Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Park. K (2005) Pilot Test On A Developed GFRP Bridge Deck PDF
Park. K (2005) Pilot Test On A Developed GFRP Bridge Deck PDF
www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
a
Structure Research Department, KICT, 2311, Daehwa-Dong, Ilsan-Gu, Goyang, Gyonggi-Do, South Korea
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Yonsei University, 134 Sinchon-Dong, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul 120-749, South Korea
Abstract
In this paper, an optimum design technique is developed which can be applied to bridge decks based on FRP materials with more
complex objective functions and constraints than those of existing materials. The proposed optimum design technique is applied to
determine optimum geometry for bridge decks and properties of the FRP material by carrying out three-dimensional numerical
modeling. In addition, FRP deck modules have been produced using the pultrusion method after considering the proposed optimum
cross-section shape and property of the material, and several tests have been performed to validate the performance of the developed
GFRP deck.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.08.011
K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 49
Table 3
Boundary of physical properties range
Description Symbol Range
Flange Web
Elastic modulus (MPa) E1 25,098 (40% to 35%) 20,374 (40% to 35%)
E2 15,236 (40% to 35%) 10,460 (40% to 35%)
PoissonÕs ratio m12 0.30 (40% to 35%) 0.30 (40% to 35%)
Shear modulus (MPa) G12 4114 (40% to 35%) 4892 (40% to 35%)
G13 4114 (40% to 35%) 4892 (40% to 35%)
G23 2240 (40% to 35%) 1349 (40% to 35%)
Tensile strength (MPa) T1 400 (40% to 35%) 350 (40% to 35%)
T2 (0.2–0.3)T1 (0.2–0.3)T1
Compressive strength (MPa) C1 400 (40% to 35%) 350 (40% to 35%)
C2 (0.2–0.3)C1 (0.2–0.3)C1
Shear strength (MPa) S12 80 (40% to 35%) 110 (40% to 35%)
Start Start
Initial Values for Design Variables For i = 1 to MNG (Maximum No. of Generation)
Converged?
No Is j = TSC?
No
Yes Yes
Crossover
End Select Superior Chromosome
and Mutation
CLT is applied to perform optimization of material Fig. 3. Modified GA-based solution algorithm.
composition and to property of material as the second
optimum design. The optimum design algorithm for
generation stress (ryield/req). In the case of isotropic
the material composition is shown in Fig. 4. The laminar
materials, if req equals to Eq. (2), the material is consid-
properties such as longitudinal/horizontal elastic modu-
ered safe when R > 1.
lus and shear modulus are calculated using the CLT, ap- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
plied fiber, ply angle, number of ply, ply thickness, and req ¼ r2x rx ry þ r2y ð2Þ
fiber volume ratio. Afterwards, stress and strain are cal-
culated by taking into account the axial force, moment,
and load–displacement relations. Also, the elastic mod-
ulus and the ratio of strength to perform optimization of 5. Design example
material properties are checked to determine the optim-
ized material properties. The R, ratio of strength, is de- The form of the target bridge is a design example
fined as the ratio of yield stress to equal-value shown in the Design Manuals for Highway Bridges
K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 51
Start
Strength Ratio(R) No
On-axis Strain On-axis Stress
Check
Yes
End
480
Upper Thickness : 32
Lower Thickness : 36
650
( unit : mm)
[14]. It has been assumed that the existing concrete deck When the optimum design of the target bridge is per-
of an example bridge is replaced to FRP deck. The spec- formed using the developed optimum design algorithm
ifications of the target bridge are shown in Fig. 5 and of FRP deck, a pseudo discrete technique is applied,
Table 4. since the design variables should be transformed to
52 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59
Table 4 205.8 GPa, and PoissonÕs ratio to be 0.3. The FRP was
Example bridge specification produced as a cross-section to satisfy required strength
Description Value by determining material characteristics that belonged
Length 40,000 mm to a wide region. The reason is that, in the case of actual
Width 12,140 mm production, there is a large discrepancy in material
Girder spacing 2,500 mm properties of the FRP applied to cross-section design
No. of girder 5
Pier spacing 35,000 mm
as shown in Table 3. It was concluded, after reviewing
Boundary condition Simply support the design procedure of the FRP deck that had been car-
ried out overseas, that the serviceability mattered in the
design of FRP decks. Therefore, serviceability was re-
viewed at the position where the flexure moment reached
its maximum caused by concentrated loads and wheel
Loading Position loads as in Figs. 6 and 7. The effect of selfweight was in-
900 200 cluded when stress and material failure were computed,
and as for the condition of the live load, the standard
design truck load DB-24, as specified in the specification
[9], were applied.
