Title:
US 41 over North Creek; FRP Reinforced Concrete Two-Span Flat Slab Bridge and CFRP-Prestressed Concrete/GFRP Reinforced Substructure and Bulkhead Wall System
Author(s):
Joseph Losaria, Steven Nolan, Andra Diggs II, and David Hartman
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
346
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
113-125
Keywords:
bulkhead wall; CFRP; composite bridges; GFRP; soldier pile
DOI:
10.14359/51730497
Date:
1/1/2021
Abstract:
This case study highlights the use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials on the US 41 Highway Bridge over North Creek in Sarasota County near the Florida Gulf Coast. Design and construction involved the use of Glass-FRP (GFRP) reinforcement on the cast-in-place (CIP) concrete flat slab superstructure, Carbon-FRP (CFRP)
prestressing strands on the concrete piles, and GFRP reinforced precast panels for the substructure combining a bridge
bearing abutment and retaining wall system. The application of FRP prestressing and reinforcing is promoted by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) under their Transportation Innovation Challenge initiative. Soldier-pile retaining walls are a commonly used system in southeastern US coastal states, but the incorporation of innovative materials such as CFRP-prestressing for piles and GFRP-reinforcing for concrete panels is not yet widespread.
Comparison of lateral stability results of this wall system during construction and in the final condition is discussed. In addition, to describing the preferred FRP-PC/RC solution adopted for this project, a comparison is provided to a recently completed adjacent bridge that utilized a conventional carbon-steel PC soldier-pile and RC precast panel wall system. A further comparison is presented for the design and cost of the wall system based on the project design
criteria (ACI 440.1R, ACI 440.4R, and 2009 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRPReinforced Concrete, 1st Edition) with the refinements and savings possible under the newer editions. Finally, the life-cycle cost, durability and environmental benefits from the use of the innovative CFRP and GFRP reinforcing
systems in this type of traditional wall system, are identified for typical urban coastal areas with extremely aggressive conditions, congested access, and challenging environmental constraints.
Related References:
1. Nolan, S., Rossini, M., and Nanni, A. (2018), “Seawalls, SEACON, and Sustainability in the Sunshine State”, Transportation Research Board 97th Annual Meeting, paper and presentation, Washington DC, January 2018. https://trid.trb.org/view/1496837
2. AASHTO. (2017), “LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”, 8th Edition, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. 2017.
3. Hou, J. and Chung, D.D.L. (1999), “Effect of admixtures in concrete on the corrosion resistance of steel reinforced concrete”, Corrosion Science, Volume 42, Issue 9, September 2000, pp. 1489-1507.
4. Hunter, R., Cadenazzi, T., Ellis, K., and Nolan, S. (2019), “Halls River Bridge Bulkhead-Seawall Replacement Challenges, and a Way Forward”, Proceedings of the Bridge Engineering Institute Conference, Honolulu, HI. July 2019, pp.345-340.
5. FDOT. (2019), “Structures Foundations Section 455 B – Piling”, FDOT Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Florida Dept. of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, January 2019.
6. FDOT. (2019), “Fiber Reinforced Polymer Design Guidelines”, FDOT Structures Manual, Volume 4, Section 2.3, Florida Dept. of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, January 2019.
7. AASHTO. (2009), “LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings”, 1st Edition, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2009.
8. AASHTO. (2018), “LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP-Reinforced Concrete”, 2nd Edition, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, Dec 2018.
9. FDOT. (2019), “Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcing Bars”, Section 932-3, Standard Specifications for Road & Bridge Construction, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee FL, January 2019.
10. ACI. 440.1R, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars” ACI 440.1R-15, Committee 440, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
11. AASHTO. (2018), “Guide Specification for the Design of Concrete Bridge Beams Prestressed with CFRP Systems, 1st Edition”, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, Dec 2018.
12. ACI. (2004), “Prestressing Concrete Structures with FRP Tendons (Reapproved 2011)” ACI 440.4R-04, Committee 440, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
13. FDOT. (2020), “Prestressing Strand and Bar”, Section 933, Standard Specifications for Road & Bridge Construction, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, July 2020.
14. FDOT. (2019), “Structures Design Guidelines”, FDOT Structures Manual, Volume 1, Section 9.2, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee FL, January 2019.
15. Cadenazzi, T., Nolan, S., Mazzocchi, G., Stringer, Z., and Nanni, A. (2020) “Bridge Case Study: What a Contractor Needs to Know on an FRP Reinforcement Project”, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, January 2020, 24(2).
16. NIST, (2003), “Bridge LCC 2.0 Users Manual”, Life-Cycle Costing Software for the Preliminary Design of Bridges, NIST GCR 03-853, National Institute of Standards and Testing, Gaithersburg, MD.
17. Cadenazzi, T., Dotelli, G., Rossini, M., Nolan, S., and Nanni, A. (2019), “Cost and Environmental Analyses of Alternatives for a Concrete Bridge.” Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 16:4, 787-802, doi: 10.1080/15732479.2019.1662066
18. Younis, A., Ebead, U., Judd, S. (2018), “Life cycle cost analysis of structural concrete using seawater, recycled concrete aggregate, and GFRP reinforcement”, Construction and Building Materials, ISSN: 0950-0618, Vol: 175, Page: 152-160