Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract: This research project demonstrates how advanced composite materials can be used to strengthen existing timber bridge beams
in order to increase the load capacity of the bridge. Many times, the timber bridges were not designed to withstand the heavy truck traffic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that they are currently carrying, and are therefore replaced in favor of modern concrete or steel bridges. Current methods of strengthening
timber bridges are not always practical or economical and so these bridges are simply replaced at a high cost to the public. This project
investigated whether applying composites in the form of either a fabric wrap or laminate strips to timber beams would increase the load
capacity of the beams. Bidirectional carbon fabric was the primary strengthening material used. A total of 10 solid-sawn Douglas Fir
timber beams were taken from a timber stringer bridge in Yuma, Ariz. that was replaced in 1999. Seven of the 10 creosote-treated beams
were reinforced with carbon fiber and then tested for bending strength, shear strength, and stiffness. Three of the beams were tested as
unreinforced control specimens. The results show that applying carbon fabric to the timber beams provides significant increases in the
bending and shear capacity, and nominal increases in the stiffness of the beams. Allowable stress modification factors are conceptually
discussed that could potentially be used by engineers to determine the safe load-carrying capacity of beams reinforced with carbon fiber.
However, a statistically significant number of timber beams strengthened with carbon fiber need to be tested to arrive at definitive stress
modification factors.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(173)
CE Database subject headings: Bridges, wooden; Beams; Fibers; Composite materials; Reinforcement.
Introduction loads have increased since the bridges were built. It is common to
see bridges that were designed for a 134 kN 共15 ton兲 truck now
The first bridges ever built were most likely built of timber, one having to be rehabilitated in order to carry the more modern
of the oldest building materials known to man. Steel and concrete tractor-trailer rig which has a design load of 320 kN 共36 t兲.
replaced wood as the major building material for bridge construc- Due to budget constraints of the agencies responsible for the
tion in the 20th century, however, in the 21st century, wood is still maintenance and replacement of bridges, it is not feasible to re-
being used for many short-span bridges. Of bridges in the United place every deficient bridge. There are many deficient timber
States that have a span of more than 6.1 m 共20 ft兲, approximately bridges on rural roads that are owned by small agencies that do
7% (or 40,380) are made of timber. In addition, another 7.3% of not have the money for major bridge rehabilitation or replacement
the bridges have timber decks supported by steel stringers and projects. The major priority of these bridge owners is not to
are, therefore, classified as steel bridges (Duwadi and Ritter strengthen the bridges so that they meet all AASHTO standards
1997). “In the Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) and carry HS20 共320 kN, 36 t兲 trucks, but simply to strengthen
alone, approximately 7,500 timber bridges are in use, and more the bridges so that school buses can cross them twice a day.
are being built each year. The railroads have more than 1,500 The method that was studied in this project was that of
miles of timber bridges and trestles in service” (Ou and Weller strengthening timber bridge stringers with advanced fiber com-
1986). It has been estimated that more than 110,000 bridges in the posites. Fiber composites were originally developed for the aero-
United States are structurally deficient and are in need of major space industry but are now becoming more widely used for reha-
repairs, and that another 51,000 are functionally obsolete, that is, bilitation of civil engineering projects. Fiber-composite laminates
they have narrow widths, poor clearances, and dangerous ap- can be epoxy-bonded to the underside of concrete and steel beams
proaches. It is also estimated that 150 bridge failures occur in the to increase the stiffness and tensile strength of the beams (Saadat-
United States each year (NCHRP Report 222 1980). A major manesh and Ehsani 1991; Saadatmanesh 1994). Concrete col-
contributing factor to structurally deficient bridges is that vehicle umns can be wrapped with fiber composites to improve the col-
umn’s ductility and load capacity during seismic events
1
Structural Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc., 378 North Main Ave., (Saadatmanesh et al. 1994, 1996, 1997). Fiber composites were
Tucson, AZ 85701. investigated to reinforce wood as early as 1964 when E. J. Biblis
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, tested very small beams that were faced with fiberglass. Theak-
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. ston (1965) performed a feasibility study for reinforcing timber
Note. Associate Editor: David V. Rosowsky. Discussion open until beams with fiberglass. Spaun (1981) undertook a study to inves-
June 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa- tigate the potential of fiberglass reinforcement to improve the ten-
pers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be
sile strength and bending stiffness of wood members. Plevris and
filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on June 21, 2002; approved Triantafillou (1992) investigated wood beams that were rein-
on June 23, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi- forced with non-prestressed carbon sheets and Triantafillou and
neering, Vol. 131, No. 1, January 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/ Deskivic (1992) investigated wood beams that were reinforced
2005/1-173–187/$25.00. with prestressed carbon sheets. Dorey and Cheng (1996) investi-
The timber stringers used for this project were taken from the
Avenue 22E Bridge in Yuma County, Ariz. The Avenue 22E
Bridge, Structure No. 8394, crossed the Wellton Mohawk Main
Channel between County 8th Street and 9th Street. Avenue 22E is
a two lane gravel road, one lane in each direction, that is used
mainly for hauling agricultural products from the fields to the
markets and moving farm equipment between fields. This bridge
was a good example of a typical timber stringer bridge located on
a rural farm road that could be found almost anywhere in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Cross section of the Avenue 22E Bridge over the Wellton Mohawk Main Channel, Structure No. 8394
19%. The load duration factor CD is equal to 1.33 since the test
duration is less than 1 day. The size factor CF is equal to 0.95 for
these 483 mm 共19 in.兲 deep test specimens. Finally the shear
stress factor CH is equal to 1.0 since the length of splits and
Fig. 3. Timber stringers removed from the Avenue 22E Bridge sit on checks were more than 1.5 times the dimension of the narrow
a flat-bed truck at the University of Arizona, February 1999 face.
