Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

49
1

Transcript of Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Page 1: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

1

Page 2: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Leonardo RamosResearch Assistant

Francisco De Caso Principal Scientist

Antonio NanniProfessor and Chair

Roger SolisResearch Assistant

Ana De DiegoResearch Analyst

Juan Manuel PalaciosResearch Assistant

Miguel GonzalezResearch Assistant

2

Page 3: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

āž¢ Multi-manufacturer testing database: build experimental and guaranteed material results

āž¢ Normalize and standardize test methods, data analysis, and material specification data sheets: contents and procedures;

āž¢ Parameter relationships development, by studying relationshipsbetween physico-mechanical parameters and use experimental data for validation

āž¢ Improve minimum requirements by experimental evidence

āž¢ Develop QC testing protocols (New scope)

āž¢ Validate element test protocols (New scope)

SPONSORS: Arkema, Creative Pultrusions, ACMA, Galen, Structural Technologies, Structural RS, Owens Corning Infrastructure, QuakeWrap, Simpson Strong-Tie, LiteForm Technologies, TUF-N-LITE, Miller & Long Company

3

Page 4: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

4

Page 5: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

5

Page 6: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

6

Page 7: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Addition: Evaluation and significance of horizontal shear strength for QC/QA ASTM D4475

7

Page 8: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Co

ncr

ete

Blo

ck

ā€¢ Direct Double Shear Testaimed at generating interfacial shear stress between concrete substrate and externally-bonded FRP

ā€¢ Enhancement given by FRP anchor analyzed in terms of peak load compared to specimens w/o anchor

ā€¢ Deformation and strain achieved by FRP laminate provide higher level of effectiveness when compared to specimens w/o anchor

8

Page 9: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

9

Page 10: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Internal FRP applications

āž¢ Specs to higher available characteristic values

āž¢ Glass and basalt FRP bars show equivalent performance and thus specifications

āž¢Manufacturing QC/QA practice is needed

āž¢Tests and specifications applied to bent portion of bar is pending

āž¢Example of the process from certification to field use for an FRP bar being developed:

āž¢Certification

āž¢Qualification

āž¢Quality assurance

10

Page 11: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

External FRP applications

āž¢Witness panel testing best practices need to be defined

āž¢Characterization of FRP feasible for different types of anchorage systems

āž¢Increase in load capacity with anchors of more than 30%

āž¢Need to develop relationships to include multi-scale modeling for anchor testing

āž¢Specimen preparation guidelines and standardization needed

11

Page 12: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

12

Page 13: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

13

Page 14: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Antonio NanniProfessor and Chair

Francisco De Caso Principal Scientist

Roger SolisResearch Assistant

Ana De DiegoResearch Analyst

14

Page 15: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

āž¢ Validate service life using accelerated test data and compare with real-life exposed samples

āž¢ Validate strength reduction factors adding value to composites durability and specifications

SPONSORS: Arkema, Miller & Long Company, Structural Technologies, Simpson Strong-Tie, ACMA, Galan, QuakeWrap, Tokyo Rope, Structural RS, TUF-N-LITE LLC, Owens Corning Infrastructure, Basalt Engineering LLC, Bluegrass Composites, Inc.

15

Page 16: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Evaluation of applicability of Arrhenius Model

š‘˜ = š“š‘’āˆ’šøš‘Žš‘…š‘‡ š‘™š‘›

1

š‘˜=

šøš‘Ž

š‘…

1

š‘‡āˆ’ š‘™š‘› š“

Where:K rate constant, [mol/(L s)] T Absolute temperature, [K]A Arrhenius factor (constant for every chemical reaction), [L/(mol s)]R universal gas constant, [J/(mol K)]Ea activation energy for the reaction happening, [J/mol]

16

Page 17: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Tensile strength & E modulus

(ASTM D7205)

Horizontal shear strength

(ASTM D4475)

Bond strength

(ASTM D7913)

Transverse shear strength

(ASTM D7617)

17

Page 18: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Tensile test post alkaline exposure without load

