Agapay 2003

~
UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I LIBRARY
TEST OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE T-BEAMS

RETROFITTED FOR SHEAR AND FLEXURE USING
CARBON FIBER REINFORCED POLYMERS
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
AUGUSTZOO3
By
Alison Agapay
Thesis Committee:
Ian N. Robertson, Chairperson
Gregor Fischer
Si-Hwan Park
ABSTRACT
In 1997, a precast prestressed T-Beam in the Ala Moana Shopping Center Parking
Garage was strengthened in flexure using carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP).
When the old parking garage was demolished in June 2000 to make way for a new
multilevel parking garage, this beam and two control beams were salvaged and
transported to the University of Hawaii at Manoa Structural Testing Laboratory for
testing. This thesis presents testing of the strengthened beam and a control beam. It also
describes the retrofit procedures during field application of the CFRP strips, beam
recovery, and preparation for laboratory testing. In addition, a step by step analysis of the
predicted strengths is presented.
To ensure flexure failure, the beams were retrofitted in shear with CFRP. Two types
of wrapping schemes were used and anchorage was provided for the shear retrofit. The
left half of each beam was retrofitted with 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups. The right
half of each beam was retrofitted with 12" wide CFRP sheets. After flexural testing, each
half of each beam was recovered for shear testing.
Flexural test results indicate that the CFRP strengthening provided a 71 % increase
compared with the control specimen without reducing the beam's ductility. The flexural
capacity of the strengthened beam was 21 % greater than predicted by ACI 440R-02. The
failure shear strength of the beams with CFRP sheets was slightly greater than the ACI
440R-02 prediction. The shear tests indicated delamination of the CFRP stirrups and
sheets occurring prior to the maximum shear load. Anchorage at the top and bottom of
the beam web helped prevent complete delamination of the CFRP; however further
anchorage development is required to maximize the strength of the CFRP shear retrofit.
iii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis was prepared by Alison Agapay under the direction of Dr. Ian Robertson.
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Gregor Fischer and Dr. Si-Hwan Park
for their effort in reviewing this report.
The author is extremely grateful to Adriano "A. B." Bortolin of Sika Products, USA,
for providing valuable information concerning the original CFRP application, at which he
was the Sika representative. Sika Products also donated all of the CFRP materials
required for laboratory shear retrofit. The author is also indebted to Brian Ide, the
structural engineer responsible for the original CFRP strengthening design.
The author would like to thank Chandler Rowe and his colleagues at Plas-Tech Ltd.
Honolulu, Hawaii for donating their labor and expertise in the repair of the beams and for
installation of the shear retrofit materials. Thanks to Timothy Goshi for helping with the
construction of the test frame, and in preparing the beams for testing. Thanks to Kainoa
Aki for programming the LAB VIEW data acquisition system, helping in constructing the
beam supports, and installing the CFRP strips on the beam. Thanks to Gaur Johnson for
setting up the beam in the test frame and recording cracks. Thanks to Stephanie Fung for
recording the manual strain gage readings. Also, thanks to Andrew Oshita and Miles
Wagner for reminding us about lab safety, advice on the construction of the test frame,
and overall lab assistance.
This project was funded by the Hawaii Department of Transportation Research
Board, research grant No. 46507. This financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRA.CT
III
AKNOWLEOOEMENTS
IV
LIST OF FIGU'RES
VII
LIST OF TABLES
.xl
IN'TRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
OBJECTIVE
1
3
4
1.1
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.3
Use ofCFRPfor flexural strengthening

Use ofCFRPfor shear strengthening
SUMMARY
LITERA.TU'RE 'REVIEW
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
5
8
8
8
13
INTRODUCTION
CFRP FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING
CFRP SHEAR STRENGTHENING
CHAPTER SUMMARY
18
ALA MOANA BEAM 'REPAIR
19
BEAM RECOVERY AND 'REPAIR
23
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
25
26
29
TEST SETUP AND BEAM LAYOUT.............................................................................................. 33

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.4.7
33
33
39
39
!NTRODUCTION
TEsT APPARATUS
BEAM SHEAR RETROFIT
CFRP Shear Stirrups

CFRP Shear Sheets
47
BEAM TEST CONFIGURATION AND INSTRUMENTATION
T-Beam 1 Layout and Instrumentation.

T-Beam 1L Layout and Instrumentation
T-Beam 1R Layout and Instrumentation
T-Beam 2 Layout and Instrumentation
T-Beam 2R1 Layout and Instrumentation
T-Beam 2R2 Test Setup and Layout
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
23
INTRODUCTION
Epoxy CRACK REPAIR
Epoxy MORTAR SPALL REPAIR
Top SLAB REPLACEMENT
58
62
74
77
79
81
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

Top SLAB CONCRETE MODULUS OF RUPTURE
STEEL REINFORCEMENT TENSILE STRENGTHS
CFRP MATERIAL PROPERTIES
CFRP PULL-oFF TEsTS
THEO'RETICAL BEAM ST'RENGTBS

7.1
7.2
7.3
52
52
56
81
83
83
84
85
87
NOTATION
FLEXURAL STRENGTHOFT-BEAM 1
FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF T -BEAM 2 (W/CARBODUR STRIPS)
87
92
94
7.3.1
Flexural Capacity ofa Reinforced Concrete Beam with CFRP
7.3.2
Nominal Flexural Capacity ofa Prestressed Concrete Beam with CFRP
7.3.3
Calculation ofthe Predicted Flexural Strength ofT-Beam 2
7.4
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 1 (WITHOUT SHEAR RETROm)
7.S
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 2Rl (PLAIN CONCRETE)
7.6
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 1L (W/CFRP STIRRUPs)
7.7
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 2L (w/CFRP STIRRUPS)
7.8
SHEAR STRENGTH oFT-BEAM lR(w/CFRP SHEETS)
7.9
SHEAR STRENGTH OFT-BEAM 2R2 (W/CFRP SHEETS)
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

8.1
136
ACI 318 Predicted Flexural Capacities
138
Slab Reinforcement Strain Gage Readings
141
Concrete Strain Gage Readings
145
Vertical Deflection
145
Strains in the CFRP stirrups and sheets
145
T-BEAM 2 RESPONSE
149
Failure mechanismfor T-Beam 2
154
157
Vertical Displacementfrom LVDT Readings
158
Carbodur Strip Strain Gages
163
ACI 440 VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL MOMENT CAPACITY
179
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 2Rl (PLAIN CONCRETE)
181
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 1L (CFRP STIRRUPS)
186
Measured strain in the CFRP stirrups
192
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 2L (CFRP STIRRUPS)
203
Strain Gage Readingsfor CFRP Stirrups
210
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM lR(CFRP SHEETS) ...217
Strain Gage Readingsfor CFRP Sheets
222
Carbodur strip strain gages
222
SHEAR STRENGTH OF T-BEAM 2R2 (CFRP SHEETS)
228
Strain Gage Readings attached on CFRP Sheets
233
COMPARISON OF THE SHEAR STRENGTHS OF THE T-BEAMS TESTED IN SHEAR..237
ACI 440 VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL SHEAR CAPACITIES . 239
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

9.1
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
10
136
T-BEAM 1 REsPONSE
8.1.1
8.1.2
8.1.3
8.1.4
8.1.5
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
8.3
8.4
8.S
8.5.1
8.6
8.6.1
8.7
8.7.1
8.7.2
8.8
8.8.1
8.9
8.10
9
94
97
102
110
117
120
124
128
132
241
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
241
242
242
243
Flexure Tests
Shear Tests
REFERENCES
vi
244
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1-1 DAMAGED BEAM IN THE ALA MOANA PARKING GARAGE PRIOR TO 1997 REPAIR
FIGURE 1-2 ELEVATION OF REPAIRED T-BEAM SHOWING THE TOP FLANGE AND JOISTS
FIGURE 3-1 CROSS SECTION OF T -BEAM FOR CARBODUR STRIP INSTALLATION
FIGURE 3-2 SURFACE PREPARATION PRIOR ToCFRP APPLICATION
FIGURE 3-3 SIKA CARBODUR STRIPS BEING PREPARED FOR INSTALLATION
FIGURE 3-4 APPLICATION OF CFRP STRIPS
FIGURE 3-5 WET LAY-UP ANCHORAGE WRAP AT END OF CFRP STRIPS
FIGURE3-6 SIKA WET LAYUP WRAPS AT CONCRETE SPALLS
FIGURE 3-7 REPAIRED BEAM IN SERVICE
FIGURE 4-1 SAW CUTTING COLUMN CAPITAL TO REMOVE PRECAST PRESTRESSED BEAM
FIGURE 4-2 CABLE SUPPORT DURING BEAM REMOVAL
FIGURE 4-3 INJECTION PORT PLACEMENT
FIGURE 4-4 EpOXY INJECTION
FIGURE 4-5 PRIMING THE REPAIR CONTACT SURFACE
FIGURE 4-6 FORMING THE REPAIR AREA
FIGURE 4-7 POURING EPOXY MORTAR PATCH MATERIAL
FIGURE 4-8 COMPLETED SPALL REPAIR
FIGURE 4-9 TYPICAL T BEAM CROSSSECTION
FIGURE4-10 TBEAM 1 FLANGE LAYOUT
FIGURE 4-11 T-BEAM 1 FLANGE REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT
FIGURE 4-12 PLYWOOD BLOCK-OUTS FOR CFRP SHEAR STIRRUPS
FIGURE4-13 T-BEAM 1 TOP FLANGE CONCRETE PLACEMENT
FIGURE 51 SCHEMATIC LAyOUT OF TEsT SETUP
FIGURE 5-2 DETAIL OF FINAL TEST FRAME DESIGN
FIGURE 5-3 TEST FRAME DETAILS
FIGURE 5-4 TEST FRAME UNDER CONSTRUCTION (SHORT COLUMNS)
FIGURE 55 COMPLETED TEST FRAME WITH TBEAM 1 READY FOR LOADING
FIGURE 5-6 SHEAR RETROFIT LAYOUT FOR T-BEAM 1
FIGURE 5-7 SLOTTED HOLES IN TOP SLAB FOR CFRP SHEAR STIRRUPS
FIGURE 5-8 CONCRETE SURFACE PREPARATION USING NEEDLE GUN
FIGURE 5-9 ROUGHENED WEB FOR 3" WIDE STIRRUPS
FIGURE 5-10 CFRP STIRRUPS BEING SATURATED WITH SIKADUR HEX 300
FIGURE 5-11 SIKA 30 HI MOD GEL EPOXY USED TO PREPARE SURFACE FOR CFRP
FIGURE 5-12 3" WIDE DOUBLE LAYER CFRP STIRRUPS WRAPPED THROUGH SLOTTED HOLES
FIGURE 5-13 CFRP STIRRUPS IN PLACE, BOTTOM TRIMMED AFTER CURING
FIGURE 5-14 INSTALLATION OF STEEL TUBE ANCHORAGE FOR 3" WIDE CFRP STiRRUPS
FIGURE 5-15 COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF ANCHORAGE FOR 3" WIDE CFRP STIRRUPS
FIGURE 5-16 ROUGHENED WEB AND HI MOD GEL APPLICATION FOR 12" WIDE SHEETS
FIGURE 5-17 CFRP SHEETS SATURATED WITH SIKADUR HEX 300
FIGURE 5-18 INSTALLATION OF CFRP SHEETS AS SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
FIGURE 5-19 SIKA 30 HI MOD GEL EPOXY BED AT RE-ENTRANT CORNER OF CFRP SHEETS
FIGURE 5-20 TUBE ANCHORAGE SET IN EPOXY BED AT RE-ENTRANT CORNER OF CFRP SHEETS
FIGURE 5-21 TELESCOPE SPLICE IN STEEL TUBE ANCHORAGE
FIGURE 5-22 COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL ANCHORAGE FOR 12" CFRP SHEETS
FIGURE 523 T-BEAM 1 LAyOUT AND INSTRUMENTATION
FIGURE 5-24 T-BEAM 1 IN THE LOAD FRAME READY FOR TESTING
FIGURE 5-25 T-BEAM 1 READY FOR TESTING - CENTER VIEW
FIGURE5-26 LAyOUT AND INSTRUMENTATION OF T-BEAM lL
FIGURE 5-27 T-BEAM 1L READY FOR TESTING
FIGURE 5-28 FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING OF T-BEAM lR USING PRECURED CARBODUR STRIPS
FIGURE 5-29 TBEAM lR LAyOUT AND INSTRUMENTATION
FIGURE 5-30 T-BEAM lR READY FOR TESTING
vii
2
3
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
24
24
25
26
27
27
28
28
30
31
31
32
32
34
36
37
38
38
41
.42
42
42
.45
.45
45
46
46
.47
48
.48
48
SO
SO
51
51
54
55
55
57
58
60
61
62
FIGURE 5-31 STEEL REACTION BRACKETS AT BOTH ENDS OF T-BEAM 2

63
FIGURE 5-32 T-BEAM 2 TOP FLANGE REINFORCEMENT AND STRAIN GAGE LAYOUT
64
FIGURE 5-33 T -BEAM 2 SLAB LAYOUT PRIOR TO CONCRETE POUR
65
FIGURE 5-34 T-BEAM 2 BEING PREPARED FOR SHEAR RETROFIT
66
FIGURE 5-35 BEAM SHEAR RETROFIT LAYOUT FOR T-BEAM 2
68
FIGURE 5-36 SIKA 30 HI MOD GEL EPOXY BEING APPLIED TO THE CFRP STIRRUPS FOR EVEN SEATING OF
THE ANCHORAGE ANGLES
69
FIGURE 5-37 CFRP ANGLES INSTALLED AS ANCHORAGE FOR CFRP SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
69
FIGURE 5-38 ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE STRAIN GAGES INSTALLED ON THE CARBODUR STRIPS
70
FIGURE 5-39 T-BEAM 2 LAyOUT AND INSTRUMENTATION
72
FIGURE 5-40 T-BEAM 2 TEST SETUP
73
FIGURE 5-41 T-BEAM2L BEING PREPARED FOR SHEAR TESTING
74
FIGURE 5-42 T-BEAM2L LAyOUT AND INSTRUMENTATION
76
FIGURE 5-43 T-BEAM 2L IN TEST SETUP
76
FIGURE 5-44 WEDGE ANCHORS INSTALLED ON PRESTRESSED STRANDS AT END OF T-BEAM 2Rl
77
FIGURE 5-45 T-BEAM 2Rl LAyOUT AND INSTRUMENTATION
78
FIGURE 5-46 T-BEAM 2Rl IN TEST SETUP
78
FIGURE 5-47 T-BEAM 2R2 LAyOUT AND INSTRUMENTATION
80
FIGURE 5-48 T-BEAM 2R2 IN TEST FRAME
80
FIGURE 6-1 CONCRETE CORE SAMPLE TAKEN FROM AT-BEAM WEB
82
FIGURE 6-2 DYNA Z16 PULL-OFF TESTER
85
FIGURE 6-3 TYPICAL LOCATIONS OF CFRP PULL-oFF TESTS
85
FIGURE7-1 CROSS-SECTION OFT-BEAM 1
92
FIGURE 7-2 STRESS AND STRAIN DISTRIBUTION OF A REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM WITH CFRP UNDER
FLEXURE AT ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE CONDmoN
95
FIGURE 7-3 STRESS AND STRAIN DISTRIBUTION OF A PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM UNDER FLEXURE AT THE
INmAL CONDITION (PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF CFRP)
98
FIGURE 7-4 STRESS AND STRAIN DISTRIBUTION OF A PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM WITH CFRP UNDER
FLEXURE AT ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE CONDmoN
l00
FIGURE7-5 T-BEAM2 TRIBUTARY WIDTH AT ALA MOANAPARKING GARAGE
I03
FIGURE 7-6 SECTION PROPERTIES OF THE PRECAST PRESTRESSED BEAM SECTION
104
FIGURE 7-7 SECTION PROPERTIES OF THE COMPOSITE SECTION
105
FIGURE 7-8 STRESS AND STRAIN DISTRIBUTIONS FOR T -BEAM 2 AT THE INITIAL CONDmON
106
FIGURE 7-9 STRESS AND STRAIN DISTRIBUTIONS FOR T-BEAM 2 AT ULTIMATE STATE CONDmONS
107
FIGURE 7-10 T-BEAM 1 LAYOUT FOR SHEAR STRENGTH CALCULATION
110
FIGURE 7-11 SHEAR CAPACITY AND SHEAR DIAGRAM OFT-BEAMS 1 AND2
116
FIGURE7-12 T-BEAM2Rl LAYOUT AND SHEAR AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS
117
FIGURE 7-13 T-BEAM 1L LAYOUT AND SHEAR AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS
120
FIGURE 7-14 CROSS SECTION OF T-BEAM 1L SHOWING CFRP STIRRUP LAYOUT
122
FIGURE 7-15 T-BEAM 2L LAYOUT AND SHEAR AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS
124
FIGURE 7-16 CROSS SECTION OF T-BEAM 2L
126
FIGURE 7-17 T-BEAM 1R LAYOUT AND SHEAR AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS
128
FIGURE 7-18 CROSS SECTION OF T-BEAM lR SHOWINGCFRP SHEET LAYOUT
130
FIGURE7-19 T-BEAM2R2 LAYOUT AND SHEAR AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS
132
FIGURE 7-20 CROSS SECTION OF T-BEAM 2R2 SHOWING CFRP SHEETS
134
FIGURE 8-1 T-BEAM 1 READY FOR FLEXURAL TESTING
136
FIGURE 8-2 MID-SPAN MOMENT _ DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP FOR T -BEAM 1
139
FIGURE 8-3 T-BEAM 1 MID-SPAN CONDmON CORRESPONDING TO SIX DUCTILITY LEVELS
140
FIGURE 8-4 T-BEAM 1 SLAB REINFORCEMENT STRAIN GAGE READINGS
142
FIGURE 8-5 STRAIN READINGS FOR STRAIN GAGES 4-6 (T-BEAM 1)
143
FIGURE 8-6 STRAIN READINGS FOR STRAIN GAGE 1-4 (T-BEAM 1)
144
FIGURE 8-7 REPRESENTATION OF THE VERTICAL DEFLECTION OF T-BEAM 1 FROM LVDT READINGS
147
FIGURE 8-8 STRAIN READINGS FROM GAGES ATTACHED TO CFRP STIRRUPS AND SHEETS (T-BEAM 1)
148
FIGURE 8-9 T-BEAM 2 READY FOR FLEXURAL TESTING
149
FIGURE 8-10 MID-SPAN MOMENT-DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP FOR T-BEAM 2
152
FIGURE 8-11 T-BEAM 2 CONDmON CORRESPONDING TO SIX DUCTILITY LEVELS
153
viii
FIGURE 8-12 FLEXURE-SHEAR CRACK FORMED OUTSIDE OF THE LEFT LOAD POINT (T-BEAM 2)
154
FIGURE 8-13 DELAMINATION OF CARBODUR STRIPS INITIATING AT THE FLEXURE-SHEAR CRACK
156
FIGURE 8-14 CARBODUR STRIPS DELAMINATED FROM BEAM AND PULLING OUT OF CFRP WRAP ANCHOR 156
FIGURE 8-15 STRAIN READINGS FOR SLAB REINFORCEMENT STRAIN GAGE (T-BEAM 2)
159
160
161
FIGURE 8-18 REPRESENTATION OF THE VERTICAL DEFLECTION OF T -BEAM 2 FROM LVDT READINGS 162
FIGURE 8-19 T-BEAM 2 BEAM SOFFIT SHOWING LOCATION OF STRAIN GAGES
163
FIGURE 8-20 STRAIN READINGS OF STRAIN GAGES 7-9
165
166
167
168
169
170
FIGURE 8-26 STRAIN READINGS OF STRAIN GAGES 13-1 5
171
FIGURE 8-27 WEB-SHEAR CRACKS FORMING AWAY FROM THE MID-SPAN OF BEAM AS CONFIRMED BY
CARBODUR STRAIN READINGS
172
FIGURE 8-28 STRAIN READINGS FOR GAGES ON THE FIRST CARBODUR STRIP
173
FIGURE 8-29 STRAIN READINGS FOR GAGES ON THE SECOND CARBODUR STRIP
174
FIGURE 8-30 STRAIN READINGS FOR GAGES ON THE THIRD CARBODUR STRIP
175
FIGURE 8-31 STRAIN READINGS ON THE FIRST CARBODUR STRIP CORRESPONDING TO THE SIX DUCTILITY
LEVELS
176
FIGURE 8-32 STRAIN READINGS ON THE SECOND CARBODUR STRIP CORRESPONDING TO THE SIX DUCTILITY
LEVELS
177
FIGURE 8-33 STRAIN READINGS ON THE THIRD CARBODUR STRIP CORRESPONDING TO THE SIX DUCTILITY
LEVELS
178
FIGURE 8-34 PLoT OF NORMALIZED ACI 440 PREDICTION AND EXPERIMENTAL MOMENT CAPACITIES 180
FIGURE 8-35 TEST SETUP AND SHEAR SPAN OF T-BEAM 2Rl
181
FIGURE 8-36 SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP FOR T-BEAM 2Rl
183
FIGURE 8-37 T-BEAM2Rl CONDITION AT CRITICAL STAGES DURING THE TEST
184
FIGURE 8-38 FAILURE OF STEEL SHEAR REINFORCEMENT AT FAILURE SHEAR CRACK
185
FIGURE 8-39 SHEAR REINFORCEMENT ANCHORAGE FAILURE AT BASE OF WEB
185
FIGURE 8-40 TEST SETUP OF T -BEAM 1L (CFRP STIRRUPS)
186
FIGURE 8-41 SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP FOR T -BEAM 1L
189
FIGURE 8-42 T-BEAM 1L CONDITION AT VARIOUS STAGES IN THE SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE 190
FIGURE 8-43 FLEXURAL FAILURE OFT-BEAM lL
191
FIGURE 8-44 DELAMINATION OF CFRP STIRRUPS FROM T-BEAM 1L
191
FIGURE 8-45 STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGE 25
194
195
196
197
198
199
FIGURE 8-51 STRAIN READINGS ON STRAIN GAGE 30
200
FIGURE 8-52 STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 28-30 FROM THE FIRST TEST OF T-BEAM 1L
201
FIGURE 8-53 STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 28-30 FROM THE SECOND TEST OF T -BEAM 1L 202
FIGURE 8-54 T-BEAM 2L TEST SETUP
204
FIGURE 8-55 INITIAL CONDITION OF T -BEAM 2L BEFORE TESTING
204
FIGURE 8-56 SHEAR - DISPLACEMENT CURVE FOR T-BEAM 2L
206
FIGURE 8-57 T -BEAM 2L CONDITION AT VARIOUS STAGES DURING TESTING
207
FIGURE 8-58 SHEAR FAILURE AND TENDON END ANCHORAGE SLIP
208
FIGURE 8-59 RUPTURE OF GFRP ANGLE AT THRU-BOLTS
208
FIGURE 8-60 AREAS OF CFRP DELAMINATION ON T-BEAM 2L
209
FIGURE 8-61 BUCKLING OF CFRP STIRRUPS AT FAILURE
209
FIGURE 8-62 STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 1 AND 7
211
FIGURE 8-63 STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 2 AND 8
212
ix
FIGURE 8-64
FIGURE 8-65
FIGURE 8-66
FIGURE 8-67
FIGURE 8-68
STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 3

T-BEAM lR TEST SETUP
FIGURE 8-69
FIGURE 8-70
FIGURE 8-71
FIGURE 8-72
FIGURE 8-73
FIGURE 8-74
SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT CURVE FOR T-BEAM lR

T -BEAM lR CONDITION AT VARIOUS STAGES DURING SHEAR TESTING
T-BEAM lR CONDITION AT CFRP DELAMINATION
T-BEAM lR CONDITION AT FAILURE
STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 13-16
219
220
221
221
223
224
FIGURE 8-75
FIGURE 8-76
FIGURE 8-77
FIGURE 8-78
FIGURE 8-79
FIGURE 8-80
FIGURE 8-81

STRAIN READINGS ON THE CARBODUR STRIPS FROM STRAIN GAGES 30-32
T-BEAM2R2 TEST SETUP
SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT CURVE FOR T -BEAM 2R2
T-BEAM 2R2 CONDITION AT SEVEN STAGES
DELAMINATION OF THE CFRP SHEET
225
226
227
228
230
231
232
FIGURE 8-82
FIGURE 8-83
FIGURE 8-84
FIGURE 8-85
FIGURE 8-86
FIGURE 8-87
RUPTURE OF GFRP ANGLES AT THRU-BOLTS

SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT CURVES FOR ALL SHEAR TESTS
NORMALIZED ACI 440 PREDICTIONS VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL SHEAR CAPACITIES
232
234
235
236
238
240
AND 9
AND 10
AND 11
AND 12
213
214
215
216
217
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 6.1
TABLE 6.2
TABLE 6.3
TABLE 6.4
TABLE 6.S
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

MODULUS OF RUPTURE TEST
STEEL REINFORCEMENT TENSILE STRENGTHS
CFRP MATERIAL PROPERTIES
PULL-oFF TEST RESULTS
xi
82
83
84
84
86
CHAPTERl
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) has become a valuable material for
repairing and retrofitting damaged or deficient structures. Numerous research studies

have shown that CFRP sheets or strips bonded to the concrete surface can substantially
increase flexural, shear and compressive strength of concrete members. The literature
review in Chapter 2 summarizes a number of research studies on the use of CFRP for
flexural and shear strengthening of concrete beams.
During a routine structural inspection of the Ala Moana Parking Garage in the late
1990's, a number of large flexural cracks were noted on the bottom of a precast
prestressed concrete beam along with severe spalling damage to the beam ledges (Figure
1-1). The beam spans 30' from center to center of supporting columns. The beam is a
precast prestressed T-Beam supporting joists and a slab acting as the top flange of the
beam (Figure 1-2). The damaged beam was repaired in 1997 using CFRP materials.
Chapter 3 provides a description of the original beam repair.
In 2000, the portion of the Ala Moana Parking Garage around this beam was
demolished to allow for a new multilevel parking structure. This beam, along with two
identical undamaged beams, was salvaged in June 2000 for testing in the University of
Hawaii at Manoa Structural Testing Laboratory (UHM-STL). During demolition, beam
recovery, and transportation, minor damage was caused to the beam webs. This damage
was repaired and the top slab reinstated at UHM-STL prior to testing. Chapter 4
describes the beam recovery and repair operations.
The research program reported here involved flexural and shear testing of two of the
beams salvaged from the Ala Moana Parking Garage. One un-strengthened beam was
used as the control specimen. This beam is referred to as T-Beam 1. The second beam is
the strengthened beam referred to as T-Beam 2. The third beam will be used in a future
research study on CFRP shear retrofit of cracked beams.
Considerable instrumentation was installed to monitor the beams during testing. The
layout of this instrumentation for each test, and the precise test setup for each loading
condition, are described in detail in Chapter 5. Material properties for the beams and
CFRP materials are presented in Chapter 6. Predicted strengths of the control and
strengthened beams are presented in Chapter 7. The results of the flexural and shear
testing are presented in Chapter 8. Finally Chapter 9 presents a summary and
conclusions for this research project.
Figure 1-1 Damaged beam in the Ala Moana parking garage prior to 1997 repair
\II
:I
~I
II
II
III
30'
i
I
i
!
I
Figure 1-2 Elevation of repaired T-beam showing the top flange and joists
1.2
ObjectWe
The primary objective of this research program was to evaluate the use of CFRP
material as a retrofit for damaged or deficient prestressed concrete beams. The repaired
beam, T-Beam 2, was the first application of CFRP material for strengthening of a
concrete structure in the State of Hawaii. The Hawaii Department of Transportation
(HOOT) funded this research program in order to evaluate the use of CFRP for retrofit of
deficient bridge structures across the state. Because of similarities between the Ala
Moana beams and typical prestressed AASHTO bridge girders, the results of this study
should provide valuable insight into the likely performance of bridge girders retrofitted
with CFRP materials.
Very few tests have been conducted on field applied CFRP after exposure to service
conditions. The precast prestressed beam tested in this study was retrofitted for flexure
with CFRP applied under field conditions. It was then in service for three years and
spent an additional eighteen months exposed to exterior environmental conditions prior to

testing.
Initial theoretical strength calculations for T-Beam 1 and T-Beam 2 indicated that the
addition ofCFRP to increase the flexural capacity ofT-Beam 2 resulted in a shear critical
failure mode if the beam were tested under the proposed laboratory conditions. To
reduce the potential for a shear failure and ensure the desired flexural failure of T-Beam
2, the shear spans of both beams were increased for the laboratory loading and CFRP
shear retrofit was applied prior to flexural testing. Two shear retrofit techniques were
employed on each beam, namely external CFRP shear stirrups on the left half of the beam
and CFRP sheets on the right half of the beam. Subsequent to flexural testing, each of
the beam shear spans was tested in shear to evaluate the performance of the CFRP shear
retrofit.
1.2.1
Use ofCFRPfor flexural strengthening
Prior laboratory research studies have shown that external application of CFRP in the
tension zone of a flexural member can dramatically increase the flexural capacity of the
member (Chapter 2 Literature Review). The externally applied CFRP adds to the tensile
capacity of the existing internal non-prestressed or prestressed tension reinforcement,
thereby increasing the flexural capacity. The high tensile strength of CFRP materials
provides significantly increased capacity for relatively small amounts of added material.
The relatively high modulus of elasticity of CFRP also enhances the post-cracking
flexural stiffness of the member. Care must be taken not to increase the flexural tension
reinforcement to the point where compression failure of the concrete governs the flexural
strength of the beam.
T-Beam 2 was retrofitted with three pre-cured carbodur strips epoxied to the bottom
of the beam. The ends of these tension strips were restrained at the ends of the beam by
means of uni-directional CFRP fabric wraps. Chapter 5 provides a detailed description of
the flexural strengthening of T-Beam 2.
1.2.2
Use ofCFRPfor shear strengthening
Shear strengthening using CFRP has proved effective in a number of prior

experimental studies (Chapter 2 Literature Review). In many of these previous studies,
the CFRP shear reinforcement was bonded to the beam web without any anchorage at the
top and bottom of the web. Failure of the CFRP shear retrofit was usually the result of
de-bonding of the CFRP from the concrete surface. The relatively low tensile strength of
the surface concrete controls the pull-off strength and therefore precipitates the
debonding failure. Few studies have considered mechanical anchorage of the CFRP
shear reinforcement at top and bottom of the beam. Such anchorage may improve the
performance of the shear reinforcement and so was used in the tests reported here.
Two types of shear strengthening were installed on T-Beam 1 and T-Beam 2. The
left half of each beam was retrofitted with external CFRP stirrups placed at 12" on center,
between the internal 3/8" diameter steel stirrups. Each stirrup consisted of a 3" wide
double layer of CFRP fabric extending from the bottom of the beam, up the side of the
web, through a slot in the top slab, continuously over the top of the web and down the
other side of the beam. In order to prevent premature delamination of the CFRP stirrups
at the re-entrant comer at the bottom of the web, mechanical anchorage was provided in
the form of steel tubes or GFRP angles with steel bolts through the beam web.
The right half of each beam was retrofitted in shear with 12" wide single layer sheets
of CFRP epoxied to both sides of the beam web. The shear sheets were installed at 18"
on center so as to leave a 6" gap between the sheets to allow moisture and vapor to
escape from the beam concrete without affecting the bond between CFRP and concrete.
Each sheet extended from the bottom of the web to the soffit of the top slab. In order to
prevent premature delamination of the CFRP sheets at the re-entrant corners at the
bottom of the slab and at the bottom of the web, mechanical anchorage similar to that
used for the shear stirrups was installed at both locations. A detailed description of the
shear retrofit of each beam is provided in Chapter 5
1.3
Summary
The objectives of this research program are summarized below.
1. To determine the increase in flexural strength of the precast T-Beam as a result of
the field applied CFRP flexural reinforcement. The performance of the
strengthened T-Beam 2 will be compared with the control specimen, T-Beam 1,
and with the results of previous experimental studies.
2. To evaluate the use of CFRP in the form of stirrups and sheets for shear retrofit of
prestressed concrete beams. The effect of mechanical anchorage provided at the
re-entrant corners of the CFRP shear reinforcement will also be evaluated.
3. Compare shear test results with previous experimental studies and with the
strength predicted by the recently published ACI 440R-02 committee report on
the use ofexternally bonded FRP.
4. To determine the failure mechanism of the CFRP flexural and shear retrofit
systems used on the T-Beams.
5. To recommend appropriate CFRP flexural and shear retrofit methods for
prestressed concrete bridge girder beams.
CHAPTERZ
2.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Since the late 1980's, research into the use of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) for
external repair and retrofit of concrete flexural members has progressed rapidly.
Researchers have considered various types of FRP, different application techniques and
various loading conditions. The majority of this research has been performed in the
laboratory on small-scale reinforced concrete specimens. Limited research is available
on the performance of field applied FRP and on the application of FRP materials to
prestressed concrete beams. This chapter presents some of the recent research using
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) for flexural and shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete members.
2.2
CFRP Flexural Strengthening

