experimental investigation on glass

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308

(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME

321

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON GLASS

FIBRE REINFORCED PLASTICBRIDGE DECKS SUBJECTED

TO STATIC AND FATIGUE LOADING

Muthuraj. M. P.1, Subramanian. K

2

1Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,

Coimbatore – 641 014, INDIA

2Professor and Head of Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,

Coimbatore – 641 014, INDIA

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the details of experimental investigations carried out on Glass

Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bridge decks subjected to static and fatigue loading. All

the beams have tested as per Indian Road Congress (IRC) Class A loading. The experimental

model is a one-third scaled model of a 3.75m bridge superstructure. Bridge deck panel of

span 1m is considered. The overall length and width of multi-cellular bridge deck panels are

kept as 1250 mm and 333.33 mm respectively. The overall dimensions have been arrived at

as per IRC code. The static and fatigue testing of prototype GFRP composite bridge deck

panels are carried out under the simulated wheel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. Two

rectangular patch loads are applied symmetrically over the deck and the maximum deflection

under each panel under the factored load has been obtained. From the experiments, it is

observed that (i) the GFRP deck panel failed at an ultimate load of 123.6 kN with ultimate

deflection of 7.538mm under buckling criteria (ii) the GFRP deck panels failed at an ultimate

load of 113.8 kN with ultimate deflection of 4.057 mm under local shear criteria (ii) the

deflection within elastic limit is observed to be 1.627mm under buckling criteria and 0.902

under local shear criteria (iii) the GFRP deck panel resisted up to 5 million fatigue cycles and

(iv) the nature of failure is brittle for all the specimens. The experimental findings will be

useful for the design of bridge deck panels made up of GFRP.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)

ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)

Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), pp. 321-331

© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp

Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJCIET

© IAEME



322

1. INTRODUCTION

The choice of composite materials as a substitute for metallic materials in structural

applications is becoming more pronounced especially due to the great weight savings that

these materials offer. Polymer matrix composites have material properties which are

attractive for use in various engineering applications especially in aerospace, marine,

automobile and civil engineering. Many of the applications require serviceability under

dynamic loading conditions. The research undertaken during the last two decades has shown

that, one of the potential solutions to the steel-corrosion-related problems in concrete is the

use of Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites as a replacement for traditional steel bars.

GFRP is gaining more popularity in construction of bridges, because bridge deck slabs are

one of the most severely affected components in reinforced concrete structures. Since the

material offers unique combination of high strength to weight ratio and stiffness to weight

ratio, corrosion and fatigue resistance, improved long-term performance to environmental

effects, lower maintenance cost, longer service life, lower life-cycle costs, it makes them

attractive for use in the construction of new slabs and retrofitting and rehabilitation of

existing slab panels, and also in other concrete structures. In addition they have strong

potential for use in earthquake vulnerable zones, and also in places where longer unsupported

spans are required.

The light weight composite bridges can be transported easily. Since composites will

not chip like concrete or rust like steel, the maintenance associated with this advanced

material is completely eliminated. Extensive research studies were carried out on FRP for

different applications1-7

. Zheng et al8 developed a simplified trilinear relationship between

moment and curvature for FRP beams. The analysis results from this relationship were

compared with the test data from five concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced

polymer (GFRP) rebars tested under two-thirds-point flexure until failure. The comparisons

were indicated that the suggested relationship yields good predictions of flexural capacity of

all beams. Wang and Kodur9 presented the results of tensile mechanical properties of FRP

reinforcement bars, used as internal reinforcement in concrete structures, at elevated

temperatures. Detailed experimental studies were conducted to determine the strength and

stiffness properties of FRP bars at elevated temperatures. Ochola et al10

evaluated the

mechanical properties of glass and carbon fibre reinforced composites at varying strain rates

by testing a single laminate configuration. The compressive material properties were

determined by testing both laminate systems, viz. CFRP and GFRP at low to high strain rates.

