advanced structural materials for concrete...
Post on 11-Aug-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Advanced Structural Materials for Concrete Bridges
Tuesday, December 3, 20191:00-2:30 PM ET
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and
requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program.
Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A
certificate of completion will be issued to participants that have registered
and attended the entire session. As such, it does not include content that
may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.
Purpose
To identify and compare several advanced performance structural materials that may be used on bridges.
Learning Objectives
At the end of this webinar, you will be able to:
โข List four new advanced structural materials for concrete bridge applications
โข Describe the benefits of each advanced structural material
โข Describe the challenges of implementing these structural materials
PDH Certificate Informationโข This webinar is valued at 1.5 Professional Development
Hours (PDH)โข Instructions on retrieving your certificate will be found in
your webinar reminder and follow-up emailsโข You must register and attend as an individual to receive a
PDH certificateโข Certificates of Completion will be issued only to individuals
who register for and attend the entire webinar session โthis includes Q&A
โข TRB will report your hours within one weekโข Questions? Contact Reggie Gillum at RGillum@nas.edu
Michigan Department of TransportationFRP prestressing codes and guidance
Matthew J. Chynoweth, P.E.Chief Bridge EngineerDirector, Bureau of Bridges and Structures
2
Introduction of current needs in bridge durability & Advanced Structural Materials of interest
โข Material Systems:โข Prestressed Concrete using either CFRP & HSSS โข Reinforced Concrete using FRP rebar (Glass & Basalt FRP)โข Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC)
โข without reinforcing;โข with traditional reinforcing and/or prestressing (carbon-steel)โข with ASM reinforcing and/or prestressing (HSSS or FRP)
โข Justification of higher initial cost from ASMโsโข Durability Enhancement โ potentially increased Service Life / significantly reduced Thru-life
Maintenance Repair & Rehabilitation (MRR);โข Resilience โ superior Mechanical Performance, Damage Tolerance for continued service,
increased Adaptability options (long-term widening, structure repurposing);โข Sustainability โ Reduced embodied energy, CO2 emissions using circular economy principals;โข Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC) - economic comparisons;โข Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) - environmental comparisons
A recent TRB webinar covered the National AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications:
TRB Webinar: Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Systems for Concrete Structures
http://www.trb.org/BridgesOtherStructures/Blurbs/179731.aspx
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
4
Stages of prestressing force
๐๐๐๐: Initial jacking force
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐: Prestressing force immediately before transfer
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐๐๐
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
5
๐๐๐๐: Prestressing force immediately after transfer
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
6
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐(๐๐๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ) = 10.0๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐๐ด๐ด๐๐
๐พ๐พโ๐พ๐พ๐ ๐ ๐๐ + 12.0๐พ๐พโ๐พ๐พ๐ ๐ ๐๐ + ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐พ๐พโ = 1.7 0.01H
๐พ๐พ๐ ๐ ๐๐ =5
(1 + ๐๐๐๐๐๐โฒ )
๐๐๐๐: Effective prestressing force after long-term losses
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐๐๐ { ๐ถ๐ถ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ถ๐ถ + ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ + ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐} ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
H: Humidity = 70
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐: stress in FRP immediately prior to transfer
๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
7
Check stresses @ service limit state
Prestressing force (๐๐๐๐)
Self-weight of the beam (or non-composite section) + Dead load + superimposed dead loads + Live loads
Concrete full strength (๐๐๐๐โฒ)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ = โ๐๐๐๐๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐.๐๐๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐๐
๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ + ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐๐
๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ + ๐๐๐ท๐ท๐๐๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ + 0.8 ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฟ
๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ (Service III)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ = โ๐๐๐๐๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐
+ ๐๐๐๐.๐๐๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐๐
๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐๐
๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐๐๐๐ท๐ท๐๐๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐
๐๐๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ผ๐๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ (Service I) ๐ ๐ ๐ธ๐ธ
๐ธ๐ธ
Critical section@ mid-span
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
8
MDOT guide:
No tension is allowed in pre-compressed
tensile zone of CFRP prestressed beams
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
9
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
10
Most common Less common
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
11
๐๐๐๐๐๐ =๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐๐๐.๐๐1
Reinforcementratio Depth of stress block Section design Failure mode
๐๐๐๐๐๐ < ๐๐๐๐_๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐ธ๐ธ < ๐๐ Rectangular Tension๐๐๐๐๐๐ > ๐๐๐๐_๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐ธ๐ธ < ๐๐ Rectangular Compression๐๐๐๐๐๐ < ๐๐๐๐_๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ < ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐ธ๐ธ < ๐๐ + ๐๐ Flanged Tension๐๐๐๐๐๐ > ๐๐๐๐_๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ < ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐ธ๐ธ < ๐๐ + ๐๐ Flanged Compression
๐๐๐๐๐๐ < ๐๐๐๐_๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐ธ๐ธ > ๐๐ + ๐๐Double Flanged Tension
๐๐๐๐๐๐ > ๐๐๐๐_๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐ธ๐ธ > ๐๐ + ๐๐Double Flanged Compression
๐๐: Depth of deck slab ๐๐: Depth of top flange of beam
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
12
b
bw
hf
d1
c
d1-c
๐๐1๐๐2
๐๐3๐๐4
๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐
di-c
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐1๐๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐1 ๐ธ๐ธ
๐๐๐๐ = Strain in CFRP reinforcement at layer ๐ธ๐ธ, not including the effective prestressing strain ๐๐๐๐๐๐
N.A.
