Testing, assessment and FRP strengthening of concrete T-beam bridges in Pennsylvania

TESTING, ASSESSMENT AND FRP STRENGTHENING OF CONCRETE T-BEAM BRIDGES IN PENNSYLVANIA William C Sasher Thesis submitted to the College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering Karl E Barth, Ph D., Chair Julio F Davalos, Ph D., Co-Chair Indrajit Ray, Ph D Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Morgantown, West Virginia 2008 Keywords: fiber reinforced polymer (FRP), concrete t-beam bridge, load testing, load rating, FRP strengthening UMI Number: 1458524 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion ® UMI UMI Microform 1458524 Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC 789 E Eisenhower Parkway PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 TESTING, ASSESSMENT AND F R P STRENGTHENING OF CONCRETE T-BEAM BRIDGES TN PENNSYLVANIA William Christopher Sasher Dr Karl E Barth Thesis Advisor Abstract The transportation infrastructure of the United States is in urgent need of rehabilitation The effects of ageing and deterioration, along with increased traffic demands have raised the concern that the deteriorated conditions of highway bridges need to be addressed to insure the safety of the public Several rehabilitation methods are available to engineers including: bridge replacement, bridge repair, and retrofitting with mechanisms designed to increase the structural capacity of a bridge The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation - District (PennDOT-D3) has sponsored a multi-phase project to investigate externally bonded Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) technology on their deteriorated concrete T-Beam bridges The bridge inventory maintained by PennDOT-D3 includes 128 concrete T-Beam bridges built between 1920 and 1960 Ageing and deterioration effects have caused these bridges to become structurally deficient and/or obsolete PennDOT-D3 has teamed with researchers from West Virginia University to develop a system to transfer FRP bridge rehabilitation technology to PennDOT's district forces The work presented in this thesis focuses on the structural condition assessment and strengthening with externally bonded FRP of bridge #49-4012-0250-1032 built in 1934 near Sunbury, Pennsylvania During several field visits WVU researchers performed destructive and non-destructive testing to investigate the deteriorated condition of the bridge Load testing was performed using a proof load to attain critical structural behavior characteristic data that could be used to calibrate a computer model of the bridge as well as to determine a bridge performance baseline to compare with the FRP strengthened structural behavior During the course of work in this study, a structural analysis program was developed to accurately assess the structural capacity of a simply supported concrete TBeam bridge The program was designed to be more flexible and easier to use than PennDOT's Bridge Analysis and Rating program (BAR7) The program developed at WVU includes a section for FRP strengthening design Load rating analysis based on the strengthening design is included in the program ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank West Virginia University for the endless opportunities that were made available The classes, professors, student life, and environment created at the