FLEXURAL BEHAVIOR OF HYBRID FRP-CONCRETE BRIDGE DECKS

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to investigate the behaviour of hybrid FRP-concrete decks. The hybrid FRP-concrete bridge systems consisting of different FRP cell units available on the market such as trapezoidal, triangular, honeycomb, rectangular with alternating diagonal, half-depth trapezoidal, hexagonal and arch cell units were computationally compared and examined using the finite element (FE) analysis to decide the most appropriate FRP composite deck for bridge systems. Design criteria such as the deflections were considered in selecting the most effective unit system. Different FRP bridge deck panels were analysed under static loading representing the standard European truck wheel. The finite element analysis of bridge deck systems was performed using a general purpose finite element analysis package ABAQUS, and the behaviour of these systems was then be compared in terms of stiffness and strength criteria.The results showed that Delta, Super and ASSET hybrid decks are stiffer than other deck systems. The results from FEA approach also indicated that the layer of concrete on the top surface of bridge deck reduces the vertical displacement of FRP bridge systems approximately 60%.

Keywords

• FRP Composites
• Concrete
• Bridge Decks
• Hybrid Design
• Finite element analysis

References

1. Federal Highway Administration and United States Department of Transportation (FHWA/USDOT). (2002). "Corrosion costs and preventative strategies in the United States." A Supplement to Materials Performance (MP), NACE International, Houston.
2. Hollaway, L. C. (2010), “A review of the present and future utilisation of FRP composites in the civil infrastructure with reference to their important in-service properties”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, pp. 2419–2445.
3. Bakis C.E., Bank L.C., Brown V.L., Cosenza E., Davalos J.F., Lesko J.J. (2002), ‘’Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction-state-of-art review’’, J. Compos. Construct., ASCE;6(2):73–87.
4. Keller, T. (2002), ‘‘Overview of Fibre-Reinforced Polymers in Bridge Construction’’, In: Structural Engineering International , May, No. 2, p. 66–70.
5. Alnahhal W., Aref A., Alampalli S. (2007), ‘‘Composite behavior of hybrid FRP-concrete bridge deck on steel girders’’, Compos. Struct., 84, 29-43.
6. Kitane, Y. and Aref, A. (2004), “Static and fatigue testing of hybrid fiber-reinforced polymer-concrete bridge superstructure”, J. Compos. for Const., 8(2),182-190.
7. Sebastian, W.M., Keller, T. and Ross, J. (2013) “Influences of polymer concrete surfacing and localised load distribution on behaviour up to failure of an orthotropic FRP bridge deck,” Composites: Part B, Vol. 45, pp. 1234–1250.
8. Brown RT, Zureick AH. Lightweight composite truss section decking. Marine Struct 2001;14:115–32.

9. Davalos, J. F., Qiao, P., Xu, X. F., Robinson, J., and Barth, K. E. (2001). "Modeling and characterization of fiber-reinforced plastic honeycomb sandwich panels for highway bridge applications." Composite Structures, 52(3-4), 441-452.
10. Keller T. and Schollmayer M., Plate bending behavior of a pultruded GFRP bridge deck system, Composite Structures 64, 285–295, 2004.
11. Keller T, Gürtler H. 2006. In-plane compression and shear performance of FRP bridge decks acting as top chord of bridge girders. Compos. Struct .;72(2):151–62.
12. Saiidi, M., Gordaninejad, F., and Wehbe, N. (1994), “Behavior of Graphite/Epoxy Concrete Composite Beams”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 10, pp. 2958-2976.
13. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Eurocode 1–– Actions on Structures, part 2: traffic loads on bridges. Pr EN 1991-2, 2002.
14. Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. (2006), ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.6, Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.