Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb
Abstract
There is a concern with worldwide deterioration of highway bridges, particularly reinforced concrete. The advantages of ®ber reinforced
plastic (FRP) composites over conventional materials motivate their use in highway bridges for rehabilitation and replacement of structures.
In this paper, a systematic approach for analysis and design of all FRP deck/stringer bridges is presented. The analyses of structural
components cover: (1) constituent materials and ply properties, (2) laminated panel engineering properties, (3) stringer stiffness properties,
and (4) apparent stiffnesses for composite cellular decks and their equivalent orthotropic material properties. To verify the accuracy of
orthotropic material properties, an actual deck is experimentally tested and analyzed by a ®nite element model. For design analysis of FRP
deck/stringer bridge systems, an approximate series solution for orthotropic plates, including ®rst-order shear deformation, is applied to
develop simpli®ed design equations, which account for load distribution factors under various loading cases. An FRP deck fabricated by
bonding side-by-side box beams is transversely attached to FRP wide-¯ange beams and tested as a deck/stringer bridge system. The bridge
systems are tested under static loads for various load conditions, and the experimental results are correlated with those by an approximate
series solution and a ®nite element model. The present simpli®ed design analysis procedures can be used to develop new ef®cient FRP
sections and to design FRP highway bridge decks and deck/stringer systems, as shown by an illustrative design example. q 2000 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Approximate series solution
illustrate the systematic design procedures developed in material architectures that can be simulated as laminated
this paper, an example of an FRP deck/stringer bridge is con®gurations. A typical pultruded section mainly includes
presented. the following three types of layer [13] (see Figs. 2 and 3):
(1) continuous strand mats (CSM); (2) stitched fabrics (SF);
and (3) rovings or unidirectional ®ber bundles. Each layer is
2. Panel and beam analyses
modeled as an homogeneous, linearly elastic, and generally
orthotropic material. Based on information provided by the
Extensive research has been conducted in the area of
manufacturer, the ®ber volume fraction (Vf) can be
analysis and design of composite materials at micro- and
evaluated and used to compute the ply stiffnesses from
macro-levels. The analysis of FRP beams from micro/
micromechanics models [14]. For the box section of Fig. 2
macromechanics to beam response has been presented in
and the wide-¯ange section of Fig. 3, the predicted ply
Ref. [13]. In this section, the analyses of micro/macro-
properties are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Once
structure and beam component are brie¯y reviewed and
the ply stiffnesses for each laminate (panel) of a FRP beam
include: (1) constituent materials and prediction of ply
are computed, the stiffnesses of a laminated panel can be
properties, (2) laminated panel engineering properties, and
computed from macromechanics [15]. For example, for
(3) beam or stringer stiffness properties.
the box beam shown in Fig. 2, the panel properties
2.1. Panel analysis by micro/macromechanics (Ex, Ey, nxy and Gxy) predicted by the micro/macro-
mechanics models [14] correlate well with experimental
Although pultruded FRP shapes are not laminated results for coupon samples (Table 3) tested in tension
structures in a rigorous sense, they are pultruded with and torsion.
Table 1
Ply material properties of a box section (Fig. 2) computed by a micromechanics model [14]
2.2. Beam analysis by mechanics of laminated beams bridge systems, as presented in Section 4, and they can
also serve to simplify modeling procedures either in numer-
The response of FRP shapes in bending is evaluated using ical or explicit formulations. The design equations neces-
the mechanics of thin-walled laminated beams (MLB) [16]. sary for such a model are presented in this section, along
In MLB, the stiffness coef®cients (axial, A; bending, D; with numerical and experimental veri®cation of the results.
axial-bending coupling, B; and shear, F) of a beam are In this section, the development of equivalent stiffness for
computed by adding the contributions of the stiffnesses of cellular decks consisting of multiple FRP box beams is
the component panels, which in turn are obtained from the presented. Multicell box sections are commonly used in
effective beam moduli. Based on MLB, engineering design deck construction because of their light-weight, ef®cient
equations for FRP beams under bending have been geometry, and inherent stiffness in ¯exure and torsion.