Numerous research programs have studied the performance of CFRP as flexural
strengthening for reinforced concrete beams. These studies considered different methods
of wrapping the CFRP onto the concrete member. Some also investigated the effect of
rate of loading on the performance of the strengthened concrete member. Research has
also been performed on the use of CFRP as confinement for partially corroded concrete
members.
Spadea et a1. 1 studied two methods of adding CFRP for flexural strengthening of
reinforced concrete members. In the first method, two layers of CFRP were bonded to
the tension face of the specimen and wrapped up the vertical faces of the beam to one
8
third of the beam height. In the second method, four layers of CFRP were bonded in the
same manner as before with the addition of end anchorage wraps near the supports that
extended to the top of the vertical faces of the beam. Both CFRP strengthening methods
produced higher flexural strengths than the control beam, reaching the calculated
theoretical strengths. However the flexural ductility of the beams was reduced compared
with the un-strengthened control specimen. The first application method exhibited a
sudden failure mode due to debonding of the laminate. This method showed a loss in
ductility of between 45% and 65%. The second method showed a sudden failure mode
due to shear at the supports. Although the end anchorages were effective at restraining
debonding of the flexural FRP, shear cracks near the supports opened up and the internal
shear stirrups ruptured, precipitating a brittle shear failure. This second method showed a
loss in ductility of between 25% and 40%.
Spadea et al. 2 also tested a number of beams retrofitted with only one sheet of CFRP
laminate bonded to the tension zone of the specimens. Testing included a control
specimen, a strengthened specimen without end anchorage, and a strengthened specimen
with anchorage at the ends of the CFRP near the supports. The retrofitted specimens
were less ductile than the control specimen. Their ductility was reduced by 30-65%
compared with the control beam. Results showed that the strengthened specimens
without end anchorage failed suddenly with the debonding of the laminate. Specimens
with the anchored laminate performed very well with increases in flexural capacity of
30% to 700!c> and did not exhibit premature debonding of the CFRP. The specimens with
anchored CFRP were more ductile than those without anchorage.
GangaRao and Vijay3 conducted a study of 24 beams that compared different types of
FRP flexural retrofit. They divided the beams into six groups. The first group included
the control specimens. The second group of beams had steel plates bonded to the tension
face for flexural strengthening. The rest of the groups were retrofitted with CFRP wraps
with different anchorage systems. Some of the beams were subjected to bending to
induce flexural cracking prior to strengthening with CFRP. The third and fourth groups
had CFRP wraps extending 90% up the vertical faces and along the full length of the
beam. The fifth and sixth groups had CFRP wrapped up the full height of the vertical
faces and along the full length of the beam. All of the repaired specimens showed
improvements in flexural performance. The beams retrofitted with CFRP performed
better than the steel-plate reinforced beams. Some of the specimens failed in shear so the
theoretical bending moments were not reached. The performance of repaired damaged
beams and repaired undamaged beams was similar.
Fanning and Kelly4 tested ten rectangular beams that were 9'-10" in length. Two
beams were used as control specimens. Eight of the beam specimens were retrofitted
with CFRP composites of different lengths in the tension zone of the beam. For the beam
retrofitted with CFRP over the full span length, the ends of the CFRP were anchored at
the supports. No anchorage was provided for shorter CFRP retrofits. Results showed an
increase of 40% in overall stiffness and a minimum of 50% increase in ultimate load for
the beams retrofitted with CFRP over the full span length. Specimens with shorter
lengths of CFRP showed no significant increase in strength. Beams without anchorage
failed due to CFRP plate peel-off.
10
Shahawy et al. s experimented on full-scale T-girders that were preloaded at different

stress levels and then repaired with two different CFRP wrapping techniques. Both
wrapping techniques had no additional anchorage. The first wrapping technique
consisted of two layers of CFRP on the tension face extending four to six inches up the
sides of the beam web. The second wrapping technique consisted of two layers of CFRP
on the tension face with wraps extending up the full side of the beam web. The
preloading of the beams had no effect on the performance of the CFRP. The partially
wrapped specimens had less strength than the fully wrapped specimens. In addition,
failure of the partially wrapped specimens resulted from sudden delamination of the
CFRP.
White et at. 6 conducted a study of reinforced concrete beams subjected to a high rate
of loading. A total of nine beams were tested with one being the control specimen. Eight
of the specimens were retrofitted with two types of CFRP. The first was an S-type
consisting of pultruded CFRP laminates. The second was an R-type consisting of prepreg
sheets. No anchorage was provided for the CFRP on any of the specimens. A number of
loading cycles were used. These included one slow stroke to failure, one fast stroke to
failure, one stroke to 150 kN at a slow rate followed by a fast stroke from 150 kN to
failure, and twelve fast loading cycles to 120 kN followed by fast loading to failure.
Specimens subjected to the high rate of loading had an increase of 5% in flexural
capacity, stiffness, and energy absorption over slowly loaded beams.
Masoud et at. 7 investigated the retrofit of corroded reinforced beams using CFRP.
The beams were cracked under typical service load conditions. An electrical current was
passed through the longitudinal reinforcements and wet-dry cycling applied to the beam
11
to accelerate corrosion of the reinforcing bars. Two techniques were used to repair the
beams with CFRP. The first involved fully wrapping the tension face and both sides of
the beam with CFRP. A horizontal strip of CFRP was placed at the top edge of the wrap
on both sides of the beam web for anchorage. The second scheme was the same as the
first with the addition of one longitudinal CFRP sheet added to the tension face. The
objective of this repair was to confine the concrete cover as opposed to actual flexural
strengthening. Results showed that an increase in strength was observed for all of the
strengthened specimens under monotonic loading. The test also showed that
strengthened specimens had better fatigue life over un-strengthened specimens.
Bonacci and Maalej8 also investigated the repair of corroded reinforced concrete
beams with CFRP before and after sustained loads were applied. The beams were
divided into groups where one group had more corrosion than the other. The beams were
retrofitted with CFRP on the tension face of the beam. Some had no anchorage while
others had anchorages provided at the ends and at mid-span of the beam. Results showed
that the CFRP repair increased the beam strength and decreased deflection. Delamination
of the CFRP started in the mid-span region and continued to the supports.
The CFRP flexural retrofit applied to the T-Beams in this research program has
similarities to many of the examples described in the literature. Pre-cured CFRP strips
were bonded to the tension face of the beam over its full length. Hand lay-up CFRP
sheets wrapped up the sides of the web were used to provide anchorage at the ends of the
tension strips. These beams were therefore expected to perform similar to those in the
literature review. In contrast to the specimens presented in the literature review t the T-
12
Beams in this program are precast prestressed concrete beams as opposed to the
reinforced beams used in most prior research.
Because of the predicted increase in flexural strength due to the addition of CFRP
flexural strengthening, T-Beam 2 might experience a shear failure prior to flexural
failure. Since the primary intent of this project was to determine the flexural
performance of the field-applied CFRP, it was important to prevent a premature shear
failure. Two types of CFRP shear retrofit were investigated on T-Beam I so as to
validate their effectiveness before applying them to T-Beam 2. The two shear retrofit
systems consisted of CFRP stirrups and sheets as described later in this report. The
following section provides a review of literature on experimental programs investigating
FRP shear retrofit of concrete beams.
2.3
CFRP Shear Strengthening

A number of laboratory experimental research studies have been performed on shear
strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using CFRP materials. These studies

considered different wrapping configurations of CFRP on the concrete surface. Some of
the configurations used CFRP fully wrapped on all four faces of a rectangular beam,
CFRP on the sides and bottom of the beam, and CFRP on the beam sides only. Studies
also considered CFRP bonded at different angles on the sides of the beam. Some of these
studies investigated different anchorage systems to provide better attachment between the
CFRP and the concrete.
Sheikh et at. 9 investigated 5/6th scale models of beams from a building that was
damaged by unexpected loads during the first two years of service. The beams were cast
with a haunch to simulate being framed into the walls and to force shear failure to occur
13
within the shallow section of the beam. The repaired beam was completely wrapped on
all sides of the shallow section to prevent shear failure. The beams were subjected to a
single point load at the edge of the haunch section. The control beam failed in shear at a
load of 1,700 leN while the retrofitted beam failed in flexure at a load of 2,528 leN. The
failure of the beam changed from a brittle shear failure to a more ductile flexural failure.
The mid-span deflection of the repaired specimen was 10 times greater than that of the
control specimen.
Czaderski lo experimented with specimens retrofitted with prefabricated L-shaped
CFRP stirrups as shear reinforcement. A total of five specimens were tested of which
two were control specimens. One control specimen was a beam that had internal steel
shear reinforcement while the other did not have internal steel shear reinforcement. The
remaining three specimens were retrofitted with the L-shaped stirrups spaced equally
along the length of the shear span and overlapped on the bottom of the beam. The
specimens were subjected to increasing static loading until failure. The test results
showed an increase of the shear strength with the beams retrofitted with the L-shaped
stirrups. The retrofitted specimens also exhibited greater ductility than the control
specimens. The bottom overlapped ends of the L-shaped stirrups tended to separate from
one another at failure.
Chaallal et a1. II tested reinforced concrete beams retrofitted with CFRP stirrups
bonded to the sides of the beam at various angles. Three groups of beams were tested.
The first group had internal steel shear reinforcement but wasn't retrofitted with CFRP
stirrups. The second group did not have enough internal steel shear reinforcement and
wasn't retrofitted with CFRP stirrups. The third group was the same as the second group
14
but it was retrofitted with CFRP stirrups at 90 degrees to the horizontal and 45 degrees to
the horizontal. The CFRP retrofit was applied to the two vertical faces of the beams.
The beams were subjected to four-point bending. Results showed an increase in strength
of about 70 percent and increased stiffness for the repaired beams. The 45-degree CFRP
stirrups perfonned better than the 90-degree CFRP stirrups. Failure occurred due to
delamination of the CFRP stirrups from the surface of the concrete. For more extreme
loading, V-shaped retrofit stirrups were suggested.
Triantafilloul2 tested eleven reinforced concrete beams strengthened with CFRP
stirrups at various angles on the vertical sides of the beam. Two beams were used as
control specimens. Three of the beams were fitted with CFRP stirrups oriented at 45
degrees to the horizontal. The rest of the beams were fitted with CFRP stirrups oriented
at 90 degrees to the horizontal. Internal steel shear reinforcement was not included in
order to force shear failure in each specimen. The beams were loaded in four-point
bending. Results showed an increased in shear strength between 65 and 95 percent over
the control specimens. Failure was initiated by shear cracking followed by peeling of the
CFRP shear stirrups. Results also showed that the 45 degrees CFRP shear reinforcement
was more effective than the vertical CFRP shear reinforcement due to the fibers being
more nearly perpendicular to the shear cracks.
Al-Sulaimani et al. 13 conducted research on sixteen beams with various
configurations of CFRP shear reinforcement. The beams were divided into four groups.
The first group was used as the control. All of the retrofitted beams were preloaded until
shear cracks fonned. The load was then released and the beams were repaired. The first
retrofit method consisted of bonding CFRP stirrups to the sides of the beam in the shear
15
span area. The second retrofit method consisted of CFRP sheets bonded to the whole
sides of the beam. The final retrofit method consisted of CFRP sheets that continuously
wrapped on the bottom side of the beam along the full span length. The specimens were
all tested in four-point loading. Results showed that the stirrups and sheets bonded to the
sides of the beams produced a similar increase in strength. They also had similar failure
modes where both delaminated at the bottom of the member. The CFRP sheets that
wrapped at the bottom side of the beam prevented shear failure and caused the specimens
to fail in flexure. The continuity of the wrap repair reduced the stress concentrations that
were present in the stirrups and sheets. All forms of shear repair also increased the beam
stiffness.
Schuman and Karbhari l4 conducted research on half-scale cantilever T-Beams
retrofitted for shear with wet lay-up CFRP. They investigated the effect and benefits of
anchoring the CFRP shear stirrups to the side of the beam. Two types of CFRP retrofit
were considered. The first consisted of U-Shaped CFRP stirrups bonded to the bottom
and sides of the beam. The second consisted of L-Shaped CFRP stirrups that were placed
in an offset configuration so as not to overlap on the bottom of the beam. All shear
stirrups were anchored at the top of the web using steel plates and expansion anchors
embedded into the top slab. Five sets of specimens were tested with different anchorage
configurations. The first specimen was the control. The second specimen was retrofitted
with the U-Shaped stirrups without anchorage. The third specimen was retrofitted with
Offset L-Shaped stirrups with 3/8" diameter anchor bolts extending 4" into the top slab.
This anchor embedment did not extend past the internal steel stirrups. The fourth
specimen was also retrofitted with the Offset L-Shaped stirrups using 3/8" diameter
16
anchor bolts extending 6" into the top slab. The embedment of the anchors was now
deep enough to pass the internal steel stirrups and slab reinforcement. The last specimen
was also retrofitted with the Offset L-Shaped stirrups but using W' diameter anchor bolts
extending 6" into the top slab. The test results showed that there is little or no benefit in
using CFRP shear stirrups without anchorage. The third specimen only showed a slight
increase in strength and ductility. The fourth and fifth specimens showed considerable
increase in strength, ductility, and stiffness. The test also showed that there was a strong
dependence on both the anchor size and embedment depth of the anchorage system.
Many of the studies described above relate to the type of shear retrofit used for the TBeams in this research program. However, most of the studies found in the literature
were applied to reinforced concrete beams without internal steel shear reinforcement,
while the T-Beams in this study are prestressed beams with internal steel shear
reinforcement. Based on the literature review, two shear retrofit systems were
considered, consisting of CFRP stirrups and sheets. The CFRP stirrups were installed on
both vertical sides of the T-Beam web and wrapped over the top of the web through slots
in the top slab. The CFRP sheets were installed on the two vertical sides of the T-Beam
web. The shear retrofit was not extended around the soffit of the beam so as not to
introduce additional restraint to the field-applied CFRP flexural retrofit. The shear
retrofits were anchored at top and bottom of the web by means of steel tubes or GFRP
angles with bolts passing through the web. More detail of the shear retrofit systems is
provided in Chapter 5.
17
2.4
Chapter Summary
Numerous research projects have investigated flexural strengthening of reinforced
concrete members using various CFRP retrofit systems. All of the repaired specimens
showed some increase in flexural capacity. Specimens that were damaged prior to
strengthening behaved like specimens that were not damaged prior to strengthening. End
anchorages helped prevent early debonding of the CFRP, thus increasing the flexural
strength. Failure of the beam was generally associated with delamination of the CFRP.
There have also been many research projects involving reinforced concrete members
retrofitted with different CFRP shear strengthening configurations. Beams that were
retrofitted with CFRP on just two sides did not perform as well as beams that had
continuous CFRP on three sides or with a complete wrap. Specimens that were
retrofitted with CFRP at an angle performed better than specimens that had CFRP
attached vertically. The retrofitted beams generally failed upon delamination of the
CFRP from the concrete surface. However, the addition of effective anchorage for the
ends of the CFRP increased the shear capacity and ductility of the concrete member.
Failure now depends on the anchorage and not on delamination of the CFRP.
18
CHAPTER 3
ALA MOANA BEAM REPAIR
In 1997, during a structural inspection of the parking garage at the Ala Moana
Shopping Center, significant flexural cracking and ledge spalls were noted on one of the
precast prestressed T-Beams supporting the elevated parking level. This beam was
repaired using epoxy-modified mortar to repair the spalls and CFRP materials to improve
the flexural capacity. The repair was designed by Martin and Bravo Structural Engineers,
Honolulu, Hawaii. Figure 3-1 shows a cross section of the beam strengthening using
three pre-cured CFRP carbodur strips. These strips extended the full length of the beam
soffit and anchored at the ends by 6" wide double ply wet lay-up CFRP wraps extending
up both sides of the beam web.
The repairs were performed by Concrete Coring of Hawaii in the presence of the
Martin and Bravo design engineer and a representative from the CFRP supplier, Sika
Products USA. A rotary grinder was used to remove paint and weak concrete paste
before installation of the CFRP material (Figure 3-2). This surface preparation is
necessary to provide a suitable bond between the CFRP and the concrete. The result was
a smooth surface similar to ICRI-CSP surface profile 215 A slightly higher surface
profile such as ICRI-CSP 3-4 is normally specified for CFRP applications.
Once the concrete surfaces were prepared, three 4" wide pre-cured CFRP Sika
carbodur strips and two 6" wide Sika Wrap Hex 103C uni-direction sheets were prepared
for installation (Figure 3-3). A uniform thin layer of Sikadur 30 Hi-Mod Gel two-part
19
epoxy was applied to the soffit of the beam. The pre-cured CFRP strips were pressed
onto this epoxy layer using a roller (Figure 3-4). The 6" wide wet lay-up sheets were
saturated in Sikadur Hex 300 two-part epoxy and then applied at each end of the beam to
anchor the flexural strips (Figure 3-5). In addition, Sika Wrap Hex 103C was used to
wrap the epoxy mortar patches at the ledge spalls at third points along the span (Figure
3-6). Once the epoxy had cured, the beam was painted with exterior quality latex paint
and put back into service (Figure 3-7).
,
..
I"~~.fP.
~41~~~
.
Figure 3-1 Cross section ofT-Beam for carbodur strip installation
20
Figure 3-2 Surface preparation prior to CFRP application
Figure 3-3 Sib carbodur strips being prepared for Installation
Figure 3-4 Application of CFRP strips
21
Figure 3-5 Wet lay-up anchorage wrap at end of CFRP strips
Figure 3-6 Sika wet lay-up wraps at concrete spalls
Figure 3-7 Repaired beam in service
22
CHAPTER 4
4.1
BEAM RECOVERY AND REPAIR
Introduction
The portion of the old Ala Moana Parking Structure containing the repaired T-Beam
was demolished in June 2000 to make way for a new multilevel parking structure.
During demolition, the repaired T-Beam and two nominally identical un-repaired TBeams were salvaged for testing. The top slab forming the flange of the T-Beams was
removed, along with the transverse joists, to facilitate shipping of the salvaged beams.
This removal was performed using a demolition rig with large hydraulic pincer. Removal
of the top slab over the precast beam web occasionally resulted in spalling of concrete at
the top of the web. These spalls were repaired once the beams were delivered to UHMSTL as described later in this chapter. The top slab was also reinstated at UHM-STL.
Removal of each beam was performed using the demolition rig and a large diameter
concrete saw. The precast prestressed web section of each beam was removed by saw
cutting through the cast-in-place column capital at each end of the span (Figure 4-1).
This enabled recovery of the entire precast section of the beam without damaging any of
the prestressing steel or altering the prestress in the beam. During saw cutting, the beam
was supported by two cables from the demolition rig (Figure 4-2). Because of the
negative bending induced by the self-weight of the beam, flexural cracking occurred in
one of the beam webs. These cracks were repaired once the beam was delivered to
UHM-STL as described later in this chapter.
23
Figure 4-1 Saw cutting column capital to remove precast prestressed beam
Figure 4-2 Cable support during beam removal
24
4.2
Epoxy Crack Repair

During handling of one of the control specimens, negative bending cracks formed in
the beam web. These cracks were not anticipated to affect the flexural strength of the
beam during testing since they did not extend into the prestressed bulb at the base of the
beam. However, they would affect the stiffness of the beam during flexural testing and
may jeopardize the shear strength of the beam and so were repaired prior to replacement
of the top slab. The cracks were repaired by Plas-Tech Ltd., Hawaii, using a Sika epoxy
injection system. Injection ports were epoxied onto the crack at 2-inch intervals and the
surface of the crack was sealed with Sib epoxy modified mortar (Figure 4-3). The
cracks were then injected using Sika epoxy modified mortar and allowed to cure before
handling the beam (Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-3 Injection Port Placement
25
Figure 4-4 Epoxy Injection
4.3
Epoxy Mortllr Sptlll Reptlir

During demolition of the top slab and supporting joists. portions of the beam webs
were damaged by concrete spalls. None of the spalls affected the internal flexural and
shear reinforcement in the precast prestressed beams. however. in order to restore the
beams to their original condition. these spaIIs were repaired prior to replacement of the
top slab.
The spall repairs were performed by personnel from Plas-Tech Ltd. Hawaii. using a
Sika epoxy mortar patching system. The contact surface was primed using Sika epoxy
modified mortar (Figure 4-5) and formed with plywood (Figure 4-6). A two part Sika
epoxy modified mortar was mixed with clean silica sand and poured into the form (Figure
4-7). The patch material was allowed to cure before removal of the form (Figure 4-8).
26
Figure 4-S Priming the repair contact surface
Figure 4-6 Forming the repair area
27
Figure 4-7 Pouring epoxy mortar patch material
Figure 4-8 Completed spall repair
28
4.4
Top Slilb Rep1llummt

To facilitate transportation of the beams from the Ala Moana Shopping Center to
UHM-STLt the top slab and supporting joists were removed during demolition. In order
to replicate the T-Beam behavior of the in-situ beam, a concrete flange was poured onto
the recovered precast beams prior to testing. The effective flange width suggested by the
ACI 318-02 Building Code for the in-situ condition is 77.5 inches. Because of
limitations of the test frame used to test the beams, the flange width over half of the beam
was reduced to 66 inches (Figure 4-10). This slight reduction in flange width was not
anticipated to affect the beam flexural performance.
The 4.5 inches thick top flange was reinforced according to the original design
documents for the parking garage (Figure 4-9). The slab reinforcement consisted of two
layers of grade 60 #3 reinforcing bars running both transverse to the beam axis and
longitudinally. In the transverse direction, the bottom bars were spaced at 12Jt on center
and the top bars were spaced at 7" on center (Figure 4-11). In the longitudinal direction,
the bottom bars were spaced at 6Jt on center and the top bars were spaced at 12Jt on center
(Figure 4-11). Some of the transverse reinforcing bars were relocated to avoid the 3Jt
openings formed for the proposed CFRP shear reinforcing stirrups. These openings were
formed by means of plywood block-outs (Figure 4-12). The block-outs were located at
approximately 12 inches on center so as to fall between the original internal steel shear
reinforcement.
In order to monitor strains in the top slab reinforcement t six electrical resistance strain
gages were bonded to the surface of longitudinal bars in the top slab. Four strain gages
29
were located along the top center longitudinal bar while two gages were located on slab
top bars to one side of the beam web at mid-span (Figure 4-11).
The existing steel shear reinforcement in the precast beams consisted of double leg #3
reinforcing bars at a nominal spacing of 12 inches on center along the full length of the
beam. Each bar consisted of a straight vertical section in the beam web. with no book or
anchorage at the bottom of the beam. and a 90 degree bend into the top slab at the top of
the beam. During demolition of the top slab. some of the 90 degree bend extensions had
been removed or damaged. These stirrups were repaired by welding #3 bar extensions to
reinstate the original anchorage into the top slab.

The concrete was supplied by Hawaiian Cement Ready Mix and poured in place. For
T-Beam 1. the top slab was poured directly on the precast beam web (Figure 4-13). For
T-Beam 2. Corr Bond was applied to the top of the beam web to improve the bond
between the top of the precast beam and the concrete slab. The top slab concrete was wet
cured for 7 days and then exposed to the laboratory environment while waiting for
testing.
-----5.-6------.,
r;:-=-=~~~=-;:::::-:-::=-;::"l ~2-1eg #3 Stirrups @ 12- O.c.------+I
__1t'
(10) i"12J Stress-relieved

prestress strands---+L..----;-_.J_---+--.--
MIDSPAN BEAM SECTION

Figure 4-9 Typical T-Beam cross-seetion
30
---,
l ,".
5'$
_,
_ -
-= =-= .=. =-=.-:..~-==-== .=. =-=.-:..~-= .=::
(;
" "fip-(l)p)
14"~'
~~.
Figure 4-10 T-Beam 1 Oange layout

,.... 3"TYP
r .. -- . ~~"
I-~
--- ..
--- -- -- .--...
-
1-.-
'
t - -I -
'--
,...-
'--
...
1--
--
---
'eT
-!-
--I4'-~"
I..
1-..
Bottom Reinforcement Layout
1
6
'--
-9~"----1
I'm
3"TYP
r ..... .
~
4'~
---
,"";
.,
.-
'-'
3'
...
"
-l'~
llri .,.
2'
t- -r-
"li-
-~
~:r
)
lof
J1
J
9~"--1
I
I'~'
..
II--'-'"
--I4'~"
I '
'1
....
7"TYP+
Top Reinforcement Layout and Strain Gage Locations

Figure 4-11 T-Beam 1 flange reinforcement layout
31
1-11--
1..
\1--"
1- ,-,1-
(;
Figure 4-12 Plywood block-outs for CFRP shear stirrups
Figure 4-13 T-Beam 1 top Range concrete placement
32
CHAPTERS
S
5.1
TEST SETUP AND BEAM LAYOUT
Introduction
This chapter describes the test setup and specimen details for the prestressed concrete
T-Beams tested in this program. The testing apparatus was constrocted specifically for
this projectt but was configured so that it could be modified and re-used for future testing
in the UHM-STL. The CFRP shear strengthening applied to each T-Beam to preclude
premature shear failure is descri~ along with all instromentation placed on the beams
during testing. The test routine and data recording procedures are also presented.
5.2
Test AppllrtltllS
In the Ala Moana Shopping Center Garaget the prestressed T-Beams supported
transverse joists at 7 feet on centert which in tum supported the parking level slab. The
majority of the load applied to the T-Beams was therefore applied by the transverse joists
at 3.5 feet on either side of the beam mid-span. If the repaired T-Beam with flexural
CFRP were tested under point loads at the locations of the original joistst the beam might
fail prematurely in shear. In order to avoid this shear failure t additional CFRP shear
strengthening was applied to both beams as described later in this chapter. In additiont
the load points were relocated to 2 feet either side of the beam mid-span so as to increase
the shear span.
The T-Beams in this program were tested under 4-point loading. Figure 5-1 shows
the original schematic of the test setup. Based on the anticipated flexural capacity of the
strengthened beamt a 200t OOO lb capacity hydraulic actuator supported by a two-post
33
frame was initially considered for the test setup. However, since the beams were to be
retrofitted for shear, it was decided that, subsequent to flexural testing, each of the shear
spans would be tested to detennine the shear capacity of the two retrofit systems. This
would require a 300,000 lb capacity hydraulic actuator supported by a four-post frame.

