
The measured steel prestress after losses, fse, can be found by dividing the prestressing
force by the number of strands (16) and the area per strand (0.153 in.2), giving:
f se1 = 177 ksi f se 2 = 167 ksi
Thus, the average measured prestress after losses is 172 ksi. Taking the initial prestress as
0.70f’s , gives the average measured prestress loss as 17 ksi or 9.0%.
206
APPENDIX C.5
B27X48 BOX GIRDER EXPECTED CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
207
Modeling Philosophy
A flexural model of the B27x48 County box girder, with and without the applied
four CFRP plate retrofit, is developed using concepts of reinforced concrete theory and
ACI Committee 440 (2001) design recommendations. The measured (tested) concrete
and CFRP plate material properties are used. Because material tests on reinforcing bars
and prestressing strands were not conducted, material values conforming to ASTM
specifications are used. The model is used to predict the ultimate load and load-deflection
behavior of the girder with and without retrofit.
Calculation Method
A fiber analysis was used to predict the flexural response by utilizing the
computer program RESPONSE (Collins and Mitchell, 1991). The section geometry as
shown in Figure C.2.1 was input into RESPONSE.
Mitchell, 1991). The following properties were input into RESPONSE.
f ' c = 9569 psi ε ' c = 2.324 milli strains f r = 734 psi
Note that f’c is the average from the two cylinder tests, and ε 'c was varied in
RESPONSE to produce the tested concrete modulus of elasticity, Ec = 5253 ksi (i.e., the
initial modulus of elasticity from the strain collar readings from cylinder 1). The modulus
of rupture, f r , was found as f r = 7.5 f ' c = 556 psi per AASHTO Spec. A tension-
stiffening factor of 0.7 was used, which is the typical value for plain bars, wires, and
bonded strands for short-term monotonic loading (Collins and Mitchell, 1991).
Because reinforcing bars and prestressing strands were not tested, material values
conforming to ASTM specifications were input. Thus, reinforcing bars were modeled as
elastic-perfectly-plastic with modulus of elasticity and yield stress of 29,000 ksi and 60
ksi, respectively. Presressing strands were modeled using the Ramberg-Osgood function
recommended by Mattock (1979) with:
E p = 28500 ksi A = 0.025 B = 118 C = 10
208
An initial prestrain of 6.04-milli-strains was used, corresponding to the average prestress
of 172 ksi obtained from clip-gage readings during testing.
Determine Strength of Section without Retrofit
RESPONSE was used to analyze the section without CFRP plates to determine
the flexural strength before application of the retrofit. The result was that
M n = 1361 kip − ft
Thus, without the retrofit the expected ultimate load under given loading conditions
would be 52.1 kip (see Eq. (C2.2) and (C2.3)). Note that this moment corresponds to the
moment when the concrete compressive stress in the extreme fiber is 0.003 and accounts
for a self-weight of 0.793 kips/ft. The RESPONSE model also shows that this value is the
maximum moment (i.e., there is no strengthening with higher concrete compressive
strains).
Determine Strength of Section with Retrofit
Initial strains in the section at time of CFRP retrofit were found by analyzing the
section without retrofit under load from self-weight at the midspan. Under the dead load
moment, the strains were found as –0.142 milli-strains at the top and –0.086 milli-strains
at the bottom. These values were used to input a linear initial strain profile into the
RESPONSE retrofit model.
Since FRP strengthening schemes are known to debond before reaching the FRP’s
fracture strain, the nominal moment is taken as that causing a strain in the plate equal to
the predicted debonding strain per ACI 440. To predict the debonding strain, it is
necessary to perform a number of calculations. Determine design material properties for
CFRP plate after environmental exposure reduction, as follows:
C E = 0.85 (ACI 440 Table 8.1)
ε fu = C E ε *fu = 0.85 × 0.01631 = 0.01387 (ACI 440 Eq. 8-4)

