1 / 37

Implementation of FRP Girders in Short Span Bridges: Ponte Dickey Creek

Implementation of FRP Girders in Short Span Bridges: Ponte Dickey Creek. M.D. Hayes 1 , J.J. Lesko 1 C. Waldron 2 , T.C Cousins 2 , Dan Witcher 3 , G. Barefoot 3 , Jose Gomez 4 1 Department of Engineering Science & Mechanics 2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

pascale-stevenson
Télécharger la présentation

Implementation of FRP Girders in Short Span Bridges: Ponte Dickey Creek

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementation of FRP Girders in Short Span Bridges: Ponte Dickey Creek M.D. Hayes1, J.J. Lesko1 C. Waldron2, T.C Cousins2, Dan Witcher3, G. Barefoot3, Jose Gomez4 1Department of Engineering Science & Mechanics 2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 3Strongwell, Corp., Bristol, VA 4VTRC/VDOT, Charlottesville, VA

  2. Where is Virginia Tech? Maryland West Virginia Kentucky Ponte Dickey Creek Strongwell, Corp. Tennessee North Carolina

  3. Rt. 601 Bridge over Dickey CreekMarion, VA 35’

  4. Extren™ 36” Double Web Beam (DWB) Characteristics • Pultrusion • Both Hybrid, Unbalanced Non-Symmetric Layup • Vinyl Ester Resin • Glass 0°, ±45° & 90° plies • Hybrid: Carbon in top and bottom flanges • Produced as part of the NIST ATP program Dimensions in inches

  5. 36” DWB Performance & the Rt. 601 Bridge • Preliminary design & deflection • Bridge rails and Connections • Proof testing 5x design load • Average properties & performance • Failure test • Post failure bridge performance • Design guidelines

  6. Preliminary Design Assumptions • 38 ft clear span (use 39’ with bearing pads) • Curb-to-curb width = 28 ft • Assume wheel load distribution = s/5 (From Standard Spec for steel girder timber deck, shown to be conservative for the Tom’s Creek Bridge) • Assume dynamic load allowance = 1.3 (From Standard Spec yet potentially not conservative as shown by TCB) • Assume conservative FRP beam properties: • E = 6.0 Msi, I = 15291 in4, kGA = 20 Msi-in2 • Shear deformation accounts for ~12% of total deflection

  7. Deflection Criteria: Targeting L/800 L/800 requires 3.1 ft spacing But, 3.5 ft chosen

  8. a 6’ 2’ 14’ a 38’ span 38’ span b 6’ 2’ 28’ width 28’ width Loading Arrangements HS20-44 Loading HS20-AML Loading rear axle middle axle front axle

  9. LDF Approach* Finite Difference Model HS20-AML HS20-44 HS20-44 HS20-44 FRP girder spacing: 42” uniform 42” uniform Variable: 36”, 52” Max moment (ft-kips): 191 197 224 200 Max shear (kips): 10.9 18.3 N/A N/A Max deflection: L/760 L/710 L/600 L/660 HS20-44 standard loading controls design Resultant Moments, Deflections • For s = 3.5 ft, s/5 = 0.7 and # girders = 8 • Assuming equal spacing, resulting loads: * Calculations verified by Appendix A in the AASHTO Bridge Specifications: 432.1 x 3.5 / (2 x 5) x 1.3 = 197 ft-kips

  10. 8-Girder Designs

  11. Diaphragm Detail

  12. Deck to Girder Connection

  13. Connection Testing Connection produces less than 5% composite action and therefore is not considered in the design of the bridge

  14. Bridge Rails

  15. Crash Tested Rail Design Crash tested at Univ. of Nebraska on a 5 1/8” deep transverse glue laminated deck to TL-4

  16. Girder Testing

  17. Girder Test Set-Up

  18. 16'-6" 6'-0" 12'-0" 19'-6" 39'-0" Stiffness & Failure Test:Set-Up and Gage Plan D B D A (bottom of top flange) Shr1-9 A 3" Spc. A (top of bottom flange) B Wire Pot Wire Pots 1-center, 2-3' either side of flange D = Delamination Bridge (1 gage top and bottom of flange) B = Bending Bridge (3 gages across flange) A = Axial Gage Shr = Shear Bridge (9 sets placed around load point)

  19. Moment - Deflection to Failure Mfail/M5x = 1.7 Mfail/Mservice = 7.2 AASHTO Service Moment

  20. Top Flange Damage Failure under loading point

  21. Top Flange Damage Failure along carbon/glass interface

  22. Moment-Deflection(Post Failure) 450 36” hybrid DWB retains 70% of its stiffness after failure 400 350 300 250 Run 1 Moment (kip-ft) AASHTO Service Moment Run 2 200 Run 3 150 100 50 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Midspan Deflection (in.)

  23. Girder Verification & Performance Summary

  24. Summary of 36” DWB Properties Weibull Mean:6.21±0.27 26.7±3.5 5.37±0.19 • Conservative properties assumed in design E = 6 Msi & kGA = 20 Msi•in2 • This is not a statistical mean or allowable. • Ultimate strain = 3170 me (top flange) • Max moment = 1415 kip-ft comes from 1 test on beam #13.

  25. Predicted Load Distribution • s/5 assumed in bridge design & analysis • Analytical model run to assess LDF, e.g. HS20 loading: S/4.2

  26. Load Distribution (Half Bridge Width)

  27. Design guidelines

  28. 36”DWB Design guide under development Modified LRFD Approach • 8” Deep DWB Design Guide • Deflection (A&B Allowables) • Strength (A&B Allowables) • Stability • Bearing • Connections • Fatigue & Long Term Reliability based approach to assessing A & B basis Allowables, as described through Weibull Statistics

  29. Resistance, R B-Basis A-Basis Level of Risk 36” & 8” DWB Design Guide Approach User supplies loads and level of acceptable risk based on change in Resistance Cumulative Probability

  30. Summary • Rt. 601 designed for AASHTO HS20-44 loading with DLA (L/650 predicted) • Worst case LDF s/4.2 • Girder to timber deck connections provide no composite action • Crash tested bridge rail for transverse glue laminated deck • Exceeds a factor of safety of 7 (RC structures F.S.2) • Ponte Dickey Creek installed by VDOT • Design guide under development

  31. Acknowledgements • VDOT/VTRC - Dr. Jose Gomez, Julius Volgyi, Malcom Kerley • VDOT Bristol District - Chris Blevis, Gary Lovins • FHWA, John Hooks & http://ibrc.fhwa.dot.gov

  32. Questions?

More Related