The final test frame configuration is shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3.
Load Frame
200 Kip Actuator
Load Cell
Spreader Beam
Test -++-----1
Beam
A
TEST SETUP ELEVATION
Figure 5-1 Schematic Layout of Test Setup
The four-post frame consists of four 4" x 6" steel tube columns with a 1.75" diameter
high-strength threaded steel rod inside each column. The rods extend from the top of the
frame and pass through the 2' thick laboratory strong-floor. They were pre-tensioned to
approximately 25% of their capacity before testing. The 300,000 lb 30" stroke hydraulic
actuator is suspended from a steel cross-head at the top of the four tube columns. The
cross-head was constructed from two W24 wide flange beams welded side-by-side and
supported on double W12 wide flange beams supported on the tube columns (Figure 5-3).
The frame was designed so that during testing of the T-Beam specimens, the compression
force applied by the actuator is transferred by the cross-head to the four 1.75" diameter
34
high-strength steel rods. Numerous web stiffeners were installed in the W24 and W12
beams to facilitate this load transfer.
In order to test the T-Beams for this project, the four-post frame had to extend 19 feet
above the laboratory strong-floor (Figure 5-2). However, this encroached on the travel of
the overhead crane and so limited the use of the laboratory on the far side of the frame.
In order to retain the four-post frame for future testing, but also maintain full crane
function, the tube steel columns were spliced at 213 rd height. Figure 5-4 shows the test
frame in the short configuration during construction. Figure 5-5 shows the test frame
with the column extensions in place. In order to stabilize the frame, adjustable crossbracing was installed above the test specimen (Figure 5-5). A load spreader beam was
fabricated from two W24 wide flange beams to distribute the actuator load to the load
points at 2 feet either side of the beam mid-span (Figure 5-3). W8 wide flange beams
were used to fabricate pin and roller supports for each end of the test beam (Figure 5-3).
Fabrication of the test frame was performed over an 8 month period in UHM-STL.
35
.------
~-----:1.-+-:::....ti:.:.-f-~
l'
~=~~=~~----+
2'-0"
I
I
I
Detail 1
6'-7"
2'
1--1--
Detail 3
lJ~;;;;;;;;~~tt==t ~"
r
I
2'-4~
-1- Detail 2
~a~=t=t==+ 52"
1'~"
12"
Figure 5-2 Detail of Final Test Fnme Design
36
2-W12 Beams (Typ)

t------:;o.L---
6'----1-/:=.Ii:....t- ,
"":::;paj--+
6"
6"1 t - '----ff
3
1ft
2-W24 Beams
Actuator Swivel Head
DETAIL 1 - CROSS-HEAD FRAMING

1'-6"
l'
6"
W8x48
l--
8"
DETAIL 2 - PINNED SUPPORT
Swivel Head
Load Plate
Steel Plate
Stiffeners
1----
4'-0"
------l
DETAIL 3 - SPREADER BEAM
Figure 5-3 Test Frame Details
37
Figure 5-4 Test Frame under Construction (Short Columns)
Figure 5-5 Completed Test Frame with T-Beam 1 ready for loading
38
5.3
Bellm Shell' Retrofit

T-Beam 1 was the first beam to be prepared for testing as the control specimen.
During the demolition of Ala Moana Parking Garage, the original top slab and joists were
removed to facilitate shipping of the beams to UHM-STL. The top slab was
reconstructed as described in Chapter 4 to act as the top flange and compression zone of
the beams. In order to avoid premature shear failure of the strengthened beam, CFRP
shear reinforcement was installed on T-Beam 2 prior to flexural testing. Two types of
shear strengthening were considered for this application. In order to evaluate these two
options, they were applied to T-Beam 1 and tested in shear after completion of the
flexural test.
The two shear retrofit systems installed on T-Beam 1 consisted of 3" wide double
layer CFRP stirrups installed on the left half of the beam and 12" wide single layer CFRP
sheets installed on the right half of the beam (Figure 5-6).
5.3.1
CFRP Shear Stirrups
CFRP shear stirrups were used to retrofit the left half of T-Beam 1 (Figure 5-6). Each
stirrup consisted of a double layer of 3" wide CFRP unidirectional fabric extending from
the bottom of the beam on one side of the web, through the top slab and down the other
side of the web. In a normal application, the stirrup would extend under the beam soffit
to form a lap splice, so as to create a continuous hoop. However, since the primary intent
of this program was to evaluate the original field application of the CFRP carbodur
flexural strengthening, the additional restraint provided by full hoop stirrups would have
altered the flexural performance of T-Beam 2.
39
To maintain continuity at the top of the beam, the stirrups were passed through slots
fabricated in the top slab. In a field application, this would require cutting slots in the top
slab to facilitate the stirrup installation. To prevent premature delamination of the
stirrups at the re-entrant comer at the bottom of the web, steel tubes with thru-bolts were
installed to restrain the stirrups.
The layout for the shear retrofit ofT-Beam I is shown in Figure 5-6. The existing
internal #3 reinforcing stirrups were located at approximately 12" on center. In order to
avoid conflicts at the top of the beam, the 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups were
located between the existing steel stirrups. This resulted in a 12" center-to-center spacing
for the 3" wide CFRP stirrups. The contribution of these stirrups to the shear capacity of
the beam is computed in Chapter 7. Plywood saddles were used as block-outs to create
the slots in the top slab. After the concrete slab had set, the saddles were removed using
a pneumatic chipping hammer and power drills. The plywood saddles proved difficult to
remove, and so high density Styrofoam was used to create the saddles for T-Beam 2.
Figure 5-7 shows the slotted holes after the saddles were removed. The top of the web at
the slotted holes had small holes due to entrapped air under the saddles. These holes
were filled with epoxy mortar prior to installation of the CFRP stirrups (Figure 5-11).
A pneumatic needle gun was used to roughen the surface of the web to remove the
surface cement paste and improve the bond between the CFRP and the concrete. For
each of the 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups, a 3" wide strip of concrete was
roughened on both sides of the beam web (Figure 5-8). The resulting surface condition
was similar to ICRI surface profile #4 15
40
Intem.1 #3012" she.r stirrups (typ)
4!"
I L-iiJ-HU I I!IrlD II!!
10"
Si"
l'-Gi" loi"
OL
"os!"
6.TYPJi
12"
l'.o!"~"
111"
Lett Span (3- wide double layer CFRP Stirrups)
I"
Right Span (12- wide CFRP Sheets)
Z~
TBEAM 1
--
r3" TYP
S'-6"
l I.
1
J
6'
\,
\. 3" wide CFRP stirrups (typ)
.,I
14 1.Z!"
CONCRETE SLAB
Figure 5-6 Shear retrofit layout for T-Beam 1
9'.~"
Figure 5-7 Slotted holes in top slab for CFRP shear stirrups
Figure 5-8 Concrete surface preparation using needle gun
Figure 5-9 Roughened web for 3" wide stirrups
42
Before installation of the CFRP materials, a total of twenty-four 3" wide CFRP strips
were cut from standard 24" wide CFRP unidirectional material. Each 3" wide CFRP
stirrup contained 12 CFRP tows. The strips were saturated in Sikadur Hex 300 epoxy in
preparation for installation (Figure 5-10). Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy was applied to the
roughened surfaces of the concrete as a bonding agent (Figure 5-11). It was also used to
fill the air holes on top of the web. The 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups were then
installed from the top of the slab going through the slotted holes and down the sides of
the web. A roller was used to press the CFRP into place and remove any air bubbles
between the CFRP and the concrete surface. Figure 5-12 shows the slotted holes with the
3" wide double layer CFRP installed in place. After installation, the epoxy was allowed
to cure for five days before the excess bottom CFRP was removed with a grinder (Figure
5-13).
In order to prevent premature delamination of the CFRP stirrups at the re-entrant
comer at the base of the web, mechanical anchorage was provided in the form of steel
tubes with thru-bolts passing through the beam web. Three quarter inch diameter holes
were drilled through the web midway between the CFRP stirrups. The steel tube was
provided in two sections rather than a continuous member so as not to enhance the beam
bending capacity. The two sections of tube were 1.25" x 1.25" and 1.5" x 1.5" with 118"
wall thickness. These pieces fit inside each other to form a telescopic joint midway along
the stirrup half of the beam. Thru-bolts made from 5/8" diameter threaded steel rod were
used to anchor the steel tubes on either side of the web. Before installation of the tube
steels, a bed of Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy was spread over the bend in the CFRP so as to
43
provide even load transfer between the CFRP stirrup and steel tube. The nuts were snug
tightened and the epoxy allowed to cure for five days (Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15).
44
Figure 5-10 CFRP stirrups being saturated with Sikadur Hex 300
Figure 5--11 Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy used to prepare surface for CFRP
Figure 5--12 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups wrapped through slotted holes
45
Figure 5-13 CFRP stirrups in place, bottom trimmed after curing
Figure 5-14 Installation of steel tube anchorage for 3" wide CFRP stirrups
46
Figure 5-15 Complete installation of anchorage for 3" wide CFRP stirrups
5.3.2 CFRP Shear Sheets
The right half of T-Beam 1 was retrofitted with 12" wide CFRP sheets as shear
reinforcement (Figure 5-6). The surface preparation for the CFRP sheets involved
roughening of the concrete surface of the web and a 4" return under the top slab using a
needle gun (Figure 5-16). SHea 30 Hi Mod Gel Epoxy was then applied for each 12"
CFRP sheet (Figure 5-16). The first 12" CFRP sheet was located 18" from the right
support, just inside the thickened anchorage zone of the prestressed beam. The sheets
were spaced at 18" on center so as to leave a 6" gap between sheets to allow for moisture
in the beam to escape.
47
Figure 5-16 Roughened web and Hi Mod Gel application for 12" wide sheets
Figure 5-17 CFRP sheets saturated with Sikadur Hex 300
Figure 5-18 Installation of CFRP sheets as shear reinforcement
48
The 12" wide CFRP sheets were cut from the standard 24" wide CFRP roll and
saturated with Sikadur Hex 300 epoxy (Figure 5-17). Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy was
applied to the roughened surfaces of the concrete as a bonding agent (Figure 5-16). The
CFRP sheets were then installed on the web (Figure 5-18). A roller was used to press the
CFRP onto the concrete and to remove air bubbles.
At the top of the web, four inches of the 12" CFRP sheet was bonded underneath the
slab as a return so that mechanical anchorage could be installed at both the top and
bottom of the web to prevent premature delamination of the CFRP sheets at the re-entrant
corners. A 2" x 4" timber was used to hold the CFRP in place under the slab while it was
being rolled onto the web. After installation, the epoxy materials were allowed to cure
for five days. The excess CFRP at the bottom of the beam was then removed with a
grinder (Figure 5-18).
Anchorage of the CFRP sheets was provided using steel tubes and threaded rods as
described earlier for the CFRP stirrups. A bed of Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy was placed
in the CFRP bends at all anchorage locations so as to provide even load transfer from the
CFRP to the steel tubes (Figure 5-19). The bottom anchorage was identical to that used
for the stirrups except that the threaded rod thru-bolts were located at the center of the 6"
gap between CFRP sheets (Figure 5-20). A telescopic joint of the steel tube is shown in
Figure 5-21. For the top anchorage, a 2" x 1.5" by 118" thick continuous steel tube was
used. There was no need to splice the tube since its contribution to the compression
flange is negligible. Thru-bolts made from 5/8" diameter threaded steel rod were used to
anchor the tube steel on either side of the web (Figure 5-22). The nuts were snug
tightened and the epoxy allowed to cure for five days.
49
Figure 5-19 Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy bed at re-entrant corner of CFRP sheets
Figure 5-20 Tube anchorage set In epoxy bed at re-entrant corner of CFRP sheets
50
Figure 5-21 Telescope splice in steel tube ancborage
Figure 5-22 Complete installation of mecbanical anchorage for 12" CFRP sbeets
51
Bellm Test Configuration and Inst1'um~ntIItion
5.4
Both T-Beam 1 and T-Beam 2 were instrumented with strain gages installed on the
top slab reinforcement, slab and precast beam concrete, and on the CFRP shear
reinforcement. In addition, dial gages and L VDTs (linear variable displacement
transducers) were used to monitor the vertical deflection of the beams. After testing each
beam in flexure, the remaining beam halves were tested in shear to evaluate the ultimate
performance of the CFRP shear retrofit schemes. These half beams were also
instrumented extensively to monitor the CFRP strains.
In the sections below, each beam test configuration and instrumentation layout is
presented in detail. The results of the tests are presented in Chapter 8.

5.4.1
T-Beam 1 was tested under four point loading over a span of 24 feet (Figure 5-23). It
was supported at each end by pinned supports. It was loaded with two point loads
located 4'-3" apart, centered at the beam mid-span. The load was applied in
displacement control. Displacement increments started at 0.005" and increased to 0.025"
as the test progressed.
Figure 5-23 shows the layout and instrumentation for T-Beam 1. A total of 25 strain
gages were installed on the beam. Strain gages 1-6 were installed on the longitudinal
reinforcement in the concrete top slab. These gages were Micro-measurement electrical
resistance gages CEA-06-250UN-350 bonded to the surface of the reinforcement
following the manufacturer's instructions. Strain gages 7-21 were Micro-measurement
electrical resistance gages EA-06-2OCBW-120 designed for bonding to concrete. They
were installed on the top slab concrete surface and along the bottom of the beam to
52
determine the curvature of the beam. Data from these strain gages were used in another
project to evaluate a strain-based deflection monitoring system l6 . Strain gages 22-25
were installed on the CFRP shear reinforcement to monitor strains in the CFRP during
flexural testing.
Three LVOTs were supported on independent uni-strut frames so as to record the
vertical deflection of the top slab (Figure 5-23). LVOT3 was placed at mid-span of the
beam, but slightly to one side of the beam centerline so as to avoid interference with the
steel spreader beam. The other two LVOTs were located in the right shear span as shown
in Figure 5-23. Dial gages were also installed on the concrete top slab directly over the
supports to record any settlement of the supports during testing.
Figure 5-24 shows T-Beam 1 in the test frame immediately prior to testing. Figure
5-25 shows a close-up view of the center section of T-Beam 1 prior to testing.
53
Cl
I.
4'~3"
lV~)T 3
4r
lVOT 2
lVOT 1
12'
6'.9
8
I
2'
~
left
.....---~~o"~ f
Suppo~
;tTrl
1!"J
1!" J
5'.3
----S'.,"
-~l" J-W
,o!"' 2"'
'l" J 20
"
Left Span (3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups)
Ir - - - -
S'o1l.
Right Support
Right Span (12" wide CFRP sheets)

24'
T-BEAM 1
r 3TYP
r= "tl I-
I---F"'lI
S'
1
5'0 ) " ,
f-1'-6 j
5'-6"
11
W.2!
CONCRETE SLAB
Figure 5-13 T-Beam 1 Layout and IDstrumeDtatioD
12
90~.
5'''
T""(-
=1
6'
13
Figure 5-24 T-Beam lin the load frame ready for testing
Figure 5-25 T-Beam 1 ready for testing - center view
55
5.4.2
After flexural failure of T-Beam 1 at mid-span, the left half of the beam, which was
retrofitted in shear with 3u wide double layer CFRP stirrups, was tested as T-Beam IL
(Figure 5-26). It was supported on a 10' span and subjected to two point loads located
I'_2u apart, centered at mid-span.
Several of the strain gages from T-Beam 1 were still functioning after the flexural test
and were monitored during testing ofT-Beam IL. Strain gages 7-9 and 14-16 were the
original strain gages attached to the concrete surface. Additional strain gages were
installed on the CFRP shear stirrups to monitor their performance. Several of the CFRP
stirrups were selected and the strain gages located based on likely shear crack locations.
Strain gages 24-30 were attached to the CFRP retrofit (Figure 5-26).
Three LVDTs were located on the top slab to measure the vertical displacement of the
specimen. LVDT3 was placed at mid-span of the beam. LVDTI was placed directly
over the left support, while LVDT2 was placed at quarter span (Figure 5-26).
Initially, T-Beam IL was supported with two pin supports. However, during testing,
significant deformation of the supports indicated that they were experiencing inward
lateral load due to shortening of the span. The resulting tension in the bottom of the
beam would likely affect the shear and flexural capacities of the beam. The beam was
unloaded and one of the supports modified to provide a roller support. The beam was
then re-loaded with one pinned support and one roller support as shown in Figure 5-26.
Figure 5-27 shows T-Beam 1L in the test frame ready for testing.
56
L
pip
4!"~
1
\Q="
I---f
w.~
. '.
....
1.-,.
'ill
'Il'j
!.i"':""::1
I' Tj,~ existing shear

~ 2' ~-stirrups (typ)
t!fl~llL"'~ltl'
: iii. - ,.m:
..
, -
(
t*---Hf~
I 114" x 1 1/4" x 118"

hollow tube steel
1'!.6"
VI
~
I 1/2" x I 112" x 1/8"

hollow tube steel
,..
pinned support
to'
T-BEAM 1L
5'-6"
51"
I.
I
.. I
3" double layer CFRP stirrups
==:if72
roller support
.. I
I -.
I Hollow tube stee' anchors
uts & bolts

Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy ~
'--JL 5!"
-t 1'-4!"
2'-41"
2
-----l
T-BEAM 1L CROSS SECTION

Figure 5-26 Layout and Instrumentation of T-Beam lL
Figure 5-27 T-Beam lL ready for testing
5.4.3
T-Beam 1R Layout and Instrumentation
T-Beam 1R is the right half of T-Beam 1 recovered after flexural failure at mid-span.
It was retrofitted with 12" wide CFRP sheets with 6" spacing between sheets. Based on
the test results from T-Beam lL, it was determined that additional flexural strengthening
was necessary to ensure failure in shear. Therefore, three pre-cured carbodur strips were
installed under the soffit ofT-Beam lR. Technicians from Plas-Tech Ltd. installed the
pre-cured carbodur strips (Figure 5-28).
A flexural retrofit for T-Beam lR was necessary due to the flexural failure observed
in T-Beam lL. Three 4" wide pre-cured carbodur strips were installed as flexural
reinforcement on the soffit of the beam. Prior to installation, the beam soffit concrete
was roughened with a pneumatic needle gun. Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy was used as the
bonding agent. It was applied on the surface of the concrete and on the carbodur strips.
The strips were then placed along the beam soffit and pressed into place with a roller.
58
The ends of the CFRP carbodur strips were wrapped with Sika Wrap Hex 103C unidirection fabric to resist end delamination. These anchorage sheets were saturated with
Sika Hex 300 epoxy for the wet lay-up application. The end supports were located under
these CFRP wraps to enhance anchorage of the carbodur strips. Figure 5-28 shows the
installation of the pre-cured carbodur strips and CFRP wraps on T-Beam IR.
T-Beam lR was supported over a 10'-2 W' span by a pinned support and a roller
support (Figure 5-29). Two point loads were applied to the top flange as described for TBeam 1L. A total of 32 strain gages were installed on the beam. Strain gages 1-12 were
installed on the steel tubes to determine the level of strain in the anchorage tubes during
testing. Strain gages 13-25 were installed on the CFRP shear sheets to monitor their
performance during shear testing. Strain gages 27-29 were the original concrete strain
gages installed on T-Beam 1. Strain gages 30-32 were installed on the three carbodur
strips at mid-span to monitor the tension strains in the flexural retrofit. Three LVDTs
were also installed to monitor vertical deflection of the beam. LVDT3 was placed at
mid-span of the beam. LVDTI was placed directly over the right support and LVDT2
was placed at quarter span. Figure 5-29 shows the instrumentation and layout ofT-Beam
lR. Figure 5-30 shows T-Beam lR in the test setup ready for testing.
59
T-Beam lR prepared for carbodur strip instaDation by Plas-Tech technicians
End anchorage provided by Sika Wrap Hex l03C wraps
Completed Sika Wrap Hex l03C anchorage at each end of beam
Final T-Beam lR retrofitted in Oexure

Figure 5-28 Flexural strengthening of T-Beam lR using pre-cured carbodur strips
60
Sf,ilced steel tubes
LVDT1
Z' x 1 1/Z' x 1/11'

Steel tube
6"
0'1
I..
5'-6"
----s!"
1Z' CFRP sheets
Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy ~

CFRP sheets wrapped
around soffit to restrain
precured carbodur strips
-I
I.
Steel tube anchors

2'~,)VIth thru-boIIs
CFRP ovef1ap from
bottom d beam
I
5'-6"
--I L
.,r.
'~ Steel tube 8ocha's

Sika 30 HI Mod Gel epoxy
2'4-with thnHJoIts
1Z' CFRP sheets
s!"
Pre-aJred carbodur strips
4 '4"11
SECTlONA
SECTIONS
Figure 5-29 T-Beam lR Layout and Instrumentation
Figure 5-30 T-Beam lR ready for testing
5.4.4
T-Beam 2 was the strengthened beam with the field-applied pre-cured carbodur strips.
Due to the presence of pre-cured carbodur strips attached to the beam soffit with CFRP
wraps at each end, the test setup and layout ofT-Beam 2 was slightly different to that
used for T-Beam 1. In order to avoid increasing the end anchorage of the CFRP carbodur
strips, the support reactions could not be located under the ends of the beam as was the
case for T-Beam 1. Instead, steel plate supports were fabricated and attached to the ends
of the beam using an epoxy bond, expansion anchors and prestress anchors on the tendon
extensions (Figure 5-31). The existing CFRP that was wrapped around the repaired
ledges at the third points of the beam span were removed so that the only anchorage for
the carbodur strips was at the ends of the beam. The slab reinforcement layout is the
same as used for T-Beam 1. Six strain gages were attached to the slab longitudinal
reinforcement at the same locations as T-Beam 1 (Figure 5-32).
62
Left End Pinned Support
Steel Reaction Bracket
Right End Roller Support
Figure 5-31 Steel reaction brackets at both ends ofT-Beam 2
A bonding agent (Corr Bond) was applied to the top of the precast beam web to
improve the bond between the top of the web and the concrete slab. The concrete slab
dimensions were 4.5" thick, 5'-4" wide, and 24'-10" long. The width of the concrete slab
was 2" less than the slab on T-Beam 1 to allow for additional clearance in the load frame.
High density Styrofoam was used to create the saddle blackouts for the 3" wide CFRP
stirrups (Figure 5-33). This simplified the construction and demolition of the saddles
compared with the plywood saddles used in T-Beam 1. Figure 5-32 shows the concrete
slab layout and reinforcement ofT-Beam 2. Figure 5-33 shows the slab reinforcement
and high density foam blockouts prior to pouring.
63
r
54
ft
---
--
-------------------------------
--H-~:_I_:E_l-~::E~------------------
lL-
~_Y.ide
--
(l)p_~
__
CFFP
_ _._ _
__!
1--------------24'.10"------------Top Slab Layout
r
S-f'
....... ...... -..-.... ...-- .. ....- ......
f-.- , r
.........
--
,...... -- - -- ... ,...- .. ,.-....

--
'''~
-- -
1--
I--
--.- -
f1'
I-
------X.1O'-------1
~1'TVP
1-.
Slab Bottom Reinforcement Layout
r
5-4"
,...
r
~
. ... ..-. ...

'.:;
,-
\or'
r.
-,-,-
3..r
II.
)'
........ .....
........ l-
-'-,
1-
-1
i-
)'1
6
T
1-.- - - - - - - - - - - - 2 4 ' 1 0 " - - - - - - - - - - - -
Slab Top Reinforcement and Strain Gage Layout

Figure 5-32 T-Beam 2 top flange reinforcement and strain gage layout
64
Figure 5-33 T-Beam 2 slab layout prior to concrete pour
T-Beam 2 was strengthened in bending at the Ala Moana Parking Garage. The precured carbodur strips were anchored at both ends of the beam with CFRP wraps.
Because of the concrete damage at third points along the span of the beam, it was also
wrapped with CFRP at these locations adding additional restraint to the carbodur strips.
The CFRP wraps at the third point locations were removed prior to the shear retrofit to
release the additional restraints on the pre-cured carbodur strips. Figure 5-34 shows the
locations where additional CFRP wraps were removed prior to the laboratory beam shear
retrofit.
65
Figure 5-34 T-Beam 2 being prepared for shear retrofit
The beam shear retrofit layout for T-Beam 2 is shown in Figure 5-35. The beam
shear retrofit had basically the same procedure as T-Beam 1. After the concrete slab was
cured, the CFRP blackouts were removed to form the slotted holes. The Styrofoam
blackouts were much easier to remove than the plywood blackouts used in T-Beam 1.
Locations of the existing reinforcing stirrups were recorded prior to the slab pour so
that the CFRP shear stirrups could be placed between them. The locations of the CFRP
stirrups and sheets were roughened to produce better bonding and remove surface cement
paste. The mechanical anchorage for the shear retrofit was the same layout as for T-
66
Beam 1, except that Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) angles were used instead of
the steel tubes (Figure 5-36 and Figure 5-37). These angles were 3" x 3" with a thickness
ofW'. Because they are non-corrosive, these GFRP angles are ideally suited for retrofit
of structures exposed to external weather conditions.

