Experimental investigation on glass
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Experimental investigation on glass

on

  • 486 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
486
Views on SlideShare
486
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Experimental investigation on glass Experimental investigation on glass Document Transcript

    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME321EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION ON GLASSFIBRE REINFORCED PLASTICBRIDGE DECKS SUBJECTEDTO STATIC AND FATIGUE LOADINGMuthuraj. M. P.1, Subramanian. K21Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,Coimbatore – 641 014, INDIA2Professor and Head of Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute of Technology,Coimbatore – 641 014, INDIAABSTRACTThis paper presents the details of experimental investigations carried out on GlassFibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bridge decks subjected to static and fatigue loading. Allthe beams have tested as per Indian Road Congress (IRC) Class A loading. The experimentalmodel is a one-third scaled model of a 3.75m bridge superstructure. Bridge deck panel ofspan 1m is considered. The overall length and width of multi-cellular bridge deck panels arekept as 1250 mm and 333.33 mm respectively. The overall dimensions have been arrived atas per IRC code. The static and fatigue testing of prototype GFRP composite bridge deckpanels are carried out under the simulated wheel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. Tworectangular patch loads are applied symmetrically over the deck and the maximum deflectionunder each panel under the factored load has been obtained. From the experiments, it isobserved that (i) the GFRP deck panel failed at an ultimate load of 123.6 kN with ultimatedeflection of 7.538mm under buckling criteria (ii) the GFRP deck panels failed at an ultimateload of 113.8 kN with ultimate deflection of 4.057 mm under local shear criteria (ii) thedeflection within elastic limit is observed to be 1.627mm under buckling criteria and 0.902under 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 beuseful for the design of bridge deck panels made up of GFRP.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING ANDTECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), pp. 321-331© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.aspJournal Impact Factor (2013): 5.3277 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.comIJCIET© IAEME
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME3221. INTRODUCTIONThe choice of composite materials as a substitute for metallic materials in structuralapplications is becoming more pronounced especially due to the great weight savings thatthese materials offer. Polymer matrix composites have material properties which areattractive for use in various engineering applications especially in aerospace, marine,automobile and civil engineering. Many of the applications require serviceability underdynamic loading conditions. The research undertaken during the last two decades has shownthat, one of the potential solutions to the steel-corrosion-related problems in concrete is theuse 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 areone of the most severely affected components in reinforced concrete structures. Since thematerial offers unique combination of high strength to weight ratio and stiffness to weightratio, corrosion and fatigue resistance, improved long-term performance to environmentaleffects, lower maintenance cost, longer service life, lower life-cycle costs, it makes themattractive for use in the construction of new slabs and retrofitting and rehabilitation ofexisting slab panels, and also in other concrete structures. In addition they have strongpotential for use in earthquake vulnerable zones, and also in places where longer unsupportedspans are required.The light weight composite bridges can be transported easily. Since composites willnot chip like concrete or rust like steel, the maintenance associated with this advancedmaterial is completely eliminated. Extensive research studies were carried out on FRP fordifferent applications1-7. Zheng et al8developed a simplified trilinear relationship betweenmoment and curvature for FRP beams. The analysis results from this relationship werecompared with the test data from five concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforcedpolymer (GFRP) rebars tested under two-thirds-point flexure until failure. The comparisonswere indicated that the suggested relationship yields good predictions of flexural capacity ofall beams. Wang and Kodur9presented the results of tensile mechanical properties of FRPreinforcement bars, used as internal reinforcement in concrete structures, at elevatedtemperatures. Detailed experimental studies were conducted to determine the strength andstiffness properties of FRP bars at elevated temperatures. Ochola et al10evaluated themechanical properties of glass and carbon fibre reinforced composites at varying strain ratesby testing a single laminate configuration. The compressive material properties weredetermined 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 dynamicmaterial strength for GFRP increases with increasing strain rates. The strain to failure forboth CFRP and GFRP is observed to decrease with increasing strain rate. Berg et al11described the use of FRP materials as reinforcements and formwork for a concrete highwaybridge 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 specialprefabricated pultruded FRP reinforcing grid. Nanni and Norris12conducted experiments toevaluate the behaviour of concrete members laterally confined with fibre-reinforced plastic(FRP) composites. Specimens were loaded quasi-statically under cyclic flexure with andwithout axial compression. It was found that flexural strength and ductility are enhanced bythe use of FRP jackets. It was noted that improvements depend on jacketing method, shape ofmember cross-section, level of the axial load, and failure mode. Smitha et al13reported aseries of tests on one-way spanning simply supported RC slabs which were strengthened in