Preliminary compressive stress–strain vs. strain rates data obtained showed that the dynamic

material strength for GFRP increases with increasing strain rates. The strain to failure for

both CFRP and GFRP is observed to decrease with increasing strain rate. Berg et al11

described the use of FRP materials as reinforcements and formwork for a concrete highway

bridge deck. Three forms of FRP reinforcing were combined to reinforce the concrete deck:

FRP stay-in-place (SIP) forms, deformed FRP reinforcing bars (rebars), and a special

prefabricated pultruded FRP reinforcing grid. Nanni and Norris12

conducted experiments to

evaluate the behaviour of concrete members laterally confined with fibre-reinforced plastic

(FRP) composites. Specimens were loaded quasi-statically under cyclic flexure with and

without axial compression. It was found that flexural strength and ductility are enhanced by

the use of FRP jackets. It was noted that improvements depend on jacketing method, shape of

member cross-section, level of the axial load, and failure mode. Smitha et al13

reported a

series of tests on one-way spanning simply supported RC slabs which were strengthened in



323

flexure with tension face bonded FRP composites and anchored with different arrangements

of FRP anchors. The greatest enhancement in load and deflection experienced by the six slabs

strengthened with FRP plates and anchored with FRP anchors was 30% and 110%,

respectively, over the unanchored FRP-strengthened control slab. Lu et al14

presented

numerical study of the FRP stress distribution at debonding failure in U-jacketed or side-

bonded beams using a rigorous FRP-to-concrete bond–slip model and assuming several

different crack width distributions. Mazzotti et al15

carried out an experimental study on

delamination of FRP plates bonded to concrete. Experimental tests were simulated by

adopting a numerical bond-slip model and observed that numerical results are in good

agreement with experimental results. Diab and Wu16

developed a new nonlinear viscoelastic

model for the study of the long-term behavior of the FRP-concrete interface. The model has

the ability to describe the creep of the FRP-concrete adhesive layer and the creep fracture

propagation along the FRP-concrete interface. Abdalla17

developed simple analytical

methodology to compute the deflection in FRP reinforced members subjected to flexural

stresses and compared with the corresponding experimental results. Luciano and Sacco18

proposed a numerical model to study the mechanical behaviour of a masonry wall. To mode1

the overall behavior of the unreinforced and reinforced masonry, by accounting for the

progressive damage of the mortar, of the block and of the FRP sheets, a simple

homogenization technique was proposed. Two different damage criteria were adopted for the

mortar and the block, within isotropic viscoelastic and elastic damage models.

From the literature review, it is observed that the experimental studies on the

behaviour of hand lay-up GFRP composite bridge deck panels under static and fatigue

loading is limited. The present study is aimed at to conduct experiments on the performance

of a scaled model of a GFRP bridge deck under static and fatigue loading.

2. MATERIALS AND ITS PROPERTIES

The most extensively used class of fibres in composites is those manufactured from

E-glass. E-glass is a low alkali borosilicate glass originally developed for electrical insulation

applications. It was first produced commercially for composite manufacture in 1940’s, and its

use now approaches 2 MT/year worldwide. Many different countries manufacture E-glass

and its exact composition varies according to the availability and composition of the local

raw materials. It is manufactured as continuous filaments in bundles, or strands, each

containing typically between 200 and 2000 individual filaments of 10-30 µm diameters.

These strands will be incorporated into larger bundles called roving and may be processed

into a wide variety of mats, cloths, and performs and cut into short-fibre formats. The degree

to which the fibres are bound together in the strand is controlled by the size. The choice of a

size compatible with the matrix resin and process route is thus of critical importance when

sourcing reinforcements. Woven clothes and rovings are very widely used in the manufacture

of laminated structures. In-plane strengths are much higher than for the random materials.

Stiffness, strength, and drape are also influenced by the weave pattern. The plain weave leads

to a high degree of crimp, which may reduce stiffness by up to about 15% compared with a

similar fraction of straight fibres. Twill and satin weaves offer better drape, and the satin

weaves in particular have less crimp.

Five and eight-harness satin weaves are widely used in composite laminates,

especially in the lighter weights, which are more appropriate in many highly stressed designs.