The 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups and 12" wide CFRP sheets were prepared
and installed in the same manner as the wet lay-up method described for T-Beam 1.
There were a total of twenty-two 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups and fourteen 12"
wide CFRP sheets.
After the CFRP shear retrofit was installed and allowed to cure, the anchorage angles
were installed. Since the angles stiffness is significantly lower than the steel tubes used
for anchorage in T-Beam 1, it was assumed that they would not contribute much to the
bending strength of the beam. They were therefore installed as continuous sections for
each of the beam half spans. Three quarter inch holes were drilled through the web
between the CFRP shear stirrups and sheets, avoiding the internal steel stirrups. Sika 30
Hi Mod Gel epoxy was used for the load transfer between the CFRP and the anchorage
angles. Figure 5-36 shows the epoxy being applied on the CFRP. Figure 5-37 shows the
completed installation of the GFRP angle anchorages.
67
BEAM SOFFIT
10- 7" 8-
-=t=n=
2
Left Support
~~~.;;:.""
~~~~
"-4"
"
shear stirrups (typ)

0" "-2""
"" ".,"
' -, H+-I~I~
I
'EXISting
II
,'-'" '0'
A~
"
"
"
"
',...
00
5 '-4-
"" "2" '0 ".3
B.~
"
"
,','
"
Left Spen (3 wide double layer CFRP SUrrups)
".,. '0 '0"
S"
"
C-.
8 "
8 "
r -
I-----.=..:.....;,...;.::....:..---:-=-----:...:....:..:..:...:....~..:..;.---...:.......:...:...~
25'.82"'
0\
"
"-'" 1+---+-+--+-+--0+--+--+---1
I
I
'--r'
If
. I
I'
"
"-I" f---- "-'" -
8 "
'8 "
8 "
'7
8-' ...
~~~
Right Support
Ight Span ('2" wide CFRP sheets)

A_
-----=-----=-....:...---------=:-----1
T-BeAM 2 ELEVATION
1~,~::::IE33.1I ~I31:31IE3EI:3E31IE:JE:I
o CFRP Stirrup. (lyP)
I
,.
""'10. CFRP .....:.

around beam end to
rastraln fleld-appllad
carbodur ,trip,
5'-4"
"-4~'
It
t
exl,ting pre-curad
carbodur ,trip,
SECTION A
24'10'
CONCRETE TOP SLAB
L
3 Double 'ayar
I
2'".i
CFRP stirrup.
S Ika 30 HIM od
Gel epoxy
"
3" x 3" x 114" GFRP angl"

Thru-bolt,
1
52"
:.t::.
.r:i
-2"
'2" CFRP 'heet,
Sika 30 HI Mod
Gel epollY
2'-41
Iaxl,Ung pra-cured
carbodur 'trip,
SeCTION B
Figure 5-35 Beam shear retrofit layout for T-Beam 2
3" x 3"11 ,/4"

GFRP anglas
. .cured with
Thru-bolts
elll,Ung pra-cured
carbodur 'trip,
SECTION C
0'1
10
Figure 5-36 Sika 30 m Mod Gel epoxy being applied to the CFRP stirrups for even seating of the anchorage angles
3" wide CFRP stirrups with anchorage angles
12" wide CFRP sheets with anchorage angles in place
Figure 5-37 CFRP angles installed as anchorage for CFRP shear reinforcement
T-Beam 2 was supported with a pin and roller. It was supported outside the ends of
the precast beam rather than underneath the beam. Supporting the beam underneath the
CFRP wrapped ends would have added extra restraining force to the pre-cured carbodur
strips. Therefore, two steel plates were fabricated and attached at the ends of the beam
(Figure 5-31). They were attached to the beam by means of epoxy, expansion bolts and
anchoring them to the prestressed strands with prestressed anchors. The pin and roller
supports were placed underneath these steel brackets.
Most of the instrumentation of T-Beam 2 was focused on the pre-cured carbodur
strips. A total of 27 strain gages were installed. Strain gages 1-6 were installed on the
longitudinal reinforcement in the concrete slab. The rest were installed on the carbodur
strips. Strain gages 7-27 were installed on the pre-cured carbodur strips. Three rows of
strain gages were attached on the same location of the three pre cured carbodur strips.
Figure 5-38 shows a row of strain gages installed on the pre-cured carbodur strips.
Figure 5-38 Electrical resistance strain gages installed on the carbodur strips
70
In addition, three LVDTs were placed on top of the concrete slab to measure the
vertical deflection of the beam. There were no dial gages placed on the support because
no settlement of the supports was experienced during testing ofT-Beam 1. Figure 5-39
shows the overa1llayout and instrumentation of T-Beam 2.
T-Beam 2 was tested on a 25'-8 W' span from pinned support to roller support. It has
a longer span than T-Beam 1 due to the supports being located under the steel brackets
outside the beam ends. It was loaded with two point loads located 4'-3" apart centered
on the beam mid-span. The loading routine was the same as that used for T-Beam 1.
Figure 5-40 shows T-Beam 2 in the load frame ready for testing.
71
PI-
ExistirtI sheri' sIirn4lS (typ)
4'~
.1 P
I-
LVOl 1
12'-S
LVOl 2
.1
-I
';1-g'-
l' 11- 1'-1- 1<7' 1'-2" l'

-..J
1'-1- 1(1'
~~
0:
lSI 81m (3" 1Mde
dWlle.
CFRP stin14>S)
I---oo+-+-+---I--f---+oo.......-+----..--+-+-............-I----I--+o-.''"" 'I."" "
1
---------------29-&;,-
RI!t'l 81m (12"1Mde CFRP sheels)
TBEAM2
Figure 5-39 T-Beam 1 Layout and Instrumentation
~~_.
-I
Figure 5-40 T-Beam 2 test setup
73
5.4.5
After flexural testing ofT-Beam 2, the left-hand section of the beam was recovered
and re-tested in shear as T-Beam 2L. This section had shear retrofit consisting of 3" wide
double layer CFRP stirrups. The pre-cured carbodur strips on the soffit of the beam had
delaminated during flexural testing ofT-Beam 2. These strips were reinstated with a new
layer of Sika 30 Hi Mod Gel epoxy to maintain the increased bending capacity of the
beam. Wet lay-up Sika wraps were installed at each end of the carbodur strips to
improve anchorage. In addition, to simulate typical shear retrofit, the CFRP stirrups were
extended around the bottom of the beam by splicing a 3" wide double layer of Sika Wrap
with 4" minimum overlap at the bottom of the original CFRP stirrups. Figure 5-41 shows
T-Beam 2L ready for retrofitting with the carbodur strips and CFRP wraps extensions.
Figure 5-41 T-Beam 2L being prepared for shear testing

74
Because of the off-center flexural-shear failure of T-Beam 2, the left section of the
beam was considerably shorter than T-Beam lL, the left section ofT-Beam 1. T-Beam
2L was supported by pin and roller supports placed as close as possible to the ends of the
beam, creating a span length of 7'-5". The right support was directly below the wrapped
end of the carbodur strips, while the left support was beyond the end of the strips. The
beam was loaded by means of a single point load acting on an area measuring 16" by 21"
placed off-center to create a 1.5:1 shear span to depth ratio in the right side of the beam
(Figure 5-42). Because of the inclined prestress strands in the left side of the beam, the
shear capacity of this portion is greater than the right side. Shear failure was therefore
anticipated, and occurred, in the right portion of the beam. A total of 12 strain gages
were installed on the first two 3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups adjacent to the right
support. Six strain gages were placed on stirrups on the front of the beam and the other
six were placed at the same locations on the stirrups on the back of the beam (Figure
5-42). An LVDT was placed at the loading location to measure the vertical deflection.
During loading, a shear crack formed between the left support and the end of the
carbodur strips on the soffit of the beam. In order to avoid premature failure, the load
was removed and the left support relocated to bear directly under the CFRP wrap at the
ends of the carbodur strips (Figure 5-42). The beam was reloaded until shear failure
occurred in the right shear span. Figure 5-43 shows T-Beam 2L in the test frame ready
for testing.
75
Existing shear
stirrups (typ)
Existing prestress
strands
First Loading
1 - - - 1 - - - - 7'-5---I
1-6 Front strain gages
1-6'.9- - - - - - I
7-12 Back strain gages
Second Loading
Left Support
T-BEAM 2L
Righ Support
------------BOTTOM OF BEAM
Figure 5-42 T-Beam 2L Layout and Instrumentation
Figure 5-43 T-Beam 2L in test setup
76
5.4.6
T-Beam 2RJ Layout and Instrumentation
After testing T-Beam 2 in flexure, the right portion of the beam was recovered and
used for two shear tests, designated T-Beam 2Rl and T-Beam 2R2. T-Beam 2Rl was
performed on the center section of the original T-Beam 2 to determine the original shear
capacity of the beam without any shear retrofit. Two of the 12" wide CFRP shear retrofit
sheets were removed to allow for shear failure in the left shear span (Figure 5-45). The
carbodur strips providing flexural strengthening were still intact on this portion of the
beam. In order to prevent anchorage slip of the prestressing strands at the damaged left
end of the beam, wedge anchors were installed on each strand as shown in Figure 5-44.
T-Beam 2Rl was simply supported on a 12'-8W' span by pin and roller supports
(Figure 5-45 and Figure 5-46). The load was applied on a 16" by 21" area located offcenter so as to induce a shear failure in the un-retrofitted section of the beam. An LVDT
was placed at the loading location to measure the vertical deflection. No strain gages
were monitored during testing of this un-retrofitted beam section.
Figure 5-44 Wedge anchors Installed on prestressed strands at end ofT-Beam lRl
77
P & LVOT
BOTTOM OF BEAM
Figure 5-45 T-Beam 2Rl Layout and Instrumentation
Figure 5-46 T-Beam 2Rl in test setup
78
5.4.7 T-Beam 2R2 Test Setup and Layout
T-Beam 2R2 was the second shear test performed on the right hand section recovered
from the T-Beam 2 flexural test. T-Beam 2R2 was performed to evaluate the 12" wide
CFRP shear reinforcement sheets installed on the right half of T-Beam 2. In order to
simulate typical shear retrofit, the first two CFRP sheets from the left support were
extended around the soffit of the beam by means of spliced 12" wide CFRP sheets as
shown in Figure 5-47. The prestressed strands at the left end of the beam were anchored
by means of wedge anchors similar to T-Beam 2Rl shown in Figure 5-44. The pre-cured
carbodur strips were still intact on the soffit of this portion of the beam. No additional
repair was needed.

T-Beam 2R2 was simply supported over a 9'-0" span with pin and roller supports as
shown in Figure 5-47. A total of nine strain gages were installed on the first two 12"
wide CFRP sheets from the left support. T-Beam 2R2 was loaded on a 12" x 36" area
located at mid-span, simulating a line load. An LVDT was placed at the loading location
to measure vertical deflection. Figure 5-47 shows the instrumentation and layout of the
beam. Figure 5-48 shows T-Beam 2R2 in the test frame ready for testing.
79
P & LVDT
Existing shear
stirrups (typ)
.......- - - - - - - - 9' - - - - - - - - - 1
Left Support
T-BEAM 2R2
Right Support
----.:::.:.;;,;,;::_:.:::::.:.::.-
----.
__
............
BOTTOM OF BEAM
Figure 5-47 T-Beam 2m Layout and Instrumentation
Figure 5-48 T-Beam 2m in Test Frame
80
CHAPTER 6
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Material properties of the T-Beam concrete, reinforcing and prestressing steel, and
CFRP carbodur strips and wet lay-up wrap were determined through coupon testing
performed after the T-Beam tests. These material properties were required for strength
calculations in Chapter 7, Theoretical Strengths ofT-Beam 1 and T-Beam 2.
6.1
Concrete Compressive Strengths

Two compressive strengths were determined for each T-Beam. The compressive
strength of the concrete used in the top slabs was determined using 6" diameter by 12"
long concrete cylinders cast when the T-Beam top slabs were poured. They were tested
in compression on the same day as the flexural tests on the T-Beams. The compressive
strengths of the precast prestressed beams were determined by testing concrete cores
taken from the web and anchorage blocks. After all testing had been performed on the TBeams, 4"diameter by 5.5" long concrete cores were drilled from un-cracked sections of
the precast beam web and anchorage blocks using a core drill as shown in Figure 6-1.
The cores were tested in compression and the resulting strengths adjusted according to
ASTM C42-99 due to their non-standard cylinder size. From these compressive
strengths, the modulus of elasticity of the concrete was estimated using the expression,
E = 40.[l; + 1000 (ksi) 17. Table 6.1 shows the average and standard deviation for
concrete compressive strengths and corresponding modulus ofelasticity values
determined from these tests.
8]
Figure 6-1 Concrete core sample taken from aT-Beam web
Table 6.1 Concrete Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity

Top Slab, 6" x 12" cylinder
Precast Beam, 4" x 5.5" cores
Avgfc
(psi)
Std. Dev.
(psi)
No. of
samples
Avgfc
(psi)
Std. Dev.
(psi)
No. of
samples
T-Beam 1
5396
121
8413
329
T-Beam2
9023
276
8397
555
Modulus of Elasticity, E
=40Vfc + 1000 (ksi)
Top Slab
Precast Beam
T-Beam 1
3938
4669
T-Beam2
4800
4665
82
6.2
Top SlIlb Concrete Modulus ofRupture

Two rectangular beams were cast during the pouring of the concrete top slab for T-
Beam 2 to perfonn modulus of rupture tests according to ASTM C78-99. The beams
were 6" x 6" x 18" long and loaded at third points along the span. Table 6.2 lists the
results of the rupture tests.
Table 6.2 Modulus of Rupture Test
6.3
Beam
Load (lbs)
M (lb-in)
f, (psi)
6625
19875
552
9525
28575
794
Avg
673
Steel Reinforcement Tensile Strengths

Internal shear stirrups and prestressing strands were recovered from the T-Beams
after all tests were complete. The shear stirrups were two-legged #3 defonned
reinforcing bars. The prestressing strands were 3/8" nominal diameter seven-wire stressrelieved strands with a design nominal tensile strength of 250 ksi. Coupons of these
materials were prepared and tested in tension to detennine their yield and ultimate
strengths. Table 6.3 lists the yield and ultimate strengths of the shear stirrups and
prestressing strands.
83
Table 6.3 Steel Reinforcement Tensile Strengths

Description
Shear stirrups
Yield Stress
No. of
samples
Ultimate Stress
Avg.j',
(ksi)
Std.
Dev.
(ksi)
Avg.f"
(ksi)
Std.
Dev.
(ksi)
50.9
1.27
73.1
3.31
T-Beam 1
272
Prestress strands
Shear stirrups
SO.9
1.27
73.1
3.31
T-Beam2
272
Prestress strands
6.4
CFRP Material Properties

The 4" wide pre-cured carbodur strips and the Sika Wrap Hex 103C uni-direction wet
lay-up material were tested after all T-Beam tests were complete. Samples of the
carbodur strips were recovered from locations where they appeared undamaged and still
in good condition. Double layer 12" x 12" wet lay-up samples of the Sika Wrap Hex
103C were made at the same time as the shear retrofit of the beam webs. Coupons of
these materials were cut and tested in tension to determine their tensile strength and
modulus of elasticity. Table 6.4 lists the tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of
these materials.
Table 6.4 CFRP Material Properties
Tensile Strength
Modulus of Elasticity
CFRP Material
AVg'/CFD (ksi)
Avg. ECFD (ksi)
Carbodur strips
406
23900
Sika Wrap Hex 103C
139
10600
84
6.5
CFRP PuU-offTnts
Pull-off tests were performed on the CFRP to determine the bond strength between
the CFRP and the precast concrete. Tests were performed on the CFRP shear stirrups,
CFRP shear sheets and the pre-cured carbodur strips. The tests were made at locations
where the concrete was un-cracked and the bond between CFRP and concrete was still
intact. The tests were performed using the DYNA Z16 pull-offtester shown in Figure
6-2. Figure 6-3 shows typical locations where the pull-off tests were performed. In all
cases, failure occurred in the concrete substrate, and not in the CFRP or the epoxy bond.
Figure 6-2 DYNA Z16 Pull-Off Tester
Figure 6-3 Typical locations or CFRP pull-off tests
85
Table 6.51ists the pull-off test results from T-Beam 1 and T-Beam 2. All of the pulloff tests exceeded the 200 psi minimum recommended by the ACI 440R-02 report for
CFRP installation18
Table 6.5 Pull-off Test Results
No. of
Samples
Stress
(psi)
Std. Dev.
(psi)
Comment
T-BeamlR
462
283
Concrete failure
T-BeamlL
696
167
Concrete failure
T-Beam2 T-Beam2R2
563
138
Concrete failure
T-Beam 1
86
CHAPTER 7
THEORETICAL BEAM STRENGTHS
This chapter presents predicted strength calculations for the T-Beams tested in this
program. In the first section of this chapter, the flexural strength ofT-Beam 1 is
predicted using the ACI 318-02 Building Code. The flexural strength capacity of TBeam 2 with CFRP flexural strengthening is predicted using the ACI 440R-02. The
strain-compatibility methodology proposed by ACI 440R-02 for non-prestressed beams is
presented in detail. Adjustments are proposed for application of the ACI 440R-02
methodology to prestressed concrete beams. This methodology is then applied to the TBeam 2 section properties.
The rest of the chapter presents shear strength predictions for the original T-Beam
without retrofit and for the CFRP retrofitted beams. The ACI 440R-02 approach to
predicting the contribution of CFRP shear reinforcement is introduced. Shear strength
predictions are presented for T-Beam 2Rl (concrete beam without CFRP shear retrofit),
T-Beam lL and T-Beam 2L (with CFRP shear stirrups), and T-Beam lR and T-Beam
2R2 (with CFRP shear sheets). The predicted strengths are compared with the observed
strengths in Chapter 8.
7.1
Af
As
Acp
Acs
Notation
=ntfwf
=
=
=
=
area of CFRP external reinforcement

area of non-prestressed steel reinforcement
area of precast prestressed concrete section
area of concrete slab
87
=
Ace
Aft = 2nt fW f =
=
Aps
a=Pl c
b
c
CE
d
=
=
=
=
=
fbs
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
fbp
fce
fcp
=
=
fd
ffe
flu
=
=
=
f;
fp
=
=
=
=
df
dp
e
ec
ee
Ec
Ef
Ep
Eps
E
6
fc
Ie'
fpc
fpe
fpi
area of composite section

area of CFRP reinforcement within spacing s
total area ofprestressed strands
depth of equivalent rectangular stress block
width of the compression flange
depth of the neutral axis
environmental reduction factor
centroidal depth of a non prestressed reinforcement measured from
top of beam
depth of CFRP shear reinforcement
centroidal depth of prestressed strands measured from top of beam
eccentricity of the prestressed tendons
eccentricity of the prestressed tendons at center
eccentricity of the prestressed tendons at support
modulus of elasticity of the concrete slab
tensile modulus of elasticity of CFRP
modulus of elasticity of prestressed concrete
modulus of elasticity of prestressed tendons
modulus of elasticity of steel
measured compressive strength of concrete
specified compressive strength of concrete
bottom stress level in the concrete slab of a prestressed concrete
section due to the dead load of the concrete slab
stress level in the bottom of the prestressed beam section due to
the prestressing force and dead load of beam
stress due to prestress at tension fiber
stress level in the prestressed beam section at the level of the
prestressed tendons
stress due to un-factored dead load at tension fiber
effective stress in the CFRP; stress level attained at section failure
design ultimate tensile strength of CFRP
ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP material as reported by the
manufacturer
stress level of the prestressed tendons attained at section failure
compressive stress in concrete at centroid of composite section
effective prestressing stress of the prestressed tendons due to
initial prestressing stress of the prestressed tendons
88
1p8
lpu
Is
lip
=
=
=
=
Its
I,
kt
=
=
=
=
=
k2
I
Le
Mer
Md
=
=
=
=
Mdp
M d8
=
=
M max
Mn
n
ne
=
=
=
=
=
=
stress in prestressed reinforcement at nominal strength

ultimate strength of prestressing tendons
stress in non-prestressed steel reinforcement
stress level in the top of the prestressed beam section due to the
prestressing force and dead load of beam
stress level in the top concrete slab of a prestressed beam
section due to the dead load of the concrete slab
specified yield strength of non-prestressed reinforcement
overall thickness of member
moment of inertia of composite prestressed section
moment of inertia of precast prestressed beam section
modification factor applied to /(1/ to account for the concrete
strength
modification factor applied to /(1/ to account for the wrapping
scheme
member span length
active bond length of CFRP laminate
cracking moment
moment at section due to un-factored dead load (self-weight of
precast and topping)
dead load moment of the prestressed concrete beam
dead load moment of the concrete slab of a prestressed concrete
beam
maximum factored moment at section due to external loads (not
including dead load)
nominal flexural capacity
number of plies of CFRP reinforcement
modular ratio
shear stirrup spacing
CFRP shear reinforcing spacing
effective prestressing force of the prestressed tendons
Sbc- Ie
bottom section modulus of the composite section
I
S =L
bottom section modulus of the prestressed beam
section modulus to the bottom of the concrete slab of a composite
h (i.e. he)
Ie
Ip
S
Sf
Pe
Ybc
bp
Y"
sbs--.!L
Ybs
section
89
Ip
Sip = -
top section modulus of the prestressed beam
S = Ie
top section modulus of the composite section

thickness of the concrete slab
nominal thickness of one ply of the CFRP reinforcement
Vew
=
=
=
=
Vd
Vf
=
=
Y,
's
I
If
Ve
VI
Y"
Ybs
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Yb
Ybc
Y,
Y"
Eb
Ebl
Vn
Vp
Vs
wf
Wd
w.
Wdf
nominal shear strength provided by concrete

nominal shear strength provided by concrete when diagonal
cracking results from excessive principal tensile stress in the web
shear force at section due to un-factored dead load (self-weight of
precast and topping)
nominal shear strength provided by CFRP stirrups
factored shear force at section due to externally applied loads
occurring with M max
nominal shear capacity
vertical component of effective prestress at section
nominal shear strength provided by steel stirrups
width of the CFRP reinforcing plies
self-weight of prestressed beam and concrete slab
self-weight of prestressed beam
self-weight of concrete slab
distance from the centroid of gravity of a composite prestressed
beam section to the bottom of concrete slab
distance from the centroid of gravity of a prestressed
beam section to the bottom of the prestressed beam section
beam section to the bottom of the composite prestressed beam
section
distance from the centroid of gravity of a prestressed
beam section to the top of the prestressed beam section
beam section to the top of concrete slab
ratio of the depth of the equivalent rectangular stress block to the
depth of the neutral axis
strain level in the concrete substrate developed by a given bending
moment (tension is positive)
strain level in the concrete substrate at the time of the CFRP
installation (tension is positive)
90
=
=
Eeu
E,e
=
=
=
Efu
E,
Ebp
Ecp
E",
Ep
=
=
=
=
Epe
Epy
Etp
maximum usable compressive strain of concrete (0.003)

effective strain level in CFRP reinforcement; strain level
attained in section failure
design rupture strain of CFRP reinforcement
strain level in the non-prestressed steel reinforcement
initial strain level in the bottom prestressed concrete substrate due
to I bp (Le. strain level in the concrete substrate at the time of the
CFRP installation)
initial strain level of prestressed concrete substrate at the
level of the prestressed tendons
initial strain level in the bottom concrete slab substrate of the
prestressed concrete due to I",
strain level of the prestressed tendons attained in section failure
effective strain level of the prestressed tendons due to I pe
yield strain level of the prestressed tendons
initial strain level in the top prestressed concrete substrate due to
Itp
Ell
/(m
/(v
_ Aps
Pp - bd
rp
"'I
=
=
=
=
=
initial strain level in the top concrete slab substrate of the

prestressed concrete due to III
bond dependent coefficient for flexure
bond reduction coefficient
ratio of prestressed reinforcement
factor for type of prestressing tendon
additional CFRP strength-reduction factor
91
7.2
Flexur. Strength 01T-Belllll 1

The predicted nominal flexural capacity of T-Beam 1 was based on ACI 318-02
building code. The mid-span cross-section ofT-Beam 1 is shown in Figure 7-1.
t - - - - - - b =6 6 " - - - - -
Slab Reinforcement
2-leg #3 Stirrups @ 12" O.C.---+;
(10)
I"
t1
1'-61" dp
1 8"2 3ft
ff2J Stress-relieved
2~~=--===~sr'
prestress strands
=24.65"
MIDSPAN BEAM SECTION

Figure 7-1 Cross-section ofT-Beam 1
The nominal flexural capacity was calculated using the following formula,
where /, = /, (1- r
JIfI
PI
[p
I' c +.!!.-.(OJ-OJ')])
dP
I JIfI
(ACI 318-02, Eq. 18-3).
Since there was no mild tension steel in the T-Beam and the effect of the compression
steel in the flange was negligible,
IJ was simplified to,
92
where
p. =0.85
0.0S(f' e - 4000) ~ 0.65 .

1000
The flexural capacity of T-Beam I was predicted using the measured material
property values. For f' e = 5396 psi for the concrete slab (Table 6.1), PI = 0.78. The
area of one 3/8" diameter seven wire stress-relieved prestressing strand (grade 250) is
0.080 in2 The area often strands is therefore Aps = 0.80 in2 The width of the flange is
b = 66" (Figure 7-1). The depth of the centroid of the prestressed strands is dp = 24.65".
For stress-relieved tendons,
= 0.4.
Based on coupons tests, the ultimate strength of the
prestressing tendons is fpu = 272 ksi (Table 6.3). Substituting gives:
ps
= 272(1- 0.4 [ 0.80 x 272 ]) = 269 ksi.

0.78 66x24.65 5.396
From internal force equilibrium, the depth of the concrete compression block is:
a=( 0.85
ApsX!ps J=( 0.80x269 )=0.71".
Ie x b 0.85 x 5.396 x 66
Note that f e ' for the equivalent rectangular stress block is based on the concrete slab
concrete cylinder tests. The depth of the equivalent rectangular stress block is less than
the thickness of the concrete slab, therefore the nominal flexural capacity of T-Beam 1 is
given by:
M n = Aps Xfps( d p
~) = 0.80X269(24.65- 0;1) = 5228 kip-in =436 kip-ft.
93
Using the nominal material strengths of f' c = 4000 psi for the top slab and
fpu = 250 ksi for the prestressed strands, the nominal flexural capacity of T-Beam 1 is
Mn
=397 kip-ft.
Flexural Strength ofT-Beam 2 (w/carbodur strips)
7.3
The ACI 440R-02 report suggests a methodology for computation of the nominal
flexural capacity of a reinforced concrete beam retrofitted in flexure with CFRP bonded
to the tension surface. The calculation is based on the ultimate limit state condition of the
beam's stress and strain. However, the ACI 440R-02 report does not consider prestressed
concrete members. An understanding of the stress and strain distribution of the
reinforced concrete beam was helpful in the development of the equations used for
calculating the nominal flexural capacity of a prestressed concrete beam retrofitted with
CFRP in flexure.
7.3.1
Flexural Capacity ofa Reinforced Concrete Beam with CFRF 9
The stress and strain distribution of a typical reinforced concrete beam retrofitted with
CFRP is shown in Figure 7-2. The ACI 440R-02 procedure used to arrive at the nominal
flexural strength of the beam satisfies the strain compatibility and force equilibrium of
Figure 7-2. It also considers potential controlling failure modes as compressive concrete
crushing or CFRP debonding.
94
b
A
- h
<J
(Neutral
d
A
<J
f.
f co
1----
1.----
1----
f co
Figure 7-2 Stress and strain distribution of a reinforced concrete beam with CFRP
under Dexure at ultimate limit state condition
To determine the flexural strength of the beam, several equations must be satisfied by
trial and error. For an assumed depth of the neutral axis, C, the strain level of the CFRP is
computed as:
(ACI 440R-02, Eq.9-3)
(ACI 440R-02, Eq.9-2).
The left side of ACI 440R-02 equation 9-3 is based on strain compatibility of the
beam section assuming concrete crushing, while the right side represents the CFRP
debonding failure mode. If the left side of the equation controls, the failure mode of the
section is concrete crushing, while debonding governs if the right side of the equation
controls. The concrete failure strain level is usually taken as 0.003.
95
The initial strain level in the concrete at the level of the CFRP,
hi ,
is computed
considering the load experienced by the beam immediately prior to application of the
CFRP. Usually, this load is the dead weight of the beam and any supported slab. It is
appropriate to subtract the initial strain level from the total strain level to get the effective
strain level of the CFRP. Unless the beam is shored to relieve some of the existing dead
load, this initial strain level must be considered when computing the strain in the CFRP.
A bond dependent coefficient,
I(m'
is provided in the calculation as a safety factor against
CFRP debonding.
Since the tensile stress-strain relationship for the CFRP is linear until failure, the
stress level in the CFRP is given by:
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 9-4).
Based on the strain level of the CFRP and the initial strain level of the concrete, the
strain level of the non-prestressed steel reinforcement is determined using strain
compatibility of the beam section as:
= (/e +bl '( d
-c)
'\h-c
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 9-8).
Assuming perfectly elastic-plastic behavior for the non-prestressed steel, the stress
level in the steel is given by:
I, =E,, Sly
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 9-9).
Having determined the stresses in the CFRP and steel reinforcement for the assumed
neutral axis depth, c, internal force equilibrium is checked using:
96
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 9-10).
The equivalent rectangular stress block (Whitney stress block) is used to estimate the
compressive stress in the concrete compression zone for both potential failure modes. If
the value of c determined from ACI 440R-02 equation 9-10 differs from the assumed
value, the new value of c is used as the next assumed c and the process repeats. Iteration
of these equations continues until the neutral axis depth determined from ACI 440R-02
equation 9-10 agrees with the assumed value. The nominal flexural capacity of the CFRP
retrofitted concrete beam is then determined as:
A reduction factor of '"f = 0.85 is applied to the flexural strength contribution of the
CFRP reinforcement.
7.3.2 Nominal Flexural Capacity ofa Prestressed Concrete Beam with CFRP
Since the ACI 440R-02 equations were developed for non-prestressed concrete
beams, it was necessary to modify these equations to determining the nominal flexural
capacity of a prestressed concrete beam retrofitted with CFRP. The modified system is
also based on strain compatibility and force equilibrium of the prestressed member. The
equations differ from those presented in Section 7.3.1 due to the presence of a
prestressing force in the steel and concrete, and the difference in stress-strain response of
prestressing steel compared with non-prestressed reinforcement.
The stress and strain distributions in the beam at both initial and final conditions are
considered in this derivation. The initial condition represents the beam condition at the
97
time the CFRP retrofit was applied. Usually, the stress and strain distribution in the beam
at the initial condition is a function of the level of prestress and the dead weight on the
beam. A typical stress and strain profile of a prestressed concrete beam at the initial
condition is shown in Figure 7-3. In order to generalize to a composite T-Beam section,
this derivation considers a composite section with a non-prestressed top slab.
' !'S -,,,, ;~~"" ....4"~... -l....."
~~:.l.\".-;.1~\{tf;... 41;'~;),
O";';''!'tf,o'
- ..
.1.':'!~l.., ..7~t:
...
dp
If.
_.
(Neutral
_4
.
4
./
.....
Figure 7-3 Stress and strain distribution of a prestressed concrete beam under
Oexure at the initial condition (prior to appllcation of CFRP)
The stress levels in the concrete at the initial condition are:
98
The corresponding strain levels in the concrete at the initial condition are:
=1/8
/8 E
= Ibs
bs E
/,
tp
=~
Ep
In addition to the stress and strain levels in the concrete, the stress and strain of the
prestressed tendon at the initial condition are:
where
pe
=-!!!..
Eps
is the effective prestress after losses at the time of installation of the CFRP.
These values make up the stress and strain profile of Figure 7-3. It is likely that the
majority of the precast prestressed concrete beam section will be in compression at the
initial condition. In particular, the bottom fibers may be subjected to significant
compression at the time of FRP application, as opposed to the small tensile strain in the
bottom fibers for a non-prestressed beam.
Once the initial condition has been determined, the stress and strain profiles for the
final condition are developed as shown in Figure 7-4. The final condition is the ultimate
limit state of the beam in flexure.
99
O.85fc
~r
,,
,
,,
,,
,
E.q,\
,
~~~-..:L.---+--1
eo
-j;:t-
1--- fp
fro
fp
fro
Figure 7-4 Stress and strain distribution of a prestressed concrete beam with CFRP
under flexure at ultimate limit state condition
At the ultimate limit state, the beam section experiences tension from the neutral axis
to the bottom of the section. The dotted line represents the initial strain condition of the
prestressed concrete. Since the prestressing tendons were bonded to the concrete, the
additional elongation of the tendons started at the initial condition. In addition, the CFRP
elongation also started at the initial condition when the whole section was still in
compression.
To arrive at the nominal flexural strength of the prestressed concrete beam, several
equations are developed which must satisfy the strain compatibility and force equilibrium
of Figure 7-4. Also, the concrete strain levels must be checked according to the mode of
failure, namely concrete crushing or CFRP debonding. As before, this new set of
equations is satisfied by iteration. For an assumed depth c, the strain level of the CFRP is
computed from:
100
Note that Ebp and Ebi have the same meaning, although the first is for a prestressed
beam while the second is for a non-prestressed beam. They both represent the initial
strain at the bottom concrete fiber before the CFRP was applied. In the case of the
prestressed beam, the strain in the CFRP at the ultimate limit state is the sum of this
initial concrete compressive strain and the strain corresponding to crushing of the
compression concrete at the top of the beam.
Since the tensile stress-strain relationship for the CFRP is linear until failure, the
stress level in the CFRP is given by:
Based on the initial tensile strain in the prestressing steel and the compressive strain
in the concrete at the level of the prestress steel centroid, the strain level of the
prestressed steel at the ultimate limit state is determined from strain compatibility as:
The strain level of the concrete at the centroid of the prestressing steel and the
effective prestress strain in the prestressing steel due to the prestressing force minus
losses, are added to the strain induced in the prestressed tendons at the ultimate bending
capacity. The stress corresponding to this strain must be determined from the stressstrain relationship for the prestressing steel.
101
If p > py' then fp is determined from the stress-strain relationship for

the prestressing steel with a limit of fp SfJ18 ' where,
This expression for
f 1'8 takes into account the contribution of the CFRP flexural
reinforcement.
With the stresses in the CFRP and prestressing steel determined for the assumed
neutral axis depth, c, internal force equilibrium is checked using:
Iteration of these equations is required until the neutral axis depth detennined from
this equation matches with the assumed value. Once satisfied, the nominal flexural
capacity of the CFRP strengthened prestressed concrete beam computed as:
7.3.3
Calculation ofthe Predicted Flexural Strength ofT-Beam 2
This section presents the computation of the nominal flexural capacity of T-Beam 2
using this modified ACI 440R-02 procedure for prestressed beams. In its initial condition
in the Ala Moana Parking Garage, the beam supported a tributary width of 30' over a 30'
span. The dead load supported by the beam at the time of retrofit application is assumed
to be the self-weight of the precast beam and the weight of 30' tributary width of slab.
Figure 7.5 shows the cross-section of the beam used to calculate this dead load.
102
r..-----jF-j\-c:-c-Acs------l
Figure 7-5 T-Beam 2 tributary width at Ala Moana Parking Garage
The initial dead load on the beam was therefore determined as follows:
Unit weight of concrete:
ISO lb/ff
Weight of precast beam:
Acp
Weight of concrete slab:
Au =30xI2x4.5=1620in2 war = 1620 X150 =1688 lb/ft