formulated [17], and they can be easily adopted by Also, this type of deck has the advantage of being relatively
practicing engineers and composite manufacturers for the easy to build. It can be either assembled from individual
analysis, design, and optimization of structural FRP beams box-beams or manufactured as a complete section by pultru-
or bridge stringers. MLB is suitable for straight FRP beams sion or a vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding process.
or columns with at least one axis of geometric symmetry The elastic equivalence approach [20] used in this paper
and can be used to evaluate the stiffness properties and accounts for out-of-plane shear effects, and the results for
response of bridge stringers. As an example, the bending a multicell box section are veri®ed experimentally and by
(D) and shear (F) stiffnesses of a box beam (Fig. 2) and a ®nite element analyses.
wide-¯ange beam (Fig. 3) by MLB are listed in Table 4, and
experimental results for de¯ections and strains compared 3.1. Equivalent stiffness for cellular FRP decks
favorably with MLB predictions [13,18,19].
The panel and beam properties obtained above by micro/ As an illustrative example, we derive the bending, shear
macromechanics and MLB can be ef®ciently implemented and torsional equivalent stiffnesses for a deck composed of
in deck and deck/stringer system designs, as described in multiple box sections (Fig. 4).
Sections 3 and 4.
3.1.1. Longitudinal stiffnesses of cellular FRP deck
The bending stiffness of the deck in the longitudinal
3. FRP cellular decks: elastic equivalence
direction, or x-axis in Fig. 4, is expressed as the sum of
A multicellular FRP composite bridge deck can be the bending stiffness of individual box beams (Db, see
modeled as an orthotropic plate, with equivalent stiffnesses Table 4):
that account for the size, shape and constituent materials of Dx nc Db
1
the cellular deck. Thus, the complexity of material aniso-
tropy of the panels and structural orthotropy of the deck where nc number of cells. For the section shown in Fig. 4,
system can be reduced to an equivalent orthotropic plate b width of a cell, h height of a cell, tf thickness of the
with global elastic properties in two orthogonal directions: ¯ange, and tw thickness of the web. If all panels have
parallel and transverse to the longitudinal axis of the deck identical material lay-up and tf tw t, Eq. (1) becomes
cell. These equivalent orthotropic plate properties can be ht
directly used in the design and analysis of deck/stringer Dx nc Ex h2 1 3bh
2
6
Table 2
Ply material properties of a wide-¯ange section (Fig. 3) computed by a micromechanics model [14]
Table 3
Panel properties of a box section (4 00 £ 8 00 £ 1/4 00 )
Ex Ey vxy Gxy
6 a 6 a a
Experimental 3.293 £ 10 psi 2.491 £ 10 psi 0.269 8.599 £ 10 5 psi b
Micro/macromechanics 3.377 £ 10 6 psi 2.620 £ 10 6 psi 0.285 8.760 £ 10 5 psi
%Difference 12.6% 15.2% 15.9% 11.9%
a
From tension tests.
b
From torsion tests.
where Ex modulus of elasticity of a panel in the x-direc- where the moments of inertia I are de®ned as:
tion computed by micro/macromechanics or obtained ÿ
wtf3 w 2tw 3
experimentally (Table 3). If ; Iw
7
The out-of-plane shear stiffness of the deck in the long- 12 12
itudinal direction, Fx, is expressed as a function of the For tf tw t, Eq. (6) can be simpli®ed as
stiffness for the individual beams (Fb):
2E wt3
F x nc F b
3 Fy y
8
h
b b1
where Fb is given in Table 4, and nc number of cells. This 4
expression can be further approximated in terms of the in- where Ey is the modulus of elasticity of a panel in the
plane shear modulus of the panel, Gxy (see Table 3) and y-direction (Table 3).