The tighter fibre structure in cloths renders them more difficult to infiltrate and consolidate



324

than the random mats. WR fabrics are specifically designed to meet most demanding

performance, processing and cost requirements. These fabrics deliver a unique combination

of properties. They offer one of the highest strength-to-weight ratios possible for reinforced

plastics and through careful selection and placement of fabrics, designers can put the strength

exactly where it is needed, making optimum use of the fibre strength. Woven roving fabrics

provide the most economical solution for raising glass content of laminates and increasing

laminate stiffness and impact resistance without adding thickness, weight or other non-

reinforcing materials. ERs are used in advanced applications including aircraft, aerospace,

and defense, as well as many of the first- generation composite reinforcing concrete products

currently available in the market. ERs are available in a range of viscosities, and will work

with a number of curing agents or hardeners. The nature of epoxy allows it to be manipulated

into a partially-cured or advanced cure state commonly known as a “prepreg”. If the prepreg

also contains the reinforcing fibres the resulting tacky lamina can be positioned on a mold (or

wound if it is in the form of a tape) at room temperature. Although some epoxies harden at

temperatures as low as 80oF (30oC), all epoxies require some degree of heated post-cure to

achieve satisfactory high temperature performance. Large parts fabricated with ER exhibit

good fidelity to the mold shape and dimensions of the molded part. ERs can be formulated to

achieve very high mechanical properties. However, certain hardeners (particularly amines),

as well as the ERs themselves, can be skin sensitizing, so appropriate personal protective

procedures must always be followed. Some epoxies are also more sensitive to moisture and

alkali. This behaviour must be taken into account in determining long term durability and

suitability for any given application. Curing time and increased temperature required to

complete cross-linking (polymerisation) depend on the type and amount of hardener used.

Some hardeners will work at room temperature. However, most hardeners require elevated

temperatures. Additives called accelerators are sometimes added to the liquid ER to speed up

reactions and decrease curing cycle times. The heat resistance of an epoxy is improved if it

contains more aromatic rings in its basic molecular chain. If the curing reaction of ERs is

slowed by external means, (i.e., by lowering the reaction temperature) before all the

molecules are cross-linked, the resin would be in what is called a B-staged form. In this form,

the resin has formed cross-links at widely spaced positions in the reactive mass, but is

essentially uncured. Hardness, tackiness, and the solvent reactivity of these B-staged resins

depend on the degree of curing. Various material properties are presented in Table 1.

3. CROSS SECTIONAL PROFILE

The overall dimensions are arrived at based on the Indian Road Congress (IRC) code

IRC:6-2000. The experimental model is a one-third scale model of a 3.75m bridge

superstructure. Bridge deck panel of span 1m is considered. The overall length and width of

multicellular bridge deck panels are kept as 1250 mm and 333.33 mm respectively. A cross

sectional profile as shown in Figure 1 with minimum weight is selected for the fabrication

and experimental investigation. The cross section consists of a 3-cell rectangular section with

additional stiffeners connecting the web to the top and bottom flange. The thickness of the

top flange, bottom flange and webs are kept as 20 mm and web as 15mm (Figure 1).



325

Figure 1: Dimension of the bridge deck

The thickness of additional stiffeners is kept as 15mm. The basic material properties are

given in Table 1.

Table 1. Material Properties

Form

Modulus of

Elasticity

E, MPa

Poisson’s

Ratio

Shear Modulus

G, MPa

Woven Roving

Fibre – E Glass 26900 0.29 1730

Resin – Epoxy Resin 3545 0.08 228

4. FABRICATION OF PROTOTYPE GFRP COMPOSITE BRIDGE DECK PANELS

Bridge deck panels can be fabricated using hand lay-up process, resin transfer

molding (RTM) process, vacuum assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) process and

filament winding process depending on the cross sectional profiles. Compared to other

manufacturing processes, hand lay-up process offers number of benefits such as low tooling

cost, no restrictions on the size of product, lowest capital investment for infrastructure,

potential for on-site fabrication and design flexibility with the incorporation of sub-

assemblies. In hand lay-up process, liquid resin, normally polyester is placed along with

reinforcement against the finished surface of an open mold. Chemical reactions in the resin

harden the material to a strong, lightweight product. The resin serves as the matrix for the

reinforcing fibers, much as concrete acts as the matrix for steel reinforcing rods. Hand lay-up

process is used for the fabrication of GFRP deck panels for testing.