university have all provided the author with an unforgettable undergraduate and graduate career Special thanks go to the civil engineering faculty members at the College of Civil and Environmental Engineering The attention to detail necessitated by Dr Zaniewski, Dr Barth, and Dr Davalos will always be one of the greatest intangible lessons learned and continually pursued by the author The author would like to give particular gratitude to Dr Barth for his neverending patience and guidance Dr Barth was also the one who generously gave the author many of the opportunities that he has been privileged to be a part of throughout his educational career at WVU The lessons taught by Dr Barth will never be forgotten The author would like to thank Dr Davalos for die energy and excitement that he exudes as a professor It has been a privilege and a pleasure to the author to learn from Dr Davalos He has been a great professor, advisor, and mentor The author would also like to thank his graduate student colleagues for the fun times and the help and support given over the years The author would also like to thank his parents for their never-ending guidance, support, and sacrifice Their encouragement and advice has been invaluable to the author Words will never make up for the sacrifices that they have made Remember: "Superhuman effort isn't worth a damn unless it achieves results."-Ernest Shackleton - in Table of Contents ACKNOWLEI>KGMENTS.M mMM.MM«M«.MM—•—•—»•*• TABLE OF CONTENTS •„ • •.*., „, „ * « « *.•.•—.•—«•••—•« •—— —•.•,• •• «„„ iii *••.—*•••• —«.iv X>IST O F F I G U R E S ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••^••^•.•.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••^•••""•••••••••••••••••••^••^•••••***"""*' L I S T O F T A B L E S •••••••^•*#*#*»*«««».»*».»«»»».»*» «.««*****»* M »»»»*«M*.**»*«««»***»«*»»»»»»*""«-*«*^*»*«»»»»""»»»«««««***»^^***""*» VI I I CHAPTER - INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OBJECTIVES SCOPE OF RESEARCH 1.4 i 1.4.2 ] 4.3 1.4.4 1.5 l 4 Destructive and Non-Destructive Evaluation Load Testing Structural Analysis FRP Strengthening Design Recommendations 6 ORGANIZATION EXPECTED OUTCOMES 1.6.1 1.6.2 1.6.3 7 Load Rating FRP Strengthening Design Training PennDOT Personnel S S CHAPTER - LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 2.2 2.3 INTRODUCTION TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT LOAD RATING 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 10 10 12 Current Load Rating Methods Load Rating Programs Capacity Calculation Methods 14 17 '9 REHABILITATION STRATEGIES FRP CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS CASE STUDIES 21 24 26 CHAPTER - EXPERIMENTAL WORK 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.4 INTRODUCTION BRIDGE MATERIAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 34 34 Concrete Core Sampling Sampling of Tensile Reinforcing Steel Visual Inspection and Documentation Material Property Summary 34 36 38 42 LOAD TESTING 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 • 43 Setup Trucks Static Loading Dynamic Loading Testing Results 44 51 52 57 57 - iv- CHAPTER - STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN 4.1 4.2 INTRODUCTION LOAD RATING 4.3.1 BRIDGE PROPERTIES 4.3.2 LOAD RATING RESULTS 4.4 PROPOSED FRP STRENGTHENING SYSTEM 4.4.1 4.4.2 63 63 64 65 69 Assumptions Beam Strengthening