cross-sectional area of the beam webs:
Fx nc Gxy
2th:
4 3.1.3. Torsional stiffness of cellular FRP deck
The torsional rigidity of a multi-cell section, GJ, is
evaluated by considering the shear ¯ow around the cross-
3.1.2. Transverse stiffnesses of cellular FRP deck section of a multi-cell deck. For a structure where the webs
An approximate value for the deck bending stiffness in and ¯anges are small compared with the overall dimensions
the transverse direction, Dy, may be obtained by neglecting of the section, Cusens and Pama [21] have shown that the
the effect of the transverse diaphragms and the second torsional rigidity may be written as
moment of area of the ¯anges about their own centroids. 4A2 Gxy X t3
For a deck as shown in Fig. 4 with tf t: GJ 1 Gxy
ds
9
P ds 3
1 t
Dy E
w
th2
5
2 y where A area of the deck section including the void area
P
where w is the length of the deck in the longitudinal and is de®ned as A nc bh, and ds=t represents the
direction and Ey is the modulus of elasticity of the panel summation of the length-to-thickness ratio taken around
in the y-direction (Table 3). the median line of the outside contour of the deck cross-
For multiple box sections, the simplest way to obtain the section. For a constant panel thickness t, the torsional
deck's out-of-plane transverse shear stiffness is to treat the rigidity can be simpli®ed as
structure as a Vierendeel frame in the transverse direction ÿ
2 nc bh 2 Gxy t 2ÿ
[21]. For the Vierendeel frame (Fig. 5), the in¯ection points GJ ÿ 1 nc b 1 h Gxy t3
10
are assumed at the midway of top and bottom ¯anges nc b 1 h 3
between the webs. The shear stiffness in the transverse The above approximate equation is justi®ed by the fact that
direction, Fy, for the cross-section shown in Fig. 4 may be for a multi-cell deck, the net shear ¯ows through interior
written as webs are negligible and only the shear ¯ows around the
V 12Ey outer webs and top and bottom ¯anges are signi®cant. The
Fy
6 second term in Eq. (10) is relatively small compared with
u h b
b 1 the ®rst term and can be ignored.
Iw 2If
If the deck is treated as an equivalent orthotropic plate, its
Table 4 torsional rigidities depend upon the twist in two orthogonal
Strong-axis beam bending and shear stiffness coef®cients by MLB directions. Thus, torsional stiffness Dxy may be taken as one-
half of the total torsional rigidity given by Eq. (10) divided
Beam stiffness Db (lb/in 2 2 in 4) Fb (lb/in 2 2 in 2)
by the total width of the deck:
Box 4 00 £ 8 00 £ 1=4 00 1:795 £ 108 3:474 £ 106
GJ
WF 12 00 £ 12 00 £ 1=2 00 1:706 £ 109 5:026 £ 106 Dxy
11
2nc b
598 P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609
Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (11) and neglecting the second 3.2. Veri®cation of deck stiffness equations by ®nite element
term in Eq. (10), we get: analysis
nc Gxy bh2 t The formulae for bending and torsional stiffnesses
Dxy ÿ
12
nc b 1 h obtained in Section 3.1 are based on the assumption that
the deck system behaves as a beam and does not account
where D xy is the torsional stiffness per unit width for the Poisson effects of the deck. To verify the accuracy of
(lb 2 in 3 /in 2 ). the above deck stiffness equations, a ®nite element analysis
of the deck system is performed. The model is shown in Fig.
4 and consists of box beams (Fig. 2) bonded side-by-side to
form an integral deck. The computer program NISA [22] is
used, and the panels are modeled with 8-node isoparametric
layered shell elements. The cellular decks subjected to line-
loading for longitudinally and transversely supported
conditions are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, and the model for
torsional loading is given in Fig. 8.
PL3 PL
d3 1
3-point bending
13
48Di 4 k Fi
23PL3 PL
d4 1
4-point bending
14
1296Di 6kFi
where P total applied load, L span length, k shear
correction factor (k ù 1:0 is assumed in the analysis), and
Di and Fi bending and shear stiffness (i x for longi-
tudinal or y for transverse directions). The de¯ections by
Eqs. (13) and (14) in terms of stiffness properties are
compared with results from the ®nite element model for
actual cellular systems under line loading (Figs. 6 and 7).
