Test Results: HC Beam for the Knickerbocker Bridge

AEWC Report 10-15

Test Results: HC Beam for the Knickerbocker Bridge

AEWC Report 10-15 Project 671

September 2009

Submitted by: Thomas Snape

Robert Lindyberg, Ph.D., P.E.


The AEWC Advanced Structures & Composites Center conducts all testing in accordance with strict standards of precision and accuracy. The following test methods performed for Project 671, HC Beam testing for Knickerbocker Bridge, are within AEWC’s ISO 17025 accredited field of testing. Thus, the results of these tests are internationally recognized and accepted.

ASTM D696 Standard Test Method for Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion of Plastics Between −30°C and 30°C with a Vitreous Silica Dilatometer.

ASTM D790 Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials ASTM D2344 Standard Test Method for Short-Beam Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials and Their Laminates ASTM D2584 Standard Test Method for Ignition Loss of Cured Reinforced Resins ASTM D3039 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials ASTM D4255 Standard Test Method for In-Plane Shear Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials by the Rail Shear Method ASTM D6641 Standard Test Method for Determining the Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Laminates Using a Combined Loading Compression (CLC) Test Fixture

This test report is issued with the authority of: __________________________ Thomas Snape, Research Engineer


Table of Contents 1. Background............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Test Program........................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Full-Scale Structural Test of HC Beam .......................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Beam Fabrication & Setup............................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Placement of Arch and Deck Concrete................................................................... 6 2.1.4 Test Description ...................................................................................................... 6 2.1.5 Structural Test Sequence: ....................................................................................... 9

2.2 Coupon Test Description .............................................................................................. 10 2.3 Durability Test Description........................................................................................... 10 2.4 Concrete Test Description............................................................................................. 12

3. Test Results........................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Arch Pour ...................................................................................................................... 12

3.1.1 Strains at Mid-span ............................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Strains in Composite Cross-Tie Spacers............................................................... 13 3.1.3 Mid-span Deflections............................................................................................ 13

3.2 Deck Pour...................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Strains at Mid-span ............................................................................................... 15 3.2.3 Mid-Span Deflections ........................................................................................... 16

3.3 Initial Static Shear Test................................................................................................. 16 3.3.1 Optical Measurement of Web Shear ..................................................................... 18

3.4 Initial Static Bending Test ............................................................................................ 19 3.4.1 Strains at Mid-span ............................................................................................... 19 3.4.2 Mid-Span Deflection............................................................................................. 20

3.5 Bending Fatigue Test .................................................................................................... 21 3.6 Static Bending Test with Full Factored Load ............................................................... 24 3.6.1 Strains at Mid-Span.......................................................................................................... 24 3.6.2 Mid-Span Deflection........................................................................................................ 25 3.7 Final Static Shear Tests................................................................................................. 26 3.8 Final Bending Test – Load to Failure ........................................................................... 28 3.9 Coupon Test Results ..................................................................................................... 30

3.9.1 ASTM D696 Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion (CLTE)................................ 31 3.9.2 ASTM D790 Flexural properties under 3-point bending load..................................... 32 3.9.3 ASTM D3039 Tensile properties................................................................................. 34 3.9.4 ASTM D6641 Compressive properties under axial load............................................. 35 3.8.5 ASTM D2584 Fiber fraction (ignition loss) ................................................................ 37 3.9.6 ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties...................................................................... 38 3.9.7 Material Specifications ................................................................................................ 41

3.10 Durability Test Results ............................................................................................. 43 3.10.1 ASTM D790 Flexural properties under 3-point bending load................................... 44 3.10.2 ASTM D3039 Tensile Properties............................................................................... 44 3.10.3 ASTM D2344 Short-beam strength ........................................................................... 45 3.10.4 ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties.................................................................... 46 3.10.5 Summary of Durability Study Results ....................................................................... 47

3.11 Concrete Test Results ................................................................................................... 48


4 Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix A: Drawings for HC Beam superstructure in Knickerbocker Bridge ......................... 51 Appendix B: Knickerbocker Bridge Test Beam Drawings.......................................................... 56 Appendix C: Composite Cross-Tie Spacers and Spacer Test...................................................... 61 Appendix D: Mechanical Property Test Detail............................................................................. 67 Appendix E: Special Provisions Document for Hybrid Composite Beam ................................... 82


AEWC Advanced Structures & Composites Center Page 1 of 95 www.aewc.umaine.edu

1. Background In 2009, the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) intends to begin replacement of the Knickerbocker Bridge, using the hybrid-composite HC Beam system, manufactured by Harbor Technologies of Brunswick, ME. The new Knickerbocker Bridge will be an eight span, 540 ft long bridge carrying the Barter’s Island Rd. from the mainland to Hodgdon Island over an inlet of the Sheepscot River in the town of Boothbay, ME. The HC Beam technology consists of a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) shell that contains a hollow form for a parabolic arch and tension reinforcement (typically prestressing steel strand) on its bottom (tension) face. The FRP shell is fabricated with the tension steel in a controlled shop environment and then shipped to the bridge site where it is installed on its bearings. The hollow arch is then pumped full of a self-consolidating concrete (SCC) which hardens into the beam’s compression reinforcement (Figure 1).

` Figure 1: Diagram of the HC Beam.

Before it is installed in the Knickerbocker Bridge, MDOT requires that one HC Beam unit (with cast-in-place concrete deck) be laboratory tested to confirm its strength, stiffness, and durability. 2. Test Program The HC Beam test program for the Knickerbocker Bridge consists of three parts: 1. Full-scale test of an HC Beam unit. 2. Material-level coupon tests for the composite skins of the HC Beam 3. Material-level coupon tests for composite skins of the HC Beam subject to ultra-violet (UV)

light exposure.



2.1 Full-Scale Structural Test of HC Beam Figure 2 shows a typical cross-section of the proposed Knickerbocker Bridge.

Figure 2: Typical cross-section of the proposed Knickerbocker Bridge.

The laboratory test program for the HC Beam included fabricating one beam unit, setting it up in the AEWC Lab, filling the arch with concrete, and then casting a concrete deck (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Knickerbocker Bridge test beam cross-section.



2.1.1 Beam Fabrication & Setup One (1) full-scale HC Beam test specimen was manufactured by Harbor Technologies, Inc to specifications for the 70 ft HC Beams to be used in the interior spans in the Knickerbocker Bridge (see test beam drawings, Appendix B). To facilitate test setup, both ends of the specimen were fabricated as per Detail 3 “At Abutments” shown in the Knickerbocker Bridge design drawings (Appendix A). Both sides of the test specimen contained the FRP “Top Plate for Exterior Beams” as shown in Section A-A on the same page of the drawings. AEWC received the HC Beam specimen (less concrete) from Harbor Technologies on February 9, 2009. Upon receipt, the beam was placed on the laboratory floor for installation of internal instrumentation. The beam was then shimmed to achieve specified camber of 4.4 in., and the beam cover was fastened on top of the beam with Plexus adhesive and screws. Steel shear connectors were positioned by AEWC personnel through holes pre-drilled in the cover by Harbor Technologies, under the direction of HC Bridge personnel. After the shear connectors were in place, AEWC placed the beam on 29 in. high concrete supports, supported over the full beam width and 12 in. bearing length on a 1 in. thick neoprene pad. The HC beam span was 68.33 ft, c/c bearings. When placed, the beam deflected under its self-weight (empty weight ≈ 5000 lbs) approximately 1.15 in., bringing the camber to 3.25 in. before placement of the arch concrete.



2.1.2 Instrumentation Table 1 lists the instrumentation placed on the HC Beam. Items 1-35 are strain gages; items 36-40 are displacement gages (linearly-variable displacement transducers), and items 40-41 are the load and position indicators for the Instron hydraulic actuator. Figure 4 is a diagram showing the placement of the instrumentation on the beam.

Figure 4: Instrumentation locations



Table 1: Instrumentation list for Knickerbocker Bridge Test Beam.