Design 70 71 CHAPTER - DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED CONCRETE T-BEAM RATING PROCEDURES 5.1 5.2 INTRODUCTION ANALYSIS VARIATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 79 81 5.2.1 Input Data 5.2.2 Analysis Calculations 5.2.3 Program Output 5.2.4 FRP Strengthening Design 5.3 ANALYSIS 5.3.1 Program Input 5.3.2 Program Analysis Calculations 5.3.3 Program Output 5.4 8i 82 82 83 84 84 95 107 FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 110 Program Input , Program Design Calculations Program Output 112 117 i 19 CHAPTER - CONCLUSIONS 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 INTRODUCTION LOAD RATING COMPARISON RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURE WORK 122 123 124 125 REFERENCES ~ -— - 130 APPENDIX A: P E N N D O T 45 FT SPAN CONCRETE T-BEAM BRIDGE SHOP DRAWINGS APPENDIX B: MATERIAL EVALUATION T E S T RESULTS APPENDIX ~ C: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CALCULATIONS — — APPENDIX F: FRP DESIGN CALCULATIONS .^ — — APPENDIX D: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CALCULATION RESULTS APPENDIX E: DEAD/LIVE LOAD GENERATOR EQUATIONS 140 — 143 «, 150 — 155 160 APPENDIX G: FRP DESIGN CALCULATION VARIABLE RESULTS APPENDIX H: PROPOSED FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN DRAWINGS -v- 137 ~— ~ ~ 168 - 171 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 SELECTED CANDIDATE BRIDGE REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT- ELEVATION VIEW FIGURE 1.2 SELECTED CANDIDATE BRIDGE REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT- CROSS SECTION VIEW FIGURE 1.3 SELECTEDCANDIDATEBRIDGEFOR LEVEL I FRPCOMIOSITE REPAIR FIGURE 3.1 DECK CORE SAMPLING LOCATIONS FIGURE 3.2 DECK CORE SAMPLE FIGURE 3.3 DECK CORE DRILLING FIGURE 3.4 EXPOSED REIJAR EXTRACTION TOOLS FIGURE 3.5 LOCATION OF EXPOSED RF.UAR EXTRACTION FIGURE 3.6 BEAM I - SPALLING, DELAMINATION, AND CRACKING FIGURE 3.7 BEAM - SPALLING, DELAMINATION AND CRACKING FIGURE 3.8 BEAM - LOCALIZED DAMAGE FIGURE 3.9 BEAM LOCALIZED SPALLING AND DELAMINATION FIGURE 3.10 BEAM - MINOR DAMAGE FIGURE 3.11 BEAM - LOCALIZED DAMAGE FIGURE 3.12 PLAN VIEW OF INSTRUMENTATION LAYOUT FIGURE 3.13 FIELD PLACEMENTS OF EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTS FIGURE 3.14 ORIGINALLY PROPOSED STRAIN GAGE LOCATIONS FIGURE 3.15 EPOXYCURETIME CHART FIGURE 3.16 CROSS-SECTION VIEW OF INSTRUMENTATION SETUP FIGURE 3.17 LVDT SETUP FIGURE 3.18 LVDT BRACING FIGURE 3.19 ACCELEROMETER MOUNTING CONFIGURATION FIGURE 3.20 COMPUTER AND DATA ACQUISITION SETUP 3 35 36 36 37 37 39 39 40 40 41 41 44 45 46 46 47 FIGURE3.21 TRUCK LOADING 51 FIGURE 3.22 INITIAL LOAD CASES AND FIGURE 3.23 INITIAL LOAD CASES AND FIGURE 3.24 ACTUAL LOAD CASES USED FIGURE 3.25 TRUCK SPACING LIMITATIONS FIGURE 3.26 MODIFIED LOAD CASES FIGURE 3.27 MODIFIED LOAD CASE TRUCK POSITION FIGURE3.2S LOAD CASE DEFLECTION RESULTS FIGURE 3.29 LOAD CASE 2-1 TRUCK DEFLECTION RESULTS FIGURE 3.30 LOAD CASE 2-2 TRUCKS DEFLECTION RESULTS FIGURE 3.31 LOAD CASE DEFLECTION RESULTS FIGURE 3.32 MODIFIED LOAD CASE DEFLECTION COMPARISON FIGURE 3.33 NATURAL FREQUENCY RESULTS FIGURE4.1 EXAMPLE BRIDGE SECTIONING FIGURE4.2 SHEAR INVENTORY RATING FACTOR RESULTS FIGURE 4.3 BEAM FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN FIGURE 4.4 BEAM FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN FIGURE 4.5 BEAM FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN FIGURE4.6 BEAM FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN FIGURE 4.7 BEAM FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN FIGURE 4.8 BEAM FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN FIGURE 4.9 FRP STRENGTHENED LOAD RATING RESULTS FIGURE4.10 PRE-AND POST- SHEAR STRENGTHENING INVENTORY RATING FACTOR COMPARISON FIGURE 5.1 w v u PROGRAM PROCESS CHART FIGURE 5.2 INPUT DATA SEQUENCE FIGURE 5.3 SAMPLE SHEAR REMAINING STEEL REINFORCEMENT AREA INPUT DATA TABLES FIGURE 5.4 CONCRETE T-BEAM ANALYSIS CALCULATION SEQUENCE FIGURE 5.6 SAMPLE LIVE LOAD GENERATOR RESULTS TABLE 53 54 55 55 56 56 58 58 59 59 61 62 67 68 71 72 72 72 72 73 74 78 80 85 92 96 107 - vi - 48 48 49 50 FIGURE 5.7 LOAD RATING ANALYSIS CALCULATION SEQUENCE 108 FIGURE 5.8 SAMPLE RATING FACTOR SUMMARY CHART 109 FIGURE 5.9 FRP DESIGN CALCULATION SEQUENCE 111 FIGURES 10 SAMPLE FLEXURAL FRPTERMINATION POINT CALCULATION GRAPH 115 FIGURE 5.11 SAMPLE SHEAR CAPACITY STRENGTHENING ANALYSIS RESULTS GRAPH 117 FIGURE 5.12 SAMPLE STRENGTHENED BEAM STRAIN DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 120 FIGURE5.13 SAMPLE EXISTING VS STRENGTHENED BEAM FLEXURALLOAD RATING SUMMARY GRAPH 120 FIGURE 5.14 SAMPLE BEAM EXISTING VS STRENGTHENED LOAD RATING SUMMARY GRAPH 121 FIGURE E.1 LOADING VEHICLE CALCULATION DIAGRAM 157 FIGURE E.2 SHEAR FORCE DESIGNATION 158 FIGURE F.l SIDE FLEXURAL FRP LAMINATE CONTRIHUTION DIAGRAM 166 - vii - LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 DESIGN EQUATION COMPARISON TABLE 2.2 LOAD RATING EQUATION COMPARISON TABLE 3.1 TRUCK LOADING COMPARISON: HS-20 VS PENNDOT TABLE4.1 LOAD RATING RESULTS- MOMENT TABLE4.2 LOAD RATING RESULTS- SHEAR TABLE 4.3 DESIGN REQUIREMENT DIFFERENCES TABLE4.4 FRP MATERIAL PROPERTIES TABLE 4.5 FLEXURAL FRP'STRENGTHENING RESULTS TABLE4.6 BEAM I FRP SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN RESULTS TABLE 4.7 BEAM FRP SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN RESULTS TABLE 4.8 BEAM FRP SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN RESULTS TABLE4.9 BEAM FRP SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN RESULTS TABLE4.10 BEAM FRP SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN RESULTS TABLE 4.11 BEAM FRP SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN RESULTS TABLE 5.1 SAMPLE UNIVERSAL INPUT DATA TABLE TABLE 5.2 SAMPLE BEAM SPECIFIC FLEXURAL INPUT DATA TABLE TABLE 5.3 SAMPLE BEAM SPECIFIC SHEAR SECTION BREAK INPUT DATA TABLE TABLE 5.4 SAMPLE BEAM SPECIFIC SHEAR INVESTIGATION POINT TABLE TABLE 5.5 SAMPLE INCLINED STIRRUP INCLUSION BY SECTION INPUT DATA TABLE TABLE 5.6 SAMPLE PRESENCE OF SEVERE DIAGONAL CRACKING BY SECTION INPUT TABLE TABLE 5.7 SAMPLE LOADING VEHICLE INPUT DATA TABLE TABLE 5.8 SAMPLE SPECIAL LOADING VEHICLE INPUT DATA TABLE TABLE 5.9 SAMPLE UNIVERSAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE 5.10 SAMPLE BEAM SPECIFIC FLEXURAL ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE 5.11 SAMPLE LIVE LOAD GENERATOR RESULTS TABLE TABLE 5.12 SAMPLE TENTH POINT FLEXURAL LOAD RATING CALCULATION TABLE TABLE 5.13 SAMPLE SHEAR ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE TABLE 5.14 SAMPLE SECTION SHEAR CAPACITY RESULTS TABLE TABLE 5.15 SAMPLE TENTH POINTSHEAR CAPACITY RESULTSTABLE TABLE 5.16 SAMPLE DEAD LOAD SHEAR RESULTS TABLE TABLE 5.17 SAMPLE SHEAR