Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Abstract
The bi-directional plate bending behavior of a pultruded GFRP bridge deck system with orthotropic material and system
properties was investigated by means of two full-scale experiments and numerical modeling. Furthermore, the maximum span of the
deck between two main girders was determined using Eurocode loading and presupposing a maximum deection ratio of span/300.
Compared to an isotropic plate-strip, the bi-directional behavior of the orthotropic deck was not very pronounced. Nevertheless,
selecting experiment specimen with ve proles instead of only three reduced the maximum deections at the serviceability limit
state (SLS) by ca. 50%.
Therefore, since the SLS governs in the design of GFRP bridge decks, the possible contribution of bi-directional plate bending is
not insignicant and should be considered and improved in order to fully exploit the potential of pultruded GFRP bridge decks.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Composite structures; Bridge decks; Pultrusion; GFRP
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: thomas.keller@ep.ch (T. Keller).
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2003.08.011
286
3. Numerical modeling
3.1. Road trac loads
Road trac loads according to the European Code
EC1 were used [9]. Within the scope of this project, load
model 1 had to be considered. Load model 1 consists of
the following concentrated and uniformly distributed
loads, which approximate most of the actions of the
trac of trucks and cars:
3.2. FE-model
For the numerical calculations, a nite element (FE)
bridge deck model consisting of six pultruded proles
was developed with the FEM program ANSYS, cf. Fig.
2. The volume element Solid 186 was used. The adhesively bonded joints between the structural elements
were not modeled. The edges parallel to the proles are
not supported, while the edges perpendicular to the
Table 1
Material properties of the pultruded deck [8]
Parameter
Face sheets
Web walls
EL
ET
EZ
GLT
GLZ
GZT
mLT
mLZ
mZT
21,240 MPa
11,790 MPa
4140 MPa
5580 MPa
600 MPa
600 MPa
0.32
0.3
0.3
17,380 MPa
9650 MPa
4140 MPa
7170 MPa
600 MPa
600 MPa
0.3
0.3
0.3
proles are simply supported. The mechanical properties represented in Table 1 were used.
An even number of proles were chosen because this
allows, due to double-symmetry, the modeling of only
one quarter of the deck and, therefore, to minimize the
number of nite elements. The specimen for the experiments, whereas, consisted of ve (specimen S1), respectively three (S2) proles.
The maximum vertical deections and stresses at SLS
were calculated with the FE-model as follows: The FEstructure was loaded, according to load model 1, with a
concentrated wheel load of 150 kN in the center of
gravity of the deck, distributed on a 0.4 0.4 m load
patch, as well as with a uniformly distributed load of 9
kN/m2 . In view of possible thin polymer concrete surfacings, no load dispersal of the concentrated load was
assumed. Only one wheel was used for the loading because it was assumed that the wheels spheres of inuence
do not interact with each other. The resulting maximum
spans for maximum deection ratios of span/300, 400
and 500 are listed in Table 2.
Subsequently, FEM calculations were used to determine the parameters of the physical experiments. The
specimen were subjected to only one concentrated load
at the center of gravity of the deck, distributed on a
0.4 0.4 m load patch. An SLS value for this load was
determined in such a way that the calculated maximum
stresses in the FEM model, subjected to EC1 loads on
the one hand and to the experimental concentrated load
on the other hand, matched.
A reference span of 2.70 m was considered for the
experiments which corresponds to a deection limit of
span/300. This ratio seems reasonable to the authors for
GFRP bridge deck applications in view of a sucient
serviceability. A precondition is that the adherence of
the surfacing to the deck is ensured at this ratio.
According to this procedure, an SLS concentrated
load of 165 kN and a ULS concentrated load of 220 kN
at the reference span of 2.70 m was determined for the
experiments.
The results of the numerical modeling of the behavior
of specimen S1 with ve proles at the SLS are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 (deections) as well as Fig. 12
(stresses) and are compared with the measured results.
The dierent number of proles (six proles FEM, ve
proles experiment specimen) was not estimated to be of
signicant inuence.
4. Experimental set-up
Table 2
Maximum spans according to FEM calculations
S2
287
4.1. Specimen
Two specimen S1 and S2, consisting of ve, respectively three pultruded proles were prepared for two
static experiments. The dimensions of the specimen are
reported in Table 3 and the cross-sections are illustrated
in Fig. 3. The specimen were bonded by the manufacturer.
It should be noted that the underside of the specimen
S1 was not exactly plane. Therefore, the specimen was
only supported in the middle region in the unloaded
state. At the edges, a gap between the underside of the
specimen and the elastic strip of up to 2 mm remained.