ID: Application: Location Type

1 Tension Strand in bottom of beam At bearing C/L CEA-06-250W-350

2 Tension Strand in bottom of beam 102.5" from brg C/L CEA-06-250W-350

3 Tension Strand in bottom of beam 205" from brg C/L CEA-06-250W-350

4 Tension Strand in bottom of beam 307.5" from brg C/L CEA-06-250W-350

5 Tension Strand in bottom of beam At beam mid-span CEA-06-250W-350

6 Transverse on top of foam spacer 30" from beam end CEA-06-250W-350

7 Transverse on bottom of foam spacer 30" from beam end CEA-06-250W-350

8 Transverse on top of foam spacer 17 ft from beam end CEA-06-250W-350

9 Transverse on bottom of foam spacer 17 ft from beam end CEA-06-250W-350

10 Tension strand in bottom of arch At end CEA-06-250N-350

11 Tension strand in bottom of arch At quarter point CEA-06-250N-350

12 Tension strand in bottom of arch At mid-span CEA-06-250N-350

13 Tension strand in bottom of arch At quarter point CEA-06-250N-350

14 Tension strand in bottom of arch At end CEA-06-250N-350

15 Embedded in concrete at top of arch At end EGP-5-350

16 Embedded in concrete at top of arch At quarter point EGP-5-350

17 Embedded in concrete at top of arch At mid-span EGP-5-350

18 Embedded in concrete at top of arch At quarter point EGP-5-350

19 Embedded in concrete at top of arch At end EGP-5-350

20 On shear connector First one at end CEA-06-250W-350

21 On shear connector Fourth from end CEA-06-250W-350

22 On shear connector Seventh from end CEA-06-250W-350

23 On shear connector Seventh from end CEA-06-250W-350

24 On shear connector Fourth from end CEA-06-250W-350

25 On shear connector First one at end CEA-06-250W-350

26 On concrete deck surface At quarter point N2A-06-20CBW-350


28 On concrete deck surface At mid-span N2A-06-20CBW-350

29 On concrete deck surface At mid-span N2A-06-20CBW-350



32 On beam frp web - top At mid-span CEA-06-250W-350

33 On beam frp web - top At mid-span CEA-06-250W-350

34 On beam frp web - bottom At mid-span CEA-06-250W-350

35 On beam frp web - bottom At mid-span CEA-06-250W-350

36 LVDT under beam At support

37 LVDT under beam At load span point

38 LVDT under beam At mid-span

39 LVDT under beam At load span point

40 LVDT under beam At support

41 Instron Load

42 Instron Position



2.1.3 Placement of Arch and Deck Concrete On February 12, 2009, the arch cavity was filled with self-consolidating concrete (SCC) with a design compressive strength (fc’) of 6000 psi., following a concrete mix specification provided by HC Bridge and approved by the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). At the time of the concrete placement, eight concrete test cylinders were cast arch concrete. Strain measurement of the beam web due to the load of the wet concrete was measured at mid-span using the strain gages placed on and within the beam. In addition AEWC’s Aramis 3D optical deformation measurement system was used to measure strain at mid-span, and deflections at mid-span were also measured. The arch concrete was allowed to cure before addition of the bridge deck. During the curing period, the rebar and formwork for the deck were placed. After tests on the arch concrete test cylinders confirmed that the arch concrete strength has reached at least 4000 psi, the concrete deck was poured and leveled on February 24, 2009 using a 4350 psi Class A concrete mix specification provided by HC Bridge and approved by MDOT. Eight concrete test cylinders were made from the deck concrete mix. After cylinder testing confirmed that both the arch concrete and deck concrete had reached their full design strength (6000 psi and 4350 psi, respectively) testing began. 2.1.4 Test Description The specified static design load is the Modified HL-93 Load (HL-93 + 25%) plus Impact, with live load distribution applied. In addition, superimposed dead loads must be applied. Beam self-weight and deck weight were adequately simulated by the test specimen (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). The three-axle, HL-93 truck is impractical to reproduce in the lab, especially for a cyclic load fatigue test. A 4-point static load test that will apply approximately the same bending moment profile as the specified test load was proposed for the static shear, static bending, and fatigue bending tests. Table 2 describes the moment and shear effects from the specified static design loads. Figure 5 shows the shear diagram for the recommended (4-point) static shear test load, compared to shear diagram for the specified (3-axle) static test load. Figure 6 shows the moment diagram for the recommended (4-point) static moment test load, compared to moment diagram for the specified (3-axle) static test load. Table 2: Static Test Loads (Recommended load in last row) for test beam with 68.33 ft span.

Load Description Max Shear1 Max Moment

HL-93 Truck Load (undistributed) 72 kip, 3-axle truck 58.6 kips 951.5 kips-ft Modified HL-93 Truck (undistributed) 90 kip, 3-axle truck 73.3 kips 1189.4 k-ft

HL-93 Lane Load 0.640 k/ft lane loading 19.7 kips 373.6 k-ft

Modified HL-93 + Impact (33%) Modified Truck Load + Lane Load with 33% Impact applied to Truck Load only 117.1kips 1950 k-ft

Distributed Live Load 0.358 Lanes/Beam for Moment

0.52 Lanes/Beam for Shear Interior, 70 ft Girders

60.9 kips 698 k-ft

Superimposed Dead Load Superimposed dead load: 221 lbs/ft

Future wearing surface: 90 lbs/ft Water Main = 19 lbs/ft

10.1 kips 193 k-ft

Total Static Design Load Excludes girder self-weight and deck dead 71 kips 891 k-ft

1 Max Shear at a distance d from centerline end support (d = total depth girder + deck).



Load Description Max Shear1 Max Moment

load, as the test specimen fully simulates these

Recommended Static Test Load for Bending Moment (Figure 6)

4 point load centered at mid-span Load-span = 14 ft

Two load points at 32.8 kips each Total load = 65.6 kips

32.8 k 891 k-ft

Recommended Static Test Load for Shear (Figure 5)

4-point load, with one axle 3.4 ft inside end support. Load Span = 14 ft

Two load points at 45 kips each Total Load = 90 kips

76.3 kips 698.4 k-ft

After setup, instrumentation, and casting of the concrete arch and deck, the following tests were performed.

1) Initial Test (Shear): The beam was loaded to simulate the shear load and stresses induced in a single beam under the specified design load. A four-point loading configuration was used, with a total load of 90 kips (two – 45 kip point loads), with a load span of 14 ft and one axle spaced 3.4 ft from the centerline of the end support (See Table 2 and Figure 5). During the static test, deflections and strains were recorded from initial pre-load to the full static test load. The shear strain was measured on an area of the side of the beam near one of the supports using an Aramis 3D optical deformation measurement system.

2) Initial Static Test (Moment): The beam was loaded to simulate the bending moment and stresses induced in a single beam by the specified design load. A four-point loading configuration was used, with a total load of 65.6 kips (two – 32.8 kip point loads), centered at mid-span, with a load span of 14 ft (See Table 2 and Figure 6). During the static test, deflections and strains were recorded from initial pre-load to the full static test load. See Table 1 and Figure 5 for loads and moment diagrams.

3) Fatigue Test (Moment): Following the initial static test, the beam was loaded to simulate the cumulative effects of bending moment and stresses induced in a single beam for 2 million cycles of the specified fatigue design load. A four-point loading configuration was used with a load span of 22 ft centered at mid-span. The actuator applied minimum load of 16.6 kips (two 8.3 kip point loads), simulating superimposed dead load, and a maximum load of 41.4 kips (two 20.7 kip point loads) simulating the fatigue truck + superimposed dead load. At approximately 100,000 load-cycle intervals, the fatigue loading was paused, and the beam was loaded to the full static load, measuring deflections and strains. In this manner, potential cumulative damage caused by the fatigue loading will be tracked. See Table 3 and Figure 7 for the fatigue test loads.



-90.0

-40.0

10.0

60.0

110.0

160.0

0 5.46664 10 13.6666 19.1 23.1665 27.3332 31.41 36.89982 42.36646 46.46644 52.3865 58.76638 65.59968

Distance Along Span (ft)

Shea

r (ki

ps)

Total Static Design Load (Excluding Girder &Deck Self Weight)Recommended 4-point Load

45 k 45 k

14 ft3.4 ft 50.933ft

Figure 5: Shear Diagram Comparison

Table 3: Fatigue Test Load (Recommended load in last row) for test beam with 68.33 ft span.

Load Description Max Moment

HL-93 Truck Load (undistributed) 72 kip, 3-axle truck Front axle spacing = 14 ft; Rear axle spacing = 30 ft 693.9 kips-ft

HL-93 + Impact (15%) Modified Truck Load + Lane Load with 33% Impact applied to Truck Load only 798 k-ft

Distributed Live Load 0.358 Lanes/Beam for Moment Interior, 70 ft Girders 286 k-ft

C820Superimposed Dead Load Superimposed dead load: 221 lbs/ft

Future wearing surface: 90 lbs/ft Water Main = 19 lbs/ft

193 k-ft

Total Fatigue Design Load Excludes girder self-weight and deck dead load, as the test specimen fully simulates these 478 k-ft

Recommended Fatigue Test Load for SDL Bending Moment (Figure 3)



193 k-ft k-ft

Recommended Fatigue Test Load for Total Fatigue Bending Moment

(Figure 3)



478 k-ft



Moment Diagrams (Distributed LL + Impact)

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

1400.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Distance Along Span (ft)

Mom

ent (

k-ft) Bending Moment from Specified

Static Design Load (Distributed):HL-93 + 25% + Impact (33%)Recommended Static Test Load: 4-point with 32.8 k axle loads spaced14 ft

32.8 k 32.8 k

14 ft34.17 ft 34.17 ft

Figure 6: Loads and moment diagram for bending static load

Moment Diagrams (Distributed LL + Impact)

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

1400.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Distance Along Span (ft)

Mom

ent (

k-ft) Bending Moment Superimposed

DLRecommended 4-point fatigueminimum loadBending Moment from HL-93fatigue truck + Impact + SDLRecommended 4-point fatiguemaximum load

min =8.3 kmax = 20.7 k

22 ft23.1665 ft 23.1665 ft

min =8.3 kmax = 20.7 k

Figure 7: Loads and moment diagram for bending fatigue load.

2.1.5 Structural Test Sequence: Following was the sequence for the structural tests of the HC Beam:

27.17 ft 27.17 ft



1. Static shear test: 4-point bending using recommended static load (90 kip total)

2. Static moment test – 4-point bending using recommended static load (65.6 kip total)

3. Fatigue test – 4-point bending using recommended fatigue load (min = 16.6 kip total; max = 41.4 kip total)

4. Static moment tests using 60.5 kip load to be performed after every 100,000 cycles of fatigue loading to determine if any deterioration from fatigue loading is occurring.

5. Upon completion of 500,000 fatigue cycles, a draft report summarizing the test results to date will be submitted to MDOT.

6. At the completion of 2 million fatigue cycles, a final 4-point static test will be performed to load the beam to failure, or up to 280,000 lbs, which ever occurs first.

2.2 Coupon Test Description Harbor Technologies provided two samples of flat laminate material. One panel represented the laminate used in the sides, or web, of the beam shell. The other panel represented the laminate used in the beam cover. Each witness panel was laid up and infused at the same time as the corresponding beam parts, using the same resin batches. The following tests were performed in the AEWC mechanical testing laboratory on specimens prepared from the witness panels: ASTM D696 Coefficient of linear thermal expansion (0° and 90°) ASTM D790 Flexural properties under 3-point bending load (0° and 90°) ASTM D3039 Tensile properties under axial load (0° and 90°) ASTM D6641 Compressive properties under axial load (0° and 90°) ASTM D2584 Fiber fraction (ignition loss) ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties of polymer matrix composite materials

2.3 Durability Test Description Exposure to sunlight and moisture is known to have degrading effects on the mechanical properties of vinyl ester resin based composites. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from direct sunlight is potentially the most damaging environmental element to the resin (Signor, Chin). To offset these effects, the resin used to manufacture the FRP shell of the HC Beams for the Knickerbocker Bridge will contain a UV inhibitor additive, as well as an opaque pigment. A durability test was performed to investigate the effectiveness of these protective measures. Two (2) 24 in. x 24 in. test panels (with a layup matching the web of the HC Beam) containing the UV inhibitor and pigment were fabricated by Harbor Technologies and shipped to AEWC for accelerated weathering durability testing. The panels were arbitrarily identified as “Panel 1” and “Panel 2”. Principal direction was not indicated on either panel. Each panel was cut in half along an arbitrarily chosen orthogonal axis. One half of each panel was placed in a QUV accelerated weathering tester (see Figure 8). The QUV uses alternating cycles of UV and moisture to simulate the effects of sunlight, rain, and dew. The UV exposure is achieved using UVA 340 lamps. These lamps produce a spectrum of long wave UV light in a distribution with a mode of 343 nm wavelength. This closely approximates the UV radiation coming from exposure to direct



sunlight (see Figure 9). The moisture cycles are done with the lamps off, and achieved by creating a high humidity and high temperature atmosphere on the test surface of the specimens. The back sides of the specimens are exposed to the room atmosphere. This results in condensation of the humidity on the test surfaces.