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME323flexure with tension face bonded FRP composites and anchored with different arrangementsof FRP anchors. The greatest enhancement in load and deflection experienced by the six slabsstrengthened with FRP plates and anchored with FRP anchors was 30% and 110%,respectively, over the unanchored FRP-strengthened control slab. Lu et al14presentednumerical 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 severaldifferent crack width distributions. Mazzotti et al15carried out an experimental study ondelamination of FRP plates bonded to concrete. Experimental tests were simulated byadopting a numerical bond-slip model and observed that numerical results are in goodagreement with experimental results. Diab and Wu16developed a new nonlinear viscoelasticmodel for the study of the long-term behavior of the FRP-concrete interface. The model hasthe ability to describe the creep of the FRP-concrete adhesive layer and the creep fracturepropagation along the FRP-concrete interface. Abdalla17developed simple analyticalmethodology to compute the deflection in FRP reinforced members subjected to flexuralstresses and compared with the corresponding experimental results. Luciano and Sacco18proposed a numerical model to study the mechanical behaviour of a masonry wall. To mode1the overall behavior of the unreinforced and reinforced masonry, by accounting for theprogressive damage of the mortar, of the block and of the FRP sheets, a simplehomogenization technique was proposed. Two different damage criteria were adopted for themortar and the block, within isotropic viscoelastic and elastic damage models.From the literature review, it is observed that the experimental studies on thebehaviour of hand lay-up GFRP composite bridge deck panels under static and fatigueloading is limited. The present study is aimed at to conduct experiments on the performanceof a scaled model of a GFRP bridge deck under static and fatigue loading.2. MATERIALS AND ITS PROPERTIESThe most extensively used class of fibres in composites is those manufactured fromE-glass. E-glass is a low alkali borosilicate glass originally developed for electrical insulationapplications. It was first produced commercially for composite manufacture in 1940’s, and itsuse now approaches 2 MT/year worldwide. Many different countries manufacture E-glassand its exact composition varies according to the availability and composition of the localraw materials. It is manufactured as continuous filaments in bundles, or strands, eachcontaining 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 processedinto a wide variety of mats, cloths, and performs and cut into short-fibre formats. The degreeto which the fibres are bound together in the strand is controlled by the size. The choice of asize compatible with the matrix resin and process route is thus of critical importance whensourcing reinforcements. Woven clothes and rovings are very widely used in the manufactureof 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 leadsto a high degree of crimp, which may reduce stiffness by up to about 15% compared with asimilar fraction of straight fibres. Twill and satin weaves offer better drape, and the satinweaves 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
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME324than the random mats. WR fabrics are specifically designed to meet most demandingperformance, processing and cost requirements. These fabrics deliver a unique combinationof properties. They offer one of the highest strength-to-weight ratios possible for reinforcedplastics and through careful selection and placement of fabrics, designers can put the strengthexactly where it is needed, making optimum use of the fibre strength. Woven roving fabricsprovide the most economical solution for raising glass content of laminates and increasinglaminate 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 productscurrently available in the market. ERs are available in a range of viscosities, and will workwith a number of curing agents or hardeners. The nature of epoxy allows it to be manipulatedinto a partially-cured or advanced cure state commonly known as a “prepreg”. If the prepregalso contains the reinforcing fibres the resulting tacky lamina can be positioned on a mold (orwound if it is in the form of a tape) at room temperature. Although some epoxies harden attemperatures as low as 80oF (30oC), all epoxies require some degree of heated post-cure toachieve satisfactory high temperature performance. Large parts fabricated with ER exhibitgood fidelity to the mold shape and dimensions of the molded part. ERs can be formulated toachieve very high mechanical properties. However, certain hardeners (particularly amines),as well as the ERs themselves, can be skin sensitizing, so appropriate personal protectiveprocedures must always be followed. Some epoxies are also more sensitive to moisture andalkali. This behaviour must be taken into account in determining long term durability andsuitability for any given application. Curing time and increased temperature required tocomplete cross-linking (polymerisation) depend on the type and amount of hardener used.Some hardeners will work at room temperature. However, most hardeners require elevatedtemperatures. Additives called accelerators are sometimes added to the liquid ER to speed upreactions and decrease curing cycle times. The heat resistance of an epoxy is improved if itcontains more aromatic rings in its basic molecular chain. If the curing reaction of ERs isslowed by external means, (i.e., by lowering the reaction temperature) before all themolecules 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 isessentially uncured. Hardness, tackiness, and the solvent reactivity of these B-staged resinsdepend on the degree of curing. Various material properties are presented in Table 1.3. CROSS SECTIONAL PROFILEThe overall dimensions are arrived at based on the Indian Road Congress (IRC) codeIRC:6-2000. The experimental model is a one-third scale model of a 3.75m bridgesuperstructure. Bridge deck panel of span 1m is considered. The overall length and width ofmulticellular bridge deck panels are kept as 1250 mm and 333.33 mm respectively. A crosssectional profile as shown in Figure 1 with minimum weight is selected for the fabricationand experimental investigation. The cross section consists of a 3-cell rectangular section withadditional stiffeners connecting the web to the top and bottom flange. The thickness of thetop flange, bottom flange and webs are kept as 20 mm and web as 15mm (Figure 1).