For the longitudinal stiffness veri®cation, the length of the
decks is kept constant (L 108 in), and the de¯ection in
terms of bending and shear stiffnesses is a function of the
Fig. 5. Vierendeel distortion in a multi-cell box-beam [21]. number of cells. Each deck is simply supported and
P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609 599
Fig. 9. Longitudinal central de¯ection of a multi-cell deck (Fig. 6). Fig. 11. Torsional rigidity vs number of cells (Fig. 8).
P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609 601
ratios n ij are de®ned as Finally, to calculate the in-plane shear modulus
Gxy p , we
2 1j use
nij
18
1i Dxy
Gxy 6 3
22
where 1 is the strain in the i or j direction. For orthotropic
p tp
materials, the Poisson's ratio must obey the following With these equivalent material properties, it is now easy to
relationship: use explicit plate solutions (see Section 4) for analysis and
nij nji nxy nyx design of cellular decks.
or
19
Ei Ej Dx Dy
3.4. Experimental and numerical veri®cation of equivalent
In this study, we use the approximation nxy 0:3, which is orthotropic material properties
typically used for pultruded composites.
To calculate the out-of-plane shear moduli
Gxz p and To indirectly verify the accuracy of the equivalent ortho-
Gyz p , the relationship F GA is used, leading to tropic material properties given in Eqs. (16)±(22) (see
Section 3.3), a multi-box-beam deck of 5 0 £ 9 0 £ 8 00 (Fig.
ÿ F
Gxz p x
20 12a) subjected to a patch load is tested and analyzed for
t p bp three load conditions: (1) at the center of the deck, (2)
at 16 00 to one side from the center along the line AA 0 , and
Fy
Gyz
21 (3) at 16 00 to the other side from the center along the line
p tp lp AA 0 .
602 P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609
Fig. 13. FE simulation and de¯ection contour of a multi-cell box deck under symmetric loading.
The ®nite element program NISA [22] is used to conduct 3.4.1. Experimental details
two distinct analyses: (1) the actual deck (Fig. 13) is The test sample was fabricated by bonding FRP box
modeled using 8-node isoparametric layered shell elements beams side-by-side with epoxy [24]. For each load condi-
and the material properties of Table 1; (2) an equivalent tion, the displacements are recorded at several locations
solid orthotropic plate of the same global dimensions as with LVDTs (see Fig. 12b), and the strains in the longi-
the actual deck is modeled using the same elements tudinal and transverse directions are obtained at three
and the equivalent material properties computed from locations by bonding 350 ohm strain gages at the bottom
Eqs. (16)±(22) and given in Table 5. The experimental of the deck (Fig. 12c). Note that from Fig. 12, for the
results and correlations with ®nite element analyses are asymmetric load cases 2 and 3, the following displacement
presented next. values should be approximately equal: d 1 and d 5, and d 2 and
Table 5
Equivalent deck stiffness properties and orthotropic material properties for cellular deck 5 0 £ 9 0 £ 8 00
Dx (lb 2 in 4/in 2) Dy (lb 2 in 4/in 2) n xy Dxy (lb 2 in 4/in 2) Fx (lb 2 in 2/in 2) Fy (lb 2 in 2/in 2)
2:689 £ 109 2:250 £ 109 0.3 1:153 £ 107 4:896 £ 107 3:662 £ 105
Ex (psi) Ey (psi) n yx Gxy (psi) Gxz (psi) Gyz (psi)
5 5 5 5
9:713 £ 10 4:515 £ 10 0.25 1:351 £ 10 1:020 £ 10 4:238 £ 102
P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609 603
X
1
FE equivalent plate
cx
x; y Xij cos ax
sin by 1 X0
24
i;j1
20.00117
0.00252
0.00901
0.02255
0.02104
0.00632
0.00632
30.010
84.803
8.327
226.792
20.692
26.142
X
1
cy
x; y Yij sin ax cos by
i;j1
where a ip=a and b jp=b, and Wij, Xij, and Yij are the
coef®cients to be determined to complete the solution.
