Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 33
33
Figure 2.16. Strain variations along principal direction of
critical FRP sheet.
ments) for calculating Vf based on the comparisons of the FRP ance. Models 3, 9, 13, and 14 also demonstrated similar per-
contributions predicted by each model to the experimentally formance across a broad range in categories.
measured FRP contributions as reported in the database.
Table 2.10 presents the average ratio of the shear strength pro-
2.8 Suggestions for Improved
vided by FRP reinforcement (Vf,test/Vf), the COV, and the num-
Design Methods
ber of beams used in calculating this average for 13 segments
of the experimental dataset. Vf,test is the experimentally mea- The statistical assessment of the performance of models
sured strength of a test beam with FRP reinforcement minus the for Vf determined that the following five models provide
experimentally measured strength of the corresponding (con- the lowest COV across a wide range of segments of the
trol) beam without FRP reinforcement, and Vf is the strength database:
calculated from each model. The first segment is the entire
dataset of "all beams;" the second set contains only those test · Model 3 (Triantafillou and Antonopoulos, 2000)
results considered appropriate for calibrating provisions to be · Model 9 (Chen and Teng, 2003a and 2003b)
used in codes of practice including the AASHTO LRFD Bridge · Model 13, (Cao et al., 2005)
Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2008). This action reduced · Model 14, (Zhang and Hsu, 2005)
the potential number of available test results from 324 to 251. · Model 18 (fib-TG 9.3, 2001 and Triantafillou and Antono-
These results were further separated into segments according poulos, 2000)
to the Mode of Failure (MoF), the use of steel shear reinforce-
ment (No Av or With Av), and by combinations of these two. Based on the review of these models, a Vf model that includes
It was apparent that within each segment, there was a large the following features would be appropriate for incorporation
variation in the average strength ratio, and generally, the into the LRFD specifications (AASHTO, 2008):
COVs are large because the models were derived to provide a
best fit with a relatively small number of tests, and there is a · axial stiffness of FRP reinforcement (f Ef)
very wide range in types and effectiveness of FRP including · compressive strength of concrete (fc)
stiffness (Ef), ultimate strength (ffu), means of application, · mode of failure (debonding or rupture)
anchorage, orientation, and other factors. Therefore, the · type of FRP application (full wrap, side bonding, or
individual models would perform better (reasonable strength U-wrap)
ratio and lower COV) for some segments of the test data than · development length available for FRP (Le)
others. For example, the model by Khalifa et al., (1998) shows · bond strength between FRP and concrete (max)
COV of 1.47 and 0.48 for members with observed rupture
failures without and with steel shear reinforcement, respec- For use in design the Vf model must also consider the
tively. Relationships for Vf in codes and guidelines are expected following:
to consider a wide range of test results with a uniform average
strength ratio and COV across all segments of the test data. 1. Complexity of Relationship for Evaluation. The major-
Model (fib-TG9.3, 2001) exhibited the most uniform perform- ity of available models for Vf are much more complex than
OCR for page 34
34
Table 2.10. Statistical evaluation of strength ratios Vf,test/Vf,model by test beam type.
Khalifa and Nanni
Monti and Liotta
Hutchinson and
Triantafillou and
Chen and Teng
Al-Sulaimani et
Zhang and Hsu
Saadatmanesh
Pellegrino and
Pellegrino and
Antonopoulos
Chaallal et al.
Deniaud and
Khalifa et al.
Chajes et al.
Carolin and
CSA S806
Malek and
fib-TG9.3
Cao et al.
Hsu et al.
Affiliation
ACI 440
Modena
Modena
Rizkalla
Taljsten
Cheng
Model
JSCE
al.
Year 1994 1995 2000 1998 1998 2000 1999 2002 2003a,b 2002 2003 2001 2005 2005 2005b 2005 2006 2001 2001 2002 2008
Model # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1.) All Beams
Mean 0.23 1.10 0.84 0.34 1.46 1.49 1.90 1.16 1.68 3.56 1.30 8.39 0.75 1.19 1.15 1.67 0.41 1.24 0.52 1.46 1.65
COV 0.67 1.05 1.10 0.81 1.05 1.03 1.01 0.77 0.64 2.29 0.89 1.71 0.71 0.59 0.81 0.75 0.73 0.60 0.76 0.99 0.96
Num 324 324 324 324 315 317 324 324 324 244 244 324 324 324 324 324 324 317 324 324 317
