1. Bascule Bridge Lightweight Solid Deck Retrofit Research Project Florida Department of Transportation 4 th Annual Structures Update Meeting August 12, 2014 Presented by: George Patton, PE

2. Introduction  FDOT – One of Largest Movable Bridge Inventories  1950’s – 1960’s Era Bascule Bridges  Steel Open Grid Deck  Lightweight (18 – 20 psf)  Numerous Concerns  Skid Resistance  Corrosion  Fatigue  Noise  Ride Quality  Bicycle Safety  FDOT – One of Largest Movable Bridge Inventories  1950’s – 1960’s Era Bascule Bridges  Steel Open Grid Deck  Lightweight (18 – 20 psf)  Numerous Concerns  Skid Resistance  Corrosion  Fatigue  Noise  Ride Quality  Bicycle Safety

3. Introduction  Existing Movable Bridges with Steel Open Grid Decks  Stringer-Floorbeam-Main Girder Systems  Stringers (4 to 5 ft Spacing)  Floorbeams (15 to 20 ft Spacing)  New Movable Bridges with Lightweight Solid Decks  Grid Reinforced Concrete  Exodermic Deck  50 - 70 psf

4. Introduction  Challenges to Retrofit Existing Bascule Bridges  Increased Weight  Structural Capacity (Main Girders, Trunnion Girders)  Counterweight Geometric Restrictions  Operating Machinery Limitations  Trunnion Shafts and Bearings  Drive Machinery  Concerns with Durability of New Technologies  Strength, Stiffness and Fatigue Resistance  Connection Details  Wearing Surface  UV, Chemical, Fire Resistance  Challenges to Retrofit Existing Bascule Bridges  Increased Weight  Structural Capacity (Main Girders, Trunnion Girders)  Counterweight Geometric Restrictions  Operating Machinery Limitations  Trunnion Shafts and Bearings  Drive Machinery  Concerns with Durability of New Technologies  Strength, Stiffness and Fatigue Resistance  Connection Details  Wearing Surface  UV, Chemical, Fire Resistance

5. Bascule Bridge Lightweight Solid Deck Retrofit Research Project  Purpose: Identify Potential Alternative Lightweight Solid Deck Systems to Replace Steel Open Grid Deck on Typical Florida Bascule Bridges SPS Deck Aluminum Orthotropic FRP Deck UHPC Deck

6. Screening Report Overview  40 Different Evaluation Criteria  Weight  Cost  Functionality and Safety  Maintenance  Service-Life and Durability  Constructability  Other Risks  Scoring 1-9 (Panel of Bridge Engineers)  Importance Factor  Steel Open Grid Baseline  40 Different Evaluation Criteria  Weight  Cost  Functionality and Safety  Maintenance  Service-Life and Durability  Constructability  Other Risks  Scoring 1-9 (Panel of Bridge Engineers)  Importance Factor  Steel Open Grid Baseline

7. Alternatives Screening Summary Deck SystemOverall Score Steel Open Grid500 SPS492 Aluminum Orthotropic557 FRP Composite496 UHPC Waffle Slab502 Aluminum Orthotropic Deck scored Highest Project moving forward with development and testing of 5-inch Aluminum Orthotropic Deck System Aluminum Orthotropic Deck scored Highest Project moving forward with development and testing of 5-inch Aluminum Orthotropic Deck System

8. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Advantages:  Addresses Functionality and Safety  Near Weight Neutral Solution (21 psf)  Durability and Service Life  Robust Design (Meets all AASHTO Limit States)  High Stiffness  Corrosion Resistant  Improved Fatigue Resistance (FSW)  Configuration  Adaptable to Different Bascule Configurations  Minimal Bridge Modifications  Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) Advantages:  Addresses Functionality and Safety  Near Weight Neutral Solution (21 psf)  Durability and Service Life  Robust Design (Meets all AASHTO Limit States)  High Stiffness  Corrosion Resistant  Improved Fatigue Resistance (FSW)  Configuration  Adaptable to Different Bascule Configurations  Minimal Bridge Modifications  Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)

9. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Advantages (Cont’d):  Available AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications  Material Familiarity and Predictability  Previous Testing and Research  Technology dates back to 1936  Derivative of Reynolds Alumadeck (SAPA ‘Q’ Section)  FHWA/VDOT/Virginia Tech Testing Program (‘95-’98)  Rte. 58 over Little Buffalo Creek Bridge, VA  17+ Years Service  Heavy Truck Route  Snow Plows  No Reported Issues  Original Wearing Surface Advantages (Cont’d):  Available AASHTO LRFD Design Specifications  Material Familiarity and Predictability  Previous Testing and Research  Technology dates back to 1936  Derivative of Reynolds Alumadeck (SAPA ‘Q’ Section)  FHWA/VDOT/Virginia Tech Testing Program (‘95-’98)  Rte. 58 over Little Buffalo Creek Bridge, VA  17+ Years Service  Heavy Truck Route  Snow Plows  No Reported Issues  Original Wearing Surface

10. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Disadvantages:  Relatively High Initial Cost (~$150/sf)  New Product (Derivative)  Coefficient of Thermal Expansion  12.8x10 -6 /F (Alum.) vs. 6.5x10 -6 /F (Steel)  Requires Expansion Joints  Wearing Surface (Periodic Replacement)  Galvanic Corrosion (Mitigation)  Fasteners (Hollow Profile)  Proprietary Product  Misconceptions Disadvantages:  Relatively High Initial Cost (~$150/sf)  New Product (Derivative)  Coefficient of Thermal Expansion  12.8x10 -6 /F (Alum.) vs. 6.5x10 -6 /F (Steel)  Requires Expansion Joints  Wearing Surface (Periodic Replacement)  Galvanic Corrosion (Mitigation)  Fasteners (Hollow Profile)  Proprietary Product  Misconceptions

11. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  5-inch Deep x 13½-inch Wide Main Extrusions  6063-T6 Aluminum Alloy (Enhanced – Si, Mg)  5-inch Deep x 13½-inch Wide Main Extrusions  6063-T6 Aluminum Alloy (Enhanced – Si, Mg)

12. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  5-inch Deep x 5¼-inch Wide End Extrusions  Varying Panel Widths (Trim Flanges)  Stiffen Free Edge  Retain Expansion Joint Seal  Retain Wearing Surface  5-inch Deep x 5¼-inch Wide End Extrusions  Varying Panel Widths (Trim Flanges)  Stiffen Free Edge  Retain Expansion Joint Seal  Retain Wearing Surface

13. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  32-foot Max. Length Extrusions  Friction Stir Welded (FSW) to Create Panels  Widths Similar to Steel Open Grid Panels  32-foot Max. Length Extrusions  Friction Stir Welded (FSW) to Create Panels  Widths Similar to Steel Open Grid Panels

14. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  Infinite Range of Panel Widths  Extrusions in Multiples of 4½” (9”, 13½”)  End Extrusion Widths Range from 3” to 5¼”  Trim End Extrusion Top & Bottom Plates  Infinite Range of Panel Widths  Extrusions in Multiples of 4½” (9”, 13½”)  End Extrusion Widths Range from 3” to 5¼”  Trim End Extrusion Top & Bottom Plates

15. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  Transverse Span Across Stringers  4.0 to 4.5 feet Existing Spacing  Opportunity to Respace Stringers  6.0 feet (Optimal Spacing for Most Bascules)  Short Cantilever (Avoid Support on Main Girders)  Transverse Span Across Stringers  4.0 to 4.5 feet Existing Spacing  Opportunity to Respace Stringers  6.0 feet (Optimal Spacing for Most Bascules)  Short Cantilever (Avoid Support on Main Girders)

16. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)  Pre-Bolt Stringers to Deck Panels  Facilitate Alignment  Minimize Field Work  Stringers Clear Floorbeam Flange  WT Connection Stiffeners/Splice Type Connections  Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)  Pre-Bolt Stringers to Deck Panels  Facilitate Alignment  Minimize Field Work  Stringers Clear Floorbeam Flange  WT Connection Stiffeners/Splice Type Connections

17. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)  Pre-Bolt Stringers to Deck Panels  Facilitate Alignment  Minimize Field Work  Stringers Clear Floorbeam Flange  WT Connection Stiffeners/Splice Type Connections  Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC)  Pre-Bolt Stringers to Deck Panels  Facilitate Alignment  Minimize Field Work  Stringers Clear Floorbeam Flange  WT Connection Stiffeners/Splice Type Connections

18. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Friction Stir Welding (FSW) – Renewed Interest in Technology  The Welding Institute - 1991  Solid-state, Hot Shear Joining Process  Rapidly rotating tool advances along joint between rigidly clamped plates  Shoulder in firm contact, profiled pin plunges into material  Friction generates heat, softens material Friction Stir Welding (FSW) – Renewed Interest in Technology  The Welding Institute - 1991  Solid-state, Hot Shear Joining Process  Rapidly rotating tool advances along joint between rigidly clamped plates  Shoulder in firm contact, profiled pin plunges into material  Friction generates heat, softens material  Rapid rotation produces plastic deformation and flow  Material re-deposited from front to trailing edge  Material forges into solid-state as it cools  Rapid rotation produces plastic deformation and flow  Material re-deposited from front to trailing edge  Material forges into solid-state as it cools

19. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Friction Stir Welding (FSW)  Complex Thermo-mechanical Process  Varying temperature (0.7 to 0.9 melting point) and varying deformation  Yields varying recrystallization  Different zones and microstructures  Rapid translation and rotation yields asymmetric profile Friction Stir Welding (FSW)  Complex Thermo-mechanical Process  Varying temperature (0.7 to 0.9 melting point) and varying deformation  Yields varying recrystallization  Different zones and microstructures  Rapid translation and rotation yields asymmetric profile

20. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck FSW Joint Weld Quality  Higher Quality than Metal Inert Gas (MIG) Welding  Flaws still possible:  Voids  Lack of Fusion  Lack of Penetration  Faying Surface Defects  Presence of Entrapped Oxides (Affects Fusion)  Quality influenced by:  Tooling (Shoulder Size, Probe Size, Depth and Thread Details)  Support (Alignment, Clamping Force)  FSW Process (Rotation/Advancement Speed, Force, Inclination Angle)  Quality Control/Weld Inspection  AWS D1.2 Aluminum Welding Code (2014)  Bend Tests (Weld Tabs), Visual, RT/UT FSW Joint Weld Quality  Higher Quality than Metal Inert Gas (MIG) Welding  Flaws still possible:  Voids  Lack of Fusion  Lack of Penetration  Faying Surface Defects  Presence of Entrapped Oxides (Affects Fusion)  Quality influenced by:  Tooling (Shoulder Size, Probe Size, Depth and Thread Details)  Support (Alignment, Clamping Force)  FSW Process (Rotation/Advancement Speed, Force, Inclination Angle)  Quality Control/Weld Inspection  AWS D1.2 Aluminum Welding Code (2014)  Bend Tests (Weld Tabs), Visual, RT/UT

21. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Wearing Surface  Euclid Flexolith (Low Modulus Epoxy Coating w/ Broadcast Overlay)  17+ Year Service Life (Rte. 58 over Little Buffalo Creek, VA)  Two Layers Proposed ( ¼” Thickness, 3 to 4 psf Unit Weight)  Skid/Wear Resistance (Basalt/Alum. Oxide Aggregate Blend)  Adhesion/Cohesion Bond Strength  Environmental Factors (Temperature, Humidity)  Surface Preparation (Anchor Profile, Chemical Treatment, Cleaning)  Flexural Strength (Stiff Substrate)  Quality Control  Quantity/Spread Control  Bond Strength Tests Wearing Surface  Euclid Flexolith (Low Modulus Epoxy Coating w/ Broadcast Overlay)  17+ Year Service Life (Rte. 58 over Little Buffalo Creek, VA)  Two Layers Proposed ( ¼” Thickness, 3 to 4 psf Unit Weight)  Skid/Wear Resistance (Basalt/Alum. Oxide Aggregate Blend)  Adhesion/Cohesion Bond Strength  Environmental Factors (Temperature, Humidity)  Surface Preparation (Anchor Profile, Chemical Treatment, Cleaning)  Flexural Strength (Stiff Substrate)  Quality Control  Quantity/Spread Control  Bond Strength Tests

22. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Expansion Joints  Proposed At Stringer Midspan and Floorbeams  Accommodate Stringer Deflection/End Rotations  Reduce Thermal Forces (End Connection Moments)  Accommodate Panel Tolerances  Watson Bowman WABO Evazote UV Seal  FDOT D4 Preference  1” Joint Opening, 1¼” Wide x 2” Deep Seal Expansion Joints  Proposed At Stringer Midspan and Floorbeams  Accommodate Stringer Deflection/End Rotations  Reduce Thermal Forces (End Connection Moments)  Accommodate Panel Tolerances  Watson Bowman WABO Evazote UV Seal  FDOT D4 Preference  1” Joint Opening, 1¼” Wide x 2” Deep Seal

23. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck  Treat Deck as Non-Composite for Stringer Design  Anticipate Composite Behavior for Connections  Deck-to-Stringer Connection Design  Slip Critical  Resist Shear Flow at Interface from Live Load  Resist Shear Flow due to Differential Thermal Movements  Prevent Fretting (Premature Wear of Protective Coatings)  Prevent Bolt Fatigue (Reverse Bending)  Prevent Loosening from Vibration  Class ‘B’ Surface Condition (Certified by RCSC)  Abrasion Blast Aluminum Surface  Steel with Hot Dip Galvanized or Inorganic Zinc Primer Coatings  Proof Load (28 kips – ¾” Dia. ASTM A325 Bolt)  No Slip Live Load, Permissible Slip Thermal Load  Treat Deck as Non-Composite for Stringer Design  Anticipate Composite Behavior for Connections  Deck-to-Stringer Connection Design  Slip Critical  Resist Shear Flow at Interface from Live Load  Resist Shear Flow due to Differential Thermal Movements  Prevent Fretting (Premature Wear of Protective Coatings)  Prevent Bolt Fatigue (Reverse Bending)  Prevent Loosening from Vibration  Class ‘B’ Surface Condition (Certified by RCSC)  Abrasion Blast Aluminum Surface  Steel with Hot Dip Galvanized or Inorganic Zinc Primer Coatings  Proof Load (28 kips – ¾” Dia. ASTM A325 Bolt)  No Slip Live Load, Permissible Slip Thermal Load

24. Deck to Stringer Fasteners  Conventional ASTM A325 Bolts (¾” Dia.)  Heavy Hex  Tension Control Bolts  Hollow Profile w/ Installation Challenges  Blind Type Fasteners  Lindapter Hollo-Bolts  Böllhoff Rivnuts  Limited Bridge Experience (Appurtenances)  Desirable for Maintenance Purposes  Verify:  Static Tension Strength  Tension Proof Load  Static Shear Strength  Slip Critical Shear Resistance Deck to Stringer Fasteners  Conventional ASTM A325 Bolts (¾” Dia.)  Heavy Hex  Tension Control Bolts  Hollow Profile w/ Installation Challenges  Blind Type Fasteners  Lindapter Hollo-Bolts  Böllhoff Rivnuts  Limited Bridge Experience (Appurtenances)  Desirable for Maintenance Purposes  Verify:  Static Tension Strength  Tension Proof Load  Static Shear Strength  Slip Critical Shear Resistance Laboratory Testing

25. Blind-Type Fasteners Lindapter Hollo-Bolts®  Hollow Section Bolting since 1940’s  Recognized for Primary Structural Connections in Europe  High Strength Mat’l (SAE Grade 5, 120 ksi Tensile, 85 ksi Proof)  Actual Proof Loads << 28 kips  14 kips Initial  10 kips After Relaxation  Based on Steel-on-steel Connections Lindapter Hollo-Bolts®  Hollow Section Bolting since 1940’s  Recognized for Primary Structural Connections in Europe  High Strength Mat’l (SAE Grade 5, 120 ksi Tensile, 85 ksi Proof)  Actual Proof Loads << 28 kips  14 kips Initial  10 kips After Relaxation  Based on Steel-on-steel Connections

26. Blind-Type Fasteners Rivnuts® (Böllhoff)  Internally Threaded Rivet  Aircraft Industry since 1936  High Strength Bolts (SAE Grade 5, 120 ksi Tensile, 85 ksi Proof)  AISI 1010 Rivnut  Malleable Thin Shell for Rivet Conn.  Full Proof Load Questionable Rivnuts® (Böllhoff)  Internally Threaded Rivet  Aircraft Industry since 1936  High Strength Bolts (SAE Grade 5, 120 ksi Tensile, 85 ksi Proof)  AISI 1010 Rivnut  Malleable Thin Shell for Rivet Conn.  Full Proof Load Questionable

27. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Theory  System 1  Deck Longitudinal Forces (Axial and Flexure) from Stringer Flexure with Composite Deck  System 2  Deck Transverse Forces (Flexure) from Loading of Deck between Stringers  Positive, Negative and Cantilever Flexure  System 3  Localized Flexure of Deck from Wheel Patch Loading  Hollow Profiles behave as Rigid Frames Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Theory  System 1  Deck Longitudinal Forces (Axial and Flexure) from Stringer Flexure with Composite Deck  System 2  Deck Transverse Forces (Flexure) from Loading of Deck between Stringers  Positive, Negative and Cantilever Flexure  System 3  Localized Flexure of Deck from Wheel Patch Loading  Hollow Profiles behave as Rigid Frames

28. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Preliminary Analysis (FEA) – In Advance of Test Program  Review Panel Response/Load Distribution  AASHTO LRFD Strip Width Equations (Future Simplified Analysis)  Shear Lag Effects  Combined System 2 and 3 Effects  AASHTO LRFD  HL-93 Design Truck and Tandem (Placement for Max. Effect)  Service I (Deflections)  Strength I  Strength II (Overload Permitting)  Fatigue I (Infinite Life)  Identify Proposed Strain Gauge Locations  System 2 - Plate and Shell Element Models  System 3 - Solid Element Models Preliminary Analysis (FEA) – In Advance of Test Program  Review Panel Response/Load Distribution  AASHTO LRFD Strip Width Equations (Future Simplified Analysis)  Shear Lag Effects  Combined System 2 and 3 Effects  AASHTO LRFD  HL-93 Design Truck and Tandem (Placement for Max. Effect)  Service I (Deflections)  Strength I  Strength II (Overload Permitting)  Fatigue I (Infinite Life)  Identify Proposed Strain Gauge Locations  System 2 - Plate and Shell Element Models  System 3 - Solid Element Models

29. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Preliminary Analysis (FEA) – In Advance of Test Program System 2 – Plate and Shell Element FEA Deck Top Stress (+Moment - Tandem) 6’-0” CL Stringer Stringer CL 10” x 20” Unit 10 kip Wheel Patch

30. Aluminum Orthotropic Deck Preliminary Analysis (FEA) – In Advance of Test Program System 3 – Solid Element FEA Stress Range – 13.8 kip Moving Fatigue Design Load Stress – Unit 10.0 kip Static Wheel Patch Load

31. Laboratory Testing Proposed Test Program – Goals  Deck System Performance per AASHTO LRFD Design Provisions  Compare Measured Stresses and Deflections to FEA  Applicability of AASHTO LRFD Equivalent Strip Width Equations  Load Distribution  Required Adjustments for Shear Lag Effects  Combined System 2 and System 3 Effects  Fastener Performance/Design Parameters  Performance of Wearing Surface Proposed Test Program – Goals  Deck System Performance per AASHTO LRFD Design Provisions  Compare Measured Stresses and Deflections to FEA  Applicability of AASHTO LRFD Equivalent Strip Width Equations  Load Distribution  Required Adjustments for Shear Lag Effects  Combined System 2 and System 3 Effects  Fastener Performance/Design Parameters  Performance of Wearing Surface

32. Laboratory Testing Florida International University, Miami, FL  Deck to Stringer Connection Testing  Supplemental Test Pieces (1 ft Extrusions)  Static Shear Strength, Slip Resistance  Static Tension Strength, Sustained Proof Load Florida International University, Miami, FL  Deck to Stringer Connection Testing  Supplemental Test Pieces (1 ft Extrusions)  Static Shear Strength, Slip Resistance  Static Tension Strength, Sustained Proof Load

33. Laboratory Testing Florida International University, Miami, FL  Deck Panel Testing (Static)  Single Panel, 2 Span Continuous w/Cantilever  Instrument Panels (Strain Gauges, LVDTs)  Evaluate Panel Response  Stresses, Deflections  Max. Positive, Negative, and Cantilever Loading Florida International University, Miami, FL  Deck Panel Testing (Static)  Single Panel, 2 Span Continuous w/Cantilever  Instrument Panels (Strain Gauges, LVDTs)  Evaluate Panel Response  Stresses, Deflections  Max. Positive, Negative, and Cantilever Loading

34. Laboratory Testing FDOT Structures Research Center  Evaluate Full Structural System  Two Floorbeam Bays w/ Deck Panels, Stringers and Floorbeams  Heavy Vehicle Simulator (Moving Wheel Load)  Evaluate System Response  Deck Panel Fatigue  Deck to Stringer Connections  Stringer to Floorbeam Connections  Wearing Surface FDOT Structures Research Center  Evaluate Full Structural System  Two Floorbeam Bays w/ Deck Panels, Stringers and Floorbeams  Heavy Vehicle Simulator (Moving Wheel Load)  Evaluate System Response  Deck Panel Fatigue  Deck to Stringer Connections  Stringer to Floorbeam Connections  Wearing Surface Dynatest Mk IV Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS)

35. Field Installation & Testing North Bridge, Ft. Pierce, FL  Install Test Panels on Existing Bascule Bridge  Panels from Laboratory Testing  Two Floorbeam Bays, Half Roadway Width North Bridge, Ft. Pierce, FL  Install Test Panels on Existing Bascule Bridge  Panels from Laboratory Testing  Two Floorbeam Bays, Half Roadway Width

36. Fabrication Status  Trial Extrusions Complete  SAPA, Connersville, IN  FSW Trials Complete  HF Webster, Rapid City, SD Status  Trial Extrusions Complete  SAPA, Connersville, IN  FSW Trials Complete  HF Webster, Rapid City, SD

37. Bascule Bridge Lightweight Solid Deck Retrofit Research Project Florida Department of Transportation Questions?