1. FRP COMPOSITES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE APPLICATIONS
2011
FRP Composites for Bridge Decks and Superstructures: State of the Practice in the U.S.
Intro and first 4 slides by Lou: His role as chair of V-team. Database of information is the best of our ability but it is still not perfect. We welcome any additional input (such as reports) by anyone involved in this type of project.
The presentation will be split according to past, present, and future of FRP decks & superstructures.
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
Although ped bridges are a good application, this talk focuses on vehicular bridges

3. Bridge of the Future Long life Less $ Fast Minimal maintenance
Shock resistant
Adaptable
(Reduced carbon footprint)
FRP seems to be a good fit for FHWA defined “bridge of the future”

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. Jerry takes over an covers: “past & present”
Jerry takes over an covers: “past & present”. Lou comes back to cover “future”.
PAST 5

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)
73 total

9. # FRP Superstructures by State (48)
48 total
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 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
Possible connections: Stud Shear Connectors, S-Clips, Bolted connection, Adhesives, Pop rivets
Deflection criteria of L/800 is typically used.
FRP decks meet same load criteria as concrete decks (HS-20+)
Allowable stress design (ASD) is followed for designing FRP bridges since there is insufficient data to establish resistance factors of FRP members under bending, shear and axial forces and their combinations.
Nov 13, :30 am

12. Details Connections Cross slope Haunch Cut-outs Also: Scuppers Railing
Special steel details may require attention. These kneebraces projected from the truss verticals to the floor beams. A concrete deck could just flow around this protrusion, but we had to provide a knockout in the deck.
Scuppers
Curbs
Also:
Railing
Wearing surface

13. PRESENT 13

14. Replace Heavy Decks
Before
After
Best applications are…

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. Rte. 248 over Bennetts Creek Rexville, NY Sept. 1998
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 issues20

21. Case Study 1 NY 248 / Bennetts Creek opened 1998

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

23. Sample Temperature Gradient
Temperature readings at 248 / Bennetts Creek 6/1 BIN
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 74 11
9:00 AM 87 25
9:30 AM 66
105 39
10:00 AM 68
119 51
10:30 AM
128 58
11:15 AM 72
138
12:00 PM
148
1:00 PM 73
150 77
Max. air temp. = 92 degrees.
Water temp = 73 degrees.
Wearing surface is black T-48.
RESULUT: 1) Panel can “hog” 2) high stresses are induced
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 Section and Water Intake (2009)
Video

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

28. Case Study 2 NY367 / Bentley Creek opened 1999

29. Wearing Surface Cracking

30. Wearing Surface Debonding
First winter (~ 2000)

31. Wearing Surface Debonding NY367/Bentley March 2009

32. Thermal Compatibility Issues

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

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

35. 121 - 4 illustrated here - 3 removed from service _____ 114 doing fairly well
Take from service: 1. Salem Ave. bridge in Dayton Ohio, 2. KSCI bridge in WV and 3. Detour bridge in Iowa.

36. THE FUTURE 36

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 Buffalo Hybrid
Efficient hybrid section

42. Wagner Australia
Hybrid section
Concrete surface
Concrete surface

43. Prototype Wearing Surface developed for NYSDOT by R
Prototype Wearing Surface developed 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)
Predominate problem has been with the wearing surface. Syracuse University did a research project for NYSDOT and suggests using a two part system.
FRP deck surface

44. Thank you! Louis N. Triandafilou. Team Leader, FRP Virtual Team
Federal Highway Administration
Phone: (410)
Fax: (410)
Jerome S. O’Connor
Senior Program Officer
University at Buffalo
Phone: (716)
Fax: (716)