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME325Figure 1: Dimension of the bridge deckThe thickness of additional stiffeners is kept as 15mm. The basic material properties aregiven in Table 1.Table 1. Material PropertiesFormModulus ofElasticityE, MPaPoisson’sRatioShear ModulusG, MPaWoven RovingFibre – E Glass26900 0.29 1730Resin – Epoxy Resin 3545 0.08 2284. FABRICATION OF PROTOTYPE GFRP COMPOSITE BRIDGE DECK PANELSBridge deck panels can be fabricated using hand lay-up process, resin transfermolding (RTM) process, vacuum assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) process andfilament winding process depending on the cross sectional profiles. Compared to othermanufacturing processes, hand lay-up process offers number of benefits such as low toolingcost, 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 withreinforcement against the finished surface of an open mold. Chemical reactions in the resinharden the material to a strong, lightweight product. The resin serves as the matrix for thereinforcing fibers, much as concrete acts as the matrix for steel reinforcing rods. Hand lay-upprocess 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 themold surface using a spray gun. The gel-coat is allowed to cure sufficiently and layers ofreinforcement are placed in the mold and resin is applied by hand. Any air which may beentrapped is removed using squeegees or serrated rollers. The thickness and type ofreinforcements used are determined by the design. Catalysts, accelerators, promoters andother ingredients required for the part’s end use may also be added to the resin so that thecomposite 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-upprocess. Most hand lay-up production involves the use of general-purpose (orthophthalic)polyester resins. Isophthalic polyesters, vinylester and epoxies are also used. Glass fiberchopped strand mats and woven roving mats are used. The resin system and reinforcementfor the fabrication of GFRP composite bridge deck panels were selected based on thecharacterization of materials. Wooden moulds were used for the fabrication of the bridgedeck panels.
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME326The cross section of the GFRP composite bridge deck panel is a multicellularrectangular section with additional stiffeners connecting the web to the top flange and thecross sectional dimensions were obtained based on the finite element analysis. Thedimensions of GFRP bridge deck panel are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2, Wooden moulds arecheap, light in weight and easy to fabricate than other types of moulds made using steel andFRP composite materials.Table 2. GFRP Brick Deck Panel DimensionsPARAMETERPROTOTYPE(mm)MODEL(mm)Length 3750 1250Width 1000 333.333Depth 450 150Flange & outer web Thickness 30 20Inner web thickness 45 15Additional stiffeners 45 15Plywood sheets of 25 mm thick were used for making the wooden moulds as shown in figure2.Figure 2: Wooden MouldsThree moulds of size equal to the inner dimensions of midcell, endcell and top truncatedtriangular cell of the cross section of bridge deck panel were made and are shown in Figs. 3and 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, MarchThe surfaces of the wooden moulds were polished using the rough and smooth filesand with sand grit papers. Duco putty wasthe mould surface. Wooden moulds werepapers to get the smooth polished5. FABRICATION AND TESTINGThe surfaces of the wooden molds were polished using the rough and smooth files andwith sand grit papers. Duco putty wasmold surface. Wooden molds were polished again with smooth and rough water emery papersto get the smooth polished surfaces for the fabrication of products. The surface of the mouldis first polished and treated with a suitable mould release agent to prevent the moulding resinfrom 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 ofunreinforced resin is applied directly to the mould surface to form a gel coat. This helps toproduce a good surface finish on the moulding and prevents print through the reinforcementGel coats may also enhance the durability and corrosion resistance of the moulreducing the absorption of water and solvents into the materials during exposure in service.Additionally, gel coats may be pigmented or coloured to produce a selftypical fabricated prototype bridge deck panelsloading pattern and typical test setframe was connected to the strong test floor.Proving ring of 300kN capacity was usedapplied on the model. Two GFRP panels were tested under static loading and one panel wastested under fatigue loading. Two rectangular patch loads is applied symmetrically over thedeck and the maximum deflection under each panel under the factored load is obtained.Figure 5: Schematic Diagram of the Loading PatternInternational Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 09766316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IA327The surfaces of the wooden moulds were polished using the rough and smooth filesDuco putty was applied on the polished wooden surface to levelthe mould surface. Wooden moulds were polished again with smooth and rough watepapers to get the smooth polished surfaces for the fabrication of products.AND TESTING OF BRIDGE DECK PANELSThe