Strain Distribution
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
13
b
bw
hf
d1
c
d1-c
๐๐1๐๐2
๐๐3๐๐4
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐
di-c
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐๐๐ .๐ ๐ ๐๐ .๐ธ๐ธ๐๐.๐ธ๐ธ๐๐
๐๐๐๐ = Force in CFRP reinforcement at layer ๐ธ๐ธ, not including the effective prestressing force ๐๐๐๐
N.A.
Forces in section
๐๐๐๐
๐น๐น๐๐
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
14
๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐ = ๏ฟฝ๐๐=1
๐๐=๐๐
๐ด๐ด๐๐_๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ =๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐๐๐.๐๐1
Calculate the neutral axis depth for a balanced section, ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐1
=๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ + (๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐)
(rectangular sections)
๐๐๐๐๐๐ < ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ > ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Tension failure
Compression failure
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ =0.85๐๐๐๐โฒ๐ฝ๐ฝ1๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ค๐ค + 0.85๐๐๐๐โฒ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ค ๐๐๐๐
๐ธ๐ธ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐1(Flanged sections)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ =0.85๐๐๐๐โฒ๐ฝ๐ฝ1๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ธ๐ธ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐1
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
15
Calculate the depth of the N.A., ๐ธ๐ธ
Calculate the flexural strain in different reinforcement layers & strain in concrete
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐1๐๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐1 ๐ธ๐ธ
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐1๐๐
๐๐1โ๐๐< ๐๐๐๐๐๐
Where, ๐๐1 = ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ธ๐ธ =๐ธ๐ธ๐๐ .๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐ . (๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐) + ๐๐๐๐
0.85 ๐๐๐๐โฒ ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐๐
For a rectangular section
๐ธ๐ธ =๐ธ๐ธ๐๐ .๐ด๐ด๐๐๐๐ . (๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐) + ๐๐๐๐ 0.85๐๐๐๐โฒ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ค
0.85 ๐๐๐๐โฒ ๐ฝ๐ฝ1 ๐๐๐ค๐ค
For a flanged section
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
16
Calculate the nominal moment capacity of the section, ๐๐๐๐
For a flanged section
๐๐๐๐ = ๏ฟฝ๐๐=1
๐๐=๐๐
๐ธ๐ธ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ฝ๐ฝ1๐ธ๐ธ
2+ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐
๐ฝ๐ฝ1๐ธ๐ธ2
+0.85 ๐๐๐๐โฒ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ค๐ค๐ฝ๐ฝ1๐ธ๐ธ
2๐๐
2
For a rectangular section, use the same eqn. with ๐๐๐ค๐ค = ๐๐
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
17
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
18
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
19
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
20
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
21
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
22
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
23
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
24
M-102 over Plum Creek: Design
Twin 75โ long single span structures, using 33โ x 48โ side by side box beams prestressed with CFCC
M-102 over Plum Creek: Design
80.03
21
Determination of number of the theoretical number of CFCC strands based on calculation of excess tension in bottom flange based on Service III limit state:
Allow for 0 tension in bottom flange at service, as opposed to allowable
M-102 over Plum Creek: Design
CFCC strand data based on testing:
GUTS = 60.70 kipsAstrand = 0.179 in2
fโpu = 339 ksi โ calculated ultimate tensile strengthCE = 0.90 โ environmental factor per ACI 440.1R-06fpu = 305 ksi โ design ultimate tensile strengthEps = 21,000 ksi
M-102 over Plum Creek: Design
Assume strand eccentricity based on strand center of gravity is between two rows of strands, and equal number of strands in each row:
Strand stress limit prior to transfer:
1
60.0
M-102 over Plum Creek: Design
Assume 25% losses, and calculate the number of strands to start, then refine design based on service and strength limit state checks:
75.0
M-102 over Plum Creek: Design
Need to develop jacking forces to stay below creep-rupture curve, while efficiently providing force to offset excess tension due to applied loads
M-102 over Plum Creek: Fabrication
15.2 mm strand reels โ 1043 m each
