A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Performance comparison of four fiber-reinforced polymer deck panels
This paper provides an overview of a state-of-the-art project on the use of FRP panels for replacing deteriorated bridge decks. The performance of four different FRP panels is compared and examined closely. The reported research revolves around a 207 m, five-span bridge that was retrofitted with four different FRP deck systems. The stay- in-place form panels of FRP 4 consist of poltruded glass fiber-reinforced panels that act as tension reinforcement. The layer of concrete is reinforced with GFRP top-reinforcing bars similar to conventional reinforced concrete decks. The following conclusions are drawn: Only the hybrid deck system FRP 4 continued to exhibit the unintended composite action that was observed for the original RC deck. No composite action was identified for the remaining three 'all FRP' panels. This trend was consistent with the design criteria. The values of the girder distribution factor for all deck systems are generally comparable to the ones for the original RC deck. The smallest impact factor, however, is for the hybrid deck system FRP 4.
Performance comparison of four fiber-reinforced polymer deck panels
This paper provides an overview of a state-of-the-art project on the use of FRP panels for replacing deteriorated bridge decks. The performance of four different FRP panels is compared and examined closely. The reported research revolves around a 207 m, five-span bridge that was retrofitted with four different FRP deck systems. The stay- in-place form panels of FRP 4 consist of poltruded glass fiber-reinforced panels that act as tension reinforcement. The layer of concrete is reinforced with GFRP top-reinforcing bars similar to conventional reinforced concrete decks. The following conclusions are drawn: Only the hybrid deck system FRP 4 continued to exhibit the unintended composite action that was observed for the original RC deck. No composite action was identified for the remaining three 'all FRP' panels. This trend was consistent with the design criteria. The values of the girder distribution factor for all deck systems are generally comparable to the ones for the original RC deck. The smallest impact factor, however, is for the hybrid deck system FRP 4.
Performance comparison of four fiber-reinforced polymer deck panels
Vergleich der Gebrauchstüchtigkeit von vier faserverstärkten Kunststoffträgerplatten
Reising, Reiner M.W. (author) / Shahrooz, Bahram M. (author) / Hunt, Victor J. (author) / Neumann, Andy R. (author) / Helmicki, Arthur J. (author)
Journal of Composites for Construction ; 8 ; 265-274
2004
10 Seiten, 12 Bilder, 2 Tabellen, 11 Quellen
Article (Journal)
English
Performance Comparison of Four Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Deck Panels
| Online Contents | 2004
Performance Comparison of Four Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Deck Panels
| British Library Online Contents | 2004
Testing of Concrete/Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Deck Panels
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1999
Performance of Five-Span Steel Bridge with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Deck Panels
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2001