Figure 8: QUV accelerated weathering testers at AEWC

Figure 9: Spectral power distributions of UVA-340 lLamp and sunlight

The accelerated weathering treatment was conducted in two steps:

1. The samples were first exposed to 169 hours of constant UV treatment @ 83%, 65°C.

2. The samples were next subjected to12 hour cycles consisting of 4 hours condensing humidity @ 50°C and 8 hours UV 83% @ 60°C. This treatment cycle is the same as “Cycle 1” listed in Table X2.1 “Common Exposure Conditions” of ASTM G154.



The sample from Panel 1 was removed after 1000 hours of the second treatment step. The sample from Panel 2 was removed after 2361 hours of the second treatment step. The unexposed halves of both panels were stored at room temperature and relative humidity, out of direct light. These samples did not receive any treatment, other than the aging, from time of manufacture to time of testing. Specimens were prepared from each half of Panel 1 and Panel 2 to perform mechanical property testing of the laminate. Within a panel, specimens from both halves were cut aligned to the same orthogonal direction. However it is not known if the chosen direction is aligned with the principal direction of the glass reinforcement in the laminate.

The following mechanical tests were performed on the specimens prepared from the durability test panels:

ASTM D790 Flexural properties under 3-point bending load ASTM D3039 Tensile properties under axial load ASTM D2344 Short-beam strength of polymer matrix composite materials and their laminates ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties of polymer matrix composite materials 2.4 Concrete Test Description Eight 6” diameter test cylinders each were cast from the concrete batches used to fill the beam arch and cast the deck. Compressive strengths of the specimens were determined following ASTM C39. Compressive modulus was determined following ASTM C469. 3. Test Results 3.1 Arch Pour 3.1.1 Strains at Mid-span Figure 10 shows the strains measured at the mid-span of the HC Beam under the full fluid weight of the SCC arch concrete (approximately 125 lbs/ft distributed load). This data shows that the neutral axis of the HC beam is approximately 5.59 in. above the extreme bottom fiber. Calculations by John Hillman of Teng Associates place the estimate the neutral axis at 7.67 in. above the extreme bottom fiber. There are likely two explanations for this difference: 1. The horizontal “wings” and top plate at the top of the HC Beam unit were not continuous

along the length. Splice plates were used to connect these sections, but these were not effective in transferring load along the top plate and wings longitudinally from one section to another. Load transfer was finally achieved when the beam deflected enough that the sections came into direct, compressive contact.

2. The top plate of the HC Beam experienced a considerable amount of elastic buckling, due to its low flexural stiffness and the high compressive load on this section. In future beams, this top plate will need to be stiffened considerably, as this type of elastic buckling could potentially result in beam instability and failure under the fluid load of the arch concrete.



3.1.2 Strains in Composite Cross-Tie Spacers Strain gages were placed on the composite cross-tie spacers that were designed to restrain the webs of the HC Beam against the fluid load of concrete (see Appendix C). Two of these cross-ties were instrumented on their top and bottom tie (see diagram of cross-tie design, Appendix C), and strains were recorded throughout the concrete pour (Figure 11). Strains ranged from +0.005 to -0.006 for the tie nearest the support (& under the greatest fluid load), and as high as -0.016 for the tie 17 ft from the support. Strains appeared to fluctuate significantly under the positive pressure of the pumping concrete. While further analysis is required to determine the actual load experienced by the cross-ties during the arch concrete pour, it is clear that they were under significant load and provided restraint that prevented the beam webs from expanding outward under the fluid pressure of the concrete.

3.1.3 Mid-span Deflections During the arch concrete pour, mid-span deflection was measured using a linearly-variable displacement transducer. After the full load of concrete was pumped, and all equipment was removed, the measured mid-span deflection was 1.68 in. under the 125 lb/ft fluid load of the arch concrete. The deflection estimated in the design calculations was 2.65 in., but this did not consider the stiffness contribution of the “wings” on the top of the beam. With the full contribution of the wings, the calculated mid-span deflection is 1.52 in., which is about 10% less than the measured deflection. The reason for this is likely due to the local buckling in the beam top plate and the limited continuity of the top plate and wings as described above.

Figure 10: Mid-span strains in HC Beam under fluid load of arch concrete.



-0.02

-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0

0.005

11:24 AM 11:57 AM 12:31 PM 1:04 PM 1:37 PM 2:11 PM 2:44 PM

Time

Stra

in

Cross-tie top: 30 in. from supportCross-tie bottom: 30 in. from supportCross-tie top: 17 ft. from supportCross-tie bottom: 17 ft. from support

Figure 11: Strains measured in cross-ties during arch concrete placement.

Following the arch concrete pour, mid-span deflection data was gathered for the next four days. A plot of this data is shown in Figure 12. Immediately following the arch pour, the initial mid-span deflection stabilized at approximately 1.68 in.. Approximately 6 hours after the pour, mid-span deflections began to decrease, eventually rebounding to 1.15 in. 16 hours after the pour. It is unlikely that this phenomenon is due to water evaporation, as the concrete mix was entirely contained within the beam, with little exposure to the air. Rather, the initial decrease in mid-span deflections appears to be the result of an initial expansion of the concrete at the beginning of its cure cycle. Approximately 16 hours after the pour, beam deflections began to increase again, eventually surpassing the initial deflection of 1.68 in. Ninety-four hours after the pour, the rate of deflection change had stabilized, although the mid-span deflection at this time was 2.125 in. This was likely due to concrete shrinkage, which caused the HC Beam to deflect due to the fact the majority of the concrete is above the neutral axis in the compression region of the beam.



Mid-span Deflection for HC Bridge - Knickerbocker Bridge BeamDeflection due to pouring of arch concrete

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.00 20 40 60 80 100

Time (hr)D

efle

ctio

n (in

)

Deflection is relative to empty beam before pouring arch concrete (Time =0) Arch concrete pouring started 11:25 AM on 2/12/2009 and was completed in about 30 minutes. Mid-span deflection measure using LVDT attached to bottom surface of beam.

Figure 12: Mid-span deflection under fluid load of arch concrete (hours after pour).

3.2 Deck Pour 3.2.1 Strains at Mid-span

Figure 13: Mid-span strains in HC Beam under fluid load of deck concrete.

Figure 13 shows the strains measured at the mid-span of the HC Beam and concrete arch under the full fluid weight of the deck concrete (350 lbs/ft distributed load). The data shows that the neutral axis of the beam is approximately 22.13 in. above the extreme bottom fiber of the beam.



Calculations by John Hillman of Teng Associates place the estimate the neutral axis at 22.89 in. above the extreme bottom fiber. The likely reason for the difference is that the arch concrete was not fully cured at the time of the deck pourand had not reached its full modulus of elasticity. 3.2.3 Mid-Span Deflections During the deck concrete pour, mid-span deflection was measured using a linearly-variable displacement transducer. After the full load of concrete was pumped, and the equipment was removed, the measured mid-span deflection was 1.44 in. under the 350 lb/ft fluid load of the deck concrete. The deflection estimated in the design calculations was 1.75 in. Following the deck concrete pour, mid-span deflection data was gathered for the next three days. A plot of this data is shown in Figure 14. Over the 72 hours following the arch pour, the initial mid-span deflection stabilized at approximately 1.44 in. immediately after the pour. Approximately 6 hours after the pour, mid-span deflections began to decrease, eventually rebounding to 1.03 in. 14 hours after the pour. At this time, beam deflections began to increase again, eventually surpassing the initial deflection of 1.44 in. Seventy-seven hours after the pour, the rate of deflection change had stabilized, although the mid-span deflection at this time was 1.8 in. Similar to the arch concrete pour, this was likely due to concrete shrinkage.

Mid-span Deflection HC Bridge - Knickerbocker Bridge BeamDeflection due to pouring of deck concrete

-2.0

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time (hrs)

Def

lect

ion

(in)

Deflection is relative to beam before pouring deck concrete (Time =0) Deck concrete pouring started 10:30 AM on 2/24/2009 and was completed in about 40 minutes. Mid-span deflection measure using LVDT attached to bottom surface of beam.

Figure 14: Mid-span deflection under fluid load of deck concrete (hours after pour).

3.3 Initial Static Shear Test On March 11, 2009, the initial static shear test was performed. The beam was loaded under the configuration shown in Figure 5, page 8, with deflections measured and the support face, 1/3 span, and mid-span, and strains measured in the steel shear connectors (4th connector from the



end and the 7th connector from the end). Figure 15 shows the load-deflection plot, and Figure 16 shows the load-shear connector strain plot. Both figures show the loading and unloading cycles, indicating final deflections and strains following the completion of the test.

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,00055,00060,00065,00070,00075,00080,00085,00090,00095,000

100,000105,000

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00Displacement (in.)

Load

(lbs

)

7 in. from centerline support

1/3 span from centerline support

Midspan

Final DeflectionsEnd: 0.035 in.

1/3 span: 0.077 in.Midspan: 0.068 in.

Figure 15: Load vs. deflection under static shear test (see test configuration: Figure 5, page 8).



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

75000

80000

85000

90000

95000

100000

105000

-0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006 0.00007 0.00008 0.00009 0.00010

Strain (in/in)

Load

(lbs

)

Shear Connector - 4th from endShear Connector - 7th from end

Final Strains4th connector from end: 0.0000017th connector from end: -0.000001

Figure 16: Load vs. strain in shear connectors under static shear test (see test configuration: Figure 5, page

8). The data from the static shear test shows that the HC beam carried a load of nearly 100,000 lbs, producing a shear of approximately 85 kip (20% higher than the design shear – see Table 2, page 5) without permanent deflection or strain in its most highly-stressed shear connectors. Beam behavior was essentially linear throughout the test. 3.3.1 Optical Measurement of Web Shear Deformation of the side of the beam during the shear load test was measured using an Aramis 3D Optical Deformation Measurement System. The center of the 12” by 12” measurement area was located 22" inboard of bearing centerline. The Aramis strain data was analyzed, and a load vs. maximum strain plot is shown in Figure 15.