f fu 292,400
Ef = = = 21,087,000 psi (ACI 440 Eq. 8-5)
ε fu 0.01387
209
Determine the bond dependent coefficient of the CFRP plates:
nE f t f = 1 × 21,087,000 × 0.045 = 948,900
1  nEf tf 
κm = 1 −  ≤ 0.90 for n E f t f ≤ 1,000,000
60ε fu  2,000,000  (ACI 440 Eq. 9-2)
1  948,900 
⇒ κm = 1 −  = 0.6317
60 × 0.01387  2,000,000 
The maximum strain in the CFRP plate at the ultimate-limit state and the effective stress
level in the plate will be governed by debonding at an effective plate strain given by
ε fe = κ m ε fu = 0.00876 . ACI 440 suggests an additional strength reduction of
ψ = 0.85 applied to the plate contribution at failure. Thus, the expected nominal moment
capacity (i.e., Mn) is that predicted by RESPOSE when the strain in the plate is equal
to ψε fe = 0.00745 . The nominal moment was found in RESPONSE as 1541 kip-ft,
resulting in a maximum load of 61.3 kips per load point.

Determine Load Deflection Behavior
To establish a load-deflection response for comparison to test results, the midspan
deflection relationship for the pre-retrofit and retrofit section were predicted by double
integration of the moment-curvature relationship obtained in RESPONSE. Note that fully
composite action (i.e., perfect CFRP to concrete bond) was assumed for the four plate
retrofit. The double integration method has been found to provide reasonably accurate
predictions of load-deflection behavior (e.g. Gillum et al., 1998). Figure 3.12 shows the
predicted response of the member. The ultimate deflections were found as 33.4 in. and
13.2 in. for the pre-retrofit and retrofit girders, respectively.
Determine Percent Increase in Live Load Capacity
The unfactored increase in live load capacity is found simply as:
100% × (61.3 − 52.1) / 52.1 = 17.6%
The factored increase in live load capacity can be found by applying load factors from the
AASHTO (1996) LFD load group IA, giving, for the pre-retrofit girder:
0.9 × 1361 − 1.3 × 345
M LL = = 353 kip − ft
2 .2
And, for the retrofit girder:
210
0.9 × 1541 − 1.3 × 345
M LL = = 426 kip − ft
2 .2
Thus, the expected increase in factored live load capacity is 20.7%.
211
APPENDIX C.6
NOMENCLATURE
212
a = ( L − L1 ) 2
A = Ramberg-Osgood function constant
Ag = area of uncracked prestressed section

Ap = area of prestressed steel reinforcement
As = area of non-prestressed steel reinforcement
b’ = web shear width
b = distance to point load measured from center line of support
bp = width of plate
B = Ramberg-Osgood function constant
C = Ramberg-Osgood function constant
e = eccentricity of prestressing force about neutral axis
Ep = modulus of elasticity of prestressed-strand reinforcement
Es = modulus of elasticity of non-prestressed steel reinforcement
EI = flexural stiffness of elastic section
f*fu = ultimate tensile strength of the FRP material as reported by the manufacturer
f pc = compressive stress in concrete due to effective prestressing forces only (after
allowance for all prestress losses) at extreme fiber of section where tensile
stress is caused by externally applied loads
fr = modulus of rupture of concrete
f’s = ultimate stress of prestressing steel reinforcement
fse = measured steel prestress after losses
213
f sy = yield stress of mild steel reinforcement
F = force in FRP plate predicted by tension-tie model

h = distance of FRP plate from neutral axis
I = moment of inertia of uncracked section about axis of bending
Lb = bond length of FRP
L1 = distance between anchors (i.e. debonded length of plate)
M = moment at a section
Mcr = moment causing flexural cracking at section due to externally applied loads
M*cr = moment causing flexural cracking at section due to all loads
MDL = moment at section due to dead load
MLL = moment at section due to live load
Mmax = maximum factored moment at section due to externally applied loads
Mu = ultimate factored moment on section under AASHTO load cases
N = number of CFRP plates
P = applied load at each load point
PLL = allowable live load at each load point
Pu = ultimate load resisted by plate
s = longitudinal spacing of web reinforcement
tf = thickness of CFRP plate
Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
Vci = nominal shear strength provided by concrete when diagonal cracking results
from combined shear and moment
VCW = nominal shear strength provided by concrete when diagonal cracking results
from excessive principle stress in web
Vd = shear force at section due to unfactored dead load
214
Vi = factored shear force at section due to externally applied loads occurring
simultaneously with M max
VLL = shear force at section due to externally applied loads
Vp = vertical component of effective prestressing force at section
Vs = nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement
Vu = ultimate shear load acting at section

w = self weight of section
x = distance to section measured from support
xcr = distance of the section corresponding to M*cr as measured from a support
ybottom = height of neutral axis measured from the tension face
δ = midspan deflection of beam