LOAD RATING CALCULATION TABLE TABLE 5.18 SAMPLE BEAM LOAD RATING SUMMARY TABLE TABLE 5.19 SAMPLE CONTROLLING LOAD RATING TENTH POINT SUMMARY TABLE TABLE5.20 SAMPLE CONTROLLING LOAD RATING FACTOR SUMMARY TABLES TABLE 5.21 SAMPLE FRP MANUFACTURER'S REPORTED SYSTEM PROPERTIES TABLE TABLE 5.22 SAMPLE FRP FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING INPUT/RESULTS TABLE TABLE 5.23 SAMPLE SHEAR STRENGTHENING DESIGN TABLE TABLE B.l CONCRETE COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS TABLEB.2 ULTRA SONIC PULS* VELOCITY TEST VALUES TABLE B.3 REBOUND HAMMER TEST VALUES TABLE B.4 STEEL TENSION TEST SAMPLE-AREA CALCULATION TABLE D UNIVERSAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS INPUT DATA VARIABLES TABLE D.2 BEAM SPECIFIC INPUT DATA VARIABLES TABLE D.3 MOMENT CAPACITY CALCULATION VARIABLE RESULTS TABLE D.4 SHEAR CAPACITY CALCULATION VARIABLE RESULTS TABLE E DEAD/LIVE LOAD CALCUI-ATION VARIABLE RESULTS TABLE G.I MANUFACTURER'S REPORTED FRP SYSTEM PROPERTIES TABLE G.2 FLEXURAL FRP DESIGN VARIABLE SUMMARY TABLE G.3 FRP SHEAR DESIGN VARIABLES-BEAMS AND TABLE G.4 FRP SHEAR DESIGN VARIABLES- BEAMS AND TABLE G.5 FRP SHEAR DESIGN VARIABLES- BEAMS AND - viii - 15 16 52 66 68 69 73 74 76 77 77 77 78 78 87 88 90 90 91 92 94 95 97 99 100 101 102 103 104 104 105 108 109 110 112 113 116 141 14! 141 142 151 152 153 154 159 169 169 170 170 170 CHAPTER - INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation - District (PennDOT-D3) has initiated a program to address the current condition of their concrete T-Beam bridges The district's bridge inventory includes 128 concrete T-Beam bridges built between 1920 and 1960 Deterioration and changing design standards call fc" *hese bridges to be updated to conform to current roadway and bridge design sp*- cations PennDOT - D3 has developed a plan to deal with the pre: •krms posed by these deteriorated concrete T-Beam bridges The plan involves the use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) to strengthen deteriorated bridges in order to improve the load capacity and remove load restrictions on the bridge in a cost effective manner The project has been conducted in three phases Phase-I has been completed and involved examining the technical and economic feasibility of the different options available and developing a selection process for each bridge rehabilitation option The selection process developed in Phase-I involved categorizing concrete T-Beam bridges into one of three levels based on several factors The factors considered when ranking the bridges include: age, span length, average daily traffic and average daily truck traffic (ADT/ADTT), and localized damage based on visual inspection (Brayack, 2005) Phase-II involves performing a bridge condition assessment and preliminary FRP strengthening design This phase required load testing before strengthening to compare - 1- Design FRP Material Properties: Design Ultimate Tensile Strength = ffu - CHf*fit Design Rupture Strain = cjtt = Ci:c*fu f FRP Modulus of Elasticity = E, = — Strengthened Flexural Capacity Calculations: Strengthening Limit = ( ^ J ^ , * - ^ + M , J _ Total Area of Flexural FRP Reinforcement = Af = Aflmt + Arwvh Area of Flexural FRP Reinforcement of Bottom Face of Beam = AfMl — nhtfwJh Area of Flexural FRP Reinforcement of Both Sides of Beam = Afweh = 2njfwfw Distance from the Top of the Deck to the Top of the Flexural FRP on the Sides of the B e a m = ^ / u , ^ = /j-c/ /iv -w /ji , Distance from Top of the Deck to Bottom Edge of Flexural FRP Laminate on Side of Beam=dfa.Mt = h-dlw Effective Area of Flexural FRP Reinforcement = A< ir A ^ I hmiim A eff - ' 'bnimm + A-f weh Y'wehjxillum ^Hyhjoj)) "iwhjop \ Afjaiat J Effective Moment Arm of FRP Reinforcement = deff H-./.A*+ h-d,.h—'-^- I\"l, »«.