In production, using hand lay-up process, a pigmented gel-coat is first applied to the

mold surface using a spray gun. The gel-coat is allowed to cure sufficiently and layers of

reinforcement are placed in the mold and resin is applied by hand. Any air which may be

entrapped is removed using squeegees or serrated rollers. The thickness and type of

reinforcements used are determined by the design. Catalysts, accelerators, promoters and

other ingredients required for the part’s end use may also be added to the resin so that the

composite laminate cures at room temperature without the need for external heat. Generally,

only one finished surface on the gel-coated side of the part can be obtained in hand lay-up

process. Most hand lay-up production involves the use of general-purpose (orthophthalic)

polyester resins. Isophthalic polyesters, vinylester and epoxies are also used. Glass fiber

chopped strand mats and woven roving mats are used. The resin system and reinforcement

for the fabrication of GFRP composite bridge deck panels were selected based on the

characterization of materials. Wooden moulds were used for the fabrication of the bridge

deck panels.



326

The cross section of the GFRP composite bridge deck panel is a multicellular

rectangular section with additional stiffeners connecting the web to the top flange and the

cross sectional dimensions were obtained based on the finite element analysis. The

dimensions of GFRP bridge deck panel are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2, Wooden moulds are

cheap, light in weight and easy to fabricate than other types of moulds made using steel and

FRP composite materials.

Table 2. GFRP Brick Deck Panel Dimensions

PARAMETER PROTOTYPE

(mm)

MODEL

(mm)

Length 3750 1250

Width 1000 333.333

Depth 450 150

Flange & outer web Thickness 30 20

Inner web thickness 45 15

Additional stiffeners 45 15

Plywood sheets of 25 mm thick were used for making the wooden moulds as shown in figure

2.

Figure 2: Wooden Moulds

Three moulds of size equal to the inner dimensions of midcell, endcell and top truncated

triangular cell of the cross section of bridge deck panel were made and are shown in Figs. 3

and 4.

Figure 3: View of Prepared Cells Figure 4: Typical Bridge Deck Model

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976

(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March

The surfaces of the wooden moulds were polished using the rough and smooth files

and with sand grit papers. Duco putty was

the mould surface. Wooden moulds were

papers to get the smooth polished

5. FABRICATION AND TESTING

The surfaces of the wooden molds were polished using the rough and smooth files and

with sand grit papers. Duco putty was

mold surface. Wooden molds were polished again with smooth and rough water emery papers

to get the smooth polished surfaces for the fabrication of products. The surface of the mould

is first polished and treated with a suitable mould release agent to prevent the moulding resin

from sticking to the mould surface. Wax polishes are widely used for polishing the mould,

and these also act as good release agents for many resins. In many cases, a layer of

unreinforced resin is applied directly to the mould surface to form a gel coat. This helps to

produce a good surface finish on the moulding and prevents print through the reinforcement

Gel coats may also enhance the durability and corrosion resistance of the moul

reducing the absorption of water and solvents into the materials during exposure in service.

Additionally, gel coats may be pigmented or coloured to produce a self

typical fabricated prototype bridge deck panels

loading pattern and typical test set

frame was connected to the strong test floor.

Proving ring of 300kN capacity was used

applied on the model. Two GFRP panels were tested under static loading and one panel was

tested under fatigue loading. Two rectangular patch loads is applied symmetrically over the

deck and the maximum deflection under each panel under the factored load is obtained.

Figure 5: Schematic Diagram of the Loading Pattern


6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IA

327


Duco putty was applied on the polished wooden surface to level

the mould surface. Wooden moulds were polished again with smooth and rough wate

papers to get the smooth polished surfaces for the fabrication of products.