2.) All "Valid" Beams (those used in LRFD Vf Model Calibration)
Mean 0.25 1.23 0.98 0.38 1.53 1.57 2.10 1.18 1.83 3.24 1.39 9.30 0.78 1.30 1.25 1.84 0.44 1.35 0.57 1.61 1.78
COV 0.62 0.94 0.56 0.73 0.97 0.95 0.91 0.60 7.57 1.34 0.89 1.71 0.57 0.53 0.73 0.66 0.67 0.50 0.66 0.89 0.88
Num 251 251 251 251 244 244 251 251 251 187 187 251 251 251 251 251 251 244 251 251 244
3.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Rupture
Mean 0.24 0.88 0.81 0.32 1.25 1.32 1.53 1.07 1.48 2.73 1.35 8.85 0.62 1.22 1.08 1.58 0.38 1.17 0.48 1.18 1.35
COV 0.69 0.70 0.38 0.69 0.57 0.69 0.68 0.62 0.45 1.16 0.79 1.33 0.52 0.44 0.69 0.51 0.63 0.43 0.59 0.67 0.61
Num 126 126 126 126 125 125 126 126 126 94 94 126 126 126 126 126 126 125 126 126 125
4.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Debonding
Mean 0.22 1.60 1.19 0.49 2.14 2.07 2.73 1.43 2.23 4.85 1.92 15.70 1.01 1.64 1.65 2.31 0.56 1.58 0.73 2.09 2.36
COV 0.45 1.00 0.62 0.77 1.18 1.18 0.96 0.67 0.57 1.31 1.03 1.63 0.49 0.56 0.77 0.73 0.73 0.48 0.72 0.94 1.00
Num 61 61 61 61 58 58 61 61 61 40 40 61 61 61 61 61 61 58 61 61 58
5.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Other
Mean 0.30 1.55 1.12 0.37 1.51 1.62 2.63 1.18 2.12 2.91 1.05 4.08 0.89 1.15 1.23 1.89 0.42 1.52 0.58 2.00 2.10
COV 0.53 0.82 0.53 0.56 0.72 0.66 0.80 0.66 0.54 1.35 0.35 1.29 0.53 0.52 0.56 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.55 0.78 0.73
Num 64 64 64 64 61 61 64 64 64 53 53 64 64 64 64 64 64 61 64 64 61
6.) "Valid" Beams: No Av
Mean 0.30 1.48 1.14 0.41 1.74 1.92 2.54 1.01 2.06 1.89 1.22 4.31 0.83 1.23 1.36 1.89 0.47 1.49 0.62 1.94 2.15
COV 0.61 1.00 0.59 0.77 1.16 1.04 0.97 0.53 0.58 1.08 0.76 1.21 0.56 0.41 0.77 0.68 0.70 0.44 0.69 0.95 0.96
Num 114 114 114 114 108 108 114 114 114 108 108 114 114 114 114 114 114 108 114 114 108
7.) "Valid" Beam: With Av
Mean 0.21 1.01 0.85 0.35 1.36 1.30 1.74 1.33 1.63 5.08 1.62 13.45 0.74 1.37 1.16 1.80 0.41 1.25 0.52 1.33 1.48
COV 0.54 0.71 0.44 0.67 0.58 0.62 0.68 0.70 0.51 1.13 0.96 1.49 0.56 0.59 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.53 0.61 0.67 0.62
Num 137 137 137 137 136 136 137 137 137 79 79 137 137 137 137 137 137 136 137 137 136
8.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Debonding: No Av
Mean 0.31 0.82 0.87 0.30 1.38 1.62 1.43 0.91 1.53 1.42 1.18 5.21 0.63 1.22 1.00 1.62 0.39 1.27 0.47 1.10 1.42
COV 0.71 0.77 0.40 0.73 0.65 0.74 0.75 0.47 0.49 0.65 0.52 0.77 0.57 0.40 0.73 0.55 0.71 0.42 0.60 0.75 0.67
Num 47 47 47 47 46 46 47 47 47 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 46 47 47 46
9.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Rupture: No Av
Mean 0.22 1.95 1.36 0.57 2.45 2.55 3.33 1.10 2.37 2.67 1.53 5.62 0.94 1.34 1.90 2.08 0.62 1.61 0.79 2.55 2.88
COV 0.39 1.09 0.73 0.86 1.47 1.35 1.05 0.61 0.67 1.34 1.06 1.50 0.60 0.43 0.86 0.90 0.78 0.54 0.84 1.03 1.13
Num 29 29 29 29 26 26 29 29 29 26 26 29 29 29 29 29 29 26 29 29 26
10.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Other: No Av
Mean 0.33 1.96 1.30 0.42 1.68 1.84 3.31 1.05 2.48 1.93 1.05 2.20 1.01 1.16 1.40 2.07 0.45 1.69 0.66 2.51 2.56
COV 0.50 0.67 0.43 0.33 0.69 0.60 0.65 0.48 0.42 0.64 0.30 0.48 0.41 0.38 0.33 0.51 0.36 0.32 0.37 0.64 0.64
Num 38 38 38 38 36 36 38 38 38 36 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 36 38 38 36
11.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Debonding: With Av
Mean 0.19 0.92 0.77 0.34 1.17 1.14 1.59 1.16 1.44 3.99 1.52 11.02 0.61 1.22 1.12 1.56 0.38 1.11 0.48 1.22 1.31
COV 0.50 0.65 0.36 0.66 0.49 0.55 0.64 0.65 0.42 0.99 0.89 1.28 0.48 0.46 0.66 0.48 0.57 0.43 0.58 0.63 0.55
Num 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 48 48 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79
12.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Rupture: With Av
Mean 0.22 1.28 1.03 0.43 1.89 1.68 2.19 1.72 2.11 8.91 2.64 24.84 1.07 1.91 1.42 2.51 0.51 1.56 0.66 1.68 1.94
COV 0.50 0.57 0.32 0.53 0.48 0.57 0.54 0.62 0.42 0.92 0.89 1.27 0.39 0.56 0.53 0.59 0.62 0.43 0.48 0.52 0.53
Num 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 14 14 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
13.) "Valid" Beams: MoF = Other: With Av
Mean 0.27 0.96 0.86 0.29 1.26 1.30 1.63 1.36 1.60 5.00 1.07 6.82 0.72 1.13 0.97 1.63 0.38 1.28 0.47 1.25 1.44
COV 0.56 0.97 0.64 0.89 0.73 0.73 0.93 0.76 0.69 1.24 0.44 1.07 0.69 0.69 0.89 0.83 0.67 0.74 0.80 0.90 0.77
Num 26 26 26 26 25 25 26 26 26 17 17 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 26 26 25