The allowable bending stress Fb⬘ equals the tabulated bending
stress times C M , CD, and CF
of the typical stringers removed from the bridge. The unit weight, F⬘b = FbC M CDCF = 11,790 kPa 共1,710 psi兲 共1兲
moisture content, and specific gravity of the beams were approxi-
mately 4.71 kN/ m3 共30 lb/ ft3兲, 9%, and 0.45, respectively. The The allowable shear stress F⬘v equals the tabulated shear stress
beams had been incised and pressure treated with creosote. The times C M , CD, and CH
1
penetration of the creosote was between 13 and 25 mm ( 2 and
F⬘v = FvC M CDCH = 779 kPa 共113 psi兲 共2兲
1 in.) on a consistent basis. Knowing that the beams are Douglas
Fir, one can estimate the material properties of the wood from The allowable modulus of elasticity is the tabulated modulus
past research. One of the most thorough studies on the material of elasticity times C M
properties of wood was reported in a paper entitled “Strength and
E⬘ = EC M = 11,032 MPa 共1,600 psi兲 共3兲
Related Properties of Woods Grown in the United States.” This
paper was published in 1935 by the United States Department of As shown, the allowable design stresses for our beams are
Agriculture (USDA) as Technical Bulletin No. 479 (Markwardt significantly lower than the average ultimate values given in
and Wilson 1935). The study reports the average material proper- Table 1 for small clear wood specimens. The allowable design
ties for 116 hardwoods and 53 softwoods. Over 250,000 tests value for bending is only 21% of the average stress at the propor-
were made on small clear test specimens and the results were tional limit for small clear specimens and the allowable design
reported for two moisture contents, green and dry. Dry wood was value for shear is only 10% of the average shear strength of a
considered to be at a moisture content of 12%. The small clear small clear wood specimen. This illustrates how the presence of
test specimens were 51 mm⫻ 51 mm⫻ 762 mm 共2 in.⫻ 2 in. defects that occur in full-size timber beams reduce the allowable
⫻ 30 in.兲 long. The material properties most important from this stress that can safely be applied to the beams.
technical bulletin are the moisture content, stress at proportional
limit, modulus of rupture, modulus of elasticity, and shear parallel
Carbon Fiber and Epoxy Matrix
to grain (horizontal shear) for Douglas Fir Coast Type. These
values are listed in Table 1. Forty-six lineal meters (50 lineal yards) of bidirectional carbon
The beams for the Avenue 22E Timber Bridge will fail prior to fabric was used in this study. The fabric weighed
reaching the average stresses listed in Table 1 because, unlike 1 , 378.9 g / m2 共40 oz/ yd2兲, a relatively heavy fabric, and was
small clear specimens, they have strength reducing defects. The 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide.