144
w. =
198
144 x ISO = 206 lb/ft
=198 in2
W~/2 = 206;24 xl~ =178 kip-in

2
Dead load moment:
M. =
war/2
=- = 1688x30 x -12- = 760 k"Ip-m
ar
24
24
1000
(precast)
(concrete sIab)
Note that the precast self-weight is supported by the precast member over a span of
24 feet, while the topping slab was added once the precast beam was installed on the
column capitals, representing a span length of 30 feet. The precast section was shored
during addition of the topping slab. Any continuity at the supports has been neglected to
simplify the computation of dead load moments.
The initial stress level in the prestressing steel at the time of CFRP application was
determined as follows:
With
/pu
=250 ksi, and lpi =0.75/pu = 0.75x250 = 187.5 ksi.
Assuming 200.10 prestress loss, lpe = 0.80lpi = 0.80xI87.5 = 150 ksi.

Therefore, Pe = /peAps = 150xO.80 = 120 kips
103
Material properties of the prestressed beam from Table 6.1 are:
fe' = 8397
/; = 9023 psi
(concrete slab)
and
psi
(precast)
E c = 4800 ksi
(concrete slab)
and E p = 4665 ksi
(precast)
Section properties:
Precast Section:
W
IS'"
...
3.8S"
Figure 7-6 Section properties of the precast prestressed beam section
Yb =9"
Yt
s
tp
104
=15"
= I p = 10075 =672 in3
Yt
15
Composite Section (Flange transformed to equivalent width):
I"
19.4"
J'-----
----W
Figure 7-7 Section properties of the composite section
Ie = 45843 in4
Sbc
18
YIM = 4.6"
= Ie =45843 =2363 in3
- Ie _ 45843 --9966 In
. 3
SIM--Ybs
4.6
=!.L =45843 =5038 in3
E e 4800
n =-=--=1.03
e
E p 4665
Ybc
Ybc = 19.4"
YI8
19.4
9.1
YI8 = 9.1"
Initial Condition Stresses:
}; = -~ + ~e _ Mdp _ M ds = -120 + 120x5.15 _178 _ 760

Ip
Acp Sip Sip
SIM
198
672
672 9966
=-0.606 + 0.92 - 0.265 - 0.076
J;
bp
=-0.027
ksi
=-~ _~e + Mdp + M =-120 _120x5.15 + 178 + 760

ds
Acp
Sbp
Sbp
Sbc
198
1119
1119 2363
= -0.606 - 0.552 + 0.159 + 0.322 = -0.677 ksi
105
f .. =(fh~~'" )X(h-dp )+ f ...

= (- 0.027 + 0.677) x (28.5 - 24.65) - 0.677 = -0.573 ksi
28.5-4.5
and fpe = 150 ksi.
Initial Condition Strains (10~:
= /'. = 0.155 = -0.0000323 = -32.3
E
Is
Ec
4800
om7
Ep
4665
J:
150
Epa
28500
E =-!L=_-=-o.OOOOO579=-5.79
tp
= -l?!.. =
E
pe
E cp
);
0.079
=-k:!..=--=-o.OOOOI65 =-16.5
Ec
4800
Ebp
=-=--=-0.000145=-145
};bp
Qrn
Ep
4665
= 0.005260 = 5260
=(E h - Et bp ) x (h tp -
Ebs
d p ) + E bp
=(-0.00000579 +0.000145 )X(28.5-24.65)-0.000145 =-0.000123 =-123

28.5 - 4.5
Figure 7-8 and Figure 7-9show the stress and strain profiles across the mid-span
cross-section for T-Beam 2 in flexure at the initial and ultimate loading conditions
respectively.
5.7
0.02
~_,;:;,:52=..::6~
~123
'------:--""""'145
~_--:..;:,-=-t-
~0.573
Stress (ksi)
0.677
Figure 7-8 Stress and strain distributions for T-Beam 2 at the initial condition
106
neutral axis__
0.85fc
~-
.
--+l!123
I
~--::;o~_ _--E-_ _
~----------,-:'145
Ere
-6
Strain (10 )
Stress (ksi)
Figure 7-9 Stress and strain distributions for T-Beam 2 at ultimate state conditions
After iteration the neutral axis depth converged to c=O.93". The following
calculations show the final iteration loop.
Strain level of the CFRP at the ultimate limit state is:
where the CFRP debonding failure mode coefficient is:
K' m
60
1
E
fu
60Efu
(1 -
Js; 0.90 for
nE I I I
200000o
( SOOOOO
S;
nE I I lS;I 00000o
0.90 for nE I I I > 100000o
/b / in
/b / in
nEIII
and nE II I = 1x 23900 x 0.047 = 1123300 /b / in > 100000o /b / in ,
therefore:
where:
Therefore,
I( m
Efu
1
60
= f fu = C
EI
(SOOOOO
E fu
f;
S;
= 0.8S x406 = 0.014
EI
60 xO.014
from CFRP tests.
23900
= _ _1_ _ ( SOOOOO
K'
0.90
nE II f
1123300
and,
107
) = O. S3
S;
0.90
Finally, Ere = Ecu
(h-c)
+
c
Ebp
5
= 0.00128. - 0.93) + 0.000145= 0.089 > 0.00742
\. 0.93
The stress level in the CFRP is then:

Ife = EfEfe = 23900xO.00742=177 ksi.
The strain level in the prestressed steel at the ultimate limit state is:
Ep =Ecu ( d
-cJ
+Ecp +Epe =0.00{24.65-0.93) +0.000123+0.00526=0.082.

0.93
This strain exceeds the yield strain of the prestressing steel assumed to be
Epy
= 0.01,
therefore the stress in the prestressing steel must be determined from the stress-strain
curve for the tendons. Referring to the stress-strain relationship suggested by Nawy
(2003) for stress-relieved 250 ksi tendons, the stress at
Ep
> 0.045 is I p = 250 ksi20
Checking Ips:
PI =0.85
Therefore,
0.05(f'c-4OOO) =0.85 0.05(9023-4000) =0.60<0.65

1000
1000
IJ. =0.65.
I'
J
I'
ps = J pu
(1 - rPI
p
Pp
f
lpu
I' c + Abh llu])
t:
= 2511- 0.4 [
0.8
x 250 + 0.564 x 406 ]) = 246 ksi
\. 0.65 64x24.65 9.023 64x28.5 9.023
Therefore,
I p = Ips = 246 < 250 ksi.
Checking the assumed neutral axis depth c:

a=pc= Apslp + Aflfe = 0.8x246+0.564xI77 =0.604"
1
0.851;b
0.85(9.023)(64)
108
c =..!!... =0.604 =0.93" which agrees with the assumed depth c.

PI
0.65
Therefore,
The nominal flexural capacity ofT-Beam 2 is then given by,
M"
=Apsfp(dp- ;)+V'fAfffe(h- ;)
= 0.8X246(24.65 -
0.~04 )+0.85XO.564 X177( 28.5- 0.~04).
=4792 + 2393 =7185 kip - in =599 k - It
109
7.4
Shellr Strength ofT-Beam 1 (without shear retrofit)

The shear strength ofT-Beam 1 was calculated using the ACI 318-02 provisions for
shear strength of composite prestressed concrete beams. T-Beam 1 spanned 24 ft and

supported two point loads at 25.5 inches from mid-span as shown in Figure 7-10. The
shear strength analysis and shear profile along the length of the beam are developed in
this section.
j I
I
Figure 7-10 T-Beam I layout for shear strength calculation

Concrete T- Beam properties:
Prestressed Beam Section:
fe' := 8413 psi
fpu := 250000 psi
f pi := 187500 psi
fpc := 150000 psi
2
A ps := 0.8 in
egs e := 3.85 in
egs e := 10.5 in
Eps := 28500 bi
f y :=
from bottom
h := 24 in
bf := 66 in
b w := 5.5 in
L := 24 ft
from bottom
50900 psi for stirrups
Topping Slab:
d p := 24.65 in
fef := 5396 psi
he := 28.5 in
Pe:=tpeXAps
Pc = 120000 Ib
110
I.
Calculate the location of the section centroid:
i. prestressed section
ii. composite section

Ep := 4669 ksi prestressed
Ee
A cp := 198 in
n c :=-
Yb := 9 in
Ee := 3938 ksi
DC
Ep
topping
=0.84
Yt:= 15 in
A ee := 445
Ip := 10075 in4
Yts :=9.~ in
~p.--_2
Yb
3
Sbp := 1119.44 in
Sq, :=~
3
Stp := 671.67 in
Q.
Ie
._-
"DC .-
Ybc
Ie
Srs :=-
Yt
Ybc := 18.6 in
Ie := 4314~ in
Sax: = 2319.84 in3

3
S ts := 4358.41 in
Yts
ee := Yb - eSSe ee = 5.15
ee:= Yb - eSSe ee = -1.5
2.
in Eccentricity of prestress tendons at center

in Eccentricity of prestress tendons at support
Compute concrete shear capacity based on flexure-shear cracking, Vci:

Acp + 66x 4.5
wd:=
x 0.15(
144
Wd =0.52 Idf
Assuming normal weight concrete

Beam self weight plus topping self weight
Wu := l. 2Wd
W u =0.62 kIf
43 kips
P1:=1.6
P u := 1.6 PI
Live load at each load point corresponding to flexural failure of the beam.
Pu = 43 kips
V~x)
Vei(x) :=o.6A.x{fC'x bwx dp(x) + Vd(x) +
x Mcr<x)
(x)
~ l.1A.x{fC'x bwx dp(x)
A. := 1.0 for normal weight concrete.

dp(x):= (24.65- 18)x+ 18 if x< 5.67
5.67
24.65 if x ~ 5.67
Compute shear capacity at I ft intervals from support to load point.
x:= 1.2 .. 10 ft
WuxL
Vu (x) :=
Vd(x) := Wd x
+ Pu - W u x x
(~ -
x)
Vtx) := Vu(x) - Vd(x)
Factored shear force at section x.

Shear force at x due to un-factored dead load.
factored shear force at x due to extemall08d.
III
V~x)
x=
kips
ft
49.81
49.19
44.13
48.57
43.93
47.95
43.82
47.33
44.03
43.72
kips
46.71
43.62
46.09
43.52
45.47
43.41
44.86
43.31
44.24
43.21
kips
VuO := Vu(O)
vuo = 50.42 k Factored shear force at support
VdO := Vd(O)
VdO = 6.19 k
Un-factored shear force due to dead load at support

Moment at section x due to un-factored dead load
Moment at section x due to factored load
Maximum factored moment at section x due to external
loads (not including dead load)
x=
MmaJx} =
50.12
99.61
5.93
11.34
88.27
148.49
16.24
132.25
196.75
20.63
176.13
244.39
tl
k-ft
24.49
44.19
k- ft
219.9
291.41
27.84
263.57
337.82
30.68
307.14
383.6
33
350.6
428.77
34.8
393.96
473.31
36.09
437.22
112
kips - ft
Eccentricity of prestress at section x, 4 strands harped at section x=5.67 ft from support

e(x):= (ee + ee - ee x x) if x < 5.67
5.67
5.15 if
fd(x):=
x~
Pexe(x)
Me..<x) :=
Ie
12~bc
=-I.S
Stress due to prestress at tension fiber at section x
st,p
Acp
ee
Stress due to un-factored dead load at section x
~p
Pe
=5.15
5.67
12000Md(x)
fce( x) := -
ee
x (6X..[iC' + fce(x) - fd(X))
Cracking moment
x=
in
tl
~(x)
x=
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
fl
570.99
696.71
822.44
948.16
1073.89
1158.12
1158.12
1158.12
1158.12
1158.12
psi
63.58
121.6
174.11
221.09
262.55
298.47
328.87
353.75
373.09
386.91
psi
204.49
217.57
231.73
248.95
263.24
272.58
266.7
261.89
258.15
255.48
k'
44.19
88.27
132.25
176.13
219.9
263.57
307.14
350.6
393.96
437.22
19.17
20.35
21.52
22.69
23.86
24.65
24.65
24.65
24.65
24.65
44.13
44.03
43.93
43.82
43.72
43.62
43.52
43.41
43.31
43.21
204.49
217.57
231.73
248.95
263.24
272.58
266.7
261.89
258.15
255.48
113
44.19
88.27
132.25
176.13
219.9
263.57
307.14
350.6
393.96
437.22
215.72
119.85
88.12
72.44
63.17
55.86
47.83
41.95
37.39
33.74
kips
3.
Compute concrete shear capacity based on web shear cracking, Vcw
Pe
cgs e
= 120
tpe = 150000 psi
kips
= 10.5 in at the support
cgsc
=3.85 in at center
Vertical component of effective prestress at section x is:

PeX (Cgse-CgsC)
Vp(x) :=
if x S 5.67
68
o if x> 5.67
y
Y :=Ybc -Ybp
=9.6
distance between centroid of precast and composite

sections
in
where ).. =1 for normal weight concrete.

d'0'(x) --
x=
fl
19.17
20.35
21.52
22.69
23.86
24.65
24.65
24.65
24.65
24.65
(x)
0.71
0.64
0.56
0.48
0.39 ksi
0.34
0.37
0.39
0.42
0.43
v'0'(x) 11.74
11.74
11.74
11.74
11.74
kips
0
0
0
0
0
114
Vcw<x) =
68.09
69.11
69.65
69.86
69.11
kips
57.17
58.49
59.57
60.41
61.01
4.
Shear Strength of Concrete, Vc:
Shear strength of concrete

Vcw(x) =
x=
215.72
68.09
119.85
68.09
69.11
88.12
69.65
69.65
72.44
69.66
69.66
63.17
fl
5.
69.11
kips
69.11
kips
63.17
55.66
57.17
55.66
47.83
58.49
47.83
41.95
59.57
41.95
37.39
60.41
37.39
33.74
61.01
33.74
kips
Compute concrete shear capacity of steel stirrups, VI:

Two - leg #3 stirrups @ 12 in o.c. Although the bottoms of the stirrups are not
anchored with a hook, the full capacity of the stirrups is assumed in these calculations.
2
As := O.2~ in
:= 12 in
ty
As x
x dp(X)
V (x) := ~---::'----i~
6.
1000;
Compute combined concrete and steel stirrup shear capacity, Vn:
Vn(x) := Vc(x) + Vs(x)

x=
Vc(x) =
fl
68.09
69.11
17.69
18.99
85.98
86.1
69.65
20.08
89.73
69.66
21.17
90.83
63.17
22.27
85.44
55.66
23
78.67
47.83
23
70.83
41.95
23
64.95
37.39
23
60.39
33.74
23
56.74
115
kips
7.
Plot the Shear Capacity Profile for T-Beams 1 and 2

Figure 7-11 shows the applied shear diagrams for T-Beams 1 and 2 based on their
flexural capacities, and the shear strengths for the T-Beams without CFRP shear
reinforcement, The shear applied to T-Beam 1 exceeds the beam capacity over a 2 feet
distance adjacent to the load points. For T-Beam 2, the applied shear exceeds the beam
capacity for 5 feet on either side of the point loads. It was concluded that the shear
capacity of both T-Beams should be increased by means of a CFRP shear retrofit to
reduce the potential for shear failure during the flexural testing,
~~
190
\\
1~8
_ 160
- - -Vc(x)
. Vcw(x)
i':s IiISS \\ . . :JiL SOOarDB~

110
----T-beam2 ShearD8gram
~ ~-- ~.~
~
, 1
i8
----------1
Shear Capedty Profile ofT-beaml
~?: --I
I- _. - -
- _ ,
--------
"'1
I
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1g 19 20 21 22 23 24
Spen length of beam (ft)
Figure '-11 Shear capacity and shear diagram ofT-Beams 1 and 2
116
7.5
Shellr Strength ofT-Bellm 2Rl (pllIin concrete)

The shear capacity ofT-Beam 2Rl was determined according to ACI 318-02
provisions for non-composite prestressed concrete beams. It was analyzed as a noncomposite section because the dead weight of the beam was neglected. The nominal
shear capacity is based on contributions from the concrete and steel stirrups. Figure 7-12
shows T-Beam 2Rl test layout at failure, along with the corresponding shear and bending
moment diagrams.
Pu=185 k
I
I
1------- ]"-ij----t
1 - - - - . 1 . . . . - - - - t - - - - 11. a f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
I
TBEAM2Rl
Vu=h22.5
V(kips) ' - - - - + - - - - r - - - - > r - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 62.5
M(kip-in) " - - - - - I - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - .
Figure 7-12 T-Beam 2Rllayout and sbear and moment diagrams
117
T-Beam 2 Section Properties:

bw = 5.5 in
/; =8397 psi
d p =24.65 in
Acp =198 in2
Ybc = 19.4 in
..1.=1.0 NWC
=120 kips
Concrete Shear Strength: Vc is lesser of Vet or Vcw

Calculation of Vet:
V" = 122.5 kips
M" = 2664 kip-in
/pe
= ~ + ~e = 120 + 120x5.15 =1.16 ksi

Acp Sbp 198
1119
i':' +1.16)=4040
M~ =:: (&.[l +f .. )= 4::':3(

Vc; =0.6..t.[lbwd p + V"Mcr
M"
kip-in
~1.7..t.[lbwdp
:. V = 0.6x.J839'7x 5.5 x 24.65 + 122.5 x 4040 = 7.45+186= 193 kips

d
1000
2664
~ 1.7 x.J839'7x 5.5 x 24.65 = 21.1 kips

1000
Therefore. Vet = 193 kips.

Calculation of Vcw :
P
,f, =_e =
pc
Acp
120000
198
=606
PSt
Therefore, Vc = 68.1 kips.
118
Strength of Shear Stirrups:

Two -leg #3 stirrop @ 12 in o.c, assuming full anchorage at top and bottom of web:
~ =0.22 in2
s=12 in
v = A.-f d = O.22x50900x24.6S = 23 ki
y
IOOOs
lOOOx12
Therefore, the nominal shear capacity of T-Beam 2Rl is:
v" = Vc + V" = 68.1 + 23 = 91.1 kips.
119
7.6
Sh~llr Str~ngth
of T-B~llm lL (w/CFRP stl"Ups)
The shear capacity ofT-Beam lL was determined according to ACI 318-02 and ACI
440R-02 guidelines. The concrete and existing steel stirrup contributions to the total
shear strength were computed based on the ACI 318-02 code. The CFRP shear retrofit
contribution was computed according to the recommendations in the ACI 440R-02
report. Figure 7-13 shows the T-Beam lL test layout at failure. and the corresponding
shear and bending moment diagrams.
Pu=87.S k
Pu=87.5 k
~.
~:-*??;;=---+-----IO'------~~
TBEAM lL
VJ=87.S
I
I
I
I
1
V(k.ips)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
87.5
M(kip-in)..e....-..--t---------------:>.
Figure 7-13 T-Beam IL layout and shear and moment diagrams
120
T -Beam 1 Section Properties:

/; =8413 psi
Ybc = 18.6 in
bw = 5.5 in
d p =24.65 in
I c =43149 in4
Acp =198 in
A =1.0 NWC
=120 kips
Concrete Shear Strength: Vc is lesser of Vel or Vcw

Calculation of Vel:
V" = 87.5 kips
M" = 2319 kip-in
f
pe
= ~ + ~e = 120 + 120x5.15 = 1.16 ksi

Acp Sbp 198
1119
~ =:: (6./f: + f,.) =4::.:t:: + 1.16) =3968 kip-in
VCi =0.6k{lbwd p + V"MeI'

M"
~1.7k{lbwdp
Vel = 0.6x.J84i3x5.5X24.65 + 87.5x3968 =7.46+150=157 kips

1000
2319
~ 1.7x.J84i3X5.5x24.65 = 21.1
1000
ki s
Therefore, Vel = 157 kips.

pc
P
120000
.
=
=606 pSI
Acp
198
=-~
Vp =0
Vcw = ~.5Ag +0.3/pc ~wdp + Vp = (J.5.J84i3 +0.3x606 }x5.5X24.65 = 68.2 kips

1000
121

Two -leg #3 stirrups @ 12 in o.c., assuming full anchorage at top and bottom of the web:
~ =0.22 in2
s =12 in
v =~fyd =0.22 X 50900x 24.65 =23

p
10008
1000x12
.
kips
Contribution ofCFRP shear retrofit (VI) based on ACI 44OR-Q2 report procedure:
-!f----f!--
5-"
2'
df=24.6S"
51,
2
Figure 7-14 Cross section ofT-Beam lL showing CFRP stirrup layout
CFRP Stirrups Properties:

Two sided stirrups:
'III = 0.85
(ACI 440R-02, Table 10.1)

(ACI 440R-Q2, Eq. 1Q-6b)
d l = 24.65"
n = 2 plies
t 1=0.039"
EI = 10600 ksi
f; = 139 ksi
122
C E =0.85
Calculation of Vf
A",fjedl
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-3)
Vf = --"---'--""'-sf
ffe = EfEfe
A",=2ntf wf
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-5)
k = k t k2 L e S 0.75
" 486EjiI
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-7)
Cf=....!...f!!- = 0.85x139 = 0.011

Ef
10600
E
jiI
L
e
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-4)
r=
2500
(ntfEf
oS8
2500
(2xO.039xl 060oo )0058
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 8-4)
=0 924"
k, =(~)' =(~y =1.64

k = df - 2Le = 24.65 - 2xO.924
2
df
24.65
k
"
Efe
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-9)
=0.925
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-10)
= kt k2Le =1.64xO.925xO.924 =0.262 S 0.75

486EjiI
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-8)
therefore k
486xO.011
"
=0.262
=k"E =0.262xO.Oll =0.003 S 0.004 therefore Efe =0.003

jiI
- A",ffedf _ 0.468x31.8x24.65 - 30 6 ki
Vf .
pS
sf
12
Therefore, the nominal shear capacity ofT-Beam lL is:

V"
=Vc + V" + 'I'fVf =68.2 + 23 + (O.85x30.6) =68.2 + 23 + 26 = 117 kips.
123
7.7
Shear Strength 01T-Bellltl 2L (w/CFRP sti""ps)
The shear capacity of T-Beam 2L was determined according to ACI 318-02 and ACI
report. Figure 7-15 shows the T-Beam 2L test layout at failure, and the corresponding
Pu=289k
2''''~1-r3'']I.
1'1-
existing shear
stirrups (typ)
existing prestress
I'
strands
I
~~"------6'''''-_-L-----t
TBEAM2L
I
.----"""'1.168 :
I
I
I
I
I
V(kipSl'-------;:-r---+-----,
l------'------J
Vu=t121
121
I
I
I
I
I
I
M(kip-in) "--
Mu=2360
.---_--+1_---'"
Figure 7-15 T-Beam 2L layout and shear and moment diagrams
124
t: =8397 psi
Sbp
bw = 5.5 in
d p =24.65 in
=1119 in3
Acp =198 in2

~
Ybc = 19.4 in
A=1.0 NWC
=120 kips
Concrete Shear Strength:
Ve is the lesser of Vel or Vcw'

Calculation of Vel:
VII = 121 kips
Mil = 2360 kip-in
Mer
=!L(6/l + fpe) = 45843(6J8397 +1.16J =4040 kip-in

Ybc
19.4
1000
v = 0.6x.J8mx5.5x24.65 + 121x4040 =7.45+207=214 ki

1000
cI
2360
~ 1.7x.J8mX5.5X24.65 =21.1 ki
1000
Therefore,
Vel
ps
= 214 kips.
125
ps
vp
=0

Two -leg #3 stirrups @ 12 in o.c., assuming full anchorage at top and bottom of the web:
~ =0.22 in2
v
I
s = 12 in
= ~fydp = 0.22x50900x24.65 = 23 ki s
1000s
l000xl2
P
Contribution of CFRP shear retrofit (VI) based on ACI 44OR-02 procedure:
1
1
2'
df=24.6S"
Figure 7-16 Cross section ofT-Beam 2L
CFRP Stirrups Properties:

Completely wrapped:
(ACI 44OR-02, Table 10.1)
'1'1 =0.95
It!
= 0.004 S 0.75jII
d l = 24.65"
n = 2 plies
126
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-6a)
II
f; =139 ksj
E I = 10600 ksi
=0.039"
CE =0.85
Calculation of VI:
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-3)
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-5)
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-4)
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 8-4)
Ie =0.004:S0.75jit =0.004:S0.75xO.Oll = 0.004:S 0.008 therefore Ie =0.004
V1-- Alv/ledI
sl
0.468x42.4x24.65 - 40 8 k'
12
IpS
Therefore, the nominal shear capacity of T-Beam 2L is:

VII = Vc + V" +f/lIVI = 68.1+ 23 + (0.95x40.8) = 68.1+23+38.8 = 130 kips.
127
7.8
Shell' Strength ofT-Bum lR (w/CFRP sheds)

The shear capacity ofT-Beam lR was determined according to ACI 318-02 and ACI
report. Figure 7-17 shows the T-Beam lR test layout at failure, and the corresponding
Pu=131 k
Pu=131 k
I
I
I
TBEAM lR
Vu=l131
V(kips)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
131
I
I
I
Mu=j=3553
I
M(kip-in)"""'------+------------~
Figure 7-17 T-Beam lR layout and shear and moment diagrams
128
T -Beam 1 Section Properties:
bw =5.5 in
/; =8413 psi
d p = 24.65 in
Acp = 198 in2
Pe = 120 kips
Ybc = 18.6 in
Concrete Shear Strength: Ve is lesser of Vet or VeM'

Calculation of Vet:
VII = 131 kips
Mil = 3553 kip-in
v
cI
er
=.!L.(L r7f.' +
Ybc OVJe
I' )=
Jpe
43149(6J8413 +1.16)=3968 kip-in

18.6
1000
= O.6x.J8IDx5.5x24.65 + 131x3968 =7.46+146=153 kips

1000
3553
~ 1.7 x.J84Ux 5.5 x 24.65 =21.1
kips
1000
Therefore,
Vel
= 153 kips.
Calculation of VeM':
/, =_e =
pc
Acp
120000
198
=606
pSI
Vp =0
129
A, = 1.0 NWC
vcw =~.5A,g +0.3fpc~...dp + Vp =(3.5.J84i'3 +0.3x606 )x5.5X24.65 =68.2 kips

1000

Two - leg #3 stirrups @ 12 in o.c., assuming full anchorage at top and bottom of the web:
s =12 in
= A,,/yd =0.22x50900x24.65 =23 ki

p
1000s
1000 x 12
ps
Contribution of CFRP shear retrofit (VI) based on ACI 44OR-02 code:
2'
df=20.15"
1
Figure 7-18 Cross section ofT-Beam IR showing CFRP sheet layout
CFRP Sheets Properties:

Two sided sheets:
(ACI 440R-02, Table 10.1)
VII =0.85
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. lo-6b)

d l =20.15"
n =1 ply
130
If
E f = 10600 ksi
CE =0.85
/; =139 ksi
Calculation of Vf
=0.039"
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-3)

(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-5)
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-4)
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-7)
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 8-4)
L e -
2500
2500
-1 38"
.
{nlf Ef fs8 - (Ix 0.039 x 10600000)o.s8 2
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-8)
k, =(~)' =(::y =1.64
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-9)
k = df -2Le = 20.l5-2x1.38 =0.86

2
df
20.15
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-10)
k = k.k 2 Le = 1.64xO.86x1.38 =0.364 S 0.75 therefore k =0.364

v
486Efll
486xO.Oll
v
- Aft/fedf - 0.936x 42.4 x 20.15 - 44 4 k'

Vf .
IpS
Sf
18
Therefore, the nominal shear capacity of T-Beam 1R is:

Vn = Vc + V, +Y/fVf = 68.2+ 23+ (0.85X44.4) = 68.2+23+37.7 = 129 kips.
131
7.9
Shell' Strength ofT-Bellm 2R2 (w/CFRP Sheets)

The shear capacity of T-Beam 2R2 was determined according to ACI 318-02 and
ACI 440R-02 guidelines. The concrete and existing steel stirrup contributions to the total
shear strength were computed based on the ACI-318 code. The CFRP shear retrofit
report. Figure 7-17 shows the T-Beam 2R2 test layout at failure, and the corresponding
Pu=284 k
existing shear
stirrups (typ)
r--------r------I--9"-----------!
I
I
I
'
!1!]AM
2R2
VU=1142
I
.-----------i~--__{
I 42
I
I
I
I
V (kip s) ' - - - - -..,. . ---~I----\-----------,

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u=~408
I
I
I
M(kip-in)~
Figure 7-19 T-Beam 2R2layout and shear and moment diagrams
132
142

/; =8397 psi
YIJc = 19.4 in
bw = 5.5 in
d p =24.65 in
I e =45843 in4
Acp =198 in
A=I.O NWC
=120 kips
Concrete Shear Strength: Ve is lesser of Vet or Vcw

Calculation of Vel:
V" = 142 kips
M" = 3408 kip-in
V = O.6x.JSmx5.5x24.65 + 142x4040 -7.45+168=175 kips

d
1000
3408
~ 1.7x.J839'7x5.5x24.65 = 21.1
1000
ki s
P
Therefore, Vel = 175 kips.