M-102 over Plum Creek: Fabrication
Coupled strands, pull steel strands
M-102 over Plum Creek: Fabrication
Monitoring force in strands via load cells
M-102 over Plum Creek: Fabrication
Strand stressing complete, pouring concrete
M-102 over Plum Creek: Fabrication
Reinforcement complete, finishing concrete pour
M-102 over Plum Creek: Fabrication
Completed beam โ no release stress cracking
M-102 over Plum Creek: Deck casting
M-102 over Plum Creek: Deck casting
M-102 over Plum Creek: Completed structures
MDOT/Lawrence Technological University MathCAD Templates:
https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/SpecProv/trainingmaterials.htm
High-Strength Stainless Steel (HSSS)Prestressed Concrete (PC)
Will Potter
Florida Department of Transportation
Material Development
โข Researchโข Georgia Techโข University of South Florida
โข Materials Evaluatedโข Austenite - 316, 304 and XM-29โข Duplex 2101, 2205 and 2304, โข Martenistic 17-7
โข Current Production Material โข Duplex 2205
Moser et al, 2012
Duplex 2205Provides highest strength and best corrosion resistance among those evaluated
Duplex 2205Mechanical Properties
Duplex 2205 Alloy ASTM A416 PC Strand CFRP
Diameters (in) 0.375 to 0.7* 0.375 to 0.7 0.375 to 0.7**
Tensile Strength (ksi) 240 to 250 250, 270, 300+ 300+
Elongation @ UTS
Duplex 2205 โMaterial Testing
โข Mechanical Properties w/ Wedge Chucks
โข Initial Stress Limitations (constructability and design)โข 60-65% fpu (conventional steel 75% fpu)
Al-Kaimakchi, 2019
Duplex 2205Material Testing
โข Transfer and Development Length Testingโข AASHTO equations are conservative
โข Bond Strengthโข ASTM A1081
โข Prestress Lossesโข AASHTO equations are adequate
17.8 kip โ average 15.8 kip โ minimum
ASTM A1081
Al-Kaimakchi, 2019
Paul, A. 2017 and Al-kaimakchi, 2019
Constructabilityโข Conventional stressing methods
โข Conventional detensioning methods
โข Limit initial stress
Brown, 2018 Brown, 2018
HSSS-PC Piling
Initial Implementation
Coastal StatesGeorgiaFloridaVirginia
Louisiana
Moser, 2012
St. George Island, FL
HSSS-PC Piling
Projects
Brown, 2018
Sprinkel, 2018 Paul, A, 2015
Cornelius, 2019
Standardization in Florida- Piling -
โข Specificationsโข Design Guidance โข Design Standards
FDOT Structures Design Manual
FDOT Material Specifications
Piling Design Standards
HSSS-PC Flexural Members
โข NO official flexural design guidance, currentlyโข Limited research evaluating flexural design with HSSSโข Ohio DOT โ adjacent box beam brdige
๏ธ๏ธ
๏ธ๏ธ
Al-Kaimakchi, 2019
Flexural Design Considerations
โข Conventional steel strandsโข Yielding of strands followed by
crushing of concrete ( cu = 0.003)
โข Stainless steel strandsโข Crushing of concrete
โข cu = 0.003, pu < 0.014
โข Balanced Condition โข cu = 0.003, pu = 0.014
โข Strand ruptureโข cu < 0.003, pu = 0.014
โข Strength Resistance Factors?
Strain Compatibility Design Approach
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
Strain (in./in.)
0
50
100
150
200
250
Stre
ss (k
si)
Stainless steel strands
Prestress Strainafter losses
Available Strain
Initial Strain0.65 fpu
Efforts to Develop Overall Design Guidance
โข Georgia Tech โ completeโข Primary evaluation of piling with limited
evaluation of flexural design
โข FAMU/FSU โ active researchโข Investigating flexural behaviorโข Developing predictive analytical modelsโข Developing design guidance
โข NCHRP โ upcoming research
โข Planned Guidance Options (based on above research)โข AASHTO Guide Specification for Bridge Design
with Stainless Steel Strandโข Incorporate into AASHTO Bridge Design
Specification
References
โข Al-kaimakchi, A. 2019. Flexural Beam Testing Program for Stainless Steel Strands. PCI Committee Days Presentation.
โข Brown, K. 2018. Production of Prestressed Concrete Piles Using Stainless Steel. ASPIRE Magazine. P30-32.
โข Cornelius, J. 2019. Prestressing Steel โ New and Existing Products Overview. PCI Committee Days Presentation.
โข Moser et al. 2012. Durability of Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles in Marine Environment, Part 2, Volume 2: Stainless Steel Prestressing Strand & Wire. GDOT Project No. 10-26, Task Order No. 02-78.
โข Paul, A. L. F. Kahn, and K. E. Kurtis. 2015. Corrosion-Free Precast Prestressed Concrete Piles Made with Stainless Steel Reinforcement: Construction, Test and Evaluation. Report no. FHWA-GA-15-1134. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
โข Paul, A. L. B. Gleich, L. F. Kahn. 2017. Structural Performance of Prestressed Concrete Bridge Piles Using Duplex Stainless Steel Strands. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering.