203 mm⫻ 483 mm⫻ 9.1 m 共8 in.⫻ 19 in.⫻ 30 ft兲 long beams The fabric was made of a yarn that had 50,000 carbon fila-
have over 456 times more wood than the small clear specimens. ments per tow. A tow is defined as a bundle of more than 10,000
Based on the amount of defects such as knots, checks, splits, etc. filaments. It had a warp of 4 and a fill of 5. Warp and fill are terms
the beams would most likely be classified as grade No. 1 accord- associated with bidirectional fabric. A warp of 4 means that there
ing to the grading rules of the West Coast Lumber Inspection are 4 tows per in. of the fabric in the machine direction. The ma-
Table 1. Average Strength Properties of Small, Clear Douglas Fir Specimens (Markwardt and Wilson 1935, Table 21)
Moisture Specific Stress at Shear parallel
Species content gravity proportional limit Modulus of rupture Modulus of elasticity to grain
Douglas Fir (coast type) 12% 0.51 55, 848 kPa共8 , 100 psi兲 80, 669 kPa 共11, 700 psi兲 13, 238 MPa 共1 , 920 ksi兲 7 , 860 kPa 共1 , 140 psi兲
Table 2. Design Values for Douglas-Fir Beams and Stringers (AASHTO 1996)
Tension parallel Shear parallel Compression parallel Modulus
Species and grade Bending 共Fb兲 to grain to grain 共Fv兲 to grain of elasticity 共E兲
Douglas Fir no. 1 9 , 308 kPa 共1 , 350 psi兲 4 , 654 kPa 共675 psi兲 586 kPa 共85 psi兲 6 , 378 kPa 共925 psi兲 11, 032 MPa 共1 , 600 ksi兲
chine direction is the direction that the fabric is fed out of the tested in the same manner as the fiber-composite fabric coupons.
machine during manufacture and is parallel to the longitudinal The carbon laminate had an average failure stress of approxi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 05/20/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
axis of the fabric. A fill of 5 means that there are 5 tows per in. in mately 2 , 068 MPa 共300 ksi兲 at a strain of 1.2% and a modulus of
the direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of the fabric. For elasticity of approximately 137, 895 MPa 共20, 000 ksi兲.
this fabric, the tows in the fill direction are 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲
long. Since there are 4 tows per in. in the warp direction and
5 tows per in. in the fill direction, then the fabric can be classified Test Procedures and Experimental Techniques
as 44% / 56% bidirectional carbon fabric. Also, the strength of the
fabric is theoretically 25% stronger in the fill direction since there The timber beams were tested in four-point loading in general
are 25% more tows per in. in the fill direction than in the warp conformance with ASTM Standard D 198 “Standard test methods
direction. The weave pattern was a 2 / 2 twill. This means that of static tests of lumber in structural sizes.” This standard was
each tow is woven under two tows and then over two tows. The originally published in 1927 to be used primarily for sawn mate-
thickness of 2.08 mm 共0.082 in.兲 is the thickness of the fabric rial such as solid wood bridge stringers and joists. The beams
when it is compressed under a pressure of approximately were tested in bending and shear to determine their ultimate
6.89 kPa 共1 psi兲. This is the thickness of the carbon alone and strength and stiffness, see Figs. 4 and 5.
does not include the epoxy matrix. The beams that were tested to determine their strength in
The epoxy matrix consisted of a two-part tack coat that was bending were set up with a relatively long shear span. ASTM D
applied to the beam prior to wrapping and a two-part epoxy that 198 states that for determining flexural properties, the half shear
was used to saturate the carbon fabric prior to and after the fabric span-to-depth ratio, a / h should be between 5 and 12. ASTM D
was wrapped onto the beam. The epoxy matrix is considered a 198 defines the shear span as two times the distance between a
polymer matrix. The tack coat is made up of an epoxy resin reaction and the nearest load point for a symmetrically loaded
mixed with a polyethylene polyamine. The epoxy is also made up beam (Fig. 4). The span was 7.62 m 共25 ft-0 in.兲 for the beams
of an epoxy resin mixed with polyamines. tested in bending. One-half of the shear span, a, was
Test coupons were made of the carbon fiber composite and the 2.90 m 共9 ft-6 in.兲, and the load span (distance between the two
coupons were tested to failure in tension. Testing was performed loading points on top of the beam) was 1.83 m 共6 ft-0 in.兲. There-
in general conformance with ASTM D3039/D3039M-95a. The fore the one-half shear span-to-depth ratio, a / h, for the 203 mm
coupons were 25.4 mm 共1 in.兲 wide and consisted of the carbon ⫻ 483 mm 共8 in.⫻ 19 in.兲 beams was 6. According to ASTM D
fiber and the epoxy matrix. The average fiber fraction for the 198, beams that have a depth-to-width ratio of three or greater are
coupons tested was approximately 27%. This fiber fraction was subject to lateral instability during loading. The depth-to-width
based on only the fibers oriented in the direction of loading. Cou- ratio of these beams is 2.4 and therefore lateral support was not
pons were tested in both the warp and fill directions since the provided for the beams.