P
120000
.
.t:pc =_e
=
= 606 pSI
Acp
198
Vp =0
133

Two - leg #3 stirrups @ 12 in o.c., assuming full anchorage at top and bottom of the web:
s=12 in
v = ~fydp =0.22x 50900x 24.65 =23 ki
1000s
l000xl2
s
P
Contribution of CFRP shear retrofit (VI) based on ACI 44OR-02 code:
2'
df=20.l5"
1
3.85"
Figure 7-20 Cross section of T-Beam 2R2 sbowlng CFRP sbeets
CFRP Sheets Properties:

Three sided sheets:
"'I
(ACI 440R-02, Table 10.1)
= 0.85
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. lo-6b)

d l =20.15"
n =1 ply
134
t f = 0.039"
I; =139 ksi
Calculation of Vf
C E =0.85
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-3)

(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-5)
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 10-4)
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-7)
(ACI 440R-02, Eq. 8-4)
L =
e
2500
{nt E
f
r.58
f
2500
= 1 3gtt
(Ix 0.039x 106OOOOO)o.S8
.
k,
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-8)
=(~)' =(::)' =1.64
k2 = df
df
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 16-9)
Le = 20.15 -1.38 = 0.93
(ACI 44OR-02, Eq. 10-10)
20.15
k = k)k 2L e = l.64xO.93 x 1.38 =0.394:S0.75 therefore k =0.394

" 486efit
486xO.011
"
efe = k"efit = 0.394x 0.011 = 0.004 :S 0.004 therefore efe = 0.004
Ife = Efefe = 10600x 0.004 = 42.4 ksi
Aft = 2nt fW f = 2xlxO.039x12 = 0.936 in2
Therefore, the nominal shear capacity ofT-Beam 2R2 is:
v" =Vc +V" +'I'fVf
=68.1+23+(0.85X44.4)=68.l+23+37.7=129 kips.
(Note: CFRP shear contribution was identical for T-Beam lR and T-Beam 2R2).
135
CHAPTER 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the flexural and shear results of the T-Beams tested in this
program. In the first section of this chapter, the flexural results ofT-Beam 1 and T-Beam
2 are presented and compared with the predicted strengths covered in Chapter 7. In the
rest of the chapter, the shear results ofT-Beam 2Rl, T-Beam lL, T-Beam 2L, T-Beam
lR and T-Beam 2R2 are presented and compared with the predicted strengths covered in
Chapter 7. In addition, the beam response and failure modes are discussed in detail.
8.1
T-Bellm 1 Response
Figure 8-1 shows the initial setup for testing T-Beam 1 in flexure. The beam was
tested over a simply supported span of 24 feet with two equal line loads applied at 2'-1 W'
either side of mid-span. A detailed description of the test setup and instromentation is
provided in Chapter 5.
Figure 8-1 T-Beam 1 ready for Oexural testing
136
The bending moment at mid-span of T-Beam I is plotted against the mid-span

deflection in Figure 8-2. The plot shows the T-Beam I test result and the ACI 318-02
predicted flexural capacity based on nominal material properties and the flexural capacity
based on measured material properties. Six significant stages in the beam response are
identified on the plot. Crack propagation in the mid-span region of the beam at each of
these stages is shown in Figure 8-3.
The first flexural cracks were observed at mid-span at the bottom of the beam at a
bending moment of 196 kip-ft (Figure 8-3, Stage I). As the load increased, these cracks
extended up into the web and new cracks formed below the load points. Apparent
''yielding'' of the prestressing steel occurred between a mid-span deflection of 0.30 and
0.50 inch as indicated by the change of slope of the moment-displacement response after
0.50 inch displacement (Figure 8-2, Stage 2). Based on the initial stiffness of the beam
and the peak load capacity, an estimate of the ''yield'' displacement, Ay , is shown in
Figure 8-2. The flexural ductility of the beam at subsequent stages is determined by
comparison with this displacement. The mid-span flexural cracks continued to open as
the load was increased (Figure 8-3, Stages 3, 4 & 5). The beam exceeded the ACI 318-02
capacity based on nominal material properties at a deflection of 1.6 inches, representing a
ductility level of 4.69 (Figure 8-2 Stage 4). The beam reached an ultimate bending
moment of 424 kip-ft at a mid-span deflection of A.. 3.06 inches before rupture of one
or more of the prestress strands resulted in a sudden drop in load (Figure 8-2). This
represents a ductility of9.0 when compared with A y Complete flexural failure occurred
when the remaining prestressed strands ruptured at the center crack (Figure 8-3, Failure).
137
8.1.1
ACI 318 Predicted Flexural Capacities
The flexural capacities of T-Beam 1 predicted by the ACI 318-02 code using nominal
and measured material properties are shown in Figure 8-2. The predicted nominal
flexural capacity was based on the nominal material properties assumed in the original
design of the beam (/; = 4000 psi and / pu = 250 ksi). Subsequent to beam failure,
concrete cores and steel coupons were recovered and tested as described in Chapter 6.
Based on these actual measured material properties, the ACI 318-02 flexural capacity
was recomputed. Calculations of the predicted flexural capacities are provided in
Chapter 7.
The beam reached the predicted nominal flexural capacity of 397 kip-ft at 4.69 A y
(Figure 8-2, Stage 4). The beam continued to carry load beyond this point reaching an
ultimate bending moment of 424 kip-ft. This ultimate strength represented an increase of
7% over the ACI 318-02 code nominal capacity. The beam never reached the predicted
flexural capacity of 436 kip-ft based on actual material properties. This predicted
strength was 3% higher than the ultimate strength of the beam. The ACI 318-02
predicted flexural capacity based on actual material properties therefore provided a
reasonable estimate of the flexural capacity of the beam.
138
Moment-Displacement Curve
450
----
400
-- ----...,.
---
5-Dui~.2
3 .. Ductility
1Ductility
3.4~
FAILURE
4.69
350
- - T-Beam 1 Test Result

Mn (ACI 318-02) - Actual
- Mn (ACI 318-02) - Nonmal
300
ea
250
...
e= 200
I
I,C)
I
I
I
I
1 - ~rackmg
'1
150
1- Cracmg
2 - ''Yiekling''
3 - Dlx:tility 3.42
4 - Dlx:tility4.69
5 - Dtx:titity 8.2
FAILURE
Ductility: f.l = Aul Ay= 9.03
100
50
Of
0.0
Ay = 0.339
0.5
i1.0
3.42Ay
,1.5
4.69Ay
,
2.0
,. ,.
2.5
8.2Ay
Midspan Vertical Displacement (in)

Figure 8-2 Mid-span Moment - Displacement Relationship for T-Beam 1
3.0
Au = 3.06
,
3.5
Stage 1 - Cracking
Stage 2 - "Yielding"
Stage 3 - Ductility 3.42
Figure 8.3 T-Beam 1 mid-span condition corresponding to six ductility levels
Stage 6 - FAILURE
8. J.2
Six electrical resistance strain gages were attached to the longitudinal reinforcement
in the concrete slab. The gage locations are described in Chapter 5 and shown in Figure
8-4. The strains recorded by these gages during flexural testing ofT-Beam 1 are plotted
against the applied mid-span moment in Figure 8-4. These readings indicate that the top
reinforcing strains did not exceed 1200 microstrain in compression, indicating that the
extreme fiber compression in the concrete slab was well below the assumed failure strain
of 3000 microstrain. This confirms the theoretical computations showing that the beam
failure is controlled by yielding of the steel and not compression failure of the concrete.
Figure 8-5 shows the strain distribution across the flange at mid-span for each of the 6
stages identified in Figure 8-2. As expected, the strains increase with increasing applied
load. It is also evident that the strains are almost constant across the full width of the
flange, indicating that the entire flange width is effective.
Figure 8-6 shows the strain readings from strain gages 1-4 plotted along the half span
of the beam. These strain profiles are again plotted at each of the six stages noted in
Figure 8-2. Theoretically the strain in the compression zone should be constant between
the load points and decrease linearly between the load point and the support. This trend
is visible in Figure 8-6, however gages 1 and 4 deviates from the expected response.
Gage 4 was located slightly lower in the flange than gage 3, and appears to be affected by
crack propagation into the flange at the final stages of the test. The lower than expected
strains at gage 1 may indicate inadequate protection of the gage during concrete
placement resulting in failure of the bond between the gage and the reinforcing steel.
141
Slab Reinforcement Readings

3"TYP
r
...
5 -6
~,
~2"'
I. . _
-I.-
I~
_....
1\
I---
...
3'
\I
~ I"
-+:,
'-1__
,.......
I-- 1--
..
U- __
In"
"J"
... 1
1--1Z
..
1
tr ~
"-J
1"-lJ
~
ic c c frp ~l imJ, s (~Yf )
Hit"
fI
I---
12
-1-21
I--
\r-
~...
r-
I- 1--,--
1'-::- I- I-- -
-I-r~'
l'-~;\"
I
1-1- -
-I---
1-
- -'
14'-~".
9'-~"
7"TYP
~ Stram 1 (Em-Center of Slab)
--Stram2 (Next to Fnd)
...... Strain 3 (Next to MiiSpan)

"""'*- Strain 4 (MUspan)
- - stram 5 (OffCenter)
..... Strain 6 (Oft:Center Edge)
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
I-I--
k'"-"
i-- I--
I..
Iff
J
I
-400
Strain (10"-6)
Figure 8-4 T-Beam 1 slab reinforcement strain gage readings
-200
Slab Reinforcement Strain Gage Readings for 4-6
'. J . .
~JI
2
-1200
3.
t ~t
...-1 - Cracking
2 - ''YJeklinglt
. - 3 - Ductility 3.42
~ 4 - Ductility 4.69
5 - Ductility 8.2
FAILURE
-1000
-800
'f
<
=
et:l -600
{I.:l
-400
I
-200
.I
o I'
o
I'
9
12
15
18
21
Right Half Span ofT-Beam 1 cross section (in)
Figure 8-S Strain readJngs for strain gages 4-6 (T-Beam 1)
24
'i
27
30
33
Slab Reinforcement Stnin GaRe ReadlnRs for 1-4

P
existina shear stinups (typ)
~t.
r 21"
- 2i"
8"
~.\
~II"
rl
. a
7'
~~
,f=-:-
.I~:,.
4'.'- _
r
-:
t!;j
~.
4'-3"
3*"! -~" CL
~~
I t '
~fj
II
'I Ii
2r'
.~.I~ . J ~~.olr~"" Ih~ll
lac.
.......2:..
TI
'f" 1 '"
.0:::..
am
II / /
7[L --
=t~,... t3'~o!' _t"~_=-=-=:--=---:.=-=-=:--=---:.=-= 1
~~------------------!-------------------~
-t
14'-2!"
9'-~..
-1400
'i'
<
-800
-600
-400
-1200
-1000
1 - Cracking
2 - ''Yekli:tg',
3 - Ductility 3.42
w-- 4 - Ductility 4.69
- - 5 - Ductility 8.2
4 (Center Lo,)
.
I
FAILURE
-200
20
40
60
80
Left Half Span ofT-Beam 1 (in)
100
Figure 8-6 Strain readings for strain gage 1-4 (f-Beam 1)
120
140
8.1.3
Concrete Strain Gage Readings
Several 2" gage length strain gages were installed on the concrete surface ofT-Beam
1 as described in Chapter 5. These strain gages were installed as part of another research
project to develop a strain-based deflection monitoring system l6 The intent of this
project was to measure the beam curvature so as to determine the deflected shape by
double integration of this curvature. Once the concrete cracks in tension, the bottom
strain gages no longer represent the average strain in the beam, so this strain-based
deflection system is only effective while the beam is un-cracked. Once cracks form in
the tension concrete, the strain in the concrete between these cracks deviates from that
anticipated by beam theory.
8.1.4
Vertical Deflection
The vertical deflection of T-Beam 1 was recorded by three LVDTs (linear variable
displacement transducers) installed on the top slab as described in Chapter 5. In addition,
dial gages were installed at each end of the beam to monitor any support settlement. The
dial gage readings indicated negligible settlement at the supports. The LVDT readings on
one side of the beam span were mirrored to produce a complete deflected shape at each of
the six stages identified in Figure 8-2. The resulting deflected shapes are shown in Figure
8-7. These deflection profiles confirm that the majority of the beam curvature is
concentrated between the load points due to significant cracking in this region. This is
particularly evident for the final stages prior to failure.
8.1.5 Strains in the CFRP stirrups and sheets
Although shear failure was not anticipated to control the failure ofT-Beam 1, four
strain gages were attached to the CFRP stirrups and sheets as described in Chapter 5.
145
These strain gages were installed to monitor the vertical strain in the shear retrofit close
to the supports. Figure 8-8 shows that the strains in the CFRP shear retrofit were small
throughout the test, never exceeding 21 microstrain. No shear cracking was observed in
the shear spans during testing ofT-Beam 1.
146
Vertical Displacement from LVDTs

.CL
exilting shear stirrups (typ)
LYDT2
I"
LYDTI
III---1==12'=1==6'_9"
:1
4-1"
2
Beam Span Length (in)
40
80
~.~~~
0.5
e
...:i 1.0
a
~
.!
1.5
.t
Q 2.0
';
120
160
'!'
200
240
,;
I
280
s;;;i:al
I
.I
Mirror Itmge
LVDT1
-12.5
- - I - Cracking
- - 2 - ''Yieklilg''
- - 3 - ~ti1ity 3.42
--FAILURE
>
3.0
LVIJf3
Figure 8-7 Representation of the vertical deflection of T-Beam 1 from LVDT readings
Strain gage readings on frp stin'ups and sheets

existing shear stinups (typ)
Al..
~
----=I
, (
--11~t!4tJ'~-~-rl1l'
"-'
-"
'.
,.
Iij'
,
4'-3"
FlH---1+=:-rt+-ll l
....
1;:
Left Span (3" wide double layer CFRP stirrups)'

24'
II
ii
Right Span (L2" wide CFRP sheets)
-I
450
400
350
-I:lo
00
S'
300
..
-+- Strain 22 (Right Edge CFRP Sheet)
250
- - Strail23 (Secooo Right Edge CFRP Sheet)
-A- Strain 24
(Third Left Edge CFRP Stinup)
"""*- Strain 25 (Secord Left Edge CFRP StiTup)
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
2000
4000
6000
Strain (10"-6)
Figure 8-8 Strain readings from gages attached to CFRP stirrups and sheets (T-Beam 1)
8000
8.2
T-Betlnf 2 Response
T-Beam 2 was tested under the same loading conditions as T-Beam I. However, the
span length was increased to 25 feet and 8 ~ inches because the supports were located
under steel brackets bolted to the ends of the beam. This was necessary to prevent the
support condition from providing additional restraint to the ends of the carbodur strips on
the beam soffit. Figure 8-9 shows the test setup for T-Beam 2. More detailed
information on the test setup and instrumentation ofT-Beam 2 is provided in Chapter 5.
Figure 8-9 T-Beam 2 ready for flexural testing
The mid-span bending moment-displacement response of T-Beam 2 is plotted in

Figure 8-10 along with the response recorded for T-Beam 1. The plot also shows the
149
flexural capacity predicted by the modified ACI 440R-02 procedure using measured
material properties.
Six significant stages in the beam response are identified on this plot with associated
damage conditions shown in Figure 8-11. For ease of comparison, the response of TBeam 1 and the ACI 318-02 predicted flexural capacity is also plotted in Figure 8-10.
The first flexural cracks were observed at mid-span at the bottom of the beam at a
bending moment of217 kip-ft (Figure 8-11, Stage A). As the load increased, these
flexural cracks extended up into the web and new flexural-shear cracks formed below and
outside the load points. Based on the change in slope of the moment-displacement
response, ''yielding'' of the prestressing steel was considered to occur between mid-span
deflections of 0.30 and 0.50 inch. Based on the intersection of the initial and final
stiffness tangents, the ''yield'' displacement was defmed as A y = 0.43 inch (Figure 8-10).
Subsequent to ''yielding'', the stiffness ofT-Beam 2 with CFRP carbodur strips exceeded
the stiffness of T-Beam 1 without the carbodur retrofit.
As the load increased, the flexural cracks between the load points and the flexural-
shear cracks outside the load points continued to open (Figure 8-11, Stages C, D, & E).
The stiffness of the beam remained relatively constant through these three stages. Failure
occurred at a bending moment of 725 kip-ft with a maximum mid-span deflection of 4.03
inches when the carbodur strips delaminated from the beam soffit over the left half of the
span (Figure 8-11, Failure).
Based on the definition of ''yield'' displacement shown in Figure 8-10, the ultimate
ductility ofT-Beam 2 was 9.37. Both in terms of ductility and total mid-span deflection,
150
T-Beam 2 response was more ductile than that for T-Beam 1. The addition of CFRP
carbodur strips as tension reinforcement has not reduced the ductility as observed in some
prior research studies (Chapter 3). This is attributed to the relatively low reinforcement
ratio for the original prestressed beams and to the presence of anchorage wraps to prevent
premature delamination at the ends of the CFRP strips.
During the flexural test ofT-Beam 2, the response was similar to that for T-Beam 1
up to the ''yield'' point. Initially, T-Beam 2 was less stiff than T-Beam 1 as a result of the
longer span for T-Beam 2. However, the post-yielding stiffness of T-Beam 2 was greater
than T-Beam 1 and did not degrade as rapidly. At stage C in Figure 8-10, T-Beam 2
supported the same load that caused failure in T-Beam 1, but at a third of the mid-span
deflection. The cracks in T-Beam 2 at this stage (Figure 8-11, Stage C) were
significantly shorter and smaller than those at the same load in T-Beam 1 (Figure 8-3,
Stage 5). The CFRP flexural reinforcement was instrumental in reducing the crack sizes
and limiting the deflection at the nominal moment capacity of the control beam.
The ACI 440R-02 procedure was modified for prestressed beams in Chapter 7. This
procedure predicted a flexural capacity of 599 kip-ft for T-Beam 2. T-Beam 2 exceeded
this bending moment at a mid-span deflection of 2.5 inches. The beam supported an
ultimate moment of 725 kip-ft, which is 21% greater than ACI 44OR-02 predicted
moment capacity. This ultimate capacity also represents a 71 % increased over the
ultimate capacity ofT-Beam 1, while the ACI 440R-02 procedure suggests the increase
to be around 37% compared with the ACI 318-02 predicted flexural capacity based on
measured material properties.
151
Moment-Displacement Curve
FAILURE (Max Load)
750
700
650
~=-~tility6.74
2liJI~
6001
550 -I
~D--
500
__
I~O
vI'-)-
Ductility 4.98
I
I
I~ _ _
400
= 350
e
:i
FAILURE
- .
T-Beam 2 Test Result
300
250
,B - ''Yieklmg''
200 -I
I
1
llF A Craclcq
150 -I
II
100 -I 1/
50 -II
o .J
0.0
_ _ ~~\~~~ukAc
- Mn (ACI ~ 18-02) - ACUBl
A - Crackilg
8 - 'Yiekling"
I
I
C - DlI:tility 2.42
D - Dttility4.98
E=Ductility6.74
FAILURE (Max Load)
A~ f: 0.43
0.5
'~.42AY
1.0
d)uctility:J1=Au/Ay=9.37 :
i
1.S
2.0
e4.98Ay
2.5
6.74ty I
3.0
3.5
Mimpan Vertical Displacement (in)

Figure 8-10 Mid-spaD Moment-Displacement RelatJonsbJp for T-Beam 2
Au - 4.03 I
4.0
4.5
A-Cracking
B - "Yielding"
C - Ductility 2.42
VI
D - Ductility 4.98
E - Ductility 6.74
Figure 8-11 T-Beam 2 condition corresponding to six ductility levels
FAILURE
8.2.1
Failure mechanism/or T-Beam 2
Failure of T-Beam 2 occurred when the CFRP strips delaminated from the bottom of
the beam over the left shear span. This delamination appeared to initiate at the base of a
flexure-shear crack that had formed just outside the left load point (Figure 8-12).
Vertical offset in the soffit of the beam on either side of this crack may have contributed
to the initiation of delamination. In addition, large strain differential between the CFRP
strips and the flexurally cracked concrete would also have contributed to deterioration of
the bond between CFRP and concrete.
Figure 8-12 Flexure-sbear crack formed outside oftbe left load point (T-Beam 2).
154
For the first 18 inches from the delamination initiation point, the failure occurred in
the surface concrete, with a thin layer of concrete remaining attached to the CFRP strips
(Figure 8-13). Beyond this point, the CFRP strips separated from the epoxy, likely
because of the increased angle of peeling as the CFRP stripped away from the beam
soffit. The delamination occurred rapidly and extended from the flexure-shear crack to
the end of the CFRP strips, which pulled half way out of the CFRP fabric wrap anchors
(Figure 8-14). There was no tendency for delamination to initiate at the end of the
carbodur strips as had been reported in some laboratory studies, however the anchor
wraps were not sufficient to prevent pull-out once delamination had initiated elsewhere.
Figure 8-12 and Figure 8-13 show the bottom of the CFRP shear stirrups adjacent to
the failure crack. The stirrups were not continuous around the soffit of the beam so as not
to add anchorage to the carbodur strips that was not present in the field application being
evaluated. However, it was evident that the bottom bulb of the T-Beam has split open
with the ledge sections rotating outwards with the CFRP stirrups still attached. The
bottom of the bulb, with carbodur strips, was then free to move downward, causing
delamination of the flexural CFRP. Had the CFRP shear stirrups been continuous around
the soffit of the beam, they may have prevented this splitting of the bottom bulb and
delayed the delamination of the carbodur strips.
In some of the subsequent shear test on the beam halves with CFRP shear retrofit,
continuity of the stirrups and sheets was instated by splicing additional wraps around the
soffit of the beam.
155
Back side of beam
Front side of beam
Figure 8-13 Delamination of carbodur strips initiating at the flexure-shear crack
Figure 8-14 Carbodur strips delaminated from beam and pulling out of CFRP
wrap anchor
156
8.2.2 Slab Reinforcement Strain Gage Readings
A total of six strain gages were attached to the longitudinal reinforcement in the top
slab ofT-Beam 2. The strain gage locations are described in Chapter 5, and were
relatively close to those used in T-beaml. Strain readings from these strain gages are
plotted in Figure 8-15. The maximum strain is around 900 microstrain, which is similar
to the maximum observed in T-Beam 1. This suggests that the concrete in the
compression block is well below the assumed failure strain of 3000 microstrain and that
tension failure, and not concrete crushing, should govern beam failure. This confmns the
ductile flexural failure observed for T-Beam 2.
These top slab strain readings were plotted across the mid-span section and along the
length of the beam to illustrate the strain distribution in the top slab. Profiles are plotted
for each of the six stages identified in the moment-displacement curve (Figure 8-10).
Figure 8-16 shows the strain distribution across the slab at the mid-span section based
on strain readings from strain gage 4-6. The shape of the distribution is similar to that
observed in T-Beam 1. Strain gage 4 is set lower in the slab than gages 5 and 6, resulting
in lower strain readings. However the gages illustrate the nearly uniform distribution of
stress across the full width of the slab. This confirms that the full width of the flange was
effective in compression.
Figure 8-17 shows the distribution of strain along the left half of the beam based on
strain readings from gages 1-4. Strain gage 2 was damaged during the concrete pour and
did not provide reliable strain readings. The remaining gages show the expected decrease
in strain from a maximum at the load point to zero at the supports. The strains at gage 4
were low because its location was lower in the slab than the other gages.
157
8.2.3
Vertical Displacementfrom LVDT Readings
Three LVDTs were used to record vertical deflections of the top of the concrete slab
during testing. Since no support settlement was observed in the test of T-beam1, dial
gages were not placed at the supports for T-Beam 2. Figure 8-18 shows the beam
deflection at each of the previously identified load stages using the three LVDT readings
and their mirror image on the other half of the beam.
158
Slab Reinforcement Readings
5'-4"
"-+---I--+--+~---4--_I-U=~t. _
II
~ ~
1__ f-.I- __ I~-
- '-- 1\
3'
-kIr-
-~
ll~
.....
.-
--
I
__
I I
T rp
l' II "lrl--
~il.r
=-:l;-ll
- - ---
f-
- -
f- f - f - -
1- -
---
.J:
I 1<
I'\.. 3 w de f~ ~ tiriJr' typ

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-I-..--+I --L-f--I-+-+-+
I
I_
'II~
- -1-"+-+-+--+-+-1-1-+-+-+-++-+--+-+
i
24'-10"
1" TYP --f--lf--
750
700
650
600
v.
\0
550e
-+- Stram 1
500~
~~
-Cente~rO;f~S~1a~b)~l""'-"""--""_:'~-.-..-......
--Stram2
extto=~
-.Stram 3 ext
to . pan)
~ Stram 4
its )
-- Stram 5 Off~r)
350=
300 ~
250
200~
150
---.....-.......t.I.l.-.
- -~""irJLL.
100
-+- Strait 6 Oft:Center Edge)
50
o
-900
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
Strain (lOA-6)
Figure 8-15 Strain readings for slab reinforcement strain gage (T-Beam 2)
-100
Slab Reinforcement StniD Gage Readings for 4-(t
rhl'I.j~
.tl
2
-700
-600
0\
-500
-..
<
=-400
c:::l
oS -300
J::
fI.l
-200
-100
0
0
12
16
20
Right Half Span of T-Beam 2 cross section (m)
Figure 8-16 Strain readings for strain gages 4-6 (T-Beam 2)
24
28
32
Slab Reinforcement Strain GaRe Reacli.nRs for 1-4

p
r I~"
.1
4~"~
2'
existin& shear stirrups (typ)
-Mil
,
2"1 :l
2"
~
I' "1 I 'I II I I H'
l~'
CL
" ,
()
II
~H-
1 .:;r
-L
-
.-~
p
4'-3~
i"'ll
iT!
r--i~i r--
fl'!lf 11ft ...
r ~~
=r 1Hf
E-
ttl,
.;.
. "1 .
...
2S'r!"
~~
I[j
...
I~
C=.= _
'-- -
=
-
=- -
~ "-"":t '~IIt. _ ti-!,.'-1.'1- =--=-=-_