*£\rh.Uip ) "*" -,Kfli n i I fM*> ! it G**t\ i • A \ T f* GwM,, T, (I* = Strain section corresponding to bottom face FRP laminate = Strain section corresponding to side face FRP laminate at £ jljrougnout the cross section = Strain section corresponding to side face FRP laminate with strain gradient JF J, JL JT = Tension force developed by strain section corresponding to bottom face FRP lurrnnaic = Tension force developed by strain section oornsponding lo side face FRP laninatc at c^tr throughout the cross section = Tension force developed by strain section corresponding to side lace FRP laminate with strain gradient = Tension force developed by strain section corresponding lo side Ihcc FRP laminate with strain gradient X L p = Tension force developed by strain section corresponding to side face FRP taminale with strain gradient Figure FJL Side Flexural FRP Laminate Contribution Diagram -166- Strengthened Shear Capacity Calculations: Strengthening Limit = (^, ( L,„ W > (i -2V0I +0.85K,Jm,H, Effective Depth of FRP Shear Reinforcement = d( — d-ls -dfv ^500 Active Bond Length = Le = •>—'-—^ wArJ" ( r ^ Bond-Reduction Coefficient Compressive Strength Modification Factor = k, = Bond-Reduction Coefficient Wrapping Scheme Modification Factor = k2 for U - wraps d lc = i 'df~L, tlr-lL — i "/ for two sides bonded Bond-Reduction Coefficient = A: = "' ' * < 0.75 468^, Effective Strain = sfv = KVSIU < 0.004 Area of FRP Shear Reinforcement = Afv = 2nvt,wfv Effective Stress in FRP Reinforcement = ffe = £(eEf Shear Contribution of FRP Reinforcement = V =-AiJiMrcssinn Fiber to Neutral Axis, c Nominal Moment Strength *PMm Required Resisting Miimeut Strength «I>M„,, M»* t ^ _ ^ location £*,, location Criti h»ealion iKosus u.tisim 0.0383 11.273 0.O5S5 FRP Failure IlltSSS 0.05,15 FRP Ftiilurc 0.27} FRP Fitilun1 11.1133 FRP Fiiihin1 FKI> tuiiht/Y II II II 0.033 }.4}6 3.4IS 3.4 IX 3.45 0./.S7 7112.1 1I6S.7 1162.1 7111.11 1162.6 1162.1 1162.6 II64.S I163J 7114.7 7IIII OK OK OK OK OK OK OK II U YES -0.11022 OK 2M YES -It.lMtl (in/in) 0.011.1 0.012/1 Mill} II.II12S (iul 41J 42.25 (in) (in) 3MS till •1.625 0.11 '- i ^ II II II 6.1VS c M»t«i Max c FHr II II II II (1 II II II II (in) Service Level Flti* stress check r,,M.>«I>M„,7 Sieel service level stress check f „ < 0.8fv? C|»kUJ" o n 1 11.10 1.50 (ft) (in/in) (in/in) -169 - OK OK OK OK 2.95 YES -11.11011 11.1111} 0.IH2S •12.25 4.625 11.11 1162.6 OK OK OK OK 2.15 YES -n.ua ii 0.01 li 0.1112.1 42.25 OK OK OK OK OK OK 2.15 YES 0.0010 II.IIIIHI OK OK 0.54 YES -0.01)22 0.0113 0.III2S 41.5 4.625 0.0113 42.25 4.625 no 0.0 0.0 3.1SS Strengthened Shear Capacity Variable Results: Table G.3 FRP Shear Design Variablcs- Beams and FRP Shear Reinforcement Design Details Sorlltin )>liii»ntr r m m A l u m w n t (ft) Iklpil V (klp^ Heitiilral SVi'llrrrt ft XrvuVwi » mi so Hniiiln- H U r S t r c n m l i c n t n c V K\klli>i! Beam Bourn MS.: 6X.II : [nicliic»fSirl[t!i (In) VKHC Keiiiitrvri (Ulp»! \'mr (UN I'lfivliltil II.II 0(1 S i r m g i l H - n t ' i l I N V K1* s.xi 5.J? S l n - i i u i l i t f i K ' i l O l ' K UV" 6.41 1.1.1 ("|i«l OK inf.; II.II nu Oil II.II : •; :.:: :.u (l.