CFRP Bridge Beams
CFRP Bridge Beams
CFRP Bridge Beams
Reinforced
with CFRP
Investigating the shear performance of box beams strengthened
with carbon fiber-reinforced polymers
PREVIOUS FINDINGS
/ FEBRUARY 2005
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Fig. 1: Typical section through box beams evaluated for shear capacity. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm
Fig. 2: Reinforcement details of box beam M2 with Type SA shear stirrups. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm
FEBRUARY 2005
/ Concrete international
gauges on the top surface and five gauges on each side surface)
were installed on the midspan concrete surface to monitor
the concrete strain distribution. Demountable mechanical
strain gauge (DEMEC) point rosettes were located on each
side of the test beam in the shear critical zones. They were
used to monitor the propagation of shear cracks by measuring
horizontal, diagonal, and vertical strains at each station.
Beam deflection was measured using string pots
attached at midspan and at the quarterspan points.
Sensors were connected to a data acquisition system to
monitor the readings throughout the tests.
INSTRUMENTATION
TESTING SET-UP
TABLE 1:
PROPERTIES OF CFRP AND STEEL STIRRUPS, BARS, AND TENDONS
Tendons
Stirrups
TA18
SA20
SB21
Steel
9.5 (0.37)
9.5 (0.37)
10.5 (0.4)
9.5(0.37)
71 (0.11)
71 (0.11)
55.7* (0.09)
9.5 (0.37)
1524 (220)
1580 (230)
1867 (270)
414 (60)
1930 (280)
1896 (275)
2103 (305)
414 (60)
131 (19,000)
110 (16,000)
137 (19,900)
200 (29,000)
Maximum elongation, %
1.47
1.7
1.5
0.2
TABLE 2:
DETAILS OF CRACKING AND FAILURE LOADS, STIRRUP STRAINS, AND ENERGY RATIOS FOR THE BOX BEAMS TESTED FOR SHEAR
Beam
notation
M2
M3
T2
T3
Stirrup
type
SA20
SB21
Spacing,*
mm (in.)
Shear
cracking
force,
kN (kip)
Angle of
major
crack,
deg.()
Failure
load,
kN (kip)
Average
stirrup
strain at
failure, %
Energy
ratio, %
125 (5)
111 (25)
45
257 (58)
0.40
24
75 (3)
156 (35)
47
267 (60)
0.30
23
125 (5)
111 (25)
46
226 (51)
0.38
17
75 (3)
156 (35)
45
291 (66)
0.25
17
S2
STEEL
125 (5)
133 (30)
45
223 (50)
0.19
25
N0
80 (20)
46
177 (40)
15
*Stirrup spacing corresponds to d/2 or d/3, where d is the distance from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of the bonded
prestressing rods.
Concrete international
/ FEBRUARY 2005
SHEAR RESPONSE
FEBRUARY 2005
/ Concrete international
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by a consortium made of the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) under contract No. 14718, the National
Science Foundation, Civil and Mechanical System Division (Grant
No. CMS 9900809). The authors would like to thank the following
ODOT personnel for their help and suggestions: Tim Keller, Monique
Evans, Brad Fagrel, Vikram Dalal, Valerie Frank, and Karen Panell of
the Office of Research and Development and the Office of Structural
Engineering. The support and technical comments provided by
Mr. Enomoto of Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan,
Mr. Yagi of Mitsubishi Chemical Functional Products, Inc., Tokyo,
and Sean Raymond of Diversified Composites, Inc., Erlanger, KY, are
greatly appreciated. The views and conclusions presented in this
article represent those of the authors and not that of ODOT or FHWA.
References
1. ACI Committee 440, State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced
Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (ACI 440R-96),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1996, 65 pp.
2. Naaman, A. E., and Jeong, S. M., Structural Ductility of
Concrete Beams Prestressed with FRP Tendons, Non-Metallic (FRP)
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the Second
International RILEM Symposium (FRPRCS), Ghent, Belgium,
Aug. 23-25, 1995, pp. 379-386.
Concrete international
/ FEBRUARY 2005