- - - - - --=
- =
- - =--=-=-_
- - - - - ---= =
- - =- -=-=
- -
---2-tDlInUtB~
_=_=_
_=_=_
--
24'-10"
r-
-I
0'1
-900
..r
-~
0
A (Center Lf'e)
-700
.
I
Slab
-500
I
I
-300
I
I,
fI.}
-100
0
A - Cracking
~(
B - ''Yiekmg''
C" Ductility 2.42
0 - Ductility 4.98
E - DltiIity 6.74
FAILURE (Max Load
..
20
40
60
80
100
Left Half Span ofT-Beam 2 (in)

Figure 8-17 Strain readings for strain gages 1-4 (T-Beam 2)
120
140
Vertical Displacement from LVDTs

PeL.
p
1 - - - - 4' 3 - - - ;
L\lDTI
,r
1II:tI
Cllillia Ilear Itlrrup. (I,,)
4r~
I~ I ItI Hi.1
-L\ \ ~ i
2
I'
I'
"l.r--" [""T""""'"
II
.
'n
,--r'
""frr
~, ..................
50
100
"
LVDT3
6'-9"
-3'.9.---1
}.
i :~n.1ll
I
:' '. m lql..
I
w-st
IT'
.n .
L.VDT2
12'S
Beam Span Length (in)

150
200
'
r
~ I :,1 /7
'f
!.U
,.. . . . . . .t--.""-...~
300
250
0.0
.I
.I
0.5
-=
Support
i1.0
~
1.5
~ 2.0
-=
2.5
.I
.
LVDT3
.
I
Mirror Image
Q3.0
~3.5
>4.0
4.5
5.0
LVDTI
- - A - Cracking
- - B - "Yielding"
C - Ductility 2.42
- - D - Ductility 4.98
E - Ductility 6.74
- - FAILURE (Max Load
Figure 8-18 Representation of the vertical deflection ofT-Beam 2 from LVDT readJngs
8.2.4 Carbodur Strip Strain Gages
T-Beam 2 was retrofitted in flexure with three carbodur strips. Strain gages were
attached to each of these strips to monitor the longitudinal strains during flexural testing.
The gages were installed on each strip at the locations shown in Figure 8-19.
CL
Figure 8-19 T-Beam 2 beam soffit sbowing location of strain gages
These strain gages all provided reliable readings throughout the test. Strain gages 7-9
and 25-27 registered very small strains because they were far from mid-span and close to
the supports (Figure 8-20 and Figure 8-21). Strain gages 10-12 and 22-24 were virtually
symmetric about mid-span (Figure 8-22 and Figure 8-23). They recorded smaII strains up
to a mid-span bending moment of 520 kip-ft, after which the strains increased linearly to
a maximum of 2800 microstrain. Strain gages 19-21 also recorded small strains until the
mid-span bending moment reached 340 kip-ft. At this point the strains increased linearly
to a maximum of 8500 microstrain (Figure 8-24). This high strain reflects their position
close to the left load point. Note that no corresponding strain gages were installed on the
right half of the beam because of the transverse wrap covering the carbodur strips.
Although this wrap had been removed from the sides of the beam to avoid restraining the
carbodur strips, it was not removed from the strips themselves so as to avoid damaging
the carbodur material.
Strain gages 16-18 and 13-15 show almost identical behavior because they are below
or between the load points and therefore represent sections subjected to the same bending
163
moment (Figure 8-25 and Figure 8-26). Strain gages 13-15 recorded small strains up to a
mid-span bending moment of 220 kip-ft, which corresponds to the first flexural cracks
observed in the mid-span region. The slope then decreased significantly but remained
constant until the maximum strains of around 1()()()() microstrain were recorded
immediately prior to beam failure. Gages 16-18 experienced similar response except that
the change in slope was delayed until flexural cracks developed under the point load at
250 kip-ft mid-span moment.
The six stages identified in the moment-displacement curve are also plotted on the
moment-strain relationships. In all cases the change in slope of the strain diagrams was
the result of formation of cracks in the beam soffit at or near the strain gage locations.
This cracking initiated at mid-span and under the point loads, but slowly spread towards
the supports as the load increased (Figure 8-27).
Figure 8-28 to Figure 8-30 show the strains in all gages attached to a particular
carbodur strip. Figure 8-31 to Figure 8-33 show the profile of strain along the length of
each carbodur strip corresponding to the six stages identified earlier. As noted above, the
strains were highest within the point loads and decreased towards the supports.
164
Carbodur strip Strain Gages 7-9
.CL
rI
II
I
L.J
~I~ .,
750
700
FAILURE
650
J'
3'
600
550
0'1
VI
--StrainGa~
7
- Strain Ga~ 8
Strain Ga~ 9
500
t:
-eg
350
300
:;l
250
200
B
A
150
A
B
100
FAILURE
50
o,
o
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
llOOO
12000
Strain (lOA-6)
Figure 8-20 Strain readings of strain gages 7-9
Carbodur Strip Strain Gages 25-27
.CL
1-1'-+
0'1
0'1
~
....
c::l
:i
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
FAILURE
E
- - Strain Gage 25
- Strain Gage 26
Strain Gage 27
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
FAILURE
8000
Straln(10"-6)
9000
10000
11000
12000
Carbodur Strip Strain Ga2es 10-12
CL
rI
i!
,!
1-.-4f
L..L
750
700
650
600
550
0\
~
S'
FAILURE
~
--StrainGage 10
Strain Gage 11
- - Strain Gage 12
500
~ 450
...
4OO~4IC
= 350
E
Q
300
250lB
200
A
B
C
D
150
100
50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Strain (101'-6)
FAILURE
9000
10000
11000
12000
CL
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I-I'~
0\
00
750
700
650
600
550
500
c!t. 450
FAILURE
--Strain Gage 22
- Strain Gage 23
- - Strain Gage 24
~400
...
~ 350
g 300
::;l 250
200
150
100
50
0
B
C
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
FAILURE
8000
Strain (10 A-6)

9000
1oo
11000
12000
Carbodur strip Strain Gages 19-11
CL
hJj
1-"-4-
0\
\0
750
700
650
600
550
500
- - Strain Gage 19
Strain Gage 20
- - Strain Gage 21
~450
... 400
i 350
:i
, .... FAILURE
300
25011B
A
200
150
100
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
B
C
0
E
8000
Strain (10"-6)
FAILURE
9000
1()()()()
11000
12000
CL
f-I~
750
700
650
600
___
--=
550
e
=.
500
450
Ii
~
~
350
300
250
~E
Strain Ga&e 16
- Strain Gage 17
- Strain~ 18
~400
200
150
100
50
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Strain (10"-6)
9000
B
C
D
E
FAILURE
10000
11000
12000
Carbodur Strip Strain Ga2es 13-15
.CL
r-
!!
I
IL_.lI
I-l'~
e-
-- ~-=e
--.J
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
- - Strain Gage 13
- Strait Gage 14
- - Strain Gage 15
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Strain (10 A-6)

9000
FAILURE
10000
11000
12000
-..J
Web-shear racks that formed on left span
Web-shear cracks that formed on right span
Flexure-shear cracks started under the point load. At higher loading, web-shear cracks formed away from the mid-span.
Figure 8-27 Web-shear cracks forming away from the mid-span of beam as confirmed by carbodur strain readings
Carbodur Strip Stnin Gages on the Flnt Strip
CL
!-.-ti"
750
700
650
600
550
500
- i:
~ Strain Gage
-...I
25
-+- Strain Gage
22
-.- Strain Gage 19
-; 350
ec 300
~ 250
200
150
100
50
0
~
--*- Strain Gage
16
....... Strain Gage 13

...- Strain Gage 10
-+- Strain Gage 7
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Strain (10"-6)
Figure 8-28 Strain readings for gages on the first carbodur strip
8000
9000
10000
CarlJodur strip Strain Gages on the Second Strip
.CL
I
I I
IL..
f-I'~' I
J'
750
700
650
600
550
_
500
-+- St:ram Gage 26
i:
...
- - Strail Gage 23
i 350
~ 300
-.- Strain Gage 20
:::E 250
- - Strain Gage 14
200
150
100
...... StranGage 11
-H-
Strail Gage 17
--+- Strail Gage 8
50
of
o
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Strain (10"-6)
7000
8000
9000
1oo
Figure 8-29 Strain readings for gages 00 the second carbodur strip
Carbodur Strip Strain Gages on the 1bIrd Strip
.CL
I-I'~'
750
700
650
600
550
-...I
V\
500
-+- Strain Gage 27
~Co 450
a
...
400
300
-M-
200
- - Strain Gage 15
~ Strain Gage 12
- - Strain Gage 24
.......- Strain Gage 21
5 350
~ 250
150
Strain Gage 18
--+- Strain Gage 9
100
50
o,
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
lOOOO
Strain (10"-6)
Figure 8-30 Strain readings for gages 00 the third carbodur strip
Gages on Fint Strip
CL
r-lf
3'
Beam Span (in)
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
Suppo
2000
.......
0'1
'i'
<
4000
=
0.
6000
~
rI.2
8000
1oo
- - A - Cracking
- - 8 - ''Yieldi:lg'
- - C - Ductility 2.42
- - E - Ductility 6.74
- - FAILURE (Max Load)
12000
Figure 8-31 Stnln readings on the fint carbodur strip corresponding to the six ductility levels
Gages on Second Strip
CL
Beam Span (in)
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
Suppo
2000
....:I
....:I
4000
<
=
e
6000
- - A - Cracking
8000
10000
- - B - ''Yielding''
- - FAILURE (Max Load)
Gage 14
12000
Figure 8-31 Strain readings on the second carbodur strip corresponding to the six ductility levels
Gages on ThinI Strip
.cL
Beam Span (in)
50
100
150
200
300
250
S~po
2000
....:a
00
<f
<
e-=
0;c::I
4000
6000
!::
f'J
8000
10000
S I
dage 9 ~port
- - A - Cracking
- - B - ''Yieldilg''
- - D - Ducblity 4.98
FAILURE (Max Load)
12000
Figure 8-33 Strain readings on the third earbodur strip corresponding to the six duetiUty levels
8.3
ACI 440 Versus Experimentlll Moment Capacity
The moment capacity of T-Beam 2 was compared with the ACI 440R-02 prediction
using the same approach as Lyle Nakashima in his Masters Reporr 1 Figure 8-34 from
his report shows the nonnalized nominal moment capacities of previous tests on FRP
retrofitted concrete beams compared with the ACI 440 report predictions. The nominal
moment values are normalized with respect to the beam cross-section dimensions. The
4S-degree datum represents a one-to-one agreement between the predicted and
experimental results. For all specimens the experimental results exceed the ACI 440
predictions. The failure moment capacity of T-Beam 2 with CFRP carbodur strips is also
plotted in Figure 8-34. Because of the large flange width, the nonnalized moment
capacity is considerably lower than the tests perfonned on rectangular sections. The
experimental bending capacity exceeded the ACI 440R-02 prediction as indicated by the
point falling below the 4S degree datum. '
179
ACI 440 Vs. Experimental Moment Capadties
1.80
1.60
1.40
Q'
1.20
I~
.
11.00
t=>
..
;
00
~Ie I.!
~
0.80
~ 0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
I~
..
~
all
0.40
0.20
~
'"
~
.
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Experimental Mnlll, (kIi)
Spaeda
Bonacci
GangaRao
x Swamy
Shahawy
White
T-Beam2
F....q
Design Datum
0
Figure 8-34 Plot of Normalized ACI 440 prediction and experimental moment capadties
1.80
8.4
Shear Strength ofT-Beam 2Rl (plain concrete)
T-Beam 2RI represents a shear test of the right hand portion ofT-Beam 2 with
internal steel stirrups but no externally applied CFRP shear reinforcement. It was loaded
so as to induce a shear failure in the area without CFRP shear stirrups or sheets shown in
Figure 8-35. The test section had a span to depth ratio of about 1.5. A detailed
description of the test setup and instrumentation is provided in Chapter 5.
Figure 8-35 Test setup and shear span ofT-Beam 2Rl
The shear force applied to the test shear span is plotted against the vertical
displacement at the applied load in Figure 8-36. The ACI 318-02 predicted shear
strengths provided by concrete, Ve, and concrete plus internal steel stirrups, Ve+V are
also plotted for comparison with the test result. Three stages were selected in the
response and identified in Figure 8-36. The beam condition at each of these stages is
shown in Figure 8-37.
The first diagonal tension crack formed in the test span under an applied shear force
of 58 kips (Figure 8-37, Initial Crack). It initiated in the web as a web-shear crack. As
the load increased, additional diagonal cracks formed adjacent to the original crack. This
zone of diagonal cracking extended downwards toward the left support and up to the
181
soffit of the concrete slab. By the time the applied shear reached 86 kips, the diagonal
crack zone extended from the support to the soffit of the top slab (Figure 8-37, Applied
Load of 130 kips). The width of the cracks continued to open until the beam reached its
maximum load capacity at an applied shear of 122 kips which is 34% greater than the
predicted ACI 318-02 nominal shear capacity (Figure 8-37, FAILURE).
Figure 8-38 and Figure 8-39 show the failure shear zone after removal of the loose
concrete. The shear failure crossed three of the internal steel stirrups. Only the center
stirrup reached its full capacity and failed in tension at the shear zone (Figure 8-38). The
stirrup that crossed the shear zone close to the bottom of the web failed due to anchorage
pull-out because of the lack of hook anchorage at the bottom of the web (Figure 8-39).
Better anchorage of this vertical stirrup in the original construction may have increased
the shear capacity. The shear stirrup that crossed the shear zone at the top of the web did
not fail, but was unable to prevent propagation of the shear crack through the top slab
(Figure 8-38). The tension reinforcement consisting of internal prestressing strands and
externally applied carbodur strips were deformed when shear failure occurred but did not
fail (Figure 8-38 and Figure 8-39).
In spite of inadequate anchorage of the shear stirrups at the bottom of the web, the
shear capacity of the original prestressed concrete beam well exceeded that predicted by
the ACI 318-02 code. This may be attributed to the relatively high concrete strength and
general conservatism in the ACI 318-02 shear estimate. In addition, the shear span to
depth ratio of around 1.5 restricted the shear failure to a limit portion of the beam.
182
T-Beam 2Rl Shear-Displacement Curve
160
140
120
....
00
FAILURE
100
Vc + Vs (ACI 318-02)
80
Vc (ACI 318-02)
-----------------
---
-=
CI.2
60
40
20
o,
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Vertical Displacement @ Applied Load (in)
Figure 8-36 Shear-Displacement relationship for T-Beam 2Rl
0.9
1.0
1.1
Front Side
BackSide
Initial Shear Crack
Front Side
BackSide
Applied load of 130 kips
Front Side
BackSide
FAILURE
Figure 8-37 T-Beam 2Rl condition at critical stages during the test
184
Figure 8-38 Failure of steel shear reinforcement at failure shear crack
Figure 8-39 Shear reinforcement anchorage failure at base of web
185
8.5
Shear Strength ofT-Beam lL (CFRP Stirrups)

T-Beam lL was retrofitted in shear with CFRP stirrups. The test setup and layout of
T-Beam lL are shown in Figure 8-40. The beam was supported on pinned supports at
both ends of the span. During testing, it was noted that the supports were resisting
longitudinal movement of the bottom of the beam, thereby introducing a net compression
in the beam. The beam was unloaded and a roller support installed at the right support.
The beam was reloaded with the second test supported on pinned and roller supports at
the two ends. A more detailed description of the test setup is given in Chapter 5. Both
results from the first and second loadings are presented below. Although the beam
experienced significant shear cracking, the shear capacity of the section was not reached
before flexural failure of the beam at mid-span. Subsequent shear test specimens were
retrofitted in flexure with carbodur strips to prevent premature flexural failure.
Figure 8-40 Test setup ofT-Beam lL (CFRP stirrups)

186
The shear-displacement relationships for each loading are plotted in Figure 8-41. Six
significant stages are noted on the response. The predicted shear capacities from ACI
318-02 and ACI 440R-02 are also shown. The beam condition at each of the highlighted
stages is shown in Figure 8-42 through Figure 8-44. On the front of the beam, the black
lines refer to the cracks observed during the flexural test of T-Beam 1. The red lines
indicate the shear cracks resulting during T-Beam lL testing. On the back of the beam,
the opposite color scheme applies with the shear cracks indicated in black.
The first visible diagonal tension crack occurred at a shear force of about SO kips
(Figure 8-42, Initial Crack). Existing cracks from prior flexural testing of T-Beam 1 also
increased in size as the load increased. With increasing load, flexural cracks formed at
mid-span while additional shear cracks formed parallel to the first diagonal tension crack
(Figure 8-42, Applied Load of 148 kips). The beam reached a maximum shear force of
85 kips (Figure 8-42, Applied Load of 170 kips) before failing in flexure at mid-span
(Figure 8-43).
Although the full shear capacity of the beam was not achieved, a number of
observations were made regarding the performance of the CFRP shear stirrup retrofit. At
a shear load of 64 kips, portion of a CFRP stirrup delaminated from the concrete surface
(Figure 8-44, D-0.45). The delamination extended as the load increased. A second
CFRP stirrup started delaminating at an applied shear of 78 kips (Figure 8-44, D-0.60).
The effect of this delamination on the strains in the CFRP stirrups is discussed in Section
8.5.1.
Delamination initiated at uneven sections of the concrete web. Because of deviations
in the stirrup alignment, tension developing in the CFRP stirrup resulted in out-of-plane
187
loads on the bond between the CFRP and concrete surface. Better preparation of the
concrete surface may have reduced this tendency, however, deviations in the CFRP
alignment are to be expected during typical installation. This delamination would
probably have resulted in the complete debonding of the shear stirrups had it not been for
the continuity provided at the top of the stirrups by wrapping the CFRP through the top
slab. In addition, the steel tube anchorage at the bottom of the web prevented pealing of
the stirrups at the re-entrant comer. Since this delamination occurred before reaching
even the nominal capacity of the un-retrofitted beam, it is likely that without adequate
anchorage, the CFRP stirrups would not have contributed to the shear capacity of the
beam.
188
T-Beam lL Shear-Displacement Curve

160
140
Vc + Vs + 'I'fVf(AQ 44OR-02)
120
... 100
00
I.()
..
!
.cI
+
------------------Vc
80
Vs (ACI 318-02)
~ ."
App;;d'Load Ifi) 170 q,s
".nd Delani
~
-Vc-(ACI
-318-02)
--
fI.}
-------
~tieIro!i@Ji8
W _
.!.J~~
60
I-
40
TBeaml L 72202
- TBeaml L 72302
20
o ,..
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Midspan Vertical Displacement (In)

Figure 8-41 Shear-Displacement relationship for T-Beam lL
0.9
1.0
1.1
Back Side Left
Front Side Right

Initial Shear Crack
Back Side Left
Front Side Right

Applied Load of 148 kips
Front Side Right
Back Side Left

Figure 8-42 T-Beam lL condition at various stages in the shear-displacement
response
190
FAILURE
Figure 8-43 Flexural failure of T-Beam lL
Delamination points
Figure 8-44 Delamination of CFRP stirrups from T-Beam lL
191
8.5.1
Measured strain in the CFRP stirrups
A total of seven strain gages were installed on the CFRP stirrups on the front side of
the beam. The strain gage readings were plotted against the applied shear in Figure 8-45
through Figure 8-53. Because of the additional shear capacity provided by the inclined
prestress strands in the left shear span, shear cracks only occurred in the right shear span
ofT-Beam lL. The strains recorded in the CFRP stirrups on the left shear span were
therefore very small throughout the test (Figure 8-45 to Figure 8-48), while those on the
right shear span recorded significant strains in the CFRP stirrups (Figure 8-49 to Figure
8-51).
Figure 8-52 shows the strains recorded during the first test ofT-Beam lL in the three
strain gages located on the CFRP stirrups in the failure shear span. The formation of the
first diagonal tension crack at a shear of 20 kips corresponds with the rapid increase in
strain recorded by strain gage 30. As the shear load increased to 40 kips, the crack
propagated through the next stirrup causing increased strains in strain gage 29. Strain
gage 28 also indicates increased strain after 40 kips, but increases more rapidly after 60
kips load when additional shear cracks formed in the web.
As the load increased, the strain gages recorded increasing strains to a maximum of
3250 microstrain. At a shear force of 78 kips, the first two CFRP stirrups from the right
support delaminated from the concrete surface. The strains recorded by gages 29 and 30
dropped slightly as the reduction in stiffness of the stirrups transferred some of the shear
force to the concrete and internal stirrup mechanism. Strain gage 28 continued to
measure higher strains until flexural failure of the beam because delamination did not
occur on this stirrup.
192
The strain measurements recorded during the second loading of T-Beam lL indicate
that the CFRP stirrups supported load throughout the test because the beam was already
cracked and the end two stirrups had already delaminated during the first loading (Figure
8-53).
193
Straln25
100
80
-;-
'g
I..
60
:I
ol:l
fI.)
40
20
o .,
o
~ TBeamlL
72202
TBeamlL 72302
500
1000
I500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Straln(lO"-6)
Figure 8-45 Strain readings from strain gage 25
Stnin24
100
80
';'
'C
v.
~s-
60
a~
.r:::l
f'-)
40
~ TBeamIL 72202
20
--- TBeamI L 72302
oT
o
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Strain (10""-6)
Stnln26
100
80
-;- 60
.cI
f'-)
40
-+- TBeamlL 72202
20
TBeamlL 72302
oT
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Strain (10"-6)
Figure 8-47 Strain readings (rom strain gage 26
Strain 27
100
80
';'
10
~
~...
60
.c:
CI.)
40
-+- TBeamlL 72202
20
--- TBeaml L 72302
o \J
o
SOO
1000
IS00
2000
2S00
3000
3S00
Strain (10"-6)
Stnin28
100
80
... 60
'0
00
_.
-~
-+- TBeaml L 72202
TBeaml L 72302
..
~
.1:1
U,}
40
20
oU
o
500
1000
2000
2500
3000
3500
1500
Stnin(lO"-6)
Strain 29
100
80
\0
\0
...
~..
.
60
.F
""""'-----
~~
~-
--+- TBeamI L 72202
I ---- TBeamI L 72302
.c:I
fI.2
40
20
or
o
'I~
500
1000
1500
.. ~
2000
2500
3000
3500
Strain(lO"~
Stnin30
100
80
'fii'
60
tv
II
.c:
r'.}
40
-+- TBeamlL 72202
20
- - TBeaml L 72302
011
500
1000
i~~--
IS00
2000
Stnin(lOI\-6)
Figure 8-51 Strain readings on strain gage 30
2S00
3000
3S00
CFRP Readings on Strain Gages 18-30 Right Side (f-Beam lL 71101)
100
80
i...
60
:I
.cl
fI.}
40
...- Strail Gage 28

20
- - Strail Gage 29
.....- Strail Gage 30
oI
o
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Strain (lOA~)
Figure 8-51 Strain readings from strain gages 18-30 from the flnt test of T-Beam lL
CFRP Readings on Strain Gages 28-30 Right Side (f-Beam IL 72302)
tOO
80
';j'
~aN
60
yr-r
J A-
-+- Strain Gage 28

---- Strain Gage 29
.......... Strail Gage 30
.c::l
fI.:l
40
I
20
I I
o
o
\\m
/ //
~
500
1000
2000
2500
3000
3500
1500
Strain (IOA-6)
Figure 8-53 Strain readings from strain gages 28-30 from the second test of T-Beam IL
8.6
Shellr Strength ofT.Be.", 2L (CFRP Sti""ps)

T-Beam 2L was the left shear span of the flexural test ofT-Beam 2, recovered for
evaluation of the CFRP stirrups. Because the failure of T-Beam 2 resulted from a
flexure-shear crack just outside the left load point, the remaining section of beam to be
tested as T-Beam 2L was only one third of the original beam length. This complicated
the shear testing of this section since mid-span loading would have resulted in a shear
span to depth ratio less than 1.5. In addition, flexural cracking had already lead to
debonding of the prestressing strands at the right end of T-Beam 2L.
The beam was loaded off center to produce a 1.5 shear span to depth ratio and induce
a shear crack in the right side of the beam. The beam was also retrofitted with carbodur
strips for additional flexural reinforcement. This beam was considered completely
wrapped because the bottom end of the stirrups was continued under the beam soffit with
additional CFRP wraps. During loading of the beam, a crack developed between the left
support and the end of the carbodur strips added for flexural strengthening. In order to
avoid a premature failure at this location, the beam was unloaded and the left reaction
moved inward to bear directly below the end of the carbodur strips. Figure 8-54 shows
the test setup for T-Beam 2L. A more detailed description is covered in Chapter 5. The
initial condition of the beam before testing is shown in Figure 8-55. The existing cracks
are the result of the original T-Beam 2 flexural test.
203
Figure 8-54 T-Beam 2L test setup
Front Side
Back Side
Figure 8-55 Initial condition ofT-Beam 2L before testing
204
The shear-displacement response is plotted in Figure 8-56. The predicted shear

capacities from ACI 318-02 and ACI 44OR-02 are also plotted. Three significant stages
during the test were identified and are indicated on the response curve. The beam
condition at each of these stages is shown in Figure 8-57. The figure shows both front
and back sides of the beam.
Stirrup delamination was observed at an applied load of 149 kips which corresponds
to a shear of 70 kips (Figure 8-57, Applied Load of 149 kips). At an applied load of 191
kips, which corresponds to a shear of 90 kips, shear cracks had extended and additional
stirrup delamination was noted (Figure 8-57, Applied Load of 191 kips).
The beam reached an ultimate shear capacity of 120 kips and failed as the shear
cracks opened near the support (Figure 8-57, FAILURE). The beam never reached the
ACI 440R-02 predicted shear capacity of 130 kips. This premature failure was attributed
to anchorage slip of the prestress tendons at the right end of the beam (Figure 8-58). The
CFRP angles ruptured at the thru-bolts during shear failure (Figure 8-59). A close up
view of the delamination of the CFRP stirrups at failure is shown in Figure 8-60 and
Figure 8-61.
205
T-Beam 2L Shear- Disphcement ClaVe
160
140
Vc + Vs + 'I'fVC (ACI 440R-62)
120
"
100
~
N
- -- -
";;'
80
60
",
.
~
rl'
,
Vc + Vs (ACI 318-02)
FAILURE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..
~pJed Load @ 191 lq>s
""""1'_ '-.:149
nnlied Load
--
, ....
(@
1rins
Vc (AC[ 318-02)
------
,I
40
I :- -
Fnt wadilg
- SecolKl Loading
20
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1
Vertical Di;phcerrent @ Applied Load (in)

Figure 8-56 Shear - Displacement curve for T-Beam 2L
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Front Side
BackSide
Front Side
BackSide
Front Side
BackSide
FAILURE
Figure 8-57 T-Beam ZL condition at various stages during testing
207
Figure 8-58 Shear failure and tendon end anchorage slip
Figure 8-59 Rupture of GFRP angle at thru-bolts
208
Figure 8-60 Areas of CFRP delamination on T-Beam 2L
Figure 8-61 Buckling of CFRP stirrups at FAILURE
209
8.6.1
Strain Gage Readingsfor CFRP Stirrups
There were two groups of readings taken from the strain gages because the beam was
loaded twice. The two readings were combined to produce a single strain response. A
total of twelve strain gages were installed on the CFRP stirrups. Six were installed on the
front of the beam and the other six were installed on the back. The strain gage readings
were plotted against the applied shear in Figure 8-62 to Figure 8-67.
The strain results indicate that shear cracks occurred close to strain gages 1, 8, 3 and
9, and 6 and 12. This can be verified by the pictures shown in Figure 8-58 and Figure
8-61. The other gages recorded small strains throughout the test until immediately prior
to failure. Delamination of the CFRP is evident from the sudden decrease in strain
readings in gages 1,8,9,6, and 12.
210
Strain Gages 1 & 7
160
140
120 -I
100 1
-=
80 -1
CI.l
P&LVDT
<
First Loading "
3'3'
:r.)----l
~<:<:~
70';-9"
Strain Gages 1-6 Front Side

Strain Ga2es 7-12 Back Sid
I_
,,,.
...
,,-
60
40
SmmGage 1 - First Loading

--Smm Gage 1 - Second Loading
., .. ---. Stram Gage 7 - First Loading
20
- - Stram Gage 7 - Second Loading
Second Loading
-7000
-5000
-3000
-1000
1000
Strain (10"'-6)
Figure 8-62 Strain readings from strain gages 1 and 7
3000
5000
Strain Gages Z & 8