โข Paul, A. L. B. Gleich, L. F. Kahn. 2017. Transfer and development length of high-strength duplex stainless steel strand in prestressed concrete piles. PCI Journal May-June 2017.
1
Advanced Structural Materials for Concrete Bridges
1. Introduction of current needs in bridge durability & Advanced Structural Materials of interest (Matthew Chynoweth)
2. CFRP-PC Design guidance & standards documents (Matthew Chynoweth)
3. HSSS-PC Design guidance & standards documents(Will Potter)
4. UHPC Design guidance & standards documents(Kyle Riding)
5. FRP-RC Design guidance & standards documents (Antonio Nanni)
6. Life-Cycle Cost analysis strategies(Antonio Nanni)
7. Moderated Question & Answer(Steven Nolan)
1
2
Ultra-High Performance Concrete
โUHPC is limited to concrete that has a minimum specified compressive strength of 22,000 psi (150 MPa) with specified durability tensile ductility and toughness requirements; fibers are generally included to achieve specified requirements. UHPC typically exhibits elastic-plastic or strain-hardening characteristics under uniaxial tension and has a very low permeability due to its dense and discontinuous pore structure.โ -ACI 239
Precast/ Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) is going to define UHPC as concrete with 18 ksi compressive strength
3
Map of Known UHPC Bridge Projects
https://usdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=41929767ce164eba934d70883d775582
4
Benefits of UHPC
Tensile performance can allow you to reduce amount of steel reinforcementCan optimize geometry for lighter member to reduce shipping costs and crane sizeReduce cover dimensions?Dense and discontinuous microstructure can give very high durability โ alternative to stainless steel and FRP reinforcement
5
UHPC Application Example: Connections & Repair
Mixing โ high energy needed Placing Curing(long mixing time or high shear mixer needed)
6
UHPC Application Example: Piles
7
UHPC Application Example: Potential Pile Shapes
Hollow PilesH-Piles
Geometry optimized to reduce weight and material use, increase skin friction
Tested in 2008 โ see Voort, Suleiman, and Sritharan, Design and Performance Verification of Ultra-High Performance Concrete Piles for Deep Foundations
Maher Tadros, PCI Presentation 2018
8
UHPC Application Example: Piles
Picture courtesy of Miles Zeeman
9
UHPC Pile Driving Test100 ft. Test pile driven in Leesburg, FL
10
UHPC Application Example: Segmental Construction
Pedestrian Bridge in Medellin, Colombia Built in 2017 First Bridge in Colombia made from UHPCSaved 30% compared to alternative steel designCurrently constructing 2nd bridgeAlso adapting UHPC for pavement overlays
17400 psi (120 MPa) concrete
11
UHPC Application Example: Segmental Construction
361 ft long bridge4 spansMain Span is 141 ft. long29 precast segments, 10 tons each24 post-tension cables
Nunez, Patino, Arango, and Echeverri, โREVIEW ON FIRST STRUCTURAL APPLICATIONS OF UHPC IN COLOMBIA,โ Second International Interactive Symposium on UHPC, Albany, NY., June 2-5, 2019, Paper 118.
12
UHPC Application Example: Hybrid Girders
Figure courtesy of Eduardo Torres and Trey Hamilton
UHPC
Self-Consolidating Concrete
UHPC used on end-regions to reduce end-cracking, and potentially allow for longer spans
13
Fresh Property Testing: Flow TestingASTM C1856 โ use ASTM C1437 flow table and cone, without base and without performing dropsMeasure the flow 120 ยฑ 5 s after lifting mold to nearest 1 mm (ave. of 2 measurements)
Recommendation: 8 to 14 in. flow diameter (Wille 2011)
14
Stress-Strain Relationships
fc
c,y c,u
Compressive Stress-Strain Behavior
E
fct
cc pu
Tensile Stress-Strain Behavior
E
Based on ACI 239R18 Based on FHWA-HIF-13-032
15
Constitutive Relationships and Ultimate Limit State for UHPC with Macro-Reinforcement
Concrete
Steel
M
Beam FBD Strain
--
+
s
Figures based on ACI 239R18
-u,t
u,c
s
c
Ft,c
Ft,s
Fc,c
Stress from Stress-Strain Relationship Forces
16
24-hour 4-day 7-day 28-dayBefore traffic opening
Alabama 14 (97) 21 (145) 14 (97)Delaware 14 (97)Idaho 14 (97) 20, 25 (138, 172)*Iowa 10 (69) 15 (103)Maine 21 (145)
Michigan 15 (103)
Nebraska 21 (145)New Jersey 5.7 (39) 11.6 (80) 14.5 (100)New Mexico 14 (97) 21 (145)New York 12 (83) 21 (145)Texas 14 (97) 21 (145)West Virginia 12 (83) 15 (103)Ontario 11.6 (80) 18.9 (130)
Canada17.4, 21.7 (120, 150)โ
France18,850-36,300 (130-250) +
Switzerland 17.4 (120)
Compressive Strength Requirement
Values given in psi (MPa)
ASTM C1856 modifies ASTM C39 to use 3 ร 6 in. cylinders
17
Tensile strength Flexural strengthFlexural Tough.
ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa) ASTM C1018
Alabama AASHTO T 198, 1.0 (6.9) splitting
Delaware
Idaho ASTM C293, 2 (14)IowaMichiganNew Jersey I30New MexicoNew York I30Texas I30
Ontario ASTM C1609, 2.2 (15)
Canada 0.58, 0.73 (4, 5), direct tension
0.58, 0.73 (4, 5) with inverse analysis
Tensile Strength Requirement
18
Qualification Tensile Testing Direct Tension Test ASTM C1609 modified by ASTM C1856
Friction in support conditions can increase flexural capacity 30-60% (Wille and MontesinosWille, K., & Parra-Montesinos, G. (2012). Effect of beam size, casting method, and support conditions on flexural behaviour of UHPFRC. ACI Materials Journal, 109(3), 379โ388.)
19
Direct Tension Test Direct Tension Test Samples After Testing
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Stre
ss (p
si)
Strain
0
90
180
270
Average
side
2 ร 2 ร 17 in. samples
20
Durability RequirementsProperty
Chloride Ion Penetrability Shrinkage
Chloride Ion Penetrability Scaling
Resistance
Freeze-Thaw Abrasion Resistance Alkali-Silica
Reactivity(coulombs) (microstrain) (oz/ft3) (RDM %) (oz.)
Test Method ASTM C1202/ AASHTO T 277 ASTM C157 AASHTO T259 ASTM C672
ASTM C666A, 600 cycles
ASTM C944, 2x weight ASTM C1260
Alabama T160 < 0.026
Delaware <0.07, ยฝ in. (13mm) depth y < 3 > 95% 0.08%, test at 28
days
Idaho < 250 < 765, initial reading after set
< 0.07, 1/4th in. (6mm) depth y < 3 > 96% < 0.025, ground
surface
ASTM C1567, < 0.10%, test at 28 days
New Jersey <1.0, ยฝ in. (13mm) depth y < 3 > 96% < 0.03 Innocuous, test at
28 days
New Mexico <0.059, ยฝ in. (13mm) depth No scaling > 99%, 300 cycles < 0.026 < 0.10%,
Innocuous
New York reading after set< 0.07, 1/5th in. (5mm) depth y < 3 > 96% < 0.025, ground
surfaceInnocuous, test at 28 days
Texas y < 3 > 96%, 300 cycles < 0.1%
Canada <500, <300, <100
X (different method)
CSA A23.2-22C 0.4,0.2,0.1 kg/m2 <5, <1, <0.5 g
21
Design-Related Properties
Creep coefficient (ACI 239R18)0.31 (steam cured)0.8 (non-heat cured)
Negligible shrinkage after heat curingElastic Modulus: 6000 to 7200 ksi (function of fibers and fc)
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/lists/022.cfm
FHWA has published many reports on UHPC:
22
Options for UHPCPre-blended, prebagged, proprietary UHPC
Comes with support from manufacturerProven resultsHigh cost ($2000-3000/yd3)
Make-your-own UHPC with local materialsHigh knowledge base needed (can hire consultants to help)Can get 18-22ksi with local materials without too much difficultyCan save 30-74%1 from cost of preblended materialsGuidelines/ papers on how to make UHPC with local materials
Development of ultra-high performance concrete with locally available materials https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.040Development of Cost-Effective Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) for Coloradoโs Sustainable Infrastructure 1Ultra-high performance concrete with compressive strength exceeding 150 MPa (22 ksi): a simpler way DOI: 10.14359/51664215Design and per Design and performance of cost-eff formance of cost-effective ultra-high per a-high performance formanceconcrete for prefabricated elements https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3587&context=doctoral_dissertations
Biggest cost is fibersMade in USA steel fibers available
1 Kim, โDevelopment of Cost-Effective Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) for Coloradoโs Sustainable Infrastructure,โ Final Report, CDOT-2018-15, 2018.
23
Implementation ChallengesHigh amount of QC needed, especially for fiber distribution, orientation, and plant-ready tensile testExperienced contractors/ precasters needed
Placement direction impacts fiber alignment & tensile strength
Mixing time 15-30 minutes, much shorter with high shear mixerWorking time is short โ once you stop agitating it, can lose workability rapidly and form โelephant skinโNew UHPC does not bond well to old UHPCStructural design equations made for conventional concrete can work, but donโt fully take advantage of UHPC (ie. Creep, development length, etc.)Most durability testing done on UHPC with fcโ >150 ksiSpecifications need to catch up with material
Example of specifications that need updating: ACI 318-19 Air Entrainment Requirements
Nominal Max. Agg. Size (in.)
