1 / 44

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

FRP COMPOSITES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS 2011. FRP Composites for Bridge Decks and Superstructures: State of the Practice in the U.S. Jerome S. O’Connor, PE, F-ASCE MCEER Sr. Program Officer, Transportation Research, University at Buffalo. Pedestrian Bridges. 300 +/- in USA

mickey
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FRP COMPOSITES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS 2011 FRP Composites for Bridge Decks and Superstructures: State of the Practice in the U.S. Jerome S. O’Connor, PE, F-ASCE MCEER Sr. Program Officer, Transportation Research, University at Buffalo

  2. Pedestrian Bridges • 300 +/- in USA • 80% by E.T.Techtonics, 20% by others • Bridge Cost ~ $60 / SF • AASHTO Guide Spec

  3. Bridge of the Future • Long life • Less $ • Fast • Minimal maintenance • Shock resistant • Adaptable • (Reduced carbon footprint)

  4. 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

  5. PAST

  6. FRP Decks/SS by Method of Manufacture

  7. FRP Decks/SS by Manufacturer Hardcore, Martin , Creative, Strongwell, Wagner, Bedford, Hillman, Composite Advantage, MFG, Webcore, ZellComp

  8. # FRP Decks by State (73)

  9. # FRP Superstructures by State (48) Note: Maine includes glu-lam with composites

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Details Connections Cross slope Haunch Cut-outs Scuppers Curbs Also: Railing Wearing surface

  13. PRESENT

  14. Replace Heavy Decks Before After

  15. Replace Light Decks • South Broad Street over Dyke Creek, • Wellsville, NY Oct. 2000 • Hardcore Composites

  16. Maintain Historic Structures • NY Route 418 over Schroon River, • Warrensburg, NY Nov. 2000 • Martin Marietta Composites

  17. Fast Installations Accelerated bridge construction in high traffic areas enhances safety • Rte. 248 over Bennetts Creek Rexville, NY Sept. 1998 • Hardcore Composites

  18. Reduce Seismic Vulnerability Schuyler Heim Bridge, Long Beach CA Martin Marietta Composites

  19. Moveable Bridges Lewis & Clark Bridge, OR Martin Marietta Composites

  20. PRESENT – case studies of some issues

  21. Case Study 1NY 248 / Bennetts Creekopened 1998

  22. Sample Temperature Gradient Temperature readings at 248 / Bennetts Creek 6/1 BIN 1043150

  23. Sample Temperature Gradient Temperature readings at 248 / Bennetts Creek 6/1 BIN 1043150 POSSIBLE RESULTS: 1) Panel can “hog”; 2) High thermal stresses

  24. Tap Test of Epoxy Injection Repair Tap test before repair

  25. Attempted patch of epoxy wearing surface Surface moving

  26. De-bonded Sandwich Sectionand Water Intake (2009) Video

  27. Insufficient wet-out of fibers Video 248 debonding of top faceskin

  28. Case Study 2NY367 / Bentley Creekopened 1999

  29. Wearing Surface Cracking

  30. Wearing Surface Debonding First winter (~ 2000)

  31. Wearing Surface DebondingNY367/Bentley March 2009

  32. Thermal Compatibility Issues

  33. Case Study 3South Broad St. Wellsville, NY Wearing surface was replaced with asphalt. Pick point required repair.

  34. Case Study 4King Stormwater Channel, CA Delamination & deterioration of top faceskin

  35. 121 - 4 illustrated here - 3 removed from service_____114 doing fairly well

  36. THE FUTURE

  37. Acciona (contractor w in-house R&D)Spain

  38. U. Maine “Bridge in a Backpack”

  39. ZellComp No field adhesives

  40. Composite Advantage Infused 3D fabrics decks superstructure

  41. U. at BuffaloHybrid Efficient hybrid section

  42. WagnerAustralia Hybrid section Concrete surface

  43. Prototype Wearing Surfacedeveloped for NYSDOT by R. Aboutaha at Syracuse University • Performance Objectives • Permanent bond • Skid resistance, durability, protection of FRP 1” Polymer Modified Concrete (for wear) 3/8” Polymer Concrete (for bond) FRP deck surface

  44. Thank you! Louis N. Triandafilou. Team Leader, FRP Virtual Team Federal Highway Administration Phone: (410) 962-3648 Fax: (410) 962-4586 Email: lou.triandafilou@dot.gov Jerome S. O’Connor Senior Program Officer University at Buffalo Phone: (716) 645-5155 Fax: (716) 645-3399 Email: jso7@buffalo.edu

More Related