Load vs. Shear StrainHCB Knickerbocker Bridge BeamShear Load Test - March 11, 2009

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050

Shear Strain (Engineering strain, deg)

Load

(lb)

Figure 17: Load vs. shear strain results from Aramis optical measurement

3.4 Initial Static Bending Test Immediately following the static shear test, the load beam and hydraulic actuator were reconfigured for the bending static test, as shown in Figure 6, page 9. The beam was loaded to 65.6 kips, with deflections and beams strains measured throughout the test. 3.4.1 Strains at Mid-span Figure 18 shows the strains measured at the mid-span of the HC Beam under the initial static bending load of 65.6 kips.



Figure 18: Strains measured at mid-span under initial static load of 65.6 kips

(see load configuration – Figure 6, page 9) The data in Figure 18 shows that the neutral axis of the beam is approximately 31.36 in. above the extreme bottom fiber of the beam. This is in good agreement with calculations by John Hillman of Teng Associates, which place the neutral axis at 31.4 in. above the extreme bottom fiber. 3.4.2 Mid-Span Deflection Figure 19 shows the load-deflection plot generated from the initial static bending test. The plot shows linear behavior from initial load to the maximum load of 65.6 kips, with a maximum deflection of approximately 3.1 in. at mid-span. The apparent flexural stiffness (EI) of the beam was calculated using the following equation:

48)43( 22 blb

yPEIMS

−=

Where:

MSyP = slope of the load / mid-span deflection plot

l = support span b = horizontal distance from a support to nearest load point



For the initial static bending test, the slope of the load/deflection plot was 21,315 lb/in. The support span (l) was 820.5”, and the support to load point distance (b) was 326.25”. The calculated flexural stiffness (EI) for the beam is 2.31x1011 lb-in2.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5Deflection (in)

Load

(lb)

Initial Bending Test

Figure 19: Load vs. mid-span deflection under initial static bending test (see load configuration – Figure 6,

page 9).

3.5 Bending Fatigue Test Following the initial static bending test, the load-span of the beam was reconfigured into the bending fatigue test configuration (see Figure 7, page 9), and cyclic testing began with a maximum load of 41.4 kips, and a minimum load of 16.6 kips, simulating the moment produced by an AASHTO HL-93 fatigue load truck. The load cycling rate was set at 1 Hz. Periodically the cyclic loading was stopped and the test was reconfigured into the static bending test configuration (see Figure 6, page 9) and the static bending test was repeated to a load of 65.6 kips. Fatigue load cycling was stopped after 2,000,000 cycles. Figure 20 shows the mid-span strain data for the initial bending test plotted with the data from the bending test performed after 2,000,000 cycles. Figure 21 shows the load-deflection data plotted for all the tests. The results from the individual tests were so alike that the plots in Figure 21 are not discernable from one another.



Table 4 contains the flexural stiffness (EI) calculated from the load-deflection data for each of the tests. As seen from the data, there were no significant changes in strains through the mid-span or in flexural stiffness after 2,000,000 load cycles.

Figure 20: Strains measured at mid-span under initial static load of 65.6 kips, and following 2,000,000 fatigue

load cycles (see load configuration –Figure 6, page 9)



0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Deflection (in)

Load

(lb)

Initial Bending TestAfter 99,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 202,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 291,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 427,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 509,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 600,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 826,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 1,000,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 1,109,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 1,429,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 1,622,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 1,789,000 fatigue cyclesAfter 2,005,000 fatigue cycles

Figure 21: Load vs. mid-span deflection for all static bending tests under load of 65.6 kips (see load

configuration Figure 6, page 9)

Table 4: Apparent stiffness calculated from bending tests Fatigue load cycles

completed Apparent stiffness

(EI) Cycles (lb-in2) Initial 2.31E+11

99,000 2.35E+11 202,000 2.33E+11 291,000 2.34E+11 427,000 2.35E+11 509,000 2.33E+11 600,000 2.33E+11 826,000 2.34E+11

1,000,000 2.33E+11 1,109,000 2.33E+11 1,429,000 2.34E+11 1,622,000 2.33E+11 1,789,000 2.33E+11 2,005,000 2.33E+11



3.6 Static Bending Test with Full Factored Load On April 14 the last fully instrumented static bending test was performed. The loading configuration was the same as for the initial static bending load test (see Figure 6, page 9) except that the full factored load of 133 kips was applied. The photo in Figure 22 was taken during the test.

Figure 22: Setup for static bending test with full factored load

3.6.1 Strains at Mid-Span The mid-span strains measured during bending at the 133 kip load are shown in Figure 23.



Figure 23: Strains measured at mid-span under static bending load of 133 kips

3.6.2 Mid-Span Deflection Figure 24 shows a plot of the load vs. deflection at mid-span. This plot shows the loading and unloading cycles. The flexural stiffness (EI) for the beam was calculated for this test data over the load range of 0 – 65.6 kips and found to be 2.33x1011 lb-in2. This load range was selected for the EI calculation so that the result can be compared to those found for the previous static bending tests which were loaded to 65.5 kips, and which are contained in Table 4.



0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Deflection (in)

Load

(lb)

Figure 24: Load vs. Deflection for static bending with full factored load of 133 kips

3.7 Final Static Shear Tests On April 14 the final static shear tests were performed. Two tests were performed. The loading configuration for both tests was the same as for the initial shear load test (see Figure 5, page 8) except different loads were applied. For the first test the full factored load of 135 kips was applied. Figure 25 shows the load vs. deflection measured on the half of beam under the shear load. Figure 25 shows the load-deflection plot, and Figure 26 shows the load-shear connector strain plot. Both figures show the loading and unloading cycles. After the shear load test to 135 kips was completed, the deflection measurement instrumentation was removed to perform a final static shear load test to the maximum capacity of the test actuator. The load for this test reached 318.4 kips without any visible failure of the beam.



0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0Displacement (in)

Load

(lb)

7" from centerline support1/3 span from centerline supportMid-span

Figure 25: Load vs. deflection under static shear test load of 135 kips



0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

-0.00002 0.00000 0.00002 0.00004 0.00006 0.00008 0.00010 0.00012 0.00014Strain (in/in)

Load

(lb)

Shear Connector - 4th from endShear Connector - 7th from end

Figure 26: Load vs. Strain for full factored shear load test

3.8 Final Bending Test – Load to Failure Following the final static shear load tests, the loading arrangement was reconfigured to the static bending load arrangement for a final static bending test with the intent to fail the beam if possible. Deflection instrumentation was not connected during this test. The beam held a load of 209 kips before failure. Figure 27 shows a plot of the load vs. actuator displacement during the test. This actuator displacement is not a true measure of the beam deflection but the plot provides some insight into how the beam carried the load up to failure. Failure occurred when the anchoring of the tension reinforcement broke free in the south end of the beam.



0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Actuator Displacement (in)

Load

(lb)

Figure 27: Load vs. actuator displacement during the final bending test - loaded to failure



Figure 28: Failed anchoring of tension reinforcement

3.9 Coupon Test Results Table 5 contains a list of the equipment used for the mechanical property tests of the panels representing the beam web and cover laminates. The equipment is identified by AEWC equipment ID numbers, and the dates that the tests were performed are included.

Table 5: Test dates and equipment list for coupon tests Test method ASTM D790 ASTM D3039 ASTM D2344 ASTM D4255 Property type Flexural Tension Short Beam In-plane shear

Date 6/3/2009 5/22/2009 5/26/2009 6/9/2009 Test machine 108 107 107 270

Load cell 668 268 656 110 Test fixture 298 -- 298 304

Caliper 537 536 536 536 Micrometer 450 450 450 450

Other 395 - Aramis 395 – Aramis The following sections contain descriptions of how the tests were performed and summaries of the results. Full tables containing all test data are contained in Appendix D.



3.9.1 ASTM D696 Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion (CLTE) The coefficients of linear thermal expansion for the cover and web laminates were determined following ASTM D696 Standard Test Method for Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion of Plastics Between −30°C and 30°C with a Vitreous Silica Dilatometer. The dilatometer used for this procedure consists of two concentric fused-quartz tubes. The outer tube has one closed end and is mounted vertically in a holding fixture, open end up. The specimen is placed in the bottom of the outer tube. The inner tube, which is closed on both ends, is placed inside the outer tube, capturing the specimen between the ends of the tubes. A digital indicator is mounted on the holding fixture and measures the position of the top of the inner tuber relative to the outer tube. Temperature changes are applied to the specimen by immersing the lower ends of the tubes in cooling or warming baths (nominally -30°C and +30°C, respectively). The apparatus is first placed in the cooling bath and the digital indicator reading recorded after the specimen has come to temperature equilibrium (determined by no change in the indicator reading). Following that, the apparatus is placed in the warming bath. After the specimen has come to temperature equilibrium, the indicator reading is recorded. The apparatus is again placed in the cooling bath and the measurement is repeated. The coefficient of linear thermal expansion (α) over the temperature range used is calculated as:

TLLΔΔ

=0

α

Where: α = average coefficient of linear thermal expansion per degree Celsius ΔL = Change in length of test specimen due to hearing or to cooling L0 = length of test specimen at room temperature ΔT = temperature difference, °C, over which the change in length of specimen is measured α is calculated for the heating cycle and again for the cooling cycle. The average of these values is the CLTE that is reported for a given specimen. The test specimens were ½-inch wide and 2.5-inches long. Table 6 lists the results of the CLTE test results obtained for the beam cover and web laminates.