AND TESTING OF BRIDGE DECK PANELS


with sand grit papers. Duco putty was applied on the polished wooden surface to level the



treated with a suitable mould release agent to prevent the moulding resin



orced resin is applied directly to the mould surface to form a gel coat. This helps to


Gel coats may also enhance the durability and corrosion resistance of the moul


Additionally, gel coats may be pigmented or coloured to produce a self-finish on the part.

fabricated prototype bridge deck panels is shown in Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the

loading pattern and typical test set-up are shown in Figs. 5 and 6 respectively.

frame was connected to the strong test floor. A Hydraulic jack was used for a

0kN capacity was used for loading. Two point pure bending condition was

Two GFRP panels were tested under static loading and one panel was

Two rectangular patch loads is applied symmetrically over the

ection under each panel under the factored load is obtained.

Schematic Diagram of the Loading Pattern


April (2013), © IAEME


applied on the polished wooden surface to level

polished again with smooth and rough water emery


applied on the polished wooden surface to level the



treated with a suitable mould release agent to prevent the moulding resin



orced resin is applied directly to the mould surface to form a gel coat. This helps to


Gel coats may also enhance the durability and corrosion resistance of the moulding by


finish on the part. A

. Schematic diagram of the

respectively. The loading

A Hydraulic jack was used for applying load.

for loading. Two point pure bending condition was

Two GFRP panels were tested under static loading and one panel was

Two rectangular patch loads is applied symmetrically over the

ection under each panel under the factored load is obtained.


(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March

The static testing of prototype GFRP composite bridge deck panels was carried out

under the simulated wheel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. The dead load of future

wearing surface was calculated. The dynamic allowance factor was taken as 30% of the live

load of the wheeled vehicle. The static tests were conducted under a factored load of

(wheel load + 30% of impact factor (assumed) + dead load including future wearing surface)

applied over the bridge deck panel from zero to factored load of

Fig. 7

Fig. 7 shows the typical failure behaviour of GFRP bridge pane

Table 3.

Deflections were measured using LVDT.

short span hinged. From Table 3, it can be

centre at location 6 of the panel and the value is

Load

(kN)

Deflection (mm)

D1 D2

50 0.478 0.479

100 0.532 0.533

150 0.699 0.700

175 0.899 0.901

200 1.094 1.096

225 1.301 1.304

252.6 1.381 1.383


6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IA

328

Figure 6: Typical Test Set


eel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. The dead load of future


load of the wheeled vehicle. The static tests were conducted under a factored load of

ad + 30% of impact factor (assumed) + dead load including future wearing surface)

applied over the bridge deck panel from zero to factored load of 50 kN.

Fig. 7 Typical failure pattern

shows the typical failure behaviour of GFRP bridge panel.

Static test results (Short span hinged)

Deflections were measured using LVDT. Table 3 shows the static test results with

short span hinged. From Table 3, it can be noted that maximum deflection occurs at the

of the panel and the value is 2.211 mm corresponding to a failure load of

Deflection (mm)

D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

0.479 0.418 0.419 0.278 0.558

0.533 0.982 0.983 0.772 1.192

0.700 1.234 1.236 0.969 1.499

0.901 1.494 1.496 1.199 1.789

1.096 1.704 1.706 1.404 2.004

1.304 1.886 1.888 1.631 2.141

1.383 1.976 1.977 1.741 2.211


April (2013), © IAEME


eel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. The dead load of future


load of the wheeled vehicle. The static tests were conducted under a factored load of 50 kN

ad + 30% of impact factor (assumed) + dead load including future wearing surface)

Table 3 shows the static test results with

noted that maximum deflection occurs at the

failure load of

0.558

1.192

1.499

1.789

2.004

2.141

2.211



329

252.6 kN. The failure was like buckling of slab, since the aspect ratio is 3.750. The

behaviour of the material is brittle and it shows linear variation as described in fig. 8.