The width of the gap was carefully measured and the
measured values of the outer displacement transducers
were corrected accordingly.
4.2. Set-up and load equipment
The experiment set-up is illustrated in Fig. 4. The
specimen were simply supported by three concrete
blocks on each side. 200 mm wide steel proles with 50
mm wide and 10 mm thick elastic strips were installed in
between the concrete blocks and the specimen. The
support axis was assumed to be in the middle of the
elastic strip. The possible horizontal displacement of
the steel shapes and the elastic strips on the concrete
blocks allowed for the variation of the span of the
specimen from 1.90 to 2.70 m. The concentrated load
was applied with a hydraulic jack of a capacity of 1000
kN via a steel plate 0.4 0.4 m. Between the steel plate
and the deck a 20 mm thick timber plate of the same
dimensions was placed.
Table 3
Dimensions of the specimen
Dimensions
S1
S2
Number of proles
Width
Length
Height
5
1626 mm
3
1016 mm
2900 mm
195 mm
195
S1
Corresponding span l
l/500
l/400
l/300
1500 mm
1950 mm
2700 mm
195
1626
1016
288
42 52
14
41 51 57 66 58 67 60 68
23
13
69
22
24
40 50 55 62 56 63 59 64 61 65
12
17
45
46
19
18
16
1626
53 43 54 44
15
load patch
400 x 400mm
displacement transducer
upper face
strain gage
2900
31 15
16 35 17
18
19
30 10
11 34 12
13
14
21
24
29
3
25
33
23
28
36 7
11
32 2
9
0
37 5
1626
22
5
27 20
6
26 21
7
bottom face
289
Table 4
Overview of the experiments performed
Appellation
Type of exp.
Span (mm)
Loading
Rate
S1sls1900
S1sls2000
S1sls2100
S1sls2200
S1sls2300
S1sls2400
S1sls2500
S1sls2600
S1sls2700
S1creep2700
S1dist2700
S1uls2700
S1fail2700
S2fail2700
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Bending SLS
Creep SLS
Support reaction
Bending ULS
Bending failure
Bending failure
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
2700
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
165
165
210
774
796
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Load-controlled
Displ.-controlled
Displ.-controlled
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
7.5 kN/min
2 mm/min
2 mm/min
5. Experimental results
5.1. Experiments at SLS load level
The results of the experiments S1sls1900S1sls2700
on specimen S1 are illustrated in Fig. 7. The maximum
deection on the bottom side at 165 kN load as a
function of the span is shown. At this load level, the
behavior remained linear-elastic and no cracks could be
heard. Therefore, the assumption that the experiments
did not inuence one another due to progressive damages was conrmed.
The deection of both specimen at the reference span,
in the transversal direction at mid-span, is shown in
Figs. 810. The dierent behavior of the two specimen is
clearly apparent in Fig. 8. In specimen S1 with ve
proles, the proles on the outside showed almost no
deection. In contrast, all three of the proles of specimen S2 deected. The maximum deection with the
three proles was about 50% higher than with the ve
proles. Furthermore, the assumption in Section 3.2 is
conrmed: The inuence sphere of the wheel load is
about 1.20 m and approximately corresponds to the
distance between the two axles of load model 1.
The distribution of the deections in longitudinal
direction are illustrated in Fig. 11 for specimen S1.
There is no notable dierence in the shape of the distributions of specimen S1 and S2.
0
90
85
80
1
7
FEM
Experiment 165kN
[mm]
75
[mm]
70
65
FEM
S1 @165kN
S2 @165kN
60
4
55
10
50
12
45
S1 transducer no.4
40
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
1000
2.8
800
600
400
200
200
400
600
800
1000
position [mm]
span b [m]
290
10
10
20
20
30
30
[mm]
[mm]
40
40
165kN (SLS)
165kN (SLS)
220kN (ULS)
50
50
774kN (failure)
774kN (failure)
60
60
14
70
800
220kN (ULS)
13
600
12
400
15
200
15
position [mm]
200
400
600
70
800
1000
500
16
17
18
500
1000
position [mm]
Fig. 11. Measured and interpolated deections in the main longitudinal section of specimen S1, upper face sheet (exp. S1sls2700,
S1uls2700, S1fail2700).