Tensile test post alkaline exposure with load

18

Page 19: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

ACI 440.1RLimit = 70%

Prediction based on tensile strength retention

19

Page 20: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Exposures >20,000 hrsāž¢ Salt Water (Immersion 73ĀŗF )

āž¢ Ultraviolet Resistance (4 hrs @140ĀŗF FS 40 UV-B - 85%)

āž¢ Alkalinity (Immersion pH=12.5- 73ĀŗF )

āž¢ Water Resistance (100% RH, 100ĀŗF)

āž¢ Dry Heat (0% RH, 140ĀŗF)

āž¢ Freeze and Thaw cycles

Accelerated conditioning protocols include (on going):

Testsāž¢Direct Tension

āž¢Interlaminar Shear

āž¢Lap Splice

āž¢Shear Bond

āž¢Tg

20

Page 21: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Degradation in accelerated seawater exposure is bar dependent

Bars retain 70 % of the tensile strength capacity (ACI 440.1R-15 limit)

Durability models should be calibrated with data from in-service structures

21

Page 22: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Results indicate reduction in tensile strength of 2.13% over a period of 17 years of service corresponding to drop in strength of 12.5% over a period of 100 years (degradation rate assumed linear)

22

Page 23: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Microscopic visual surface evaluation reveals no significant degradation post 10,000 hrs. exposure

Strength retention within existing spec limits

Use of composites in aggressive environments (e.g., oil industry) growing

23

Page 24: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

24

Page 25: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

25

Page 26: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Christian SteputatGraduate Student

Antonio NanniProfessor and Chair

Francisco De Caso Principal Scientist

Nafiseh KianiGraduate Student

Hossein Roghani Graduate Student

26

Page 27: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Monitor and learn during the in-situ implementation of FRP in coastal structures

Identify knowledge gaps and barriers to implementation from a pre-, during-, and post-project processes

Validate design protocols in infrastructure and residential construction projects

āž¢ Resources support development of: a) FDOT fast-facts to disseminate easily accessible information; and, b) course content and training tools (NEW Scope)

āž¢ Define and Measure procurement and construction parameters that

differ between composites and traditional reinforcement (NEW Scope)

SPONSORs: ACMA, Galan, TUF-N-LITE LLC, Owens Corning Infrastructure, Basalt Engineering LLC, Bluegrass Composites, Inc. LiteForm Technologies, Miller & Long Co.

27

Page 28: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Three-span IBIS-Waterway Bridge with CIP Continuous Flat-Slab, CIP-Caps, Precast Panels and PC-Piles (two with GFRP)

28

Page 29: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

ā€¢ Casting of PC piles at Gates, Jacksonville

ā€¢ Coiled No. 4 GFRP bars utilized as tendons

ā€¢ GFRP un-coiled and spliced with seven-wire steel strand prior to stressing

29

Page 30: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

30

May 1, 2021

Mode I

Bridge average natural frequency 17.5 Hz (Mode 1)

Frequency Testing

Page 31: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

ā€¢ Cannot be bent at fabricator or in-situ (e.g., stirrups are pre-

bent at pultruderā€™s)

ā€¢ Longer development lengths

ā€¢ Low transverse strength

ā€¢ >> Splicing of GFRP bars with mechanical couplers<<

31

Page 32: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Lap splices

āœ“ Cause congestion at splice

locations

āœ“ Long lap length function of bar

diameter

Mechanical couplers

āœ“ Reduce congestion in heavily

reinforced elements

āœ“Allow staged construction

32

Page 33: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Outcome

Tension transferred between two

bars through swaged sleeve

Purpose

Investigate the feasibility of

splicing No.4 GFRP bars

Installation

Swaged coupler installed by

deforming a steel sleeve onto the

bar ends with hydraulic press

33

Page 34: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Swaged Coupler

PC Applications

Used at precast plants

for splicing FRP bars or

strands with steel

strands

34

Many Remaining challenges

Coupler material, deformation pressure, and length of

coupler

Page 35: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

ā€¢ Define minimum FRP reinforcement requirements (AC521)