Table 6: ASTM D696 CLTE Test Results Material Specimen CLTE /°C

Cover - 0° Test 1 1.04E-05 Test 2 1.22E-05 Average 1.13E-05

Cover - 90° Test 1 1.18E-05

Test 2 8.96E-06 Average 1.04E-05



Web - 0° Test 1 1.11E-05

Test 2 1.20E-05 Average 1.16E-05

Web - 90° Test 1 1.45E-05 Test 2 2.10E-05 Average 1.78E-05

3.9.2 ASTM D790 Flexural properties under 3-point bending load The flexural properties of the cover and web laminates were determined following ASTM D790 Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. The test performed was a three-point bending test. Figure 29 shows a typical equipment setup to perform D790 bending. Specimens were placed in the fixture with the tool side of the laminate down on the supports. Load was applied at a constant crosshead speed. The span between the supports and the rate of load application are calculated as functions of the specimen thickness. Load and crosshead displacement data were recorded continuously during the tests. The crosshead displacement recorded during the test was used to determine the specimen deflection. The maximum load that each specimen carried before it failed was used to calculate the maximum bending stress, which is reported as the flexural strength. The maximum bending stress was calculated as follows:

223bdPL

b =σ

Where: σb = stress in outer fibers at mid-span (psi) P = maximum load carried by specimen (lb) L = support span (in) b = specimen width (in) d = specimen depth (thickness – in)

The flexural modulus of elasticity (MOE) was calculated from the slope of the load vs. deflection relationship. The slope was obtained from the initial portion of each test where the specimen exhibits elastic response to the load. For the results reported here, this slope was taken over the range from zero deflection, up to approximately 10% of ultimate deflection. The flexural MOE was calculated using this equation:

3

3

4bdmLEB =

Where: EB = modulus of elasticity in bending (psi) L = support span (in)



b = specimen width (in) d = specimen depth (thickness – in) m = slope of the initial straight-line portion of the load-deflection curve (lb/in)

Table 7 contains a summary of the flexural test results and test conditions for the beam cover and web laminates.

Figure 29: ASTM D790 test arrangement



Table 7: ASTM D790 Flexural Properties Test Results

Specimens Flexural Strength

Flexural MOE Thickness

Number of specimens

Support Span

Loading Rate

(ksi) (Msi) (in) (in) (in/min) Cover - 0° Average 66.0 2.91 0.1119 6 1.80 0.05

Std. Dev. 11.8 0.17 0.0018

COV 17.8% 5.8% 1.6% Cover - 90° Average 58.9 2.38 0.1139 6 1.80 0.05

Std. Dev. 5.8 0.20 0.0020

COV 9.9% 8.6% 1.7%

Web - 0° Average 39.4 1.40 0.1617 6 2.60 0.07

Std. Dev. 2.8 0.19 0.0048

COV 7.1% 13.3% 3.0%

Web - 90° Average 42.6 1.25 0.1625 6 2.60 0.07

Std. Dev. 1.7 0.11 0.0021

COV 3.9% 8.7% 1.3%

3.9.3 ASTM D3039 Tensile properties The tensile properties of the cover and web laminates were determined following ASTM D3039 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials. The standard D3039 tensile specimens of 10” long x 1” were prepared for this test. To perform the tests, 2” of each end of the specimens were clamped in the hydraulic grips of the Instron machine, leaving a 6” gauge section. The tensile load was applied at a constant crosshead speed. The strains over the gauge section during the tests were measured using the Aramis system as the axial tensile loads were applied. The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) for each test was calculated at the maximum load the specimen held before failing, divided by the average cross-sectional area of the gauge section.

APMAX

UTS =σ

Where: σUTS = ultimate tensile strength PMAX = maximum load A = average cross-sectional area of specimen at gauge section



The strain data collected by the Aramis system was used to plot the stress vs. strain relationship for each test. The tensile modulus of elasticity (MOE) for each test was computed as the slope of the stress-strain plot over the strain range of 0.001 in/in to 0.003 in/in.

εσΔΔ

=E

Where: E = tensile modulus of elasticity (MOE) Δσ = difference in applied tensile stress over the range of strain Δε = the range of strain (in this case nominally 0.002)

Table 8 contains a summary of the tensile test results and test conditions for the beam cover and web laminates.

Table 8: ASTM D3093 Tensile Properties Test Results

Specimen UTS MOE ThicknessNumber of specimens

Loading Rate

(ksi) (Msi) (in) (in/min) Cover - 0° Average 57.3 3.24 0.1112 6 0.05

Std. Dev. 1.9 0.12 0.0031

COV 3.3% 3.6% 2.7%

Cover - 90° Average 46.0 2.85 0.1576 6 0.05

Std. Dev. 3.7 0.09 0.0034

COV 8.0% 3.2% 2.2%

Web - 0° Average 41.4 2.54 0.1576 6 0.05

Std. Dev. 0.9 0.09 0.0034

COV 2.2% 3.7% 2.2%

Web - 90° Average 39.4 2.38 0.1593 6 0.05

Std. Dev. 0.7 0.05 0.0029

COV 1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 3.9.4 ASTM D6641 Compressive properties under axial load The compressive strengths of the cover and web laminates were determined following ASTM D6641 Standard Test Method for Determining the Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Laminates Using a Combined Loading Compression (CLC) Test Fixture. The test for compressive properties was performed using a combined loading compression (CLC) test fixture (see Figure 30). Using this method, the compressive force is applied to the



specimen by a combination of end loading and shear loading. The gauge length where the compression failure is expected to occur is defined by the gap between the upper and lower sets of clamping blocks. The test specimens prepared for this test were ½” wide and 5.5” long. The gauge length was ½”. The compressive load was applied by the Instron machine using a constant crosshead speed until the specimen failure. The failure areas were examined to verify that a proper compression failure occurred, otherwise the test data would not be used. The compressive strength is calculated from the maximum load that the specimen holds before failure, according to the following equation:

APMAX

UCS =σ

Where: σUCS = ultimate compressive strength PMAX = maximum compressive load A = cross-sectional area of specimen at gauge section

Figure 30: ASTM D6641 Combined loading compression (CLC) test fixture

Table 9 contains a summary of the compressive test results and test conditions for the beam cover and web laminates.



Table 9: ASTM D6641 Compressive Strength Test Results

Specimen ThicknessCompressive

Strength Number of specimens

Loading Rate

Avg. (in) (ksi) (in/min) Cover - 0° Average 0.1115 45.8 6 0.05

Std. Dev. 0.0031 3.02 COV 2.8% 6.6%

Cover - 90° Average 0.1130 35.6 6 0.05 Std. Dev. 0.0023 3.11 COV 2.0% 8.7%

Web - 0° Average 0.1578 34.8 6 0.05 Std. Dev. 0.0046 1.09 COV 2.9% 3.1%

Web - 90° Average 0.1582 34.1 6 0.05

Std. Dev. 0.0039 2.03 COV 2.5% 6.0%

3.8.5 ASTM D2584 Fiber fraction (ignition loss) The fiber mass fractions of the cover and web laminates were determined following ASTM D2584 Standard Test Method for Ignition Loss of Cured Reinforced Resins. The test results are summarized in Table 10. The fiber fraction of the laminates was determined by preparing 1”x 1” square specimens of the samples. The specimens were weighed to 0.0001 g and then placed in a muffle furnace at 565°C. After the resin was completely burned, the residue from the specimens was cooled to room temperature in a desiccator and then weighed. For laminates of glass reinforcement and organic resins, the weight of the residue can be considered to be the weight of the glass. The fiber fraction is then calculated as follows:

100(%) xspecimenofWeightresidueofWeightFractionFiber =



Table 10: ASTM D2584 Fiber Fraction Test Results

Specimen Fiber Fraction (%) Cover 1 cover 79.9%

2 cover 79.0% 3 cover 78.7% Average 79.2% Std. Dev 0.63% COV 0.79%

Web 4 web 64.0% 5 web 63.8% 6 web 63.9% Average 63.9% Std. Dev 0.09% COV 0.14%

3.9.6 ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties The in-plane shear properties of the cover and web laminates were tested following Procedure B of ASTM D4255 Standard Test Method for In-Plane Shear Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials by the Rail Shear Method. Procedure B of ASTM D4255 is performed using a three-rail shear fixture (see Figure 31). The specimen is prepared as a 5.5” W x 6” H rectangle with nine holes positioned to allow passage of the threaded fasteners of the fixture. The threaded fasteners are torqued nearly to their yield point, clamping the specimen between the vertical rails of the fixture. The outer two rails are fixed to the base of the fixture. The Instron test machine applies load to the center rail which loads the specimen in in-plane shear in the spaces between the middle and outer rails. .

Figure 31: ASTM D4255 Three-rail shear specimen and fixture with specimen mounted



The specimens were all loaded to failure. In order to be able to determine the in-plane shear strength of the laminate, it is necessary for the laminate to fail in shear. For all of the beam web and cover specimens tested (as well as for the durability test specimens), the failure mode was not in-plane shear. Instead, the specimens slipped between the rails and failed in bearing against the fasteners of the fixture. This problem often occurs when the laminates contain off-axis reinforcement. In this case, both the web and cover laminates contain plus and minus 45° fibers. Although the ultimate shear strength of these laminates was not determined by these tests, we know that the specimens held the applied load in shear at least to the point that they began to slip in the fixture. The load at which this occurred for each specimen was estimated by careful examination of the load-displacement plots shown in Figure 32. These load values ranged from 10,500 lb to 15,600 lb. The shear stress at these loads was calculated using this equation:

AP

2=τ

Where: τ = in-plane shear stress P = load applied to middle rail A = cross sectional area of specimen between rails

It must be emphasized the shear stress values that are reported are not mechanical properties of the laminates. They are only an estimate of the shear stress the laminate was under before the specimen started to slip. It is felt that the true ultimate shear strengths are much higher based upon the plots shown in Figure 32.



0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30Acutuator Displacement (in)

Load

(lb)

Cover-01Cover-02Cover-03Web-01Web-02Web-03

Figure 32: Load vs. displacement plots from D4255 tests for beam cover and web specimens

An Aramis system was used to record the strain data during the D4255 tests. Each specimen had two areas which are placed in shear loading. Figure 33 shows a typical example of the shear strain that Aramis computed during one of the tests. The magnitudes of the strains determined on each side of the middle rail are averaged to obtain the test result. The test data combined with Aramis analysis provided a relationship between stress and strain for each specimen. The shear modulus for each test was determined over the strain range of 0.0015 to 0.0055, and was determined to be the slope of the stress-strain plot over this range. The equation is as follows:

γτ

ΔΔ

=G

Where: G = shear modulus of elasticity Δτ = difference in applied shear stress over the range of strain Δγ = the range of strain (in this case nominally 0.004)



Figure 33: Aramis visualization of shear strain during ASTM D4255 test

The results from the in-plane shear load tests for the beam cover and web laminates are contained in Table 11.