Table 4. Static test results (Long span hinged)

oad

(kN)

Deflection (mm)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

60 0.109 0.110 0.104 0.105 0.134 0.104

90 0.147 0.148 0.151 0.152 0.171 0.151

120 0.203 0.204 0.186 0.188 0.226 0.187

150 0.253 0.255 0.248 0.250 0.278 0.249

180 0.296 0.298 0.312 0.314 0.322 0.313

210 0.323 0.326 0.324 0.326 0.347 0.325

238.6 0.353 0.355 0.355 0.356 0.375 0.355

Table 4 shows the static test results with short span hinged. From Table 4, it can be

noted that maximum deflection occurs at location 5 and the value is 0.375 mm corresponding

to a failure load of 238.6 kN. The failure was like local shear failure of slab, since the aspect

ratio is 0.267. The behaviour of the material is brittle and it shows linear variation as

described in fig. 9. In the case of fatigue loading, the boundary condition is short span hinged

and the loading range is 5 kN to 50 kN. Fig. 5 shows the schematic representation of

deflection measuring points under fatigue loading and Table 5 shows the results obtained

under fatigue loading. Frequency of loading is 1 Hz. From Table 5, it can be noted that the

maximum deflection occurs at location 6 corresponding to 500000 cycles.

Table 5. Fatigue test results

Cycles Deflection (mm)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6

1 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181

10 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181

50 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181

100 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181

500 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181

1000 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181

5000 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181

10000 0.111 0.111 0.165 0.165 0.140 0.214

20000 0.112 0.112 0.176 0.176 0.151 0.221

30000 0.150 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.174 0.239

40000 0.176 0.176 0.244 0.244 0.198 0.318

50000 0.198 0.198 0.300 0.300 0.240 0.406

60000 0.239 0.239 0.345 0.345 0.295 0.474

80000 0.295 0.295 0.433 0.433 0.332 0.554

100000 0.332 0.332 0.492 0.492 0.421 0.620

150000 0.369 0.369 0.546 0.546 0.469 0.679

200000 0.409 0.409 0.601 0.601 0.516 0.743

300000 0.432 0.432 0.651 0.651 0.546 0.789

400000 0.456 0.456 0.679 0.679 0.580 0.838

500000 0.470 0.470 0.710 0.710 0.606 0.888



330

Figure 8: Load deflection diagram (Short span hinged)

Figure 9: Load deflection diagram (Long span hinged)

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

Details of experimental investigations carried out on GFRP decks subjected to static

and fatigue loading have been presented. All the beams have tested as per Indian Road

Congress (IRC) Class A loading. Detailed description about fabrication of GFRP panel has

been given. Two rectangular patch loads are applied symmetrically over the deck and the

maximum deflection under each panel under the factored load has been obtained. From the

experiments, it is observed that (i) the GFRP deck panel failed at an ultimate flexural load of

252.6 kN and shear load of 238.6 kN with a factor of safety of 5.10 and 4.80 respectively (ii)

the elastic deflection is observed to be 0.558mm in flexure and 0.112 in shear (iii) the GFRP

deck panel resisted up to 5 million fatigue cycles and (iv) the nature of failure is brittle for all

the specimens. The experimental findings will be useful for the design of bridge deck panel

made up of GFRP.

REFERENCES

[1] Anido, R.L., and Xu, H. “Structural Characterization Of Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Polymer

Glulam Panels for Bridge Decks”, Journal of Composites for Construction, 6(3), 2002, pp 194-

203.

[2] Aixi. Zhou, ASCE, M., Jason T. Coleman, Anthony B. Temeles, John J. Lesko, and Thomas E. Cousins. “Laboratory And Field Performance Of Cellular Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite

Bridge Deck Systems”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, October 2005, 9(5),

2005.



331

[3] Aref, A.J., and Parsons, I.D. “Design Optimization Procedures For Fiber Reinforced Plastic Bridges”, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 125(9), 1999, pp 1040-1047.

[4] Davalos, J.F., Qiao, P., Xu, X.F., Robinson, J. and Barth, K.E. “Modeling And Characterization

Of Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Honeycomb Sandwich Panels For Highway Bridge Applications”,

Composite Structures, 52, 2001, pp 441-452.