ε’c = concrete strain corresponding to maximum compressive stress
εfe = strain level attained at section failure
ε∗fu = ultimate rupture strain of the FRP reinforcement

σ = stress in concrete
θ = angle of rotation of section
θ1 = rotation of the section at x = a under flexural loading
ψ = FRP reinforcement additional material strength reduction factor
215

Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plates For Repair or Retrofit of Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete Girders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plates For Repair or Retrofit of Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete Girders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

February 20th , 20 _____

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

in partial fulfillment of the

B.S., University of Cincinnati, 2000

Committee Chair: Bahram Shahrooz, Ph.D., P.E.

Viable retrofit schemes are necessary to delay or offset replacement of deteriorating

of installation, and weathering characteristics are a concern.

The research reported in Chapter 1 was undertaken to examine the influence of

The research reported in Chapter 2 presents a novel design approach utilizing

externally bonded CFRP plates developed in an attempt to overcome construction errors in a

been used to delay replacement of the deficient girders.

of CFRPs for retrofitting of existing structures has predominantly focused on mildly

Moreover, data regarding performance of mechanical anchors for enhancing bond

performance of mechanical anchors.

Chapter 3: Use of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Plates with Mechanical

Appendices for Chapter 1............................................................................................... 124

Appendices for Chapter 2............................................................................................... 152

Appendices for Chapter 3............................................................................................... 172

Tables for Chapter 1

Table for Chapter 2

Table for Chapter 3

Figures for Chapter 1

Figures for Chapter 2

FURTHER STUDIES INTO POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FATIGUE,

1.2 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

strength-to-weight ratios resulting in ease of installation and insignificant additions to dead

however, considering the newness of such design guidelines, additional qualifications,

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS

University of Cincinnati (U.C.) College of Applied Sciences High Bay by U.C.

1.5 OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

To evaluate the effectiveness of CFRP plates used for flexural strengthening of

actuator’s clevis plate measuring 127 mm (5 in.) square.

1.5.1 Test Matrix

this test was to determine the strength of a retrofit on an uncracked beam.

beam was tested to determine the effectiveness of a CFRP retrofit on a badly

to determine the effectiveness of a CFRP retrofit under fatigue loading.

areas of the bottom concrete up to the level of reinforcement, patched, retrofitted,

CFRP retrofit on a cracked, damaged, and patched beam.

without retrofit, i.e., the effectiveness of the patch alone.

1.5.2 Retrofit Calculations

experience cover delamination at the plate ends.

1.5.3 Retrofit Application Procedure

Beams 2, 3, 4, and 5 were retrofitted with a proprietary unidirectional CFRP plate

the field using a utility knife and a metal straightedge.

The concrete surface was checked with a yardstick for levelness.

grinder was used instead).

4) The concrete surface was cleaned thoroughly with a non-residual de-greaser. A

layer using a 3.18 mm (0.125 in.) V-notch trowel.

contact. All excess epoxy was removed.

1.5.4 Damage and Patch Method

a fiber-reinforced, polymer-modified, shrinkage-compensated repair mortar was used to

Troweable Mortar.” A comparison of the EMACO R320 CI published material properties

potentiometers. Data were collected electronically approximately every 2 seconds using a

1.6 TESTING PROCEDURE

15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 kips).

1.7 TEST RESULTS

1.7.1 Description of Failure Types

be expected of under-reinforced concrete beams with sufficient shear reinforcement. At

the displacement at midspan was increased.

mode is termed “intermediate crack-induced interfacial debonding” by Teng et al. (2002).

utilized in this paper.