Target Air Content, F1 (%)
Target AirContent, F2 & F3 (%)
3/8 6.0 7.5
1/2 5.5 7.0
3/4 5.0 6.0
1 4.5 6.0
1-1/2 4.5 5.5
2 4.0 5.0
3 3.5 4.5
FRP-RC Design Guidance & Standards Documents
+ Life-Cycle Cost analysis strategies
TRB Webinar Date: December 3, 1:00-2:30pm ESTModerator: Steven Nolan
Presenter: Antonio NanniUniversity of Miaminanni@Miami.edu
2
Advanced Structural Materials for Concrete Bridges
1. Introduction of current needs in bridge durability & materials of interestโข CFRP & HSSS prestressing; FRP rebar;
UHPC
2. CFRP-PC Design guidance & standards documents (Matthew Chynoweth)โข Costs and Design toolsโข Implementation challenges
3. HSSS-PC Design guidance & standards documents (Will Potter)โข Costs and Design toolsโข Implementation challenges
4. UHPC Design guidance & standards documents (Kyle Riding)โข Costs and Design toolsโข Implementation challenges
5. FRP-RC Design guidance & standards documents (Antonio Nanni)โข Costs and Design toolsโข Implementation challenges
6. Life-Cycle Cost analysis strategies (Antonio Nanni)โข ASM comparisons and synergiesโข Future enhancements or needs
7. Moderated Question & Answer(Steven Nolan)
2
3
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specsยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Conclusions
3
4SERVICE LIFE GREATLY REDUCED BY CORROSION
Problem Statementโข Cause of failure for structures
exposed to aggressive environments is often corrosion of steel reinforcement
โข Chlorides from de-icing salts or seawater penetrate concrete and reach steelรผ via cracks รผ via concrete porosity
โข Corrosion is accelerated by carbonation that lowers concrete pH
4
5
Traditional corrosion mitigation efforts center on keeping chlorides from getting to reinforcing steel or simply delaying the diffusion time
State-of-Practice
โข Admixturesโข Increase Concrete Coverโข Alter Concrete Mixโข Membranes & Overlaysโข Epoxy-Coated, Galvanized
or Stainless Steel
5DELAYING SYMPTOMS RATHER THAN CURING DISEASE
Photo: Courtesy of TxDOT
6
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specsยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Conclusions
6
FRP Bars, Strands and Grids Typically produced by the Pultrusion process
8
Production Process (Pultrusion)
.
9
Factors Affecting Material Characteristics
โข Fiber volumeโข Type of fibersโข Type of resinโข Fiber orientationโข QC during manufacturingโข Rate of curingโข Void contentโข Service temperature
10
Tensile Behaviorโข Tensile properties obtained from bar manufacturerโข Manufactures must report a guaranteed tensile strength f*fu, as
mean tensile strength minus three standard deviations
โข Similarly, a guaranteed rupture strain
11
Critical Design Provisions
Flexural Resistance
Shear Resistance
GFRP Design Tensile Strength
Ultimate capacity provisions:
11
12
Critical Design Provisions
GFRP Creep Rupture Strength
GFRP Fatigue Strength
Spacing for Crack Control
12
Fatigue and serviceability provisions:
13
13
Evaluation of Durability: Selected Bridgesโข Eleven bridges located across the United Statesโข Each bridge contains GFRP bars in deck or other location
and has been in service for at least 15 years
โข Gills Creek Bridge (VA)โข OโFallon Park Bridge (CO)โข Salem Ave Bridge (OH)โข Bettendorf Bridge (IA)โข Cuyahoga County Bridge (OH)โข McKinleyville Bridge (WV)โข Thayer Road Bridge (IN)โข Rogerโs Creek Bridge (KY)โข Sierrita de la Cruz Creek Bridge (TX) โข Walker Box Culvert Bridge (MO)โข Southview Bridge (MO)
14
.
Sierrita de la Cruz Creek Bridge, Texas โข Location: 25 miles northwest Amarillo, TXโข Agency: Texas DOTโข Year Built: 2000โข Geometry: 7 spans, 553 ft. long, 45 ft. wideโข Bridge Type: GFRP deck top mat, concrete deck on PC girders
Selected Bridges (Example)
15
GFRP Tests: Modified Tensile Strength Testโข Extracted and virgin coupons were tested in tensionโข Virgin new generation full-size bars were also tested in tension
โข The results of virgin full-size bars from tensile tests performed in 2000 were used for comparison
โข A correlation was calculated to determine the tensile strength of the extracted bars
Sample Full-sizeStrength, psi
CouponStrength, psi
Coupon to Full-size
Pristine 119,318 96,997 18.71%
Extracted Bars 113,840a 90,110 20.84%
Difference due to degradation % 2.13%
Note: a = Tested in 2000
16
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specs
ACI and ASTMAASHTO, Florida DOT, and Texas DOT
ยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Conclusions
16
17
How To Specify for Building Structures
SPECIFYING AND CONSTRUCTING WITH GFRP BARS17
18
.
