Final Hamilton StGeorge

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    1/19

    Topic Description

    In 2004 the Bryant Patton Bridge over Apalachicola Bay in the Florida panhandle was replaced. During demolition, twelve

    prestressed concrete piles with varying levels of corrosion damage were recovered. Two of the selected piles were equipped with a

    cathodic protection that had been installed in 1994 as part of a repair project involving most of the piles supporting the bridge.

    REsults of flexural and material testing that were conducted on the recovered piles will be presented.

    Speaker Biography

    H. R. (Trey) Hamilton III, P.E., PhD is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Florida in the Department

    of Civil & Coastal Engineering. His research and teaching interests include reinforced and prestressed concrete.

    University of Florida

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    2/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    St George Island Bridge Pile TestingSt George Island Bridge Pile Testing

    Trey Hamilton, P.E., Ph.D.Trey Hamilton, P.E., Ph.D.University of FloridaUniversity of Florida

    AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

    FDOT Research CenterFDOT Research Center

    Mr. Marc Ansley, Project ManagerMr. Marc Ansley, Project Manager

    Eric Cannon, ClaireEric Cannon, Claire LewingerLewinger andand LazLaz Alfonso,Alfonso,

    CaesarCaesar AbiAbi, UF Graduate Students, UF Graduate Students

    Frank Cobb, Tony Johnston, David Allen, PaulFrank Cobb, Tony Johnston, David Allen, Paul

    TigheTighe, and Steve, and Steve EudyEudy of the FDOT Structuresof the FDOT StructuresResearch CenterResearch Center

    Mr. ScottMr. Scott GrosGros ofofBohBoh Bros. ConstructionBros. Construction

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    3/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

    Mr. RichardMr. Richard DelorenzoDelorenzo, FDOT State Materials, FDOT State Materials

    Office (strand testing)Office (strand testing)

    Mr. DonMr. Don BuwaldaBuwalda and the inspection team fromand the inspection team from

    FDOT District TwoFDOT District Two

    Mr. IvanMr. Ivan LasaLasa from the Corrosion Group of thefrom the Corrosion Group of the

    FDOT State Materials OfficeFDOT State Materials Office

    Mr. WilliamMr. William ScannellScannell ofofConcorrConcorr, Florida, Inc., Florida, Inc.

    OutlineOutline

    IntroductionIntroduction

    Pile RecoveryPile Recovery

    TestingTesting

    ResultsResults

    ConclusionsConclusions

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    4/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    LocationLocation

    Apalachicola Bay

    Bryant Grady

    Patton Bridge

    St. George

    Island

    HistoryHistory Bryant Grady PattonBryant Grady Patton

    BridgeBridge

    Constructed in 1965.Constructed in 1965.

    Carries SR 300 over Apalachicola BayCarries SR 300 over Apalachicola Bay

    Pile repair in 1994Pile repair in 1994

    PatchPatch

    Concrete jacketingConcrete jacketing

    Cathodic protectionCathodic protection Removed from service 2004Removed from service 2004

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    5/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    1994 Repair Program1994 Repair Program

    Cathodic Protection SystemCathodic Protection System

    Sprayed Zinc

    Zinc Mesh

    Bulk Anode

    Splash

    Zone

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    6/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    ObjectivesObjectives

    Evaluate remaining flexural capacity of pilesEvaluate remaining flexural capacity of piles

    Why? Resistance to lateral loads such as bargeWhy? Resistance to lateral loads such as barge

    impact.impact.

    Compare tested capacity to visual ratingCompare tested capacity to visual rating

    Why? Most inspections are visual with ratings usedWhy? Most inspections are visual with ratings used

    to classify state of bridge.to classify state of bridge.

    TasksTasks

    Select pilesSelect piles

    Visual inspection and corrosion potentials inVisual inspection and corrosion potentials inplaceplace

    Sample dissolved hydrogen in CP pileSample dissolved hydrogen in CP pile

    Sample chloride content of concreteSample chloride content of concrete

    Structural testingStructural testing

    PostPost--test evaluationtest evaluation

    Materials testingMaterials testing

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    7/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    RecoveryRecovery SelectionSelection

    FDOT D2 InspectionFDOT D2 Inspection

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    8/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    RecoveryRecovery Cap Beam RemovalCap Beam Removal

    RecoveryRecovery Pile RemovalPile Removal

    12 piles recovered and tested12 piles recovered and tested

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    9/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    RecoveryRecovery Pile RemovalPile Removal

    On site sampling of prestressingOn site sampling of prestressingstrands for dissolved hydrogenstrands for dissolved hydrogen

    RecoveryRecovery Pile PreparationPile Preparation

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    10/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    Specimen DetailsSpecimen Details

    (20) 7/ 16(20) 7/ 16--in. diameter stress relieved 7in. diameter stress relieved 7--wirewire

    prestressing strandsprestressing strands

    Average tested tensile strength of strands = 261Average tested tensile strength of strands = 261

    ksiksi

    Core concrete strength = 6200 psiCore concrete strength = 6200 psi

    Flexural Test SetFlexural Test Set--upup

    SCALE: NTS

    HIGH/LOW WATERMARK

    LOAD CELL

    42" TRANSFER BEAMCENTERED BETWEENWATER MARKS

    PLATE 9" x 18" x 2" (TYP.)

    9" x 18" x 1 1/2" NEOPRENE

    BEARING PAD (TYP.)

    CLEVIS LOAD CELLS

    36"

    SUPPORT SUPPORT

    HIGH/LOW WATERMARK

    9" x 18" x 2" NEOPRENEBEARING PAD (TYP.)

    PLACE SUPPORT INBOARD FROM DAMAGE (TYP.)

    SPLASH ZONE MOST HEAVILY DAMAGED

    FACE PLACED DOWN

    a b

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    11/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    Flexural Test SetFlexural Test Set--upup

    Typical Flexural BehaviorTypical Flexural Behavior

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    12/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    Typical Flexural BehaviorTypical Flexural Behavior

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    35

    40

    0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

    Displacements (in)

    Loa

    d(kips

    )

    Corrosion DamageCorrosion Damage

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    13/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    Flexural Test ResultsFlexural Test Results

    0

    0.2

    0.4

    0.6

    0.8

    1

    1.2

    40-3J

    32-3J

    44-3CP

    39-2

    40-2

    31-1

    44-1CP

    44-4

    44-2

    29-2

    33-4J

    40-4

    Pile

    Norma

    lize

    dMomen

    tCapac

    ity

    Corrosion PotentialsCorrosion Potentials

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    7

    8

    -700 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0

    Corrosion Potentials (mVCSE)

    Elevation(ft)

    AboveMHW

    40-3

    32-3

    40-4

    39-2

    44-2

    29-2

    350mVCSE

  • 7/31/2019 Final Hamilton StGeorge

    14/19

    Use of FRP Composites to Repair and

    Strengthen Concrete Bridges

    October 5, 20

    Corrosion PotentialsCorrosion Potentials

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    0 20 40 60 80 100 120

    Remaining Flexural Capacity (%)

    Distancea

    bove

    MHW

    where

    Corros

    ion

    Po

    ten

    tia

    l