surfaces of the wooden molds were polished using the rough and smooth files andwith sand grit papers. Duco putty was applied on the polished wooden surface to level themold surface. Wooden molds were polished again with smooth and rough water emery papersto get the smooth polished surfaces for the fabrication of products. The surface of the mouldtreated with a suitable mould release agent to prevent the moulding resinfrom 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 oforced resin is applied directly to the mould surface to form a gel coat. This helps toproduce a good surface finish on the moulding and prevents print through the reinforcementGel coats may also enhance the durability and corrosion resistance of the moulreducing 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-finish on the part.fabricated prototype bridge deck panels is shown in Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of theloading 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 a0kN capacity was used for loading. Two point pure bending condition wasTwo GFRP panels were tested under static loading and one panel wasTwo rectangular patch loads is applied symmetrically over theection under each panel under the factored load is obtained.Schematic Diagram of the Loading PatternInternational Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308April (2013), © IAEMEThe surfaces of the wooden moulds were polished using the rough and smooth filesapplied on the polished wooden surface to levelpolished again with smooth and rough water emeryThe surfaces of the wooden molds were polished using the rough and smooth files andapplied on the polished wooden surface to level themold surface. Wooden molds were polished again with smooth and rough water emery papersto get the smooth polished surfaces for the fabrication of products. The surface of the mouldtreated with a suitable mould release agent to prevent the moulding resinfrom 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 oforced resin is applied directly to the mould surface to form a gel coat. This helps toproduce a good surface finish on the moulding and prevents print through the reinforcementGel coats may also enhance the durability and corrosion resistance of the moulding byreducing the absorption of water and solvents into the materials during exposure in service.finish on the part. A. Schematic diagram of therespectively. The loadingA Hydraulic jack was used for applying load.for loading. Two point pure bending condition wasTwo GFRP panels were tested under static loading and one panel wasTwo rectangular patch loads is applied symmetrically over theection under each panel under the factored load is obtained.
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, MarchThe static testing of prototype GFRP composite bridge deck panels was carried outunder the simulated wheel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. The dead load of futurewearing surface was calculated. The dynamic allowance factor was taken as 30% of the liveload 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 ofFig. 7Fig. 7 shows the typical failure behaviour of GFRP bridge paneTable 3.Deflections were measured using LVDT.short span hinged. From Table 3, it can becentre at location 6 of the panel and the value isLoad(kN)Deflection (mm)D1 D250 0.478 0.479100 0.532 0.533150 0.699 0.700175 0.899 0.901200 1.094 1.096225 1.301 1.304252.6 1.381 1.383International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 09766316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IA328Figure 6: Typical Test SetThe static testing of prototype GFRP composite bridge deck panels was carried outeel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. The dead load of futurewearing surface was calculated. The dynamic allowance factor was taken as 30% of the liveload of the wheeled vehicle. The static tests were conducted under a factored load ofad + 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 patternshows 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 withshort span hinged. From Table 3, it can be noted that maximum deflection occurs at theof the panel and the value is 2.211 mm corresponding to a failure load ofDeflection (mm)D2 D3 D4 D5 D60.479 0.418 0.419 0.278 0.5580.533 0.982 0.983 0.772 1.1920.700 1.234 1.236 0.969 1.4990.901 1.494 1.496 1.199 1.7891.096 1.704 1.706 1.404 2.0041.304 1.886 1.888 1.631 2.1411.383 1.976 1.977 1.741 2.211International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308April (2013), © IAEMEThe static testing of prototype GFRP composite bridge deck panels was carried outeel load of IRC Class A wheeled vehicle. The dead load of futurewearing surface was calculated. The dynamic allowance factor was taken as 30% of the liveload of the wheeled vehicle. The static tests were conducted under a factored load of 50 kNad + 30% of impact factor (assumed) + dead load including future wearing surface)Table 3 shows the static test results withnoted that maximum deflection occurs at thefailure load of0.5581.1921.4991.7892.0042.1412.211