Note that these series approximations satisfy the essential
FE actual deck
25.086
12.826
28.528
70.076
229.444
X
1
q
x; y Qij sin ax sin by:
25
i;j1
6
6 K21 K22 K23 7 Xij
24.201
28.579
81.666
219.956
226.379
230.770
4 5> 0
26
> >
> > >
: ; > : >
;
K13 K23 K33 Yij 0
where Kij are the deck stiffness coef®cients (for a symmetric
Experimental and ®nite element comparison for a multi-cell box deck under load cases 2 and 3 (asymmetric)
W0 A44 c 11 1 b
23.750
223.297
29.289
231.206
83.287
234.467
W11
A44 Y11 1 bW11
X0 2
27
a3 D X11
where
Experiment load case 2
1 1 1
c 2 1 2 ;
a kF aD
k the stringer shear correction factor, and F and D are,
20.00191
0.00299
0.00895
0.02139
0.01865
0.00798
0.00757
24.652
216.614
27.868
221.552
80.044
227.072
where
Q
R11 11 :
Table 7
1 1 1 Q11 n 4W0
1 2 1 11
a2 kF a D W11 b p
P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609 605
4.1.2. System under antisymmetric loading case 4.1.3. System under asymmetric loading case
Analogous to the symmetric case, Eqs. (24) and (25) are The asymmetric case is obtained by superposition of the
modi®ed for a ®rst-term approximation of an antisymmetric symmetric and antisymmetric load conditions. By simply
loading as adding the symmetric and antisymmetric responses, the
generalized de¯ection function for an interior stringer
2y
w0
x; y W12 sin ax sin 2by 1 W1 1 2 under an asymmetric load is written as
b
wR
x; r
2y
cx
x; y X12 cos ax sin 2by 1 X1 1 2
29 " ! !#
b
pr 2pr pr
R11 sin 1 W0 1 R12 sin 1 W1 cos
cy
x; y Y12 sin ax cos 2by n n n
!
q
x; y Q12 sin ax sin 2by 1 1 1 px
2 1 2 sin (32)
By substituting Eq. (29) into Eq. (23), we obtain the stiffness a kF aD a
matrix for an orthotropic deck under antisymmetric loading
[24]. The constants W1 and X1 are determined as
0 1 4.2. Wheel load distribution factors
Y B 1 C The above solution is used to de®ne wheel-load
W1 A44 c 12 1 2b B @
C
A
W12 2 distribution factors for any of the stringers. The load
1 1 A44 c
b distribution factor for any interior stringer ith is de®ned as
the ratio of the interaction forces R(x,r) for the ith stringer to
A44 Y12 1 2bW12 the sum of interaction forces for all stringers. The general
X1 2
30
a3 D X12 expressions of load distribution factors in terms of the
number of stringers m (where, m n 1 1) for symmetric
where c is the same as for Eq. (27). The generalized and asymmetric loads [24] are, respectively
de¯ection function for antisymmetric loading is
r21
1 1 1 sin p 1 W0
wR
x; r R12 2 1 2 WfSym
r m21
a kF aD 2
m 2 1 1 mW0
p
px 2p r pr
sin sin 1 W1 cos
31 WfAsym
r
a n n
where r21 r21 r21
R11 sinp 1 W0 1 R12 sin2p 1 W1 1 2 2
m21 m21 m21
m
Q X r21 r21 r21
R12 12 : R11 sinp 1 W0 1 R12 sin2p 1 W1 1 2 2
1 1 1 Q12 4n 2W1 r1
m21 m21 m21
1 2 1 11
a2 kF a D W12 b 3p
33
606 P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609
Fig. 15. FE simulation and de¯ection contour of a deck/stringer system under symmetric load.
the bridge deck. Once a suitable system is chosen, the 4.3.2. Design criterion based on performance of deck
maximum moment due to live load (MLL) is calculated from Excessive local deck deformation and punching-shear
failure may be observed in FRP bridge applications. Thus
Pd L it is necessary in the design process to check the local deck
MLL
1 1 DLA
37
4 de¯ection and bending and shear stresses in a deck section
between two adjacent stringers [28,29]. Further research is
Finally, the approximate maximum extreme ®ber normal needed to address these issues.