Update on AASHTO Activities related to FRP bars for Bridge Structures
19
.
Harmonize with national (ACI, ASTM and AASHTO-BDS) andinternational (CSA) specifications.
โข Ease design/deploymentโข Ease certificationโข Enlarge market
Update existing provisions to reflect better materials andmanufacturing, and new research findings.
โข Make design more efficient
Expand provisions to include all members of a bridge.
โข Allow the design of a bridge entirely GFRP-RC
Approach and Relevance of expanded 2018 AASHTO Guide Spec.
20
Comparison of Critical Design ParametersAASHTO 2nd 2018
AASHTO 1st 2009
ACI 440 Code 2021?
ACI 440.1R2015
ffu* 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 Strength percentileC 0.75 0.65 0.65 0.65 Res. fact. concr. failureT 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Res. fact. FRP failureS 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Res. fact. shear failure
CE 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.70 Environm. reductionCC 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.20 Creep rupt. reductionCf 0.25 0.20 n/a 0.20 Fatigue reductionCb 0.83 0.70 0.70 to 0.83 0.70 Bond reductionw 0.027 0.0200 0.027 0.020 to 0.027 Crack width limit [in.]
cc,stirrup 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0(1) Clear cover [in.]cc,slab 1.0 0.75 to 2.0 0.75 to 2.0 0.75 to 2.0(1) Clear cover [in.]shear 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 Strain limit in shear
(1) ACI 440.5-08 Table 3.1To be finalized
20
21
โข Mandatory Specsโข Uniform Approval Processes
- Manufacturer Approval vs. Product Approvalโข Design Tools
Design Guidance & Tools: Florida DOT
https://www.fdot.gov/structures/innovation/FRP.shtm
22
โข Uniform Approval Processes- Manufacturer Approval & Certification vs. Product Approval
https://mac.fdot.gov/smoreports
Design Guidance & Tools: Florida DOT
23
โข Need for Accessible & Reliable Design Tools- Commercial vs. Agency/Institution based design programs
https://www.fdot.gov/structures/proglib.shtm
** Available on request
CFRP-PC (w/ GFRP-RC Shear) Beta version **
GFRP-RC Alpha version **
GFRP-RC included (3b)
GFRP-RC in development !
Design Guidance & Tools: Florida DOT
24
Example of other DOT Activities related to FRP bars.
Texas DOT:Update of bridge deck design using GFRP Top Mat in accordance with 2018 AASHTO Guide Spec
25
Texas DOT: top-mat GFRP reinforcement
26
Ohio DOT: Bridge deck GFRP reinforcement
Maine DOT: Bridge deck GFRP reinforcement
Other Active DOTs in the use of FRP bars
27
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specsยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Conclusions
28
โข Concrete members susceptible to steel corrosion by chlorides or
โข low concrete pHโข Concrete members requiring non-
ferrous reinforcement due to electro-magnetic considerations
โข Need of thermal non-conductivity
Where Should FRP be Used?
ALTERNATIVE TO EPOXY, GALVANIZED AND STAINLESS STEEL REBAR
29
โข Seawalls, Piles and Piersโข Marine Structuresโข Bridge Decks โข Traffic Railingsโข Approach Slabsโข Barrier / Retaining Wallsโข Culvertsโข Sewage System Tunnelingโข Parking Garages
Infrastructure Applications
30
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specsยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Conclusions
30
31
What do we still need? Refinement of conservative Design Limits
2021?
