Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Abstract
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have been favorably noticed as state-of-the art construction materials, but sucient material and structural data about FRP applications are not available. This study was intended to evaluate the applications and safety of FRP
deck systems, which are developed by laboratory testing (static and fatigue tests), eld application and testing of glass ber reinforced
polymer (GFRP) deck systems made of glass ber and vinyl ester resin. The results show that the developed FRP deck systems have the
expected strength and stiness to replace the existing systems. FRP deck systems can eectively shorten the construction time and reduce
the equipment required. In addition, it is determined that there is a need to evaluate the long-term structural behavior and durability of
FRP deck systems in order to obtain comprehensive data for preparing the future design, manufacturing and construction materials.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: GFRP; Pultrusion; Bridge deck; Field test
1. Introduction
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites are a stateof-the-art construction material, an alternative to traditional materials such as concrete, steel and wood. Among
many applications of FRP in civil infrastructures, bridge
decks have received much attention because of their light
weight, high strength-to-weight ratio, and corrosion resistance. Other advantages of FRP bridge decks are their
reduction in bridge deck construction time and increase
in service life. However, the FRP bridge decks also have
disadvantages such as a low modulus of elasticity translating into increased deections, greater initial expense, and
unfamiliarity to many engineers and constructors. Thus,
further research, development and validation of the FRP
deck systems are necessary in order to optimize and standardize them so that they can be widely adopted in the
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 31 910 0583; fax: +82 31 910 0121.
E-mail address: jwjeong@kict.re.kr (J. Jeong).
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.12.013
z(y)
x(x)
5.5
79.5
11
5.5
16
y(z)
0
R2
18
149
182
200
79.5
(Unit : mm)
623
Table 1
Layer construction
Fabrics
Series
Stacking
sequences
Series
Stacking
sequences
Uniaxial
Biaxial and double
bias
Triaxial
Quadriaxial
L
LT
[0]
[0/90]
T
DB
[90]
[45/ 45]
DBL
DBLT
[0/45/ 45]
[0/45/90/ 45]
DBT
[45/90/ 45]
(a)
(b)
2.2. Fiber architecture
Web (11mm)
DBT 2100/CSM300 (160mm)
Roving 8800 TEX (34 Strand)
624
Table 2
Properties of the constituent materials
Table 5
Strength of GFRP deck
Materials
E (GPa)
G (GPa)
q (g/cm3)
Components
Xt (MPa)
Xc (MPa)
Yt (MPa)
Yc (MPa)
S (MPa)
E-glass ber
Vinyl ester resin
72.5
3.66
27.6
1.2
0.22
0.38
2.54
1.14
Flanges
Web
335.3
325.7
177.3
141.3
84.1
68.4
89.9
89.2
64.2
95.9
Components
E1 (GPa)
E2 (GPa)
G12 (GPa)
m12
wf (%)
Flanges
Web
29.21
32.76
5.65
6.11
1.86
2.01
0.32
0.31
56.8
62.0
Table 4
Laminate properties (CLT)
Components
Ex (GPa)
Ey (GPa)
mxy
Gxy (GPa)
Top ange
Web
Bottom ange
14.94
17.42
14.93
14.05
14.05
14.40
0.27
0.30
0.25
4.07
4.72
3.92
In this study, the static and fatigue tests were also performed to evaluate the ultimate performances and fatigue
performances of the FRP deck systems. To test the ultimate performances of FRP deck systems, as seen in
Fig. 3, the boundary condition was xed with lower girder
and bolts. For the loading test, a loading plate of
230 mm 580 mm, considered to be the area of the design
axial load was used and a load test by displacement control
method (0.25 mm/min) was performed. The same test specimen as was used for the static load test was used for the
fatigue test. It has a maximum load of 117.6 kN, a minimum load of 19.6 kN and a load range of 98 kN, which
is the axial load of DB-24, in which the maximum load
was calculated by applying a impact factor of 1.2 to the
designed axial load. The test was repeated up to 2 million
times at 1 Hz loading speed.
The results of the ultimate load test are shown in the
loaddisplacement graph in Fig. 4. Compared to the nite
element analysis, the failure load was 431.2 kN and the
Fig. 3. Test set-up of FRP deck for ultimate and fatigue load test.
500
450
400
350
Load (kN)
Table 3
Lamina properties
300
250
200
150
Experiment
100
FEM
50
0
0
12
15
18
21
Load (kN)
100
80
60
1 cycle
1000 cycles
10000 cycles
100000 cycles
1000000 cycles
2000000 cycles
40
20
0
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
625
4. Field test
Although a number of demonstration projects have been
completed worldwide [711], there is still a lack of information related to design criteria, cost and installation logistics
and eciency, and long-term response of the decks. In this
study, the eld test of the GFRP deck was performed to
establish service load deection, strain levels for future
comparisons with eld tests, to determine changes in structural performance and long-term durability. An asinstalled eld evaluation through load test and further analytical investigations were considered essential to ensure the
safe and cost-eective use of the FRP deck in future. The
test details such as specimen, installation, instruments
and evaluation are followed. All references to longitudinal and transverse are given with respect to the direction of trac as shown in Fig. 6.
The specimen is an assembly of nine unit modules (8 m
long, 3 m wide, 200 mm deep) with a sand-blasted wearing
surface on the top ange. The connection type used in the
present study is adhesive over an 80 mm lap length. To stop
slipping of the deck in the transverse direction, GFRP
angles and elastic rubber pads (as shown in Fig. 7) were
attached under the bottom ange using adhesive.