160
140
.....
,l
Ii
.I:l
fIJ
P&LVDT
..,
60
,.'
.
.
..... -
.,_
... "
.,' "
,,
40
~~~
....
First Loading
Second Loading
-7000
~~~
20

Strain CJailc:& 7-12 buc l Sl
-5000
-3000
.,
I
Strain Gage 2 - FIst Loadilg

Strain Gage 2 - Secord Loading
....... Strain Gage 8 - First Loadilg
- - Strain Gage 8 - Secord Loading
-1000
tOOO
Strain(10A~
Figure 8-63 Strain readings from strain gages Z and 8
3000
5000
Strain Gages 3 & 9

160
140
12'
'Ge'
~...
100
.a
f'-)
80
P&LVDT
y.)"
r.)"---j
60
r
..
,.. _.
,.' , ,
.,-"."
-,/-
Stram Ga~ 3 - Fi'st Loadmg

-Strain~ 3 - Second Loading
....... Strain Ga~ 9 - Fi"st Loadmg
<
First Loading "

Second Loading
~~~
Strain Galles 7-1' B~, l Sid
T.);.,.
20
\.
~~
... -,'
.'
- - stram Ga~ 9 - Second Loading
-7000
-5000
-3000
-1000
1000
Strain (10"-6)
3000
5000
Strain Gages 4 & 10

160
140
120
'Wi'
~a-
100
.Cl
sa
C'IJ
P&LVDT
.,.
l'-}'
60;
Strain Gage 4 - First Loading

Strain Gage 4 - Second Loading
... Strain Gage 10 - First Loading

40;
,
,
First Loading "
Second Loading
-7000
Strain Gages 1-6 Front"Side

Sttdin Gar~c:s 7-12 BCiCl Si
-5000
-3000
Strain Gage 10 - Secord Loadilg
20 ;
..
-1000
1000
Strain (10"'-6>
3000
5000
Strain Gages 5 & 11

160
140
~...
100
...:=
C'-)
80
P&LVDT
..,
,.
VI
60
40
~
"
First Loading
Second Loading
-7000
'~~
~~~~
20

Strain Gat:es 7-12 Bacl Sa
-5000
-3000
Strain Gage 5 - First Loadilg

Strain Gage 5 - Second Loading
... Strain Gage 11 - Fi'st Loadilg
- - Strain Gage 11 - Seoom Loadilg
-1000
1000
Strain (10"'-6)
3000
5000
Strain Gages 6 & 12

160
140
~...
100
i~~~'_'~'~'~/j
:I
.c::I
fI.l
P&LVDT
0\
)'.)'
60
;' ,... /
,~
/'
.. "
I"'-----S-tnm--Ga-ge-6---F-is-t-Loa--d-ing-------,1
40
<~
~~.
~~

Strain (ju\.. 7-12 Bad Si
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
- - Strain Gage 6 - Secom Loading

........ Strain Gage 12 - Fist Loading
20
--StrainGage 12 - Second Loading
1000
2000
Strain (10"-6)
3000
4000
5000
8.7
Sh~lIrStr~ngth ofT-Bellm
lR (CFRPSh~ets)
T-Beam IR was the right half of T-Beam I which was strengthened in shear with
CFRP sheets. To evaluate the shear capacity of the CFRP sheet retrofit, the beam was
subjected to two point loads as described in Chapter 5. In order to prevent the premature
flexural failure observed in T-Beam IL, this section of beam was retrofitted with
carbodur strips as additional flexural reinforcement. The shear sheets were not continued
around the soffit of the beam, so the shear retrofit was considered to be a two-sided
application. Figure 8-68 shows the test setup for T-Beam IR. A more detailed
description is provided in Chapter 5.
Figure 8-68 T-Beam lR test setup
217
The shear-displacement response is plotted in Figure 8-69 along with the predicted
shear capacities from ACI 318-02 and ACI 440R-02. Six significant stages are identified
on the response curve and the beam condition at each of these stages is shown in Figure
8-70 to Figure 8-72.
The initial shear cracks developed at a shear of 68 kips (Figure 8-70, Actuator Disp of
0.35") which was close to the ACI 318-02 predicted shear capacity of the concrete, Ve
No CFRP delamination was observed on this stage. As the load increased, more shear
cracks formed and extended (Figure 8-70, Actuator Disp of 0.55"). The ACI 318-02
predicted nominal shear capacity of the beam was reached at the same shear of 91 kips.
CFRP sheet delamination was observed at a shear of 104 kips (Figure 8-70, Actuator
Disp of 0.70"). At a shear of 116 kips, the tube steel anchors lifted off the epoxy bedding
(Figure 8-71, Actuator Disp of 0.85''). The CFRP sheet delamination increased at a shear
of 124 kips (Figure 8-71, Actuator Disp of 1.00"), below the ACI 440R-02 predicted
nominal shear capacity. Without the steel tube anchors, the CFRP sheet may have
delaminated completely resulting in premature failure. However, because of the
anchorage, the beam was able to exceed the ACI 440R-02 predicted capacity. The beam
reached an ultimate shear of 131 kips which was 2% greater than the ACI 44OR-02
nominal shear capacity and 44% greater than the ACI 318-02 nominal shear capacity
(Figure 8-72, FAILURE). The failure of the beam caused a large shear crack extending
from the support through the concrete top slab. Although the steel tube anchors were
deformed during failure, no bolt failures or steel rupture occurred.
218
T-Beam lR Shear-Displacement Cunre

160
140
Vc + Vs + lI'fVf (AO 44OR-(2)
120
Actuatro Imp @ 0.85"
100
to.,)
\0
..
I
.=
- . -----------
-------
-;-
Actmtor Disp @ 0.70"
Vc + Vs (AC) 318-02)
FAILURE
80
Vc (ACI 318-02)
fI.}
60
---~------------------Actuator Imp @ 0.35"
40
20
o ,..
o
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 8-69 Shear-Displacement curve for T-Beam lR
0.8
0.9
1.1
Left side - Front view
Right side - Back view

Actuator Disp of 0.35"

Actuator Dlsp of 0.55"
Left side
Delaminate - Left side
Delaminate - Back side
Actuator Disp of 0.70"

Figure 8-70 T-Beam lR condition at various stages during shear testing
220
Tube Lift Actuator Disp @ 0.85"
CFRP Delaminate Actuator Disp @ 1.00"
Figure 8-71 T-Beam lR condition at CFRP delamination

FAILURE
Figure 8-72 T-Beam lR condition at fanure
221
8.7.1
Strain Gage Readingsfor CFRP Sheets
There were a total of 14 strain gages on the CFRP sheets. Seven strain gages were
installed on each side of the beam. Figure 8-73 through Figure 8-76 plots these strain
readings against the applied shear. Strain gages 13-1S recorded smaller strains than
gages 17-19 because the shear cracks passed through the bottom of the first CFRP sheet
and further up through the second sheet. Strain gage 18 indicates increasing strain due to
a shear crack. At a shear of approximately 6S kips, strain gage 17 shows a rapid increase
in strain to match the strains recorded by gage 18. This indicates delamination of the
CFRP sheet between gages 17 and 18. The same occurs to gage 19 at a shear of
approximately lOS kips. After this load, the CFRP is completely delaminated and its
performance relies entirely on the anchorage provided by the steel tubes at the top and
bottom of the web. Flexibility in this anchorage system resulted in a drop in the sheet
strains.
8.7.2
Carbodur strip strain gages
Three strain gages were installed on the carbodur strip at mid-span. Figure 8-77
shows a plot of these strains against the applied shear. The strain readings are very
similar to those recorded at mid-span of T-Beam 2 during flexural testing. The
significant change of slope corresponds to formation of a mid-span flexural crack at a
mid-span moment of 260 kip-ft, which is similar to that observed for T-Beam 2.
222
Flnt Left Side FRP

160
/.--
-..... -.-._--. --
-\ ,
fIJ
'
120
I
-=
140
--- - . - .
100
-
:'1
- - Stram Gage 13-Top

- Strai:t Gage 14 - Mdd
- - Stram Gage 15- Bottom

-
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
Strain(101\~
Figure 8-73 Strain readings from strain gages 13-16
Stram Gage 16-Slope
1500
2000
2500
3000
Second Left Side FRP
160
140
,.. c_
.
I,
120
100
8
.c:
f'-l
80
1#
-.-
60
,,,,--'"
40
./
'
-StrainGa~
20
StrainGa~
17-Top
18 - MKlde
. Strain Gage 19- Bottom
-4000
-3500
-3000 -2500
-2000 -1500 -1000
-500
500
1000
Strain(IO"-6)
Figure 8-74 Strain readJngs (rom strain gages 17-19
1500
2000
2500
3000
Second Right Side FRP

160
140
- - . -,
120
100
"-
II
.c:I
80
tj
v.
60
--strUt Gage 20-Top

40
Strain Gage 21 - Middle
20
~
-4000
-3000
Strain Gage 22-Bottom
N~
-2000
-1000
1000
Strain(t Ol\~
2000
3000
Flnt RIght Side FRP

160
140
'~..."
,
120
I..
100
:I
.c::
.,."..
f'-)
80
60
--Stran Gage 23- Top

-
40
- Strain Gage 24 - Middle
Strain Gage 25- Bottom
20
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
500
1000
Straln(10A~)
Figure 8-76 Strain readings (rom strain gages 23-26
Strain Gage 26-Sbpe
1500
2000
2500
3000
Carbodur Strip Stnins
CL
160
140
120
t-,)
t-,)
~
I
.a
fI.)
=-- .
Disp
Actua1Dr
-;;- 100
~...
. -.
Actuator D5p @ 1.0"
-.
Actuator DBp @ 0.3~
80
60
@ 0.70" ..
@O 85".

Actuator Disp.
\ .
FAIWRE
-Strain30-Third S~
Strain 3I-Second StIl>
Stnm 32-First S .
-
40
20
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Strain(10A~
Figure 8-77 Strain readings on the carbodur strips from strain gages 30-32
5000
6000
8.8
Shea, Strength ofT-Bum 2R2 (CFRP Sheets)

T-Beam 2R2 was the second test of the right hand portion of T-Beam 2 recovered
after flexural testing. The left end of this beam had already been tested to determine the
shear capacity of the prestressed beam without CFRP shear retrofit. T-Beam 2R2 was
tested to evaluate the CFRP shear sheet with full continuity around the beam soffit. It
was loaded by a line load applied at mid-span. The beam was retrofitted with carbodur
strips for additional flexural reinforcement. Wedge anchors were placed on the ends of
the prestressed tendons to prevent tendon slip.
CFRP wraps were used to extend the previous shear sheets around the soffit of the
beam. According to ACI 440R-02, this represents a three-sided retrofit. Figure 8-78
shows T-Beam 2R2 in the test frame. A detailed description is provided in Chapter 5.
Figure 8-78 T-Beam 2R2 test setup
228
The shear-displacement response is plotted in Figure 8-79 along with the predicted
shear capacities from ACI 318-02 and ACI 440R-02. Seven significant stages during the
test are identified and the condition of the beam at each of these stages is shown in Figure
8-80.
The initial shear cracks occurred at a shear of 59 kips (Figure 8-80, Applied Load of
119 kips). This is also when the first delamination of the CFRP sheets was observed. As
the load increased, the shear crack opened and extended up to the soffit of the top slab.
Delamination of the CFRP sheets also extended as the load increased. The majority of
the shear cracks formed in the left span of the beam. The beam reached an ultimate shear
of 142 kips (Figure 8-80, Ultimate Shear - Back Side). This represented an increase of
16% over the capacity ofT-Beam 2Rl tested without CFRP shear strengthening. This is
significantly less than the 42% increase predicted by the ACI 440R-02 procedure.
However, the failure shear capacity still represents a 1001'0 increase over the ACI 440R-02
predicted nominal shear capacity.
Delamination of the CFRP sheets occurred soon after development of shear cracks
below the CFRP as shown in Figure 8-81. Without the GFRP angle anchorage at the top
and bottom of the web, it is possible that the sheets would have lost their capacity. After
extensive delamination, the GFRP angles deformed and eventually ruptured at the thrubolts (Figure 8-82).
229
T-Beam 2R2 Shear-Displacement Cmve

160
140
Vc + Vs + ",fVf(ACI 44OR-02)
APPOOd~tied Load ~4
Applied Applied load ad Ciil239 . 7 q,s
Load@ 227 kip~ 233"kips
120
100
Q"
-...
V)
Vc + Vs (ACI318-02)
----------------------
-------
-;-
II!
80
:!
-=
f'-)
J\pptied Load @ 119 q,s
60
------
------
40
20
0'"
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 8-79 Sbear-Displacement curve for T-Beam 2R2
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
N
W
Ultimate Shear - Back Side
Figure 8-80 T-Beam 2R2 condition at seven stages
FAILURE
Figure 8-81 Delamination of the CFRP sheet

N
W
N
Figure 8-82 Rupture of GFRP angles at thru-bolts
8.8.1
Strain Gage Readings attached on CFRP Sheets
There were a total of 9 strain gages on the CFRP sheets on the right side of the beam
because shear failure was anticipated in this shear span. Figure 8-83 through Figure 8-85
show plots of the measured strains against the applied shear. Strain gages 4-9 recorded
the highest strains because of shear cracks passing below the second CFRP shear sheet.
Initial shear cracks formed at 59 kips and additional shear cracks formed in the same area
as the load increased. The strain readings highlight the delamination of the CFRP sheets.
Gages 5 and 6 record increasing strains due to a shear crack below the CFRP. Further
from the crack, gage 4 records very small strains until a shear load of 110 kips. At this
point the strain in gage 4 suddenly increases to match that in gages 5, indicating
delamination of the CFRP sheet between gages 4 and 5. The sudden decrease in strain in
the CFRP sheets after delamination is due to the flexibility of the GFRP angles allowing
relaxation of the sheets. More of the shear load is therefore transferred to the concrete
and internal stirrups system leading to failure of the beam.
233
Load vs. Strains on Fint FRP StimJp
160
. . . . . . -.
.
.
. -. .
. . . . . . . til
or ,I'
til
P & LVDT @ MIDSPAN
~
N
01:1
f'-)
.a:..
--stram Gage 1 - First FRP, top

- stram Gage 2 - First FRP, middle
.. .. Stram Gage 3 - First FRP, bottom
-3000
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
Strains (10"-6)
4000
5000
6000
Load VI. StraiDs on Second FRP StimJp

- - Stram OaF 4 - Secom FRP, Jeft sue, top
-
160
- Strain Gage 5 - Secom FRP, Jeft sue, niddJe
- - Strain Gage 6 - Secom FRP, Jeft sue, bottom
-;;N
W
v-
~...
:I
.=
C'I'.l
-3000
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
StraiDs (10"-')
4000
5000
6000
Load VI. StraiDs on Second FRP StiJTup
160
';j'
~...
N
W
01
P & LVDT @ MIDSPAN
.c::l
l'I.l
--Strain Gage 7 - Second FRP, right side, top

- Strain Gage 8 - Secord FRP, right me,
mndE
- - Strain Gage 9 - Second FRP, right side, bottom I
-3000
-2000
-1000
20
1000
Strains (10"-6)
2000
3000
8.9
Comparison olthe Shear Strengths olthe T-Beoms Tested in Shear

Figure 8-86 shows the shear-displacement response for all of the shear test beams. T-
Beam 2Rl was a shear test of the prestressed concrete beam without CFRP shear
strengthening. This provided a control shear strength, which exceeded the ACI 318-02
predicted strength by 34%.
T-Beams lL and 2L were strengthened in shear with CFRP stirrups. Due to flexural
failure, T-Beam lL did not reach its shear capacity. To prevent premature flexural failure
all other shear test specimens were strengthened in flexure using CFRP carbodur strips
bonded to the soffit of the beam. T-Beam 2L failed in shear but did not achieve the
strength predicted by the ACI 440R-02 approach. This was attributed in part to
debonding and slip of the prestressing tendons at the end of this portion ofT-Beam 2. To
avoid this tendon slip in subsequent tests, wedge anchors were installed on the strand
extensions.
T-Beam lR and T-Beam 2R2 with CFRP sheets for shear strengthening exceeded the
ACI 440R-02 predicted nominal shear capacity. T-Beam lR represented a 2% increase
over the ACI 440R-02 predicted nominal shear capacity while T-Beam 2R2 represented
an increase of 10%. The expected increase from the ACI 318-02 predicted nominal shear
capacity to the ACI 440R-02 predicted nominal shear capacity was 42%. In these shear
tests, the majority of the increased strength is the result of conservatism in the ACI 31802 strength predictions and only part of the increase results from the addition of the
CFRP sheets.
237
Shear-Displacement Curve
160
140
onSbeets ana -I-Heorn
Vc~~+fVf(A~I~~) . . : ... ~.I'
ForT-Beam lL Two Sided
~~
120
100
'Wi'
~a. 80
--
:I
00
_. -
-=
fI.)
60
- . "":":',.
,
.,1
/'
...:. _
"". ...... _
~~-.\
- . '"\
V.fU:s~ACJJ1~-0~
.,
_
For StiTq>s and Sheets
"'
-'..:-
V~A.31~2~r
StimJps and Sheets
"".
,,, ,,"-
" ..
<#
..
"
../
.".,.,.
a:..;
40
-T-Beam2Rl
-T-Beam IL 72302
- 'T-Beam 2L - Second Loading
-T-Beam 1R
-T-Beam2R2
20
o "..
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Vertical Displacement @ Applied Load (in)

Figure ~ Shear-Displacement curves for aU shear tests
0.9
1.1
8.10
AC1440 Versus Experimental Shear Capacities
The shear capacities of the shear tests were normalized with respect to the section
dimensions and plotted in Figure 8-87. The figure also includes the results of prior
research compiled by Lyle Nakashima in his Masters Reporr 1 The 45-degree datum
represents a one-to-one agreement between the predicted and experimental results. For
all specimens except T-Beam 2L, the experimental results exceeded the ACI 440R-02
predictions. As noted earlier, tendon slip in T-Beam 2L during testing resulted in a
reduction in the shear capacity. The shear capacities of both T-Beam lR and T-Beam
2R2 with CFRP sheets as shear reinforcement exceeded the ACI 440R-02 predicted
values.
239
ACI 440 Vs. Experimental Shear Capacities

1.80
1.60
-:5
1.40
1.20
l.()0
..<
;
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
I~
0.40
/?'
, l-
X \ X)lO(X
0.80
0.60
~
c
x "i:
...
i~
..
)0(
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Experimental V.1bwd, (ksi)
ChaaDal
AI- SulainBni
Xiao
Cmderski
AT-Beam 1R(Sheets)
T-Beam2R2 (Sheets)
x Trilntafilk>u
0
x Chajes
T-Beam2L(Stinups) -DesignDatwn
Figure 8-87 Normalized ACI 440 predictions versus experimental shear capacities
1.80
CHAPTER 9
9.1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary
This research study involved flexural and shear testing of two precast prestressed T-
Beams salvaged from the Ala Moana Parking Garage. One un-strengthened beam was
used as the control specimen referred to as T-Beam 1. The second beam was the
strengthened beam referred to as T-Beam 2. This beam had been strengthened in 1997
using CFRP carbodur strips epoxy bonded to the soffit of the beam because of a number
of flexural cracks and severe spalling to the beam ledges.
Initial theoretical strength calculations for T-Beam 1 and T-Beam 2 indicated that the
addition of CFRP to increase the flexural capacity of T-Beam 2 resulted in a shear critical
failure mode if the beam were tested under the proposed laboratory conditions. To
reduce the potential for a shear failure and ensure the desired flexural failure of TBeam
2, the shear spans of both beams were increased for the laboratory loading and CFRP
shear retrofit was applied prior to flexural testing. Two shear retrofit techniques were
employed on each beam, namely external CFRP shear stirrups on the left half of the beam
and CFRP sheets on the right half of the beam. In order to prevent premature
delamination of the CFRP shear retrofits at the re-entrant comers at the top and bottom of
the beam web, mechanical anchorage was provided in the form of steel tubes and GFRP
angles with steel bolts through the beam web. Subsequent to flexural testing, each of the
beam shear spans was tested in shear to evaluate the performance of the CFRP shear
retrofit and mechanical anchorage.
241
9.2
Conclusions
9.2.1
Flexure Tests
Sika CFRP pre-cured carbodur strips epoxy bonded to the soffit of the
strengthened beam significantly increased the flexural strength over that of the
control beam without reducing the beam ductility.
There was no apparent degradation of the CFRP strips. CFRP fabric wrap anchors
or epoxy bonding agent during the five years of field exposure between
application in 1997 and testing in 2002.
The ACI 44OR-02 strain compatibility procedure for estimating the flexural
strength of concrete beams with externally bonded CFRP is conservative for the
condition tested here.
The failure bending strength of the retrofit beam was 21% greater than that
predicted by the ACI 440R-02 report procedure.
The failure bending strength represented a 71 % increase compared with the

control specimen. while the ACI 440R-02 predicted a 37% increase when
compared with the ACI 318-02 predicted flexural capacity of the control
specimen.
242
9.2.2 Shear Tests

o The shear capacity of the prestressed T-Beam without CFRP shear strengthening
exceeded the ACI 318-02 predicted strength by 33%.
o The two T-Beam tests with CFRP sheets produced 7% and 16% increases in the
shear capacity when compared with the beam without CFRP shear strengthening.
These increases are below the 42% increase predicted by ACI 440R-02.
o
The failure shear strength of the beams retrofitted with CFRP sheets was slightly
greater than the ACI440R-02 prediction.
o In all shear tests, delamination of the CFRP stirrups and sheets occurred prior to
the maximum shear load. Without adequate anchorage at the top and bottom of
the beam web, the CFRP would have been ineffective.
o The steel tubes provided better anchorage than the GFRP angles.
o Future research studies in anchorage system design are necessary to maximize the
effectiveness of CFRP shear retrofit systems, particularly when applied to

prestressed concrete beams.
243
10 REFERENCES
Spadea, G., Bencardino, F., and Swamy, R. N. "Strength and Ductility of

Reinforced Concrete Beams Externally Reinforced with Carbon Fiber Fabric", ACI
Structural Journal Vol. 99 No.2 March-April 2002, pp.163-171
2
Spadea, G., Bencardino, F., and Swamy, R.N. "Structural Behavior of Composite
RC Beams with Externally Bonded CFRP", Journal o/Composites/or Construction
August, 1998 Vol.2 No.3, pp. 132-137
3
GangaRao, V. S., Vijay, P. V. "Bending Behavior of Concrete Beams Wrapped

With Carbon Fabric", Journal o/Structural Engineering January, 1998 Vo1.124 No.1, pp.
3-10
4
Fanning, P. J. and Kelly, O. "Ultimate Response ofRC Beams Strengthened with

CFRP Plates", Journal 0/ Composites/or Construction May, 200I Vol.5 No.2, pp. 122127
Shahawy, M., Chaallal, 0., Beitelman, T. E., and EI-Saad, A "Flexural

Strengthening with Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites of Preloaded FullScale Girders", ACI Structural Journal September-October, 2001 Vol.98 No.5, pp. 735742
6
White, T. W., Soudki, K. A, and Erki, M. "Response ofRC Beams Strengthened

with CFRP Laminates and Subjected to a High Rate of Loading", Journal 0/ Composites
for Construction August, 2001 Vol.5 No.3, pp. 153-162
7
Masoud, S., Soudki, K., and Topper, T. "CFRP-Strengthened and Corroded RC

Beams Under Monotonic and Fatigue Loads", Journal o/Composites/or Construction
November, 2001 Vol. 5 No.4, pp. 228-236
8
Bonacci, J. F. and Maalej, M. "Externally Bonded Fiber-Reinforced Polymer for

Rehabilitation of Corrosion Damaged Concrete Beams", ACI Structural Journal Vol.97
No.5 September-Qctober 2000, pp. 703-711
9
Sheikh, S. A, DeRose, D., and Mardukhi, J. "Retrofitting of Concrete Structures

for Shear and Flexure with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers", ACI Structural Journal Vol.99
No.4 July-August 2002, pp. 451-459
10
Czaderski, C. "Shear Strengthening with Prefabricated CFRP L-Shaped Plates",

IABSE Symposium Melbourne 2002
244
II
Chaallal. 0 . Nollet. M. J. Perraton. D. "Shear Strengthening ofRC Beams by

Externally Bonded Side CFRP Stripsu, Journal o/Composites/or Construction May.
1998 Vol.2 No.2, pp. 111-113
12
Triantafillou, T. C. "Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using

Epoxy-Bonded FRP Composites''. ACI Structural Journal Vol. 95 No 2 March-April 1998
pp.107-115
13
Al-Sulaimani, G. J., Sharif. A.. Basunbul, I. A., Baluch. M. H. and Ghaleb. B. N.

"Shear Repair for Reinforced Concrete by Fiberglass Plate Bonding ACI Structural
Journal Vol.91 No.4 July-August 1994, pp. 458-463
U
14
Schuman. P., and Karbhari, V. M. "A Study On Mechanical Anchorage For

Shear Rehabilitation of RC Structures", Proceedings 0/thefib 2003 Symposium Athens,
Greece May 6-8, pp. 378-389
IS
ICRI 2002, "Selecting and Specifying Concrete Surface Preparation for Coatings,
Sealers. and Polymer Overlaysu. International Concrete Repair Institute Technical
Guideline No. 03732
16
Fung, Stephanie S. Y., and Robertson. Ian N. "Seismic Monitoring of Dynamic

Bridge Deformations Using Strain Measurements Research Report UHMlCEE/03-02
May 2003
U
17
ACI (1984) "State of the Art Report on High Strength Concrete". Report of ACI
Committee 363, ACI Journal Vol. 81, No.4 pp. 364-411
18
ACI (2002) "Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems For Strengthening Concrete Structuresu, Reported by ACI Committee 440 pg.
44
19
ACI (2002) "Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems For Strengthening Concrete Structures". Reported by ACI Committee 440 pg.
53-62
20
Nawy, Edward G. "Prestressed Concrete Fourth Edition 2003 pg. 56 Fig. 2.18a
,
21
Nakashima, Lyle "Evaluation of ACI 440 Design For FRP Repair and Retrofit Of
Concrete Beams.., CEE699 Report April 2003
245

Agapay 2003

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Agapay 2003

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

~

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I LIBRARY

TEST OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE T-BEAMS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE

Use ofCFRPfor flexural strengthening

ALA MOANA BEAM 'REPAIR

BEAM RECOVERY AND 'REPAIR

TEST SETUP AND BEAM LAYOUT.............................................................................................. 33

CFRP Shear Stirrups

BEAM TEST CONFIGURATION AND INSTRUMENTATION

T-Beam 1 Layout and Instrumentation.

CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS

THEO'RETICAL BEAM ST'RENGTBS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

FIGURE 5-31 STEEL REACTION BRACKETS AT BOTH ENDS OF T-BEAM 2

STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 3

SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT CURVE FOR T-BEAM lR

STRAIN READINGS FROM STRAIN GAGES 20-22

RUPTURE OF GFRP ANGLES AT THRU-BOLTS

CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND MODULUS OF ELASTICITY

repairing and retrofitting damaged or deficient structures. Numerous research studies

spent an additional eighteen months exposed to exterior environmental conditions prior to

Use ofCFRPfor flexural strengthening

Use ofCFRPfor shear strengthening

Shear strengthening using CFRP has proved effective in a number of prior

CFRP Flexural Strengthening

Shahawy et al. s experimented on full-scale T-girders that were preloaded at different

CFRP Shear Strengthening

strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using CFRP materials. These studies

ALA MOANA BEAM REPAIR

Figure 3-1 Cross section ofT-Beam for carbodur strip installation

Figure 3-2 Surface preparation prior to CFRP application

Figure 3-3 Sib carbodur strips being prepared for Installation

Figure 3-4 Application of CFRP strips

Figure 3-5 Wet lay-up anchorage wrap at end of CFRP strips

Figure 3-6 Sika wet lay-up wraps at concrete spalls

Figure 3-7 Repaired beam in service

BEAM RECOVERY AND REPAIR

Figure 4-2 Cable support during beam removal

Epoxy Crack Repair

Figure 4-3 Injection Port Placement

Figure 4-4 Epoxy Injection

Epoxy Mortllr Sptlll Reptlir

Figure 4-S Priming the repair contact surface

Figure 4-6 Forming the repair area

Figure 4-7 Pouring epoxy mortar patch material

Figure 4-8 Completed spall repair

Top Slilb Rep1llummt

reinstate the original anchorage into the top slab.

(10) i"12J Stress-relieved

MIDSPAN BEAM SECTION

-= =-= .=. =-=.-:..~-==-== .=. =-=.-:..~-= .=::

Figure 4-10 T-Beam 1 Oange layout

Bottom Reinforcement Layout

Top Reinforcement Layout and Strain Gage Locations

Figure 4-12 Plywood block-outs for CFRP shear stirrups

Figure 4-13 T-Beam 1 top Range concrete placement

TEST SETUP AND BEAM LAYOUT

would require a 300,000 lb capacity hydraulic actuator supported by a four-post frame.

Figure 5-1 Schematic Layout of Test Setup

Figure 5-2 Detail of Final Test Fnme Design

2-W12 Beams (Typ)