ā€¢ Verify spacing and minimum area of reinforcement

ā€¢ Implement and adapt existing ASTM methods

ā€¢ Crack quantificationā€¢ Experimentally measure and evaluate

crack formation

35

Page 36: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Lunch and Learn sessions

Half- and Full- day design training courses

Webinars

Design aids and examples

Certificates (PDHs)

36

Page 37: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Projects with deployment of FRP RC and PC elements increasing and being studied

Work in progress to overcome remaining challenges such as mechanical splices

FRP secondary reinforcement for flat work and temperature/shrinkage crack control

Development of tools and tech transfer resources

37

Page 38: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

38

Page 39: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

39

Page 40: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Antonio NanniProfessor and

Chair

Francisco De Caso Principal Scientist

40

Nafiseh KianiGraduate Student

Roberto Rodriguez Graduate Student

Page 41: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

āž¢ Expand existing guides/standards to include all possible FRP-RC applications (i.e., design a bridge entirely GFRP reinforced)

āž¢ Update existing provisions to reflect better materials and manufacturing(i.e., make design & construction more efficient and economical) with support of structural testing

āž¢ Harmonize with national (ACI, ASTM, AASHTO, ICC-ES), and international (CSA, fib, AFGC) documents (i.e., ease material certification and design; enlarge market and facilitate deployment)

āž¢ Develop guides to bridge knowledge gaps allowing further implementation of composites into infrastructure

41

SPONSORS: Arkema, ACMA, Galan, TUF-N-LITE LLC, Owens Corning Infrastructure,

Basalt Engineering LLC, Bluegrass Composites, Inc, Miller & Long Company

Page 42: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

āž¢ ICC-ES AC521 (Proponent)

āž¢ ICC-ES AC454, 2020 (Revision Contributor)

āž¢ FDOT, Dev 932 and 933, 2020 (Contributor)

āž¢ ASTM D7957 Revision (Task Group Lead)

āž¢ ACI 440.2R (Basalt FRP) (Proponent)

āž¢ AASHTO GFRP-RC (Contributor)

āž¢ TMS 402 Appendix D (Contributor)

42

Page 43: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Differentiation between straight and bent bars

Performance-based provisions with addition of other resins and fibers

Inclusion of high-modulus and higher strength requirements

Editorial changes

43

Page 44: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

44

Schematic of Solider Pile/Battered Pile Wall System

and Modeling ApproachNCHRP IDEA Project 207

Partially prestressed = combine GFRP tendons and GFRP bars

Hybrid = combine steel tendons and GFRP bars

Fully Prestressed = GFRP tendons

Page 45: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Pile Configurations for concrete strength f ā€™c = 6,000 psi with 0.6ā€ diameter GFRP or steel strands

āž¢ (a) Partially Prestressed with GFRP strands and #8 GFRP bars

āž¢ (b) Hybrid with a 5-in clear cover for steel strands and GFRP bars

āž¢ (c) Fully Prestressed with GFRP strands

45

Page 46: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

P-M Diagrams for Existing and Proposed Pile Configurations(a) Existing FDOT PC with carbon steel, stainless steel and

CFRP strands (b) Partially prestressed GFRP piles

GFRP-PC Concrete Piles for Seawalls

46

Page 47: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

Strength of partially, hybrid and fully prestressed piles sufficient in resisting lateral load from bulkhead

Drivability of short GFRP-PC piles feasible for installation lengths less than 30 ft

Hybrid and fully prestressed configurations need further evaluated

47

Preliminary Conclusions: GFRP-PC Piles

GRLPWEAP 2010: Tension and Compression Stresses as a Function

of Relative Ram Weight

Page 48: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

āž¢ Continuing development of FRP specs

āž¢ Safe and cost-competitive design

āž¢ Harmonization and update of properties

āž¢ New applications

Dreaming is nice, butā€¦

Adoption

makes it real!!!

48

Page 49: Strength and Fatigue-Life Prediction of Composites

49