Behavior of Hybrid Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks under Static and Fatigue Loading

Polymers (Basel). 2022 Nov 26;14(23):5153. doi: 10.3390/polym14235153.

Abstract

This paper presents a new bridge deck reinforcement alternative using hybrid reinforced concrete (Hybrid) consisting of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) rebar and alkali-resistant fiberglass composite macrofibers added to the concrete mixture. Fiberglass composite macrofibers are a miniaturized GFRP reinforcing bar that is a composite of resin and glass fibers. An experimental testing program and analytical modeling were conducted to evaluate the structural performance at the service and ultimate limit states. Thirteen full-scale bridge deck specimens were constructed and tested under static and fatigue loading. The fatigue loading was applied up to two million cycles at a frequency of 4 Hz. Post-fatigue, the specimens were tested to failure to compare pre-and post-fatigue behavior. Simplified and moment-curvature analytical models were used to predict the specimens' flexural strength at the ultimate level, and both were found to be accurate for predicting pre- and post-fatigue strength. Deflection and crack width were monitored throughout the fatigue loading, and these values were compared to the recommended AASHTO LRFD serviceability limits. Testing and analytical results showed that the Hybrid deck is a viable alternative to steel-reinforced and GFRP-reinforced bridge decks for flexural behavior. The service and ultimate level behavior of each bridge deck type was adequate as compared to the AASHTO LRFD service limits. The exceptional post-peak energy absorption demonstrated by the Hybrid adds ductility to previously elastic GFRP reinforced sections.

Keywords: GFRP reinforcement; bridge decks; fatigue loading; macrofibers; serviceability; ultimate strength.

Grants and funding

This paper is based on research supported by the Mountain Plains Consortium Project Number 581. Any observations, findings, recommendations, or conclusions presented in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Mountain Plains Consortium.