Table 11: ASTM D4255 Shear Properties Test Results

Shear Stress at point specimen slipped in fixture Shear Modulus

Specimen (psi) (Msi) Cover_01 10,433 (No data) Cover_02 9,709 1.83 Cover_03 8,835 1.75 Average 9,659 1.79

Web_01 8,090 1.45 Web_02 7,828 1.40 Web_03 5,060 1.21 Average 6,993 1.35 Std. Dev. 0.12

COV 9.2% 3.9.7 Material Specifications Material specifications for the FRP shell of the hybrid-composite beam where included in the Special Provisions document for the Knickerbocker Bridge replacement (Appendix E). Table 12 contains a list of the mechanical properties that were in the specifications and that were included in the test program. All of the material specifications listed in the Special Provisions are listed as minimum values. The test results listed in Table 12 are the means of the values obtained from mechanical testing. Note that the specification for the coefficient of thermal expansion was



listed as 9.0 x 106 in/in/°F; this is believed to be a typographical error and it is assumed that the actual specification is 0.9 x 10-6 in/in/°F.

Table 12: Summary of laminate specifications and test results Specification Test Results Beam Web Beam Cover

Property Units ASTM Test

Method Minimum Avg /

Cov (%) Pass/ Fail

Avg / Cov (%)

Pass/

Fail

Tensile strength ksi D3039-07

Longitudinal 30.0 41.4 / 2.2 Pass 57.3 / 3.3 PassTransverse 30.0 39.4 / 1.8 Pass 46.0 / 8.0 Pass

Tensile modulus of elasticity Msi D3039-

07

Longitudinal 3.1 2.54 / 3.7 Fail 3.24 / 3.6 PassTransverse 3.1 2.38 / 2.2 Fail 2.85 / 3.2 Fail

Compressive strength ksi D6641 Longitudinal 30.0 34.8 / 3.1 Pass 45.8 / 6.6 PassTransverse 30.0 34.1 / 6.0 Pass 35.6 / 8.7 Pass

Shear strength(1) psi D4255 8300 6993(1) -- 9659(1) PassShear modulus Msi D4255 0.85 1.35 / -- Pass 1.79 / 9.2 Pass

Coefficient of thermal expansion

(Longitudinal) In./in./oF D696 9.0 x 10-6 2.1 x 10-5 See

text 2.0 x 10-5 See text

Glass content % by weight D2584 60 63.9 / 0.79 Pass 79.2 /

0.14 Pass

Note (1): The values reported as shear strength are the shear stresses computed from the loads at which the specimens began to slip in the test fixture. Actual shear strengths are higher.

The ultimate tensile and compressive strengths for both the beam web and cover laminates easily met the minimum requirements of the specification. The tensile moduli results were low, however, except for the cover in the longitudinal direction. This means that the empty FRP shell (no deck or concrete in arch cavity) might be less stiff than thought. If so, deflections from self weight and from fluid loads during the pouring of the arch concrete could be greater than anticipated. In the completed beam, the FRP shell has little influence on the beam stiffness as the steel tension and concrete compression reinforcements are the main structural components. Shear modulus test results exceeded the specification. Ultimate shear strength could not be determined but it is likely that the laminate properties exceed the specification. The beam web specimens carried an average of 6993 psi shear stress before slipping in the test fixture, and based on the information in Figure 32, it is believed that ultimately shear strength is much higher. The table of material specifications in the Special Provisions document lists a minimum value for the coefficient of linear thermal expansion (CLTE). Logically, a specification on CLTE should be a maximum value. In that case, the CLTE values determined for the beam cover and web laminates do not meet the specification (Note that the CLTE test values shown in Table 6 have



the standard units of expansion per °C, while the value in Table 12 have been converted to expansion per °F). The glass fiber contents of the beam cover and web witness panels exceeded the minimum specification of 60%.

3.10 Durability Test Results The result of the weathering treatment on the durability test panels showed some visible fading or discoloration of the surface. Some erosion of the surfaces was also visible with fibers becoming exposed. Figure 34 shows a comparison of the two halves of Panel 2.

Figure 34: Durability test Panel 2 surface, un-exposed half on left, exposed half on right

Table 13 and Table 14 contain lists of the equipment used for the mechanical property tests of the durability test panels. The equipment is identified by AEWC equipment ID numbers, and the dates that the tests were performed are included. Results summaries for each of the tests performed on specimens prepared from Panel 1 and Panel 2 are contained in the following subsections. Full tables of all data collected from this testing is contained in Appendix D. As explained in section 2.3, the principal fiber orientations were not known for these panels, therefore the test results should not be compared between panels. It is only valid to compare results of the un-exposed half of each panel to its matching exposed half.

Table 13: Test dates and equipment list for coupon tests of durability test Panel 1 Test method ASTM D790 ASTM D3039 ASTM D2344 ASTM D4255 Property type Flexural Tension Short Beam In-plane shear


Load cell 668 268 656 110 Test fixture 298 -- 298 304


Other 395 - Aramis 395 - Aramis



Table 14: Test dates and equipment list for coupon tests of durability test Panel 2

Test method ASTM D790 ASTM D3039 ASTM D2344 ASTM D4255 Property type Flexural Tension Short Beam In-plane shear


Load cell 656 268 656 110 Test fixture 298 298 304


Other 395 - Aramis 395 - Aramis

3.10.1 ASTM D790 Flexural properties under 3-point bending load The flexural properties of the durability test panel laminates were determined following ASTM D790 Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. The tests were conducted and results computed in the same manner as described in section 3.9.2. Table 15 contains a summary of the test results.

Table 15: ASTM D790 test results for durability test panels

Panel Ult. Bending Stress

Flexural MOE Thickness Number of

specimens Support

Span Loading

Rate (ksi) (Msi) (in) (in) (in/min)

Panel 1 - Unexposed Average 29.8 1.44 0.1753 6 2.80 0.075

Std. Dev. 1.71 0.056 0.0038 COV 5.8% 3.9% 2.2%

Panel 1 - Exposed Average 32.2 1.55 0.1731 6 2.80 0.075

Std. Dev. 2.32 0.132 0.0041 COV 7.2% 8.5% 2.4%

Panel 2 - Unexposed Average 32.2 1.22 0.1679 6 2.80 0.075

Std. Dev. 2.05 0.090 0.0036 COV 6.4% 7.4% 2.1%

Panel 2 - Exposed Average 36.5 1.39 0.1680 6 2.80 0.075

Std. Dev. 1.38 0.076 0.0023 COV 3.8% 5.5% 1.45

3.10.2 ASTM D3039 Tensile Properties The tensile properties of the durability test panel laminates were determined following ASTM D3039 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials.



The tests were conducted and the results computed in the same manner described in section 3.9.3. The test results are summarized in Table 16.

Table 16: ASTM D3039 Tensile property test results for durability test panels

Panel UTS MOE ThicknessNumber of specimens

Loading Rate

(ksi) (msi) (in) (in/min) Panel 1 - Unexposed Average 29.1 2.49 0.1723 5 0.05

Std Dev 1.01 0.09 .0017 COV 3.5% 3.7% 1.0%

Panel 1 - Exposed Average 31.4 2.70 0.1720 5 0.05 Std Dev 1.09 0.12 0.0043 COV 3.5% 4.5% 2.2%

Panel 2 - Unexposed Average 28.1 2.29 0.1698 4 0.05 Std Dev 0.43 0.04 0.0026 COV 1.5% 1.8% 1.5%

Panel 2 - Exposed Average 29.2 2.53 0.1735 5 0.05 Std Dev 0.60 0.06 0.0024 COV 2.1% 2.2% 1.4%

3.10.3 ASTM D2344 Short-beam strength The short-beam strength of the durability test panels was determined following ASTM D2344 Standard Test Method for Short-Beam Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials and Their Laminates. The test performed was a three-point bending type loading using the fixture shown in Figure 29, but using a 0.685” support span. The short support span promotes a shear type of failure in the specimen, as opposed to the longer span of ASTM D790 which is designed to obtain bending failure. The results of the test are reported as short beam strength, which is calculated as follows:

APstrengthbeamShort ×= 75.0

Where: P = maximum load observed during test A = cross-sectional area of specimen

Table 17 contains a summary of the test results.



Table 17: ASTM D2344 Short-beam strength test results for durability test panels.

Panel Short Beam Strength Thickness Number of

specimensSupport

Span Loading

Rate (psi) (in) (in/min)

Panel 1 - Unexposed Average 4423 0.1713 7 0.685 0.05 Std. Dev. 211 0.0054 COV 4.8% 3.1%

Panel 1 - Exposed Average 4574 0.1754 7 0.685 0.05 Std. Dev. 226 0.0066 COV 4.9% 3.7%

Panel 2 - Unexposed Average 4227.5 0.1740 7 0.685 0.05 Std. Dev. 143.5 0.0071 COV 3.4% 4.1%

Panel 2 - Exposed Average 4874.0 0.1682 7 0.685 0.05 Std. Dev. 323.9 0.0030 COV 6.6% 1.8%

3.10.4 ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties The in-plane shear properties of the durability test panel laminates were tested following ASTM D4255 Standard Test Method for In-Plane Shear Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials by the Rail Shear Method. The tests were conducted in the same manner as described in section 3.9.6. The ultimate in-plane shear stresses could not be determined from these tests for the same reasons explained in section 3.9.6. The shear stress that the specimens carried before slipping in the test fixture is not reported for these tests as it provides no useful information for evaluating the effects of the weathering treatment. The shear modulus properties of the durability test specimens were computed in the same manner as described in section 3.9.6. Table 18 contains a summary of the tests results that were obtained.



Table 18: ASTM D4255 Shear Properties Test Results

Panel Shear Modulus Number of specimens (Msi)

Panel 1 – Unexposed Average 1.43 3 Std. Dev. 0.16 COV 11.1%

Panel 1 - Exposed Average 1.35 3 Std. Dev. 0.00 COV 0.3%

Panel 2 - Unexposed Average 1.43 3 Std. Dev. 0.16 COV 11.3%

Panel 2 - Exposed Average 1.57 3 Std. Dev. 0.14

COV 8.9% 3.10.5 Summary of Durability Study Results Table 19 contains a summary of the average test results for each of the tests performed for the durability study. The exposed half of Panel 1 received the following treatment:

1. 169 hours of constant UV treatment @ 83%, 65°C.