warp direction provides tensile reinforcement to a beam with a The beams that were tested to determine their strength in shear
perpendicular wrap and the fill direction provides tensile rein- were set up with a relatively short shear span. ASTM D 198 states
forcement to a beam with a longitudinal wrap. Table 3 summa- that beams with a one-half shear span-to-depth ratio less than 5
rizes the mechanical properties of the fiber-composite coupons. will most likely fail in shear. For the beams tested in shear, the
In addition, unidirectional carbon laminates were used to rein-
force three of the timber stringers. The carbon laminate strips
were made of pure carbon fibers and measured
1.27 mm 共0.05 in.兲 thick by 76 mm 共3 in.兲 wide. They were
Fig. 5. 445 kN 共100 kip兲 test frame with unreinforced beam B1flex
Fig. 4. Standard setup for testing beams per ASTM D 198 ready for testing
were bonded to the bottom of the 38 mm⫻ 89 mm pieces of Summary of Flexural Test Results
wood. The 38 mm⫻ 89 mm pieces of wood were bonded to the
underside of the wood beams with tack coat and with lag screws. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the test results for the six
9.5 mm 共3 / 8 in.兲 diameter⫻ 12.7 mm 共6 in.兲 long lag screws at beams tested in flexure. Based on the test results, the following
102 mm 共4 in.兲 on center were used in each 38 mm⫻ 89 mm improvements were observed.
(2 in.⫻ 4 in. nominal) piece of wood. The heads of the lag screws 1. The stiffness of the beams is increased between 5 and 27%.
were countersunk into the wood so as not to interfere with the Beam B10flex showed a stiffness increase of 69%, however,
bonding surface of the carbon laminates. Confinement was then that beam was built-up with 38 mm⫻ 89 mm
provided to the beam by wrapping it with a 7.01 m 共23 ft兲 long (2 in.⫻ 4 in. nominal) wood boards in addition to being
⫻ 1 , 270 mm 共50 in.兲 wide piece of carbon fabric, see Fig. 9. By wrapped. Fig. 10 shows a portion of the load versus deflec-
building the beam up in this way, it was anticipated that the beam tion curve for unwrapped and wrapped beam B3flex. The
would fail at a significantly higher ultimate load than beams stiffness of beam B3flex increased 17%.
B3flex , B4flex, and B6flex. 2. The ultimate bending strength is increased between 40 and
53%. Fig. 11 shows the load versus deflection curve for all failure had it not been reinforced was determined by calcu-
six beams tested in flexure. Beam B1flex, the control speci- lating the deflection that would have occurred at the same
men, failed at a load of 187 kN 共42 kips兲. Beam B3flex, bending stress that caused failure of the control specimen
which was wrapped with a one-piece full-length longitudinal B1flex. See Table 5 and Fig. 11. The control specimen, beam
wrap, failed at a load of 285 kN 共64.1 kips兲. B1flex, failed at a deflection of 68.8 mm 共2.71 in.兲 and a
3. The ductility of beams that are wrapped with carbon fabric is bending stress of 34, 295 kPa 共4 , 974 psi兲. Beam B4flex
increased significantly. Even after ultimate failure, the beams which was wrapped with a perpendicular, overlapped wrap
still held together. In other words, there was no catastrophic failed at a deflection of 116.3 mm 共4.58 in.兲. Since beam
failure when the beams were wrapped. The deflection ductil- B4flex had an unreinforced modulus of elasticity of
ity of the beams that were wrapped increased from 28 to 9 , 611 kPa 共1 , 394 psi兲, it would have reached a deflection of
51%. Deflection ductility is defined as the deflection of the 91.2 mm 共3.59 in.兲 when the bending stress reached
reinforced specimen at failure divided by the deflection that 34, 295 kpa 共4 , 974 psi兲. Therefore the deflection ductility
the specimen would have had at failure had it not been rein- for beam B4flex is computed by dividing the assumed unre-
forced. The deflection that the specimen would have had at inforced deflection of 91.2 mm 共3.59 in.兲 into the actual re-
inforced deflection at failure of 116.6 mm 共4.59 in.兲. The re- B5flex failed in horizontal shear due to a shake that existed
sult is a 28% increase in deflection ductility for this beam. prior to the test. This beam only had two strips of carbon
Beam B10flex showed the greatest increase in deflection duc- laminate on the bottom and was not wrapped with carbon
tility at 51%. This beam was built up with 2 ⫻ 4’s and then fabric. The beam failed at a load that was 22% less than the
reinforced with carbon laminate and carbon fabric. The in- failure load of the control specimen beam B1flex. This was
crease in ductility shows that by building the beam up with the only beam that was part of the flexural testing that failed
2 ⫻ 4’s, the wood was more efficiently utilized, tension fail- in shear. It was evident that the beam would not have failed
ure was eliminated, and failure occurred in the compression in horizontal shear if it had been wrapped with carbon fabric.