stress (s c) in the stringer can be found from
4.4. Experimental testing and numerical analysis of FRP
MLL y 0
sc
38 deck/stringer systems
I
To validate the approximate series solution presented
where y 0 is the distance from the neutral axis of the stringer above, an FRP deck (10 0 £ 10 0 £ 8 00 ) is fabricated by bond-
to the top surface of the stringer and I is the moment of ing side-by-side box beams of 4 00 £ 8 00 £ 1=4 00 (Fig. 2); the
inertia of the stringer. This stress can then be compared deck is attached to FRP I-beams 12 00 £ 12 00 £ 1=2 00 (Fig. 3)
with the material compressive or tensile strength to con®rm and tested and analyzed as a deck/stringer bridge system.
that the system will be effective. Also, as an approximation, The deck with either three or four stringers is subjected to
shear stress in the stringer can be estimated as: various static load conditions [24]. The ®nite element model
with NISA [22] is shown in Fig. 15 for a 3-stringer system
Pd under a concentrated centric loading. The comparisons
t
1 1 DLA
39
2Aw among the FE, series solution and experiments for both
3-stringer and 4-stringer systems under centric loading are
where Aw is the area of the web panels. The shear stress shown in Fig. 16, and relatively consistent trends are
in Eq. (39) should be less than the shear strength of the observed. The maximum differences of stringer de¯ec-
stringer. tions between experiments and series approximation are
608 P. Qiao et al. / Composites: Part B 31 (2000) 593±609
Fig. 17. Dimensions and panel ®ber architectures of an optimized winged-box beam [30].
about 16% for a 3-stringer system and 23% for a 4- 5. check the stress level on the stringers;
stringer system. The detailed study on the experimental 6. check the local stresses, de¯ections, and other details.
program and comparisons for various cases can be found
in Ref. [24]. 5.2. Design example
where NL 1:0 and k 1:0. In this example, the dynamic Fatigue and failure evaluation of modular FRP composite bridge
load allowance DLA 0:20 and AASHTO lane-moment deck. Proceedings of Int Composites Expo 0 98, Composites Institute,
1998. p. 4-B (1±6).
M max 207:4 kip-ft are used. Solving for the number of [10] Richards D, Dumlao C, Henderson M, Foster D. Method of installa-
winged box beams (stringers) (m) required for this single- tion and the structural analysis of two short span composite highway
span bridge, we get m 6:15, and therefore, m 7 is bridges. Proceedings of Int Composites Expo 0 98, Composites
used, which corresponds to 30 in center-to-center spacing Institute, 1998. p. 4-E (1±6).
of seven longitudinal stringers. The maximum stress in [11] Zureick A. Fiber-reinforced polymeric bridge decks. Seminar Note,
National Seminar on Advanced Composite Material Bridges, FHWY,
the stringer becomes sc 1:48 ksi, which is below the Washington DC, 1997.
allowable stress of 21.2 ksi [30]. [12] Salim HA, Davalos JF, GangaRao HVS, Raju P. An approximate
series solution for design of deck-and-stringer bridges. Int J of
Engineering Analysis 1995;2:15±31.
6. Conclusions [13] Davalos JF, Salim HA, Qiao P, Lopez-Anido R, Barbero EJ. Analysis
and design of pultruded FRP shapes under bending. Composites, Part
As described in this paper, a systematic approach for B: Engineering J 1996;27(3-4):295±305.
design analysis of FRP deck/stringer bridge systems is [14] Luciano R, Barbero EJ. Formulas for the stiffness of composites
with periodic microstructure. Int J of Solids and Structures
proposed, and the constitutive material properties and
1994;31(21):2933±44.
micro/macrostructure of a composite system are accounted [15] Barbero EJ. Introduction to composite materials design. Philadelphia,
for in the design. This design approach (Fig. 1) includes the PA: Taylor & Francis, 1999.
analyses of ply (micromechanics), panel (macromechanics), [16] Barbero EJ, Lopez-Anido R, Davalos JF. On the mechanics of thin-
beam or stringer (mechanics of laminated beam), deck walled laminated composite beams. J Composite Materials
1993;27(8):806±29.