Fig. 9. Measured and interpolated deections in transversal direction
at mid-span of specimen S1, upper face sheet (exp. S1sls2700,
S1uls2700, S1fail2700).
strain [%]
10
20
31.9
SLS 165 kN
FEM
0.1
stress [MPa]
0.15
21.2
0.05
10.6
m]
1000
0.2
50
strain [%]
31.9
0.1
21.2
0.05
200
300
400
1000
500
500
position [m
m]
500
1000
strain [%]
0.8
170.0
failure 774 kN
0.6
127.4
0.4
42.5
85.0
0.2
[m
500
500
position [m
m]
500
1000
sit
1000
po
stress [MPa]
10.6
500
100
position [mm]
100
[m
200
300
io
400
sit
500
po
70
42.5
ULS 220 kN
0.15
60
io
500
[m
position [m
40
sit
500
po
500
0
1000
796kN (failure)
stress [MPa]
220kN (ULS)
30
io
[mm]
165kN (SLS)
Fig. 12. Interpolated distributions of measured axial strains and resulting axial stresses in dierent longitudinal sections of specimen S1,
bottom face sheet (exp. S1sls2700, S1uls2700, S1fail2700). For SLS,
comparison with FEM results (mid & edge sections).
212.4
165kN (SLS)
0.9
291
191.2
220kN (ULS)
169.9
796kN (failure)
0.7
148.7
0.6
127.4
0.5
106.2
0.4
85.0
0.3
63.7
0.2
42.5
0.1
21.2
[MPa]
[%]
0.8
0
1500
0
1000
500
500
1000
1500
position [mm]
Fig. 13. Interpolated distributions of measured axial strains and resulting axial stresses in the main longitudinal section of specimen S2,
bottom face sheet (all taken from exp. S2fail2700).
less load than the center proles. The maximum resulting longitudinal stress in specimen S1 at SLS was 24.6
MPa in the bottom face sheet and )21 MPa in the upper
face sheet. The corresponding value in the bottom face
sheet of S2 was 34.6 MPa and thus about 41% higher
than in S1.
5.2. Creep experiment
A creep experiment (S1creep2700) was performed on
specimen S1 over almost 14 h in order to examine the
long-term behavior of the deck. The duration of the
experiment was certainly too short to make any conclusive observations, though full SLS loads were considered. During the experiment, the initial elastic
deformation increased about 1 mm (ca. 12%, cf. Fig.
14), the increase attened notedly with the time. After
Fig. 15. Support reaction distribution experiment (S1dist2700), arrangement of load transducers and dummies, interpolated experiment
results.
800
S1 upper sheet
S1 bottom sheet
S2 upper sheet
S2 bottom sheet
10
700
600
load [kN]
500
[mm]
400
300
ULS
200
SLS
2
100
1
0
S1 transducer no.4
0
10
12
14
16
10
20
30
[mm]
40
50
60
70
time [hours]
292
700
600
load [kN]
500
400
300
ULS
200
SLS
S1 transd. 4-15
100
0
0. 5
S2 transd. 22-3
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
293
Fig. 22. Failure experiment S1fail2700: detail of Fig. 21, failure in the
outer prole layer, not in adhesive or in the interface.
294
295
follows: due to local bi-directional punching deformation in specimen S1 in the compression zone, corresponding high local curvatures caused high in-thickness
stresses and premature interlaminar failures that led to
earlier buckling of the top face sheet. In specimen S2, the
deformation around the load patch was more even and
uni-directional with less local curvatures, thereby allowing for higher stresses.
Acknowledgements
[1] Keller T. Recent all-composite and hybrid ber-reinforced polymer bridges and buildings. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2001;3(2):132
40.
[2] Solomon G, Godwin G. Expanded use of composite deck projects
in USA. Struct Eng Int 2002;12(2):1024.
[3] Brown RT, Zureick AH. Lightweight composite truss section
decking. Marine Struct 2001;14:11532.
[4] Crocker H, Shehata E, Haldane-Wilsone R, Mufti A. Innovative
ber reinforced bridge deck modules. In: Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure ICCI02,
San Francisco, 2002. Paper 076 on CD-ROM.
[5] Luke S, Knudsen E, Taljsten B. Advanced composite bridge
decking systemproject ASSET. Struct Eng Int 2002;12(2):769.
[6] Hayes MD, Ohanehi D, Lesko JJ, Cousin TE, Witcher D.
Performance of tube and plate berglass composite bridge deck.
J Comp Construct 2000;4(2):4855.
[7] Cassity P, Richards D, Gillespie J. Composite acting FRP deck and
girder system. Struct Eng Int 2002;12(2):715.
[8] DARPA Final Technical Report. Advanced composites for bridge
infrastructure renewalphase II, Task 16Modular Composite
Bridge, March 2000.
[9] European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Eurocode 1
Actions on Structures, part 2: trac loads on bridges. prEN 1991-2,
2002.