face of the beam. Compression failure causes crushing of the Table 4 shows that the beams that were wrapped had hori-
wood fibers and tends to be a more ductile type of failure as zontal shear stresses between 2 , 103 kPa 共305 psi兲 and
opposed to the snapping of wood fibers that occurs when 2 , 517 kPa 共365 psi兲 when the beams failed in flexure. This
wood fails in tension. is significantly greater than the allowable design shear stress
4. The horizontal shear strength of the beams is increased when of 779 kPa 共113 psi兲.
the beams are wrapped. This became evident when beam 5. The beams that were wrapped with a one-piece, full-length
B5flex 145.5 kPa 210.6 kN m 72.7 kN 27.7 MPa 1 , 151 kPa −22% Horizontal shear
共32.7 kips兲 共155.3 ft kips兲 共16.35 kips兲 共4 , 023 psi兲 共167 psi兲
B6flex 261.6 kPa 378.7 kN m 130.8 kN 51.2 MPa 2 , 130 kPa 40% Bending (compression and tension)
共58.8 kips兲 共279.3 ft kips兲 共29.4 kips兲 共7 , 427 psi兲 共309 psi兲
B10flex 315.8 kPa 457.3 kN m 157.9 Kn 45.7 MPa 2 , 517 kPa 69% Bending (compression)
共71.0 kips兲 共337.3 ft kips兲 共35.5 kips兲 共6 , 625 psi兲 共365 psi兲
longitudinal wrap performed better than the beams that were Shear Test Results and Analysis
wrapped with a perpendicular overlapped wrap. The longitu-
dinal wrap is easier to apply and thus it comes into intimate Four of the beams were tested to determine their strength in hori-
contact with the wood better than the perpendicular wrap. zontal shear. The 9.1 m 共30 ft兲 long stringers were cut in half for
Also, the carbon fabric does not stick well to itself. The the shear tests. Each beam was therefore 4.6 m 共15 ft兲 long. The
fabric that was used was a relatively heavy fabric and was beams were identified as B2shear, B7shear, B8shear, and B9shear.
therefore harder to saturate than a lighter fabric. A lighter
Beams B2shear and B8shear were tested as control specimens and
fabric would probably adhere to itself better than the fabric
were therefore not reinforced with carbon fabric or carbon lami-
used for this study. This is a problem when a perpendicular
nates. The purpose of the two control specimens was to determine
wrap is used because the fabric must be overlapped onto the
the actual unreinforced shear strength of the beams. Two control
adjacent fabric. If a good bond is not obtained between the
strips of fabric, the fabric can delaminate which decreases specimens were used because beam B2shear had fewer defects than
confinement of the wood fibers and causes failure of the the other beams and it tested uncharacteristically strong in hori-
beam. Additional studies are necessary to determine the re- zontal shear. The beam had a vertical steel bolt through the beam
quired overlap length between adjacent pieces of fabric to near the support which could not be removed prior to the test.
prevent delamination. This bolt may have provided some reinforcement against horizon-
6. The addition of the carbon laminate on the bottom of the tal shear failure. Bearing plates that were too narrow were also
beams does not appear to contribute significantly to the used which caused significant crushing of the wood at the sup-
strength and stiffness. A comparison of beam B3flex which ports during the test. Because of the crushing, the deflection data
was only wrapped with carbon fabric and beam B6flex which was not correct. It was therefore decided to use the average of two
had two strips of carbon laminate on the bottom as well as control specimens to establish the unreinforced shear strength for
being wrapped reveals that the stiffness increase was virtu- the beams. The other two beams were reinforced with carbon
ally the same and that beam B3flex actually had a higher fabric and tested to failure. The test results of the reinforced
strength gain (53%) than beam B6flex (40%). beams were then compared with the test results of the control
Fig. 10. Load versus deflection for unwrapped and wrapped beam Fig. 11. Load versus deflection for all six beams tested in flexure
B3flex
applying stress modification factors to the published allowable It is interesting to note that the modulus of elasticity for the car-
design stress values for a given size and grade of lumber. Accord- bon fabric 共12, 700 MPa, 1 , 842 ksi兲 is very similar to the modu-
ingly, allowable stress modification factors have been conceptu- lus of elasticity of the wood beams 共11, 032 MPa, 1 , 600 ksi兲, see
ally developed based on the experimental results from this study. Tables 2 and 3. The increase due to confinement from the carbon
With further research and more comprehensive testing, these fabric is difficult to quantify. Spaun theorized that “if the rein-
modification factors could be used by engineers to determine the
forcement is bonded intimately to the wood substrate, sharing of
safe load carrying capacity of beams reinforced with carbon fiber.