1,800
P=23,520N P=94,080N
4,200 4,200
(unit : mm)
t1=15
t3=11
H=200
t3=11
t2=15
B=160 B=160
(unit : mm)
Table 6
Optimum material property
Description Flange Web
Optimum Min requirement Optimum Min requirement
Elastic modulus (MPa) E11 25,491 22,588 23,610 18,337
E22 23,663 15,998 15,785 10,983
PoissonÕs ratio m12 0.255 0.255 0.255 0.255
Shear modulus (MPa) G12, G13 7131 3703 9865 4403
G23 4258 2182 6584 1282
Fiber volume ratio (%) Vf 65.0 (Fix) – 65.0 (Fix) –
Ratio of strength (R 6 1.0) R 0.808 – 0.8 –
54 K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59
CSM 1.500
0 ° 2.875 CSM 0.500
WM 2.125
CSM 1.500 0° 1.500
90 ° 0.875 CSM 0.500
CSM 1.500 WM 1.680
90 ° 0.875 CSM 0.500
CSM 1.500 0° 1.500
WM
0 ° 2.875 2.125
0.500
CSM
CSM 1.000
(unit : mm)
Fig. 10. Loading condition of FRP module (fiber direction flexure test).
400
Adhesive S
350
300
Adhesive M
Load(kN)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deflection(mm)
Fig. 12. Fiber direction flexure test: (a) view of flexure test, (b) failure shape.
7.2. Transverse direction test flexure test on five samples with the adhesive S applied
and three samples with the adhesive M applied under
Flexure tests were performed on the sample as shown the same conditions as that of the fiber direction flexure
in Fig. 13 to examine the stiffness of transverse direction. test. Fig. 14 shows the load–deflection curve, and Table
In this test, we tried to validate the rigidity of weak 8 presents the mean value of measured result compared
direction of the FRP deck quantitatively, and performed with the computed result. As a result, only a minor
500
LVDT
350
L/2 L/2
L=2,000
(unit : mm)
Fig. 13. Loading condition of FRP module (transverse direction flexure test).
10
Adhesive S
9
8
7
6
Load(kN)
Adhesive M
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Deflection(mm)
Fig. 15. Transverse direction flexure test: (a) view of flexure test, (b) failure shape.
Fig. 16. Loading condition of FRP module (web buckling test): (a) type I, (b) type II, (c) type III, (d) type IV.
800
600
2cell, Uniform Load(Type I)
Load(kN)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Deflection(mm)
Table 9
Test results of web buckling test
Description Buckling load (kN)
2 Cell uniform loading 2 Cell point loading 1 Cell uniform loading H type
Computed value 675 384 335 216
Measured value 623 303 413 192
bonding problems. A further study concerning this prob- two modules were attached, and each test sample was
lem may be required to clarify the rigidity of joint. 30 cm long. Fig. 17 shows the buckling test result, and
Table 9 presents the mean value of the measured result
7.3. Web buckling test compared with the computed value. In most cases, buck-
ling failure of the web and bearing failure around the
The web buckling test aims to verify basic buckling boundary of the web and flange was evident. There were
performance of the web component. The outline of the discrepancies between the measured and the computed
test sample and the procedures for load weighting are results according to shapes of test sample. It is believed
shown in Fig. 16. The cross-section shape and the load that the discrepancies between the boundary conditions,
weighting width are set as variables, and the buckling which was applied to numerical analysis, and test condi-
load in each case are calculated. Except for Type IV, tions to be the main cause of the differences. In the case
230
580
Side View
Front View
2,200
2,700 (unit : mm)
350
300
250
Load(kN)
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Deflection(mm)
Fig. 21. FRP deck flexure test: (a) view of flexure test, (b) failure shape.
of two-cell uniform load weighting closest to the case of weighting plate, and the failure load was 327 kN, close
axial load of bridge deck, it was realized that the buck- to the computed value of 317 kN. The failure load was
ling safety factor was more than five, the mean value of three times larger than the axial design load of 94 kN
measured results was 623 kN, and the minimum value of as specified in the specification [9]. The test and failure
measured result was 515 kN. The test and failure shape shape is shown in Fig. 21.
is displayed in Fig. 18.