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME329252.6 kN. The failure was like buckling of slab, since the aspect ratio is 3.750. Thebehaviour 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 D660 0.109 0.110 0.104 0.105 0.134 0.10490 0.147 0.148 0.151 0.152 0.171 0.151120 0.203 0.204 0.186 0.188 0.226 0.187150 0.253 0.255 0.248 0.250 0.278 0.249180 0.296 0.298 0.312 0.314 0.322 0.313210 0.323 0.326 0.324 0.326 0.347 0.325238.6 0.353 0.355 0.355 0.356 0.375 0.355Table 4 shows the static test results with short span hinged. From Table 4, it can benoted that maximum deflection occurs at location 5 and the value is 0.375 mm correspondingto a failure load of 238.6 kN. The failure was like local shear failure of slab, since the aspectratio is 0.267. The behaviour of the material is brittle and it shows linear variation asdescribed in fig. 9. In the case of fatigue loading, the boundary condition is short span hingedand the loading range is 5 kN to 50 kN. Fig. 5 shows the schematic representation ofdeflection measuring points under fatigue loading and Table 5 shows the results obtainedunder fatigue loading. Frequency of loading is 1 Hz. From Table 5, it can be noted that themaximum deflection occurs at location 6 corresponding to 500000 cycles.Table 5. Fatigue test resultsCyclesDeflection (mm)D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D61 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.18110 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.18150 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181100 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.181500 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.1811000 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.1815000 0.099 0.099 0.147 0.147 0.125 0.18110000 0.111 0.111 0.165 0.165 0.140 0.21420000 0.112 0.112 0.176 0.176 0.151 0.22130000 0.150 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.174 0.23940000 0.176 0.176 0.244 0.244 0.198 0.31850000 0.198 0.198 0.300 0.300 0.240 0.40660000 0.239 0.239 0.345 0.345 0.295 0.47480000 0.295 0.295 0.433 0.433 0.332 0.554100000 0.332 0.332 0.492 0.492 0.421 0.620150000 0.369 0.369 0.546 0.546 0.469 0.679200000 0.409 0.409 0.601 0.601 0.516 0.743300000 0.432 0.432 0.651 0.651 0.546 0.789400000 0.456 0.456 0.679 0.679 0.580 0.838500000 0.470 0.470 0.710 0.710 0.606 0.888
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME330Figure 8: Load deflection diagram (Short span hinged)Figure 9: Load deflection diagram (Long span hinged)6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKSDetails of experimental investigations carried out on GFRP decks subjected to staticand fatigue loading have been presented. All the beams have tested as per Indian RoadCongress (IRC) Class A loading. Detailed description about fabrication of GFRP panel hasbeen given. Two rectangular patch loads are applied symmetrically over the deck and themaximum deflection under each panel under the factored load has been obtained. From theexperiments, it is observed that (i) the GFRP deck panel failed at an ultimate flexural load of252.6 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 GFRPdeck panel resisted up to 5 million fatigue cycles and (iv) the nature of failure is brittle for allthe specimens. The experimental findings will be useful for the design of bridge deck panelmade up of GFRP.REFERENCES[1] Anido, R.L., and Xu, H. “Structural Characterization Of Hybrid Fiber Reinforced PolymerGlulam 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 CompositeBridge Deck Systems”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, October 2005, 9(5),2005.
    • International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 4, Issue 2, March - April (2013), © IAEME331[3] Aref, A.J., and Parsons, I.D. “Design Optimization Procedures For Fiber Reinforced PlasticBridges”, 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 CharacterizationOf 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 TubeAnd 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”, MixedStructures, Including New Materials; Proceedings of IABSE Symposium, InternationalAssociation for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 1990, pp 672-675.[7] Reddy R.V.S., Alagusundaramoorthy, P. “Static Behaviour Of Contact Molding GFRP CompositeHighway 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 concretebeams 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 polymerreinforcing 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 carbonfibre 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 costanalysis 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 combinedflexure-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 slabsanchored 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 withFRP: 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 platesbonded 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 reinforcedpolymer (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. Solidsand Structures, 35(15), 1998, pp 1728-1741.[19] Dr. Prahallada. M.C, Dr. Shanthappa B.C, Dr. Prakash, “Effect Of Redmud On The PropertiesOf 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,“ExperimentalInvestigation Of Fiberglass Reinforced Mono-Composite Leaf Spring”International Journal ofDesign and Manufacturing Technology (IJDMT) Volume 4, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 30 - 42,Issn Print: 0976 – 6995, Issn Online: 0976 – 7002