stresses should occur. As the low-stiffness areas associated with
defects in the wood attempt to deflect under stress, the reinforce-
Modification Factors for Stiffness of Reinforced Beams ment should pick up the load and restrict deformation” (Spaun
Stiffness increases from between 17 and 27% were realized by 1981, p. 27). If further testing confirms the results of this study,
wrapping the beams with carbon fabric, see Table 5. A significant then it could be concluded that the stiffness of the beams could be
portion of the stiffness increase can be attributed to confinement. increased 15% if the beams were wrapped with carbon fiber that
has similar mechanical properties as the fiber used in this study. ment, the carbon fabric adds tensile strength and allows the beams
The proposed modification factor for stiffness would therefore be to yield more in compression before they fail in tension. Based on
1.15 and would be applied to the modulus of elasticity of the test results showing increases in bending strength from 40 to
wood, Cwr-modulus = 1.15. 53%, a bending stress modification factor, Cwr-bending, of 1.40 may
be justified for beams wrapped with carbon fiber that have similar
mechanical properties as the fiber used in this study. Further test-
Bending Strength of Reinforced Beams
ing needs to be done with a larger number of specimens to con-
The ultimate bending strength of timber beams is difficult to es- firm this modification factor.
tablish because of the natural defects that occur in wood and
drastically reduce the strength. Accordingly, the allowable design
Shear Strength of Reinforced Beams
values for wood are very low compared to the ultimate strength of
small clear specimens. A review of the load versus deflection When a beam fails in horizontal shear, the upper portion of the
curves shows that the beams in this study behaved mostly in a beam slides with respect to the lower portion of the beam. When
linear manner up until failure. In addition to providing confine- the beam is wrapped, this sliding action is prevented as long as
a
The control beam is the average of beams B2shear and B8shear.
b
If compared to B8shear only, the strength increase is 68%.
c
If compared to B8shear only, the strength increase is 23%.
the bond between the fabric and the wood remains intact. We can top of the beam will be ignored so that this method can be applied
estimate the magnitude of the adhesion between the carbon fabric to beams with only a three-sided wrap instead of a full wrap. The
and the wood by reviewing the results of beam B9shear, which contact area of the fabric above the failure plane for a length
failed in horizontal shear at middepth of the beam. If we make the along the beam of 1 mm is therefore
assumption that the wood failed prior to the fabric delaminating
from the beam, then at the moment just after the wood has failed, Ac = h/2共2 sides兲共1 mm兲 = 共481 mm/2兲共2兲共1 mm兲
the carbon fabric is carrying the entire horizontal shear force that
is resisted by the beam. Beam B9shear failed at a load of = 481 mm2 共0.75 in.2兲 共6兲
334.1 kN 共75.1 kips兲 or 167.0 kN 共37.55 kips兲 of shear. Fig. 15 The average adhesion between the carbon fabric and the wood is
shows the cross section of the beam and the failure plane. The taken as the shear flow divided by the contact area
maximum horizontal shear stress in the beam at failure was as
follows: adhesion = q/Ac = 0.521 kN/共481 mm2兲 = 1,083 kPa 共157 psi兲
f v = 3V/2A = 3 共167.0 kN兲/2共0.194 m兲共0.481 m兲 共7兲
= 2685 kPa 共390 psi兲 共4兲 Based on the above analysis, it will be assumed that the adhesion
between the carbon fabric and the wood is equal to approximately
The shear flow along the failure plane of the wood beam at failure
1 , 034 kPa 共150 psi兲. This is a low value compared to other stud-
is as follows:
ies, such as the study by Abdel-Magid et al. (1996) where adhe-
q = 关3V/2A兴b = 2,685 kPa 共0.194 m兲 = 521 kN/m 共2,974 lb/in兲 sion was found to be in the range of 2 , 758– 6,826 kPa
共400– 990 psi兲. However, that study was on carbon laminates
共5兲
placed between the laminations of glue-laminated beams and
If the adhesion between the fabric and the wood beam can resist phenol-resorcinol formaldehyde adhesive was used instead of
521 kN/ m 共2 , 974 lb/ in.兲, then the beam does not fail. Since this polymer adhesives as was used in this study. Further study will be
beam failed and the fabric delaminated, we can assume that the required to determine the actual adhesion for beams wrapped with
maximum adhesion was reached when the shear flow was carbon fiber.
521 kN/ m 共2 , 974 lb/ in.兲. The magnitude of the adhesion can be Now that we have estimated a value for adhesion, we can
determined by dividing the shear flow at failure by the contact develop a preliminary model for design. The allowable shear
area of the fabric above the failure plane. Only the contact area on stress for the unwrapped beams has already been shown to be
the sides of the beam will be considered. The contact area on the 779 kPa 共113 psi兲. If we assume for design purposes that the
Cwr-shear = 共h/b兲共adhesion/F⬘v兲
where adhesion=1,034 kPa or 150 psi, h=beam depth, b=beam
width, and F⬘v=allowable shear stress (779 kPa or 113 psi).
