A comparative study on static and dynamic responses of FRP composite and steel suspension bridges
Source abstract
Abstract
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites offer many attractive and unique features for existing and new bridges. Among these features are light weight, high stiffness-to-weight and strength-to-weight ratios, damping capabilities, and high resistance to environmental degradation when properly designed and installed. This article presents a pilot numerical study aiming at evaluating the feasibility of using FRP composites in suspension bridge applications. This was accomplished by comparing the response of two identical long-span suspension bridges, one constructed from FRP composite and the other made of steel under static and dynamic loadings using FEM. The numerical results indicated that the responses of the two bridges are different and that the response values obtained for the steel bridge are relatively large compared to the composite bridge. Despite different mode sequences of the two bridge models, the dynamic analysis results indicated that both bridge models have similar mode shapes. As a result of lower self-weight of the FRP composite bridge model, the frequencies of the FRP composite bridge model are larger than those of the steel bridge model.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Structural Engineering and Vibration Analysis · Concrete Corrosion and Durability
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California Irvine, USA.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. Mosallam AS. Composites in construction, Chapter 45, Materials Handbook, ISBN 0-471-35924-6. New York, NY: John Wiley Publishing Co., 2002, 1369–1422.
2. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(236)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2007)11:2(236) ↗
3. Mosallam A, Haroun M, Hasan A, Elsanadedy H, Albahar M, Abdi F. Structural performance of the schuyler heim bridge composite deck. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Composite Engineering (ICCE/9), San Diego, CA, July 1–6, 2002.
4. 10.1016/S0263-8223(01)00115-510.1016/S0263-8223(01)00115-5 ↗
5. 10.12989/sss.2009.5.4.39710.12989/sss.2009.5.4.397 ↗
6. Fiberline Composites. Available at http://www.fiberline.com/structures (accessed on 29 July 2011).
7. Shrivastava R, Gupta U, Choubey UB. FRP: research, education and application in India and China in civil engineering. Int J Recent Trends Eng 2009; 1(6): 89–93.
8. Meier U. Proposal for a carbon fibre reinforced composite bridge across the Strait of Gibraltar at its narrowest site. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B Manag Eng Manuf 1987; 201(B2): 73–78.
9. Kim P, Meier U. CFRP cables for large structures. Advanced Composite Materials in Civil Engineering Structures Conference. ASCE, Las Vegas, NV, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1991.
10. 10.1016/1359-8368(95)00016-X10.1016/1359-8368(95)00016-X ↗
11. 10.12989/sem.1997.5.4.39910.12989/sem.1997.5.4.399 ↗
12. 10.1177/07316844940130050110.1177/073168449401300501 ↗
13. Chiewanichakorn M, Aref AJ, Alampalli S. Failure analysis of fiber-reinforced polymer bridge deck system. J Compos Technol Res 2003; 25(2): 121–129.
14. 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:6(722)10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2005)10:6(722) ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.07.02510.1016/j.compstruct.2004.07.025 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2004.05.01210.1016/j.compstruct.2004.05.012 ↗
17. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:4(206)10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2002)6:4(206) ↗
18. 10.12989/was.2007.10.2.12110.12989/was.2007.10.2.121 ↗
19. Przemieniecki JS. Theory of matrix structural analysis 1st. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1968.
20. 10.1002/eqe.429021100410.1002/eqe.4290211004 ↗
21. Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT. Asynchronous seismic analysis of modern suspension bridges Part 1: Free vibration, Report UBCE-EE-85-2. Bristol, UK: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, 1985.
22. PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Web Site PEER Strong Motion Database http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/search.html (accessed on 29 July 2011).
23. Dumanoglu AA, Severn RT. Seismic response of modern suspension bridges to asynchronous vertical ground motion. Proc Inst Civil Eng Res Theory 1987; 83: 701–730.
24. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.01.01710.1016/j.compstruct.2005.01.017 ↗
25. SAP2000. Integrated structural analysis and design software. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures, Inc., 1997.