To be finalized
32
What do we still need? Gaps in Design & Deployment
โข Connections (post-installed & couplers)
โข Fatigue limitsโข Elastic modulusโข Bent barsโข Scalability of production
1700+ adhesive-dowelled anchors (HRB 2019)
33
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specsยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Conclusions
33
34
Project Examples: FAST FACTS
Fast-Facts: https://www.fdot.gov/structures/innovation/FRP.shtm#link9
35
Homosassa, FL 2017-19 (GFRP-RC & CFRP-PC) Five-span vehicular bridge
July 16, 2019
Fast-Facts: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/structures/innovation/fastfacts/fastfacts-430021-1.pdf
Project Examples: HALLS RIVER BRIDGE
36
Six-man crew can assemble complete bent cap GFRP rebar cage in 4.5 hours
Project Examples: HALLS RIVER BRIDGE
37
University of Miami โ Completed 2016:
Project Examples: INNOVATION PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
Fast-Facts: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/structures/innovation/fastfacts/fastfacts-innovationbridge-um.pdf
Elevation view of Innovation Bridge with BFRP reinforcement in the auger-cast-piles, bent-caps, double-tee stems and flanges, deck overlay and curbs
38
CIP continuous flat-slab bridge under construction 2019:
Project Examples: NE 23RD AVE overIBIS WATERWAY
Fast-Facts: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/structures/innovation/fastfacts/fastfacts-434359-1.pdf?sfvrsn=175168c2_2
39
2016 conditions prior to 5,000โ of Secant-Pile Wall construction (2019)
Remains left after Hurricane Matthew destructive forces resulted in โwash-outโ and destruction of the essential State Road A1A, which is an Evacuation Route
Project Examples: SR-A1A SECANT-PILESEAWALL
40
GFRP-CAGES AT WORK
Seawallโs auger-cast concrete secant-piles are 36-inch (910 mm) diameter. Primary piles are 36-feet (11 m) in length and are reinforced with 25 ~ #8 GFRP bars.
Fast-Facts: https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/structures/innovation/fastfacts-440557-7.pdf?sfvrsn=73e5bc6a_2
Project Examples: SR-A1A SECANT-PILESEAWALL
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specsยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Conclusions
41
LCC & LCA also can show the sustainable (economic and environmental) advantage of FRP-RC structures in the coastal environment:
Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)
Example: LCC & LCA Comparison of Carbon Steel-RC/PC versus FRP-RC/PC (various effective discount rate), adapted from Cadenazzi et al. 2019 42
CS-RC/PC Bridge Replacement
FRP-RC/PC Bridge Replacement
43
Younis et al., 2018: Carbon-Steel vs. SSR vs. GFRP rebar
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.183
(Baseline scenario with discount rate = 0.7%)
RC1 = Traditional concrete mix with carbon-(black) steel rebar;RC2 = Traditional concrete mix with SS rebar;RC3 = Concrete with seawater & RCA with GFRP rebar.
Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)
Performance as a function of maintenance:
CS-RC/PC alternative SS or FRP-RC/PC alternativesCadenazzi, T., Dotelli, G., Rossini, M., Nolan, S., and A. Nanni. (2019). Cost and Environmental Analyses of Reinforcement Alternatives for a Concrete Bridge. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 44
Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)
CE effect
www.ASCEgrandchallenge.comโReduce the life cycle cost of infrastructure by 50% by 2025 and foster the optimization of infrastructure investments for societyโ
Rebar Example Cost Comparisons:
โข Cost information based of Contractor bid pricesโข Price of epoxy reinforcing @ $1.00/LB
Anthony Wayne Trail over NSRR Cost Per Square Foot of Deck
Epoxy Coated Reinforcing $8.052/SF
GFRP Reinforcing (GFRP 1st Edition) $9.587/SF
GFRP Reinforcing (GFRP 2nd Edition) $8.736/SF
45
Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)
โข Cost information is from Engineerโs estimateโข Price of epoxy reinforcing @ $1.15/LBโข Recent increase in steel cost (15%-20% Increase)
โข Result in more competitive costs
Industrial Drive over the Maumee River
Cost Per Square Foot of Deck
Epoxy Coated Reinforcing $11.805/SF
GFRP Reinforcing $10.609/SF
46
Rebar Example Cost Comparisons:
Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)
OF Contents
ยท Problem Statementยท FRP Materials and Design Propertiesยท Guides, Standards and Specsยท Where to use GFRPยท What do we still needยท Cost Justification (Service Life, LCC & LCA)ยท Field Applications in Floridaยท Conclusions
47
Conclusions
โข Complete set of guides, test methods and standards available for GFRP bars
โข Many structures successfully built with GFRP bars and performing wellโข Non-proprietary solutions, traditional supply chain acquisition &
installation availableโข Extended service life of GFRP reinforced concrete ensured โข Current practices adopted for corrosion protection are unnecessary with
GFRP reinforcementโข New frontiers to be explored to improve resilience and sustainability
48
Thank you for your attention!
The End
49
Todayโs Speakersโข Steven Nolan, Florida DOT,
steven.nolan@dot.state.fl.usโข Matt Chynoweth, Michigan DOT,
ChynowethM@michigan.govโข William Potter, Florida DOT,
William.Potter@dot.state.fl.usโข Kyle Riding, University of Florida,
kyle.riding@essie.ufl.eduโข Tony Nanni, University of Miami,
nanni@miami.edu
Get Involved with TRBโข Getting involved is free!โข Join a Standing Committee (http://bit.ly/2jYRrF6)โข Become a Friend of a Committee
(http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees)โ Networking opportunitiesโ May provide a path to become a Standing Committee
memberโข Sponsoring Committees: AFF30, AFF80โข For more information: www.mytrb.org
โ Create your accountโ Update your profile
top related