As can be seen, the allowable shear stress modification factor
varies based on the ratio of beam depth to beam width and is
heavily dependent on the adhesion of the fabric to the wood. For
a 6 ⫻ 12 beam, the modification factor would be 2.65. However,
for a 6 ⫻ 6 beam, the modification factor is 1.33. The taller and
narrower beams will have the highest modification factors while
beams laid flat will have the lowest modification factors. Further
study needs to take place to determine the actual adhesion with
Fig. 14. Load versus deflection for all four beams tested in shear
different types of fabric and epoxy and to set an upper limit for
the stress modification factor Cwr-shear. Table 8 provides proposed
beam fails at middepth at a shear stress of 779 kPa 共113 psi兲, then shear stress modification factors for various ratios of beam depth
the shear flow at this stress for a beam with b = 203 mm 共8 in.兲 to width. These values should be considered preliminary and they
and h = 483 mm 共19 in. 兲 is as follows: should not be used together with a shear stress factor CH greater
than 1.0.
q = F⬘v共b兲 = 779 kPa 共0.203 m兲 = 158 kN/m 共904 lb/in.兲 共8兲
The resistance that the fabric provides equals the adhesion multi-
plied by the height of the beam above the failure plane Conclusions
qwrap = adhesion共h/2兲2 sides = 1,034 kPa 共0.483 m兲 The primary goal of this project was to determine if wrapping
= 499 kN/m 共2,850 lb/in.兲 共9兲 timber beams with carbon fabric would increase the stiffness,
bending, and shear strength of the beams. Based on the test results
The shear stress allowed because of the fabric is as follows: of the 10 beams, the application of the carbon fabric does increase
qwrap/b = 共499 kN/m兲/0.203 m = 2,458 kPa 共356 psi兲 共10兲 these properties as follows: stiffness increase: 17–27%, bending
strength increase: 40–53%, and horizontal shear strength increase:
Since we are assuming that the beam fails in shear at 36–68%.
779 kPa 共113 psi兲, then the total resistance of the beam to hori- The increase in horizontal shear strength is a significant find-
zontal shear after the shear stress reaches 779 kPa 共113 psi兲 is ing. Many timber bridges are found to be structurally deficient
through the fabric. Hence the new ultimate shear stress in the due to insufficient strength in horizontal shear. If the deficient
beam if it is wrapped is 2 , 458 kPa 共356 psi兲. For this example, members could be economically strengthened with carbon fabric,
the allowable stress modification factor Cwr-shear would be then instead of being replaced, these bridges could be rehabili-
2 , 458/ 779 kPa which equals 3.15. We can calculate allowable tated at significant cost savings.
stress modification factors for different sizes of beams as follows: The carbon fabric also provides support and confinement to
the wood which reduces the effects of defects such as knots,
Cwr-shear = 关adhesion共h/2兲2兴/b共F⬘v兲; 共11兲
checks, splits, etc. that significantly reduce the strength and stiff-
or ness of the beams. The presence of the wrap allows the strength
Table 8. Shear Stress Modification Factors for Beams Wrapped with Carbon Fabric
Ratio of beam depth to width 共h / b兲 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Shear stress modification factor 共Cwr-shear兲 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.0
a
Shear stress modification factor is based on an assumed adhesion of 1 , 034 kPa 共150 psi兲 and an allowable shear stress F⬘v = 586 kPa共CD兲
= 779 kPa 共113 psi兲. Cwr-shear = 共h / b兲共adhesion/ F⬘v兲. Further study is needed to verify the assumptions used to develop the stress modification factors.
cal properties as the fiber used in this study: modulus of elasticity, Ehsani, eds., 54–67.
E: Cwr-modulus = 1.15, bending stress, Fb : Cwr-bending = 1.40, shear American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
stress, Fv : Cwr-shear = varies 1.3– 4.0, see Table 8. In addition to (AASHTO. (1996). Standard specifications for highway bridges, 16th
testing more reinforced specimens to determine strength gain, ad- Ed., Washington, D.C.
ditional studies need to be undertaken to address the long-term Biblis, E. J. (1965) “Analysis of wood-fiberglass composite beams within
bond of the carbon fabric to the wood. Mathematical models also and beyond the elastic region.” For. Prod. J., 15(2), 81–88.
need to be developed that accurately take into account the stiff- Dorey, A., and Cleng, J. J. (1996). “The behavior of GFRP glued lami-
ness increase due to the effect of confinement provided by the nated timber beams.” Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and
carbon fabric wrap. Furthermore, design guidelines and proce- Structures, M. M. El-Badry, Ed., Canadian Society for Civil Engineer-
dures for field application need to be developed in order for this ing, Montreal, 787-794.
strengthening method to be practical and economical for timber Duwadi, S. R., and Ritter, M. A. (1997) “Timber bridges in the United
States.” Public Roads On-Line, Vol. 60(3) 具http://www.tfhrc.gov//
bridges.
pubrds/winter97/p97wi32.htm典 (Oct. 18, 2000).