The GFRP deck installed was a simple supported structure with no skew angle. The deck was instrumented with
18 strain gages mounted externally in the longitudinal
and transverse directions on the surface of the bottom
ange. All the gages were made watertight and were pro-
Fig. 6. Schematic of eld test and positions of strain gages and LVDTs.
626
Table 6
Truck weight
Weight (kN)
Front axles (P1)
Second axles (P2)
Third axles (P3)
Gross weight
62.8
98.7
95.0
256.5
deck was accomplished with a dump truck placed at various locations. During each pass, the truck was stopped at
four longitudinal locations. Fig. 10 details the location of
the truck stops. For the rst load step, only the third
axles of the truck were positioned on the GFRP deck
from the longitudinal edge. In the second and third load
steps, both the second and the third axles were positioned
on the deck from the longitudinal edge and from the
transverse centerline, respectively. The fourth load step
was positioned at both the second and third axles from
the opposite edge of load step 2. The truck was moved
on and o the deck and data were recorded at each step.
This sequence was repeated three times to ensure consis-
P3
P2
4.2. Evaluations
The truck load is determined by weighing each wheel
set individually as shown in Table 6. The loading of the
400
300
200
Strain (
100
0
-100
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
-200
-300
-400
-500
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
400
300
200
100
Strain (
tency in the recorded data. Due to the axle loads and axle
spacing of the truck, load step 2 corresponds to the worst
loading condition. The loading test with a truck is shown
in Fig. 11.
The results of the load test are presented in Fig. 12. The
maximum deection of the center and quarter were
approximately 1.74 mm and 1.63 mm, respectively. In comparison with the design target of L/800, in which the stiness contribution from the pavement surface and barrier
wall was not considered, the superstructure was signicantly stier. The vertical deection of the test results is
compared with the numerical results. The strains of the
longitudinal and transverse directions are shown in Figs.
13 and 14 at each step. TS and LS indicate transverse
and longitudinal strain (shown in Fig. 6), respectively.
The maximum strain was approximately 400 , equivalent
to 13% of the ultimate strain capacity of the GFRP deck.
The results show that the strain levels experienced in the
deck are quite low but very high under the wheel loads.
Local eects such as wearing surfaces and local buckling
627
0
-100
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
-200
-300
-400
-500
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Strain (
300
200
100
0
-100
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
-200
-300
-400
-500
0
2.5
1000
2000
3000
4000
500
ABAQUS (center)
400
300
1.5
200
Strain (
LVDT 1 (center)
2
100
0
-100
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
-200
0.5
-300
-400
0
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Loading step
Fig. 12. Deections of FRP deck at each step.
Step 4
-500
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
628
may play a major role in the performance of bridge components and should be appropriately considered.
5. Concluding remarks
The pilot construction and eld loading test were performed in order to evaluate the eld applicability and serviceability of the developed FRP deck. The static loading
and fatigue tests were performed to evaluate the ultimate
performance and fatigue performance of the FRP deck
system.
It was conclusively found that the system could reduce
construction time and labor because it reduced the
amount of equipment required for site and pre-cast manufacturing owing to the light-weight FRP deck system,
compared to the existing steel or concrete deck systems.
The eld loading tests of the FRP deck system, showed
that the deection of the FRP deck was 1.74 mm, satisfying the deection limit of 2.5 mm (L/800) and the maximum strain was about 400, which is 13% of the ultimate
strain, the proper strength and stiness.
To increase the constructability and eld application of
the deck system, it is necessary to increase the precision
of the attachment of the deck modules after pultrusion
and develop the connections of the deck and girder.
References
[1] Kim HY, Hwang YK, Park KT, Lee YH, Kim SM. Fiber reinforced
plastic deck prole for I-girder bridges. Compos Struct
2005;67(4):4116.
[2] Park KT, Kim SH, Lee YH, Hwang YK. Pilot test on a developed
GFRP bridge deck. Compos Struct 2005;70(1):4859.
[3] Park KT, Kim SH, Lee YH, Hwang YK. Degree of composite action
verication of bolted GFRP bridge deck-to-girder connection system.
Compos Struct 2006;72(3):393400.
[4] ABAQUS users manual. Version 6.5. Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen,
RI, 2004.
[5] Jones RM. Mechanics of composite materials. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor,
MI: Taylor & Francis; 1999.
[6] Korea Institute of Construction Technology (KICT). Development of
GFRP bridge deck-year three, Report No. KICT 2004-055, Korea,
2004.
[7] Turner MK, Harries KA, Petrou MF, Rizos D. In situ structural
evaluation of a GFRP bridge deck system. Compos Struct
2004;65(2):129258.
[8] Aref AJ, Alampalli S, He Y. Performance of a ber reinforced
polymer web skew bridge superstructure. Part I:eld testing and nite
element simulations. Compos Struct 2005;69(4):4919.
[9] Alampalli S, Kunin J. Rehabilitation and eld testing of an FRP
bridge deck on truss bridge. Compos Struct 2002;57(14):3735.
[10] Foster DC, Richards D, Boqner BR. Design and installation of berreinforced polymer composite bridge. ASCE J Compos Const
2000;4(1):337.
[11] Hayes MD, Lesko JJ, Haramis J, Cousins TE, Gomez J, Masarelli P.
Laboratory and eld testing of composite bridge superstructure.
ASCE J Compos Const 2000;4(3):1208.