Laboratory and Field Performance of Cellular Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Bridge Deck Systems |
| |
Authors: | Aixi Zhou Jason T. Coleman Anthony B. Temeles John J. Lesko Thomas E. Cousins |
| |
Affiliation: | 1Senior Research Scientist and Lecturer, Composite Construction Laboratory, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology–Lausanne, EPFL-CCLab, BAT. BP, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: aixi.zhou@epfl.ch 2Bridge Engineer, URS Corporation, 540 Falmouth St., Suite 203, Richmond, VA 23230. E-mail: jaso?coleman@urscorp.com 3Engineer-in-Training, Modejski & Masters, Inc., 155 East Third St., Moorestown, NJ 08057. E-mail: abtemeles@hotmail.com 4Associate Professor, Dept. of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061 (corresponding author). E-mail: jlesko@vt.edu 5Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061. E-mail: tcousins@vt.edu
|
| |
Abstract: | This paper addresses the laboratory and field performance of multicellular fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite bridge deck systems produced from adhesively bonded pultrusions. Two methods of deck contact loading were examined: a steel patch dimensioned according to the AASHTO Bridge Design Specifications, and a simulated tire patch constructed from an actual truck tire reinforced with silicon rubber. Under these conditions, deck stiffness, strength, and failure characteristics of the cellular FRP decks were examined. The simulated tire loading was shown to develop greater global deflections given the same static load. The failure mode is localized and dominated by transverse bending failure of the composites under the simulated tire loading as opposed to punching shear for the AASHTO recommended patch load. A field testing facility was designed and constructed in which FRP decks were installed, tested, and monitored to study the decks’ in-service field performance. No significant loss of deck capacity was observed after more than one year of field service. However, it was shown that unsupported edges (or free edges) are undesirable due to transitional stiffness from approach to the unsupported deck edge. |
| |
Keywords: | Bridge decks Composite materials Fiber reinforced materials Cellular structures Performance characteristics Failure modes Field tests Fatigue |
|
|