[5] Hayes, M.D., Ohanehi, D., Lesko, J.J., Cousins, T.E., and Witcher, D. “Performance Of Tube

And Plate Fiber Glass Composite Bridge Deck”, Journal of Composites for Construction, 4(2),

2000, pp 48-55.

[6] Hillman, J.R., and Murray, T.M. “Innovative Floor Systems For Steel Framed Buildings”, Mixed

Structures, Including New Materials; Proceedings of IABSE Symposium, International

Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 1990, pp 672-675.

[7] Reddy R.V.S., Alagusundaramoorthy, P. “Static Behaviour Of Contact Molding GFRP Composite

Highway Bridge Deck Panels”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, April 2006.

[8] Zheng He, Jinping Ou, Bo Wang. “The trilinear moment vs. curvature relationship of concrete

beams reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rebars”, Composite Structures, 77, 2007,

pp 30–35

[9] Wang, Y.C., Kodur, V. “Variation of strength and stiffness of fibre reinforced polymer

reinforcing bars with temperature”, Cement & Concrete Composites, 27, 2005, pp 864–874

[10] Ochola, R.O., Marcus, K., Nurick, G.N., Franz, T. “Mechanical behaviour of glass and carbon

fibre reinforced composites at varying strain rates”, Composite Structures, 63, 2004, pp 455–467

[11] Adam C. Berg, Lawrence C. Bank, Michael G. Oliva, Jeffrey S. Russell. “Construction and cost

analysis of an FRP reinforced concrete bridge deck”, Construction and Building Materials, 20,

2006, pp 515–526.

[12] Antonio Nanni and Michael S. Norris. “ FRP jacketed concrete under flexure and combined

flexure-compression”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 9, No. 5, 1995, pp 273-281,

[13] Scott T. Smitha, Shenghua Hua, Seo Jin Kima and Rudolf Seracino. “FRP-strengthened RC slabs

anchored with FRP anchors”, Engineering Structures, 33, 2011, pp 1075-1087.

[14] Lu, X.Z., Chen, J.F., Ye, L.P., Teng, J.G. and Rotter, J.M. “RC beams shear-strengthened with FRP: Stress distributions in the FRP reinforcement”, Construction and Building Materials , 23,

2009, pp 1544–1554.

[15] Mazzotti, C., Savoia, M., Ferracuti, B. “An experimental study on delamination of FRP plates

bonded to concrete”, Construction and Building Materials 22, 2008, pp 1409–1421

[16] Hesham Diab, Zhishen Wu. “Nonlinear constitutive model for time-dependent behavior of FRP-

concrete interface”, Composites Science and Technology, 67, 2007, pp 2323–2333.

[17] Abdalla, H.A. “Evaluation of deflection in concrete members reinforced with fibre reinforced

polymer (FRP) bars”, Composite Structures, 56 , 2002, pp 63–71.

[18] Luciano, R. and Sacco, E. “Damage of masonry panels reinforced by FRP sheets", Int. J. Solids

and Structures, 35(15), 1998, pp 1728-1741.

[19] Dr. Prahallada. M.C, Dr. Shanthappa B.C, Dr. Prakash, “Effect Of Redmud On The Properties

Of Waste Plastic Fibre Reinforced Concrete An Experimental Investigation”

International Journal Of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET) Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011,

pp. 25 - 34, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 - 6316.

[20] Rakesh Hota, Kshitij Kumar, Ganni Gowtham And Avinash Kumar Kotni,“Experimental

Investigation Of Fiberglass Reinforced Mono-Composite Leaf Spring”International Journal of

Design and Manufacturing Technology (IJDMT) Volume 4, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 30 - 42,

Issn Print: 0976 – 6995, Issn Online: 0976 – 7002

experimental investigation on glass

Technology

gfrp deck panels

design of bridge deck

bridge deck panel ofspan

reinforced concrete

concrete beams

head of civil engineering

bridge deck slabs areone

frp beams