GangaRao, U. V. S., and Sonti, S. S. (1996). “Service life improvement of
Acknowledgments wood crossties using composite fabrics.” Advanced Composite Mate-
rials in Bridges and Structures, M. M. El-Badry, Ed., Canadian Soci-
The writers wish to acknowledge the funding of this research by ety for Civil Engineering, Montreal, 827-834.
the National Science Foundation, Grant No. CMS-9257344, Dr. Markwardt, L. J., and Wilson, T. R. C. (1935). “Strength and related
properties of woods grown in the United States.” U.S.D.A. Technical
John B. Scalzi, Program Director. The results and conclusions
Bulletin No. 479, Washington, D.C.
presented here are those of the writers and do not represent the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP. (1980).
views of the National Science Foundation. The writer Ted W. “Bridges on secondary highways and local roads,” Rep. 222, National
Buell would also like to thank his father, Ted B. Buell, for his Research Council (U.S.), Transportation Research Board, Washington,
willingness to help in any way needed. His expertise in wood- D.C.
working and general carpentry, as well as his encouragement, Ou, F. L., and Weller, C. (1986). “An overview of timber bridges.” Trans-
made this project a success. portation Research Record 1053, National Research Council (U.S.),
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.
Plevris, N., and Triantafillou, T. (1992). “FRP–Reinforced wood as struc-
Notation tural material.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 4(3), 300-317.
Saadatmanesh, H. (1994). “Fiber composites for new and existing struc-
The following symbols are used in this paper: tures.” ACI Struct. J., 91(3), 346–354.
Ac ⫽ contact area of the fabric above the failure plane; Saadatmanesh, H., and Ehsani, M. R. (1991). “R/C beams strengthened
b ⫽ width of beam; with GFRP Plates. I: Experimental study.” J. Struct. Eng., 117(11),
CD ⫽ load duration factor; 3417–3433.
CF ⫽ size factor; Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Jin, L. (1996). “Seismic strength-
ening of circular bridge pier models with fiber composites.” ACI
CH ⫽ shear stress factor;
Struct. J., 93(6), 639–647.
C M ⫽ wet service factor;
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Jin, L. (1997). “Repair of
⫽ proposed bending stress modification factor for
Cwr-bending earthquake-damaged R/C columns with prefabricated FRP wraps.”
wood reinforced with a carbon fabric wrap; ACI Struct. J., 206–215.
⫽ proposed modulus of elasticity modification factor
Cwr-modulus Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M. R., and Li, M. W. (1994). “Strength and
for wood reinforced with a carbon fabric wrap; ductility of concrete columns externally reinforced with fiber compos-
Cwr-shear⫽ proposed shear stress modification factor for wood ite straps.” ACI Struct. J., 91(4), 434–447.
reinforced with a carbon fabric wrap; Sonti, S. S., GangaRao, H. V. S., and Superfesky, M. C. (1996). “Reha-
E ⫽ tabulated design modulus of elasticity; bilitation and Strengthening of Glulam Stringers for Bridge Super-
E⬘ ⫽ allowable design modulus of elasticity as modified structures.” Fiber Composites in Infrastructure. Edited by H. Saadat-
by all applicable adjustment factors; manesh and M. R. Ehsani, 800-813.
Spaun, F. D. (1981). “Reinforcement of wood with fiberglass.” For. Prod.
Fb ⫽ tabulated design stress in bending;
J., 31(4), 26–33.
F⬘b ⫽ allowable design stress in bending as modified by Theakston, F. H. (1965). “A feasibility study for strengthening timber
all applicable adjustment factors; beams with fiberglass.” Can. Agric. Eng.
F⬘v ⫽ allowable design stress in shear as modified by all Triantafillou, T., and Deskivic, N. (1992). “Prestressed FRP sheets as
applicable adjustment factors; external reinforcement of wood members.” J. Struct. Eng. 118(5),
Fv ⫽ tabulated design stress in shear; 1270-1284.
f v ⫽ horizontal shear stress; West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. (1996). Standard No. 17 grading
h ⫽ depth of beam; rules for West Coast lumber, Portland, Ore.