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

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

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”

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

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

FRP Decks/SS by Method of Manufacture

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

# FRP Decks by State (73) 73 total

# FRP Superstructures by State (48) 48 total 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 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, 2001 9:30 am

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

PRESENT 13

Replace Heavy Decks Before After Best applications are…

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. 2000 Martin Marietta Composites

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

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

Moveable Bridges Lewis & Clark Bridge, OR Martin Marietta Composites

PRESENT – case studies of some issues 20

Case Study 1 NY 248 / Bennetts Creek opened 1998

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

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

Tap Test of Epoxy Injection Repair Tap test before repair

Attempted patch of epoxy wearing surface Surface moving

De-bonded Sandwich Section and Water Intake (2009) Video

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

Case Study 2 NY367 / 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 3 South Broad St. Wellsville, NY Wearing surface was replaced with asphalt. Pick point required repair.

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

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.

THE FUTURE 36

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

U. Maine “Bridge in a Backpack”

ZellComp No field adhesives

Composite Advantage Infused 3D fabrics decks superstructure

U. at Buffalo Hybrid Efficient hybrid section

Wagner Australia Hybrid section Concrete surface Concrete surface

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

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