FRP Composites for Bridge Decks and Superstructures: State of the Practice in the U.S. Jerome S....

transcript

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

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

Kansas

Creative

Unknown

Strongwell

Wagner

Bedford

Hillman

CompAdv

Webcore

ZellComp

# FRP Decks by State (73)

OH WV NY PA KS VA Other0

# FRP Superstructures by State (48)

WV NY ME DE OH MD TX Other0

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

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

Temperature ReadingsAug. 6, 2001

Bottom Skin Wearing Surface

Temperature readings at 248 / Bennetts Creek 6/1 BIN 1043150

Sample Temperature Gradient

POSSIBLE RESULTS: 1) Panel can “hog”; 2) High thermal stresses

Bottom skin temperature in

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)

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

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

FRP Composites for Bridge Decks and Superstructures: State of the Practice in the U.S. Jerome S....

Documents