(» ii.n mi II.II :.S7 s.:: :.w S.sn S.47 :.si S.J7 *.M IVJ « 63.1 7:.n s i Ull 4S 4S m A x X < /A :J 22 M.J :.s 11.1 lfl.4 :s.v :II.O 211.11 II.II 2S S.7 t.uf IMS I.IIS 1.12 1.1,6 I.Tli l.xx 1.77 l.7n 1.7* v.1 0.(1 II.II t.i: 1.14 I.SS I.VII i.s: :.:o ;.«• "." 11.(1 s OK OK OK : OK (kip.) 163.3 227.1 j'ft.y IIV.S tins 711.7 YES YES YES YES YES YES SO 227.1 OK Kfiiulml'' SO Nl.v lklp«) F R P S h e e K ill- S c c i t a n M.S SO ii.t :: 11.11 I4.X ::7. :.:» - « x.x /.'/).» II.II s.x /A " •IS 1.13 4.X A.i.O (In) II.II 2* ft/ " degree*) 1.32 h US * 7I.S / (Up«>- II.II * 7S.S / iVnvlriett H-I.S s (In) t limn ((•men) SlrctifitUcnnl I N V K F Streclluntctl V > V V V \ « "(! ' /« so (In) V Slre-ncttielieil S h e a r C a p a c l i v WW t> 7J.II |U|«) IJnill ••••'.' VcVtHlrt s J 7/ V KLi|iilrc«t KRP S l i w r Contribution ' :.« ,vo S.1.V VFHr v w Beam StVtilMI |{«1iiirc KRI'Slrcngthcning V Beam < OK 11.11 on IS 2.2,1 S.Sfi S.t.7 /ft S.i ins 1.76 s 211 •/ OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK IfiS.S ::7.*J 227.1 2M.1 m.s IIU S 7.1.3 67.11 YES YES V»" YES YES YES YES YES Table G.5 FRP Shear Design Variables- Beams and FRP Shear Reinforcement Design Details Section DKIunct' frnin Atlunicnl (ft) V K\Nlinc V Kci|llirctl l"KI" » t r i p l e n g t h Art1«>tt Vf-crflM! j II.II II ' '.A J so SO SO SO MS.S 227.1 Z;T.V Uti.V (U|») 136.1) 141.1 IMS 1211.11 (In) n ft fjt V.S U.X II.II IIS 2.f> S.X X.X I4.X YES YES so SO SO SO SO YES YES SO YES SJ " 7X.S IliS.S ::7.» 227.1 216.1 1S.S X4.S 7X.S 6I.S m.: Iinl.ii 7I.S ISn 141.1 I.UI4 I2II.I IIS urn 7I.S 631 Sf.v 7I S (kln«> R e q u i r e KKI* SlreiiqlticiiHir, Beam Beam 2 ".' " (1 JIYCN) s iVni*l? o f I ' r h n a r v K l b e r O r l v i i t a l i u n (decree*) •IS •IS (in) X X It, -v -V CVnter-lii-Cenlcr enticing o f Slrip* VV W :; (In) Required lklp»> Provltlcit (kln»> 10.9 M.J Slrm^llienwJ I N V UK u: -.".» :n.a 1.13 : is 2.:n ins 1.IIS t.i: Strcuu.thcm.-d O l ' R HI* 2.211 3.22 Sin ".07 (.7ft 1.76 I XX (klp«) OK OK OK OK OK ; OK (kip.) 163.3 "7.V "?.» ZtnM YES YES \\ttr DM 0.11 nu mi r'ttr Sheet* in Section KKI' Sliviir C o n t r i b u t i o n Limit Slrcn^tncncil Shear Capucltv Strccjliencil V > V Kenitlrcil? YF.S YES II II.II II.II ii.o i.s: "a IS ll'J.S - 170 YES OK OK OK 7.1 " YES M.II JES_ jtw_; YES 7I.X S M.S 7:.,, > S 4S 4.S in X X 22 M 24 11.1 /A.J 2.6 2S.1 2ll.ll on rt.il II.II I.VS 2.IS 2.211 I.IIS I.IIS 1.12 114 s.:: S.sr< !.ft7 /.7ft I.7S l.xx 74 OK OK s YES SSI Nmnbi'riif K R r lavvrxMrlji Strip WWII J ::7.v YES OK OK 227.1 YES M l YES f OK OK 4.7 •- IIV.3 1114 7X.S 66.11 YES YES »:%" ,ES APPENDIX H: PROPOSED FRP STRENGTHENING DESIGN DRAWINGS -171 - & • I L-r i i I ! I i i :! -3 —w ! : i ! i ^-r' L| ; SiI ! i I : -3;S; Cczr g is Hi in A JIN' SUM NMIttMDMlANlCltNiY.I'AINA ** |t>1 INS) J' VW1HNS1HHAM1 t t t ' r t N T K -172- !•! i SiSiS; MM ' - T '< L.1 & It-l i L'a i-«ss !i ! ! I ; a Ol •5C! I I I Ij l s II Si* HJIN^IN f r*WI|IM»jn.AMlCt»JKIY.miM ii:itoi r»SHWnn , "*"t»«K«(IlliXiMLV*H«i\Mll»«h -175- :>ie il m to3 !-»£i$' ?f*g! 8:« §1 CSQ S#53| '51 JiM-.Jm *»N itN-3m !«?, It«IK3J itw*»nsK*>t;m»n •€&»!• MKIIIMtlJd^WKIiNfV.MlN* * r>.*«Mnacxri>ib«t-tfljsM*i»NrK -176- ^ til hs :i «c & ll