2. 1000 hours of 12 hour cycles consisting of 4 hours condensing humidity @ 50°C and 8 hours UV 83% @ 60°C. This treatment cycle is the same as “Cycle 1” listed in Table X2.1 “Common Exposure Conditions” of ASTM G154.

The exposed half of Panel 2 received the same treatment, except that the second step (alternating UV and moisture cycles) was extended to a total of 2361 hours.



Table 19: Summary of Durability Test Results

Panel Treatment Tensile Properties

ASTM D3039 Flexural Properties

ASTM D790

In-Plane Shear ASTM D4255

Short Beam Strength

ASTM D2344 UTS MOE UBS MOE Modulus (ksi) (Msi) (ksi) (Msi) (Msi) (psi)

Panel 1 Un-exposed 29.1 2.49 29.8 1.44 1.43 4423 Panel 1 Exposed 31.4 2.70 32.2 1.55 1.35 4574

Change after treatment +7.8% +8.2% +8.0% +7.5% -5.7% +3.4% Panel 2 Un-exposed 28.1 2.29 32.2 1.22 1.43 4227 Panel 2 Exposed 29.2 2.53 36.5 1.39 1.57 4874

Change after treatment +3.9% +10.4% +13.4% +13.2% +10.2% +15.3%

3.11 Concrete Test Results Compressive strengths of the specimens were determined following ASTM C39. Compressive modulus was determined following ASTM C469. Table 20 contains a summary of the test results.

Table 20: Concrete Test Results

Specimen Description Date Cast

Date Tested

Days Cured

Ult. Comp. Strength

Compressive MOE

(psi) (Msi)

671-Arch-1 SCC concrete

arch 2/12/2009 2/23/2009 11 5720


arch 2/12/2009 2/23/2009 11 5820


arch 2/12/2009 3/9/2009 25 6520


arch 2/12/2009 3/9/2009 25 6320


arch 2/12/2009 3/13/2009 29 3.40


arch 2/12/2009 3/13/2009 29 3.38 671-Deck-2 Deck concrete 2/24/2009 3/9/2009 13 5410 671-Deck-3 Deck concrete 2/24/2009 3/9/2009 13 5260 671-Deck-4 Deck concrete 2/24/2009 4/28/2009 63 6500 671-Deck-7 Deck concrete 2/24/2009 4/28/2009 63 6510



4 Conclusions Following are the conclusions from this study:

1. HC Beam shell construction: Overall, the composite HC Beam performed well curing during the critical period of the arch concrete placement. However, following are significant improvements that should be made to insure the performance and safety of this product:

a. The composite “wings” on the top plate should used on both sides of all beams. Currently, the design drawings only call for these wings on the exterior face of the fascia beams. During placement of the arch concrete, these wings provided substantial stiffness and stability to the test beam. Production beams should include this feature, unless further testing and analysis is performed to demonstrate that they are unnecessary to maintain the structural integrity of the beam during the arch concrete pour.

b. Considerable local buckling was observed in the top plate during the placement of the arch concrete. In order to maintain beam stability and integrity during this pour, the top plate will need to be stiffened considerably.

c. The splicing technique used to transfer load across the joint in the top plate and wings was largely ineffective, buckling under load until the joint closed in compression. If possible, the top plate and wings should be infused in one segment equaling the full beam length, and then adhesively bonded and mechanically fastened to the beam.

d. The composite cross-ties appeared effective in restraining the beam webs during placement of the arch concrete, although some ties may have been stressed excessively. Closer spacing of the ties is recommended to insure that the beam webs do not bow outward during concrete placement.

2. HC Beam Camber: Initial deflections under the fluid load of the arch concrete and the fluid load of the deck concrete were in general agreement with the design calculations. However, immediately prior to static testing, the beam had a negative camber of approximately 1 3/8 in. at mid-span, which was a result of the following:

a. The camber equations did not consider the self-weight of the beam, which deflected approximately 1.15 in. under its own weight prior to placement of the arch concrete.

b. Shrinkage of the arch concrete and the deck concrete after placement resulted in additional deflections: shrinkage of the arch concrete resulted in a 30% increase from the initial mid-span deflection, and shrinkage in the deck concrete resulted in a 15% increase from the initial mid-span deflection. Prior to fabrication of the bridge girders, camber equations and methodology should be closely reviewed, and new camber requirements specified.

3. Initial Static Tests: Initial static shear and bending tests demonstrate that the HC Beam is linear-elastic under the design loading conditions, and that the analytical model developed by John Hillman is accurate in predicting beam behavior under service loads.

4. Fatigue Tests: Following 2,000,000 fatigue bending cycles, no deterioration or degradation was observed in the beam when loaded to its bending service load capacity.



5. Final Static Tests: The last fully instrumented static shear and bending tests were performed up to full factored design loads. For both of these tests the response of the HC Beam as shown by the load vs. deflection data was the same as for the initial tests performed before the fatigue bending cycle, except that the final static tests were taken to higher loads.

6. Durability Tests: For almost all of the mechanical properties that were measured, the average strength and/or stiffness values increased after the weathering treatment. The only exception was the in-plane shear modulus for panel 1, which saw a 5.7% average decrease, but this difference is smaller than the typical COV for the shear modulus results in this study. The results suggest that the use of the UV inhibitor and pigment in the resin did a good job of limiting the degradation from weathering to just the surface of the laminate. The increases in most properties that were measured are likely due to the effect of resin post-curing resulting from the exposure treatment.

References: 1. Signor, A.W., Chin, J.W., Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure on Vinyl Ester Matrix Resins: Chemical and Mechanical Characterization, Building Materials Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2001



Appendix A: Drawings for HC Beam superstructure in Knickerbocker Bridge



Appendix B: Knickerbocker Bridge Test Beam Drawings



Appendix C: Composite Cross-Tie Spacers and Spacer Test



Appendix D: Mechanical Property Test Detail Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 107 Beam Cover witness panel Load cell 268 ASTM D3039 Tensile Properties Caliper 516

Date 5/6/2009 Micrometer 450 Aramis Data

Specimen Thickness Width Thickness Width Area Ult Load UTS MOE T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 Avg. (in) Avg (in) (in^2) Dax (lb) (ksi) (Msi)

671W0-13 0.11945 0.11305 0.11425 1.0260 1.0260 1.0265 0.11558 1.0262 0.118608 6945.22 58.5 3.19 671W0-14 0.11530 0.10775 0.11845 1.0035 1.0035 1.0035 0.11383 1.0035 0.114232 6229.39 54.5 3.06 671W0-15 0.10495 0.10905 0.10880 1.0045 1.0120 1.0115 0.10760 1.0093 0.108604 6419.80 59.1 3.35 671W0-16 0.10435 0.10775 0.11515 1.0035 1.0010 1.0000 0.10908 1.0015 0.109247 6377.52 58.4 3.31 671W0-17 0.10620 0.11705 0.10540 1.0030 1.0010 1.0035 0.10955 1.0025 0.109824 6394.14 58.2 3.34 671W0-18 0.10570 0.11170 0.11765 1.0030 1.0015 1.0000 0.11168 1.0015 0.111851 6183.93 55.3 3.17

Average 0.11122 1.00742 0.11206 6425.00 57.3 3.24 Std. Dev. 0.00305 0.00964 0.00381 272.12 1.9 0.12

COV 2.7% 1.0% 3.4% 4.2% 3.3% 3.6%

671W90-13 0.11930 0.11815 0.11755 1.0045 1.0000 1.0015 0.11833 1.0020 0.11857 4875.83 41.2 2.76 671W90-14 0.12490 0.11785 0.11275 0.9980 1.0020 1.0015 0.11850 1.0005 0.118559 5201.09 44.0 2.77 671W90-15 0.11355 0.11710 0.10555 1.0020 0.9995 1.0005 0.11207 1.0007 0.112141 5308.35 47.4 2.86 671W90-16 0.11250 0.10825 0.10730 0.9980 0.9965 0.9975 0.10935 0.9973 0.109058 5593.73 51.3 3.01 671W90-17 0.11600 0.10580 0.12105 1.0005 1.0030 1.0010 0.11428 1.0015 0.114455 4988.4 43.7 2.81 671W90-18 0.11055 0.11320 0.10825 1.0005 0.9995 0.9990 0.11067 0.9997 0.11063 5352.33 48.4 2.87

Average 0.11387 1.00028 0.11390 5219.96 46.0 2.85 Std. Dev. 0.00389 0.00166 0.00403 259.78 3.7 0.09

COV 3.4% 0.2% 3.5% 5.0% 8.0% 3.2%



Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 107 Beam Web witness panel Load cell 268

ASTM D3039 Tensile Properites Caliper 516 Date 5/6/2009 Micrometer 450

Aramis Data

Specimen Thickness Width Thickness Width Area Ult Load UTS MOE T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 Avg. (in) Avg (in) (in^2) Dax (lb) (ksi) (Msi)

671B0-13 0.15455 0.16460 0.16485 1.0030 1.0030 1.0020 0.16133 1.0027 0.1617636 6725.76 41.5 2.48 671B0-14 0.15345 0.15680 0.15535 1.0035 1.0020 1.0015 0.15520 1.0023 0.1555621 6615.19 42.5 2.60 671B0-15 0.15225 0.15450 0.15620 1.0045 1.0035 1.0030 0.15432 1.0037 0.1548825 6514.47 42.1 2.64 671B0-16 0.16085 0.15450 0.15645 1.0030 1.0025 1.0015 0.15727 1.0023 0.1576336 6553.08 41.6 2.56 671B0-17 0.15805 0.16140 0.16765 1.0040 1.0030 1.0035 0.16237 1.0035 0.162935 6549.35 40.2 2.38 671B0-18 0.15990 0.15650 0.14930 0.9945 1.0000 0.9970 0.15523 0.9972 0.1547935 6252.61 40.4 2.56

Average 0.15762 1.00194 0.15793 6535.08 41.4 2.54 Std. Dev. 0.00343 0.00241 0.00359 157.17 0.9 0.09