Static weighting test were performed on the sample In this paper, optimum cross-section shape of the
shown in Fig. 19 to study the characteristics of the GFRP deck, optimum physical properties, and the pat-
FRP deck similar to the actual FRP deck consisting of tern design using optimum design algorithm have been
the proposed cross-section. Displacement control was proposed. Based on the optimization, several verifica-
used as load weighting method to give failure. As for tion tests have been conducted, and the following con-
the load weighting area, we imitated a truck wheel and clusions can be drawn from the study:
allowed the load of uniform load to exert on a weighing
plate of 230 mm · 580 mm (i.e., transverse direc- (1) The proposed algorithm is capable of optimizing,
tion · fiber direction). The position of the load weight- simultaneously, the structure and material for the
ing was spanned over two webs as shown in Fig. 19. GFRP deck system. The overall optimization pro-
The results from the FRP deck test are shown in Fig. cedure requires a full three-dimensional numerical
20. It was observed that the failure had occurred at the analysis, and hence this leads to inefficient practical
adhesive side between upper flanges near the load application, especially for multi-cellular sections.
K.-T. Park et al. / Composite Structures 70 (2005) 48–59 59
Therefore, a structural analysis module should be [2] Burnside P, Babero EJ, Davalos JF, Ganga Rao H. Design
implemented into the computer code to improve optimization of and all-FRP bridge. In: Proceedings of the 38th
International SAMPE Symposium, 1993.
its efficiency for an easy analysis. [3] Qiao P. Analysis and design optimization of fiber-reinforced
(2) A series of tests such as fiber direction flexure test, plastics (FRP) structural beam. PhD dissertation, West Virginia
transverse direction test, buckling test, and load University, 1997.
weighting test of FRP decks in actual scale have [4] Mantell S, Heiness B. Optimized design of pultruded composite
been conducted to examine basic performances of beam. J Reinforced Plastics Compos 1996;15:758–78.
[5] Salem MA. Optimum design of precast bridge systems prestressed
the developed FRP module for decks. In the case with carbon fiber reinforcement polymers. MS thesis, Concordia
of fiber direction flexure test, it was found that University, 2000.
the measured failure loads were 1.3–1.4 times larger [6] Choi YM, Kim HY, Hwang YK, Cho HN. Optimum design of a
than the computed value obtained from the numeri- pultruded FRP bridge deck. In: Proceedings of the International
cal analysis. Also it was observed that the factor of Conference on Advanced Materials for Construction of Bridges,
Buildings and other Structures-III, Davos, Switzerland, 7–12
safety against buckling was more than five. In addi- September 2003. p. 7–12.
tion, the failure load of FRP decks was three times [7] Clarke JLE, Spon FN. Structural design of polymer composites-
larger than the axial load of design truck load DB- EUROCOMP design code and handbook. European Structural
24, as specified in the specification [9]. Polymeric Composites Group (EUROCOM), 1996.
(3) Based on the test result, it was realized that it is safe [8] Babero Ever J. Introduction to composite material design. Taylor
& Francis; 1999.
to design using modeling technique applied to this [9] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT). Standards
analysis because the measured result was generally specifications for highway bridges, 2nd ed., Korea, 2000 [in
larger than the computed value, and the soundness Korean].
of the proposed optimum design algorithm has [10] American Association of State Highway and Transportation
been successfully validated. It was observed, how- Officials (AASHTO). LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st ed.,
Washington, DC, 1998.
ever, that most failures took place at the joint [11] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FRP decks and
between flange and web. Therefore, further studies super-structures: current practice. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
concerning this problem may be required. In the bridge/frp/deckprac.htm>, updated December 9, 2002.
future, the dynamic test and fatigue test may be use- [12] Vanderplaats GN. Numerical optimization techniques for engi-
ful as well as the static test to examine the durability neering design with applications. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1984.
of the developed GFRP deck. [13] Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc. ABAQUS/standard userÕs
manual, ver. 6.3. 2002.
[14] Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT). Design
manuals for highway bridges: typical drawings, No. 42000-58710-
References 67-9926, Korea, 2000.
[15] Korea Institute of Construction Technology (KICT). Develop-
[1] Cohn MZ, Dinovitzer AS. Application of structural optimization. ment of GFRP bridge decks-year two, Report No. KICT 2003-
J Struct Eng ASCE 1994;120(2):617–50. 050, Goyang, Korea, 2003 [in Korean].