(elastic equivalence model), and ®nally combined deck/
[17] Davalos JF, Qiao P, Barbero EJ, Troutman D, Galagedera L. Design
stringer system (series approximation technique). This of FRP beams in engineering practice. Proceedings of Int Composites
relatively simple and systematic concept accounts for the Expo 0 98, Composites Institute, 1998. p. 12-E (1±6).
complexity of composite materials and geometry of the [18] Salim HA, Davalos JF, Qiao P, Barbero EJ. Experimental and
bridge system. The approximate series solution, which analytical evaluation of laminated composite box beams. Proc of
40th Int SAMPE Symposium 1995;40(1):532±9.
is used to obtain wheel load distribution factors for
[19] Davalos JF, Qiao P, Barbero EJ. Multiobjective material architecture
symmetric and asymmetric loading, is an ef®cient way optimization of pultruded FRP I-beams. Composite Structures
to analyze and design single-span FRP deck/stringer 1996;35:271±81.
systems. The present design analysis approach can be [20] Troitsky MS. Orthotropic bridges, theory and design. Cleveland,
ef®ciently used to design bridge systems and also Ohio: The James F. Lincoln ARC Welding Foundation, 1987.
[21] Cusen AR, Pama RP. Bridge deck analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
develop new design concepts for single-span FRP
[22] Numerically Integrated Elements for System Analysis (NISA), Users
deck/stringer bridges. Manual, Version 94.0, Troy, MI: Engineering Mechanics Research
Corp, 1994.
[23] Salim HA. Modeling and application of thin-walled composite beams
References in bending and torsion. PhD Dissertation, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV, 1997.
[1] Henry JA. Deck girders system for highway bridges using ®ber rein- [24] Brown B. Experimental and analytical study of FRP deck-and-
forced plastics. MS Thesis, North Carolina State University, 1985. stringer short-span bridges. MS Thesis, West Virginia University.
[2] Ahmad SH, Plecnik JM. Transfer of composite technology to design Morgantown, WV, 1998.
and construction of bridges. US DOT Report, September 1989. [25] Reddy JN. Energy and variational methods in applied mechanics.
[3] Plecnik JM, Azar WA. Structural components, highway bridge deck New York: John Wiley, 1984.
applications. In: Lee I, Stuart M, editors. International encyclopedia [26] Salim HA, Davalos JF, Qiao P, Kiger SA. Analysis and design of ®ber
of composites, vol. 6, 1991. p. 430±45. reinforced plastic composite deck-and-stringer bridges. Composite
[4] Bakeri B, Sunder SS. Concepts for hybrid FRP bridge deck system. Structures 1997;38:295±307.
Proceedings of 1st Materials Engineering Congress, ASCE, vol. 2. [27] Standard Speci®cations for Highway Bridges, The American Associa-
Denver, CO, 1990. p. 1006±14. tion of State Highway and Transportation Of®cials (AASHTO).
[5] Mongi ANK. Theoretical and experimental behavior of FRP ¯oor Washington DC, 1989.
system. MS Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 1991. [28] Davalos JF, Salim HA. Effective ¯ange-width of stress-laminated
[6] GangaRao HVS, Sotiropoulos SN. Development of FRP bridge T-system timber bridges. J Structural Engineering, ASCE
superstructural systems. US DOT Report, June 1991. 1993;119(3):938±53.
[7] Burnside P, Barbero EJ, Davalos JF, GangaRao HVS. Design [29] Davalos JF, Salim HA. Local deck effects in stress-laminated T-
optimization of an all-FRP bridge. Proceedings of 38th Int SAMPE system timber bridges. Int J of Structural Engineering Review
Symposium, 1993. 1995;5(1):1143±53.
[8] Lopez-Anido R, Troutman DL, Busel JP. Fabrication and installation [30] Qiao P, Davalos JF, Barbero EJ. Design optimization of ®ber-
of modular FRP composite bridge deck. Proceedings of Int reinforced plastic composite shapes. J of Composite Materials
Composites Expo 0 98, Composites Institute, 1998. p. 4-A (1±6). 1998;32(2):177±96.
[9] Lopez-Anido R, Howdyshell PA, Stephenson LD, GangaRao HVS.