View
214
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
FRP Composites for
Bridge Decks and Superstructures: State of the Practice in the U.S.
Jerome S. O’Connor, PE, F-ASCEMCEER Sr. Program Officer, Transportation Research, University at Buffalo
FRP COMPOSITES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS2011
Pedestrian Bridges1. 300 +/- in USA2. 80% by E.T.Techtonics, 20% by others3. Bridge Cost ~ $60 / SF4. AASHTO Guide Spec
Bridge of the Future
• Long life• Less $• Fast• Minimal maintenance• Shock resistant• Adaptable• (Reduced carbon footprint)
Some Advantages
• Light weight (high strength-to-weight ratio)
• Corrosion resistant• Chemical resistant• High tensile strength• Fatigue resistant• Potential for good, consistent quality
Steel bridge beam
PAST
FRP Decks/SS by Method of Manufacture
56. 46%
37. 31%
18. 15%10. 8%
Pultrusion VARTM
Hand Lay-up Other (laminate or unknown)
FRP Decks/SS by Manufacturer
Hardcore, Martin , Creative, Strongwell, Wagner, Bedford, Hillman, Composite Advantage, MFG, Webcore, ZellComp
Hardcore
MMC
Kansas
Other
Creative
Unknown
Strongwell
Wagner
Bedford
Hillman
CompAdv
MFG
Webcore
ZellComp
# FRP Decks by State (73)
OH WV NY PA KS VA Other0
5
10
15
20
25
22
98
76
4
17
# FRP Superstructures by State (48)
WV NY ME DE OH MD TX Other0
2
4
6
8
10
12
11
7 7
4
3 3
2
11
Note: Maine includes glu-lam with composites
History• 68% used IBRC or other special funding• ½ the projects were new construction• FRP decks were attached to steel stringers
(95%), concrete girders, FRP beams• Largest deck area = 11,970 SF• Highest traffic volume = 30,000 vpd• Cost per SF is 2 to 3 x cost concrete deck (>$75/SF)
– Low E leads to use of more material (and expense) just to meet deflection criteria.
• Weight can be 12-20 psf vs. >100 psf for concrete
Design Considerations
• There is no AASHTO spec for FRP design• Design is deflection driven because of low stiffness
resulting from low E• Keep LL+DL stresses <20% of ultimate to avoid brittle
failure (although there may be pseudo-ductile behavior)
• Avoid creep by keeping DL stresses <10% of ult.• Provide UV protection• Think thru haunch & connection details• Thermal stresses can exceed LL stresses
Nov 13, 2001 9:30 am
Details
Scuppers Curbs
ConnectionsCross slopeHaunch
Cut-outs
Also:RailingWearing surface
PRESENT
Replace Heavy Decks
Inventory Operating
HS 12(22 Tons)
HS 18(33 Tons)
Inventory Operating
HS 23(42 Tons)
HS 34(61 Tons)
Before
After
Replace Light Decks
South Broad Street over Dyke Creek, Wellsville, NY Oct. 2000 Hardcore Composites
Maintain Historic Structures
NY Route 418 over Schroon River, Warrensburg, NY Nov. 2000Martin Marietta Composites
Fast Installations
Accelerated bridge construction in high traffic areasenhances safety
Rte. 248 over Bennetts CreekRexville, NY Sept. 1998Hardcore Composites
Reduce Seismic Vulnerability
Schuyler Heim Bridge, Long Beach CAMartin Marietta Composites
Moveable Bridges
Lewis & Clark Bridge, ORMartin Marietta Composites
PRESENT – case studies of some issues
Case Study 1NY 248 / Bennetts Creek
opened 1998
Sample Temperature Gradient
7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:15 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Temperature ReadingsAug. 6, 2001
Bottom Skin Wearing Surface
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(de
g. F
)
Temperature readings at 248 / Bennetts Creek 6/1 BIN 1043150
Sample Temperature Gradient
POSSIBLE RESULTS: 1) Panel can “hog”; 2) High thermal stresses
Time
Bottom skin temperature in
°F
Top wearing surface
temperature in °F (black color)
Difference
7:30 AM 62 64 2
8:00 AM 63 70 7
8:30 AM 63 74 11
9:00 AM 62 87 25
9:30 AM 66 105 39
10:00 AM 68 119 51
10:30 AM 70 128 58
11:15 AM 72 138 66
12:00 PM 74 148 74
1:00 PM 73 150 77
Temperature readings at 248 / Bennetts Creek 6/1 BIN 1043150
Tap Test of Epoxy Injection Repair
Tap test before repair
Attempted patch of epoxy wearing surface
Surface moving
De-bonded Sandwich Sectionand Water Intake (2009)
Video
Insufficient wet-out of fibers
Video 248 debonding of top faceskin
Case Study 2NY367 / Bentley Creek
opened 1999
Wearing Surface Cracking
Wearing Surface Debonding
First winter (~ 2000)
Wearing Surface Debonding NY367/Bentley March 2009
Thermal Compatibility Issues
Case Study 3South Broad St. Wellsville, NY
1. Wearing surface was replaced with asphalt.
2. Pick point required repair.
Case Study 4King Stormwater Channel, CA
Delamination & deterioration of top faceskin
121 - 4 illustrated here - 3 removed from service_____114 doing fairly well
THE FUTURE
Acciona (contractor w in-house R&D)Spain
U. Maine
“Bridge in a Backpack”
ZellComp
No field adhesives
Composite AdvantageInfused 3D fabrics
decks
superstructure
U. at BuffaloHybrid
Efficient hybrid section
WagnerAustralia
Hybrid section
Concrete surface
Prototype Wearing Surfacedeveloped for NYSDOT by R. Aboutaha at Syracuse University
Performance Objectives•Permanent bond•Skid resistance, durability, protection of FRP
3/8” PolymerConcrete (for bond)
FRP deck surface
1” Polymer ModifiedConcrete (for wear)
Thank you!
Louis N. Triandafilou.Team Leader, FRP Virtual Team Federal Highway Administration
Phone: (410) 962-3648Fax: (410) 962-4586Email: lou.triandafilou@dot.gov
Jerome S. O’ConnorSenior Program OfficerUniversity at Buffalo
Phone: (716) 645-5155Fax: (716) 645-3399Email: jso7@buffalo.edu
Recommended