COV 2.2% 0.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.2% 3.7%

671B90-13 0.16280 0.16310 0.15365 1.0050 1.0025 1.0045 0.15985 1.0040 0.1604894 6369.66 39.7 2.37 671B90-14 0.15570 0.15370 0.15450 1.0020 1.0030 1.0025 0.15463 1.0025 0.1550199 6147.23 39.7 2.47 671B90-15 0.15995 0.15965 0.15435 1.0045 1.0050 1.0060 0.15798 1.0052 0.1587996 6351.31 40.0 2.37 671B90-16 0.16035 0.16200 0.16260 1.0030 1.0035 1.0020 0.16165 1.0028 0.162108 6424.52 39.6 2.33 671B90-17 0.15635 0.15485 0.17670 1.0020 1.0020 1.0020 0.16263 1.0020 0.1629586 6207.20 38.0 2.34 671B90-18 0.16020 0.16170 0.15460 1.0060 1.0045 1.0040 0.15883 1.0048 0.159601 6303.36 39.4 2.39

Average 0.15926 1.00356 0.15983 6300.55 39.4 2.38 Std. Dev. 0.00285 0.00130 0.00282 104.83 0.7 0.05

COV 1.8% 0.1% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8% 2.2%



Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 107 Beam Cover witness panel Load cell 519 Caliper 516 ASTM D790 Tensile Properties Test fixture 298 Micrometer 450

Date 4/16/2009

Specimen T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 T-Avg W-Avg Support

Span Ult. Load Slope

Ult. Bending Stress

Flexural MOE

(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (lb) (lb/in) (ksi) (Msi) 671W0-07 0.11260 0.10930 0.11560 0.5010 0.5000 0.5030 0.11250 0.5013 1.80 180.90 1544.8 77.0 3.16 671W0-08 0.10905 0.11935 0.11105 0.5015 0.5005 0.5000 0.11315 0.5007 1.80 189.23 1435.4 79.7 2.89 671W0-09 0.10715 0.10840 0.11540 0.5010 0.5005 0.5000 0.11032 0.5005 1.80 153.44 1358.5 68.0 2.95 671W0-10 0.10800 0.10765 0.11950 0.5000 0.5015 0.5020 0.11172 0.5012 1.80 109.64 1321.3 47.3 2.76 671W0-11 0.12315 0.11395 0.10530 0.5020 0.5020 0.5010 0.11413 0.5017 1.80 150.96 1379.6 62.4 2.70 671W0-12 0.10860 0.11165 0.10775 0.4995 0.4990 0.4995 0.10933 0.4993 1.80 136.30 1346.7 61.7 3.01

Average 0.1119 0.5008 1.8 153.4 1397.7 66.0 2.91 Std. Dev. 0.0018 0.0008 0.0 29.2 81.7 11.8 0.17

COV 1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 19.0% 5.8% 17.8% 5.8%

671W90-07 0.11250 0.11545 0.11800 0.5000 0.4965 0.4955 0.11532 0.4973 1.80 163.95 1249.5 66.9 2.39 671W90-08 0.11380 0.10330 0.11375 0.5000 0.4995 0.4990 0.11028 0.4995 1.80 118.62 1038.7 52.7 2.26 671W90-09 0.11505 0.11720 0.11530 0.5000 0.4990 0.4985 0.11585 0.4992 1.80 141.86 1155.9 57.2 2.17 671W90-10 0.11370 0.10835 0.11885 0.4985 0.5045 0.5010 0.11363 0.5013 1.80 154.87 1393.1 64.6 2.76 671W90-11 0.12065 0.11315 0.10895 0.4990 0.4990 0.4980 0.11425 0.4987 1.80 141.05 1182.5 58.5 2.32 671W90-12 0.12115 0.11805 0.10255 0.5010 0.5010 0.5000 0.11392 0.5007 1.80 128.13 1199.5 53.2 2.36

Average 0.1139 0.4994 1.8 141.4 1203.2 58.9 2.38 Std. Dev. 0.0020 0.0014 0.0 16.6 116.6 5.8 0.20

COV 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% 11.8% 9.7% 9.9% 8.6%



Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 107 Beam Web witness panel Load cell 519 Caliper 516 ASTM D790 Tensile Properties Test fixture 298 Micrometer 450 Date 4/16/2009

Specimen T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 T-Avg W-Avg Support

Span Ult.

Load Slope

Ult. Bending Stress

Flexural MOE

(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (lb) (lb/in) (ksi) (Msi) 671B0-07 0.16165 0.16120 0.16040 0.5040 0.5040 0.5040 0.16108 0.5040 2.60 136.17 781.6 40.6 1.63 671B0-08 0.14425 0.15985 0.15740 0.5035 0.5035 0.5045 0.15383 0.5038 2.60 131.20 681.8 42.9 1.63 671B0-09 0.16515 0.15585 0.16345 0.5050 0.5040 0.5040 0.16148 0.5043 2.60 120.58 589.6 35.8 1.22 671B0-10 0.16915 0.15825 0.17020 0.5035 0.5035 0.5050 0.16587 0.5040 2.60 128.92 668.1 36.3 1.28 671B0-11 0.17620 0.16005 0.16615 0.5045 0.5050 0.5045 0.16747 0.5047 2.60 147.28 684.4 40.6 1.27 671B0-12 0.16400 0.16150 0.15580 0.5040 0.5045 0.5055 0.16043 0.5047 2.60 134.36 651.3 40.3 1.37

Average 0.1617 0.5043 2.6 133.1 676.1 39.4 1.40 Std. Dev. 0.0048 0.0004 0.0 8.8 62.3 2.8 0.19

COV 3.0% 0.1% 0.0% 6.6% 9.2% 7.1% 13.3%

671B90-07 0.16500 0.16595 0.16185 0.5040 0.5015 0.5055 0.16427 0.5037 2.60 142.95 534.7 41.0 1.05 671B90-08 0.16100 0.16435 0.16130 0.5035 0.5040 0.5035 0.16222 0.5037 2.60 154.59 675.3 45.5 1.38 671B90-09 0.16270 0.16515 0.16810 0.5045 0.5060 0.5045 0.16532 0.5050 2.60 150.66 654.3 42.6 1.26 671B90-10 0.16425 0.15435 0.16750 0.5050 0.5035 0.5020 0.16203 0.5035 2.60 138.65 605.0 40.9 1.24 671B90-11 0.15820 0.16970 0.15835 0.5035 0.5055 0.5035 0.16208 0.5042 2.60 145.45 636.7 42.8 1.30 671B90-12 0.15995 0.15735 0.16065 0.5030 0.5010 0.5025 0.15932 0.5022 2.60 139.24 584.5 42.6 1.26

Average 0.1625 0.5037 2.6 145.3 615.1 42.6 1.25 Std. Dev. 0.0021 0.0009 0.0 6.3 51.2 1.7 0.11

COV 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 4.4% 8.3% 3.9% 8.7%



Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 107 Caliper 516 Beam Cover witness panel Load cell 268 Micrometer 450 ASTM D6641 Compressive Strength Test fixture 293 Date 5/6/2009

Specimen Thickness Width Thickness Width Area Ult Load Ult Strength T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 Avg. (in) Avg (in) (in^2) Dax (lb) (ksi)

671W0-1 0.12075 0.12090 0.11130 0.5010 0.5010 0.5010 0.11765 0.5010 0.05894265 2753.04 46.7 671W0-2 0.11505 0.10250 0.11530 0.5015 0.5015 0.5020 0.11095 0.5017 0.055659917 2450.55 44.0 671W0-3 0.11075 0.11080 0.10565 0.5015 0.5020 0.5010 0.10907 0.5015 0.054696933 2358.34 43.1 671W0-4 0.11210 0.10995 0.10855 0.5020 0.5010 0.5010 0.11020 0.5013 0.055246933 2613.38 47.3 671W0-5 0.11425 0.11350 0.10285 0.5015 0.4995 0.5005 0.11020 0.5005 0.0551551 2361.47 42.8 671W0-6 0.10575 0.11545 0.11080 0.5015 0.5030 0.5005 0.11067 0.5017 0.055517778 2811.3 50.6 Average 0.11146 0.50128 0.05587 2558.01 45.8 Std. Dev. 0.00310 0.00046 0.00154 197.64 3.0

COV 2.8% 0.1% 2.8% 7.7% 6.6%

671W90-1 0.11960 0.11440 0.11625 0.5010 0.5010 0.5005 0.11675 0.5008 0.058472292 2236.38 38.2 671W90-2 0.10995 0.11275 0.10985 0.5000 0.5005 0.5000 0.11085 0.5002 0.055443475 1970.61 35.5 671W90-3 0.11785 0.11500 0.10280 0.5005 0.5010 0.5000 0.11188 0.5005 0.055997608 1742.12 31.1 671W90-4 0.11925 0.11545 0.10870 0.4990 0.4990 0.4990 0.11447 0.4990 0.057118867 2089.04 36.6 671W90-5 0.11360 0.10970 0.10950 0.4985 0.4990 0.4980 0.11093 0.4985 0.055300267 1811.88 32.8 671W90-6 0.11210 0.11560 0.11095 0.5000 0.5005 0.5010 0.11288 0.5005 0.056498108 2207.67 39.1 Average 0.11296 0.49992 0.05647 2009.62 35.6 Std. Dev. 0.00230 0.00094 0.00119 204.51 3.1

COV 2.0% 0.2% 2.1% 10.2% 8.7%



Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 107 Caliper 516 Beam Web witness panel Load cell 268 Micrometer 450 ASTM D6641 Compressive Strength Test fixture 293 Date 5/6/2009

Specimen Thickness Width Thickness Width Area Ult Load Ult Strength T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 Avg. (in) Avg (in) (in^2) Dax (lb) (ksi)

671B0-1 0.15780 0.16260 0.15495 0.5055 0.5050 0.5045 0.15845 0.5050 0.08001725 2816.98 35.2 671B0-2 0.16375 0.16455 0.16505 0.5050 0.5030 0.5050 0.16445 0.5043 0.082937617 2815.46 33.9 671B0-3 0.14955 0.15330 0.15330 0.5060 0.5050 0.5045 0.15205 0.5052 0.076810592 2736.06 35.6 671B0-4 0.15870 0.15850 0.16350 0.5055 0.5060 0.5045 0.16023 0.5053 0.080971244 2913.73 36.0 671B0-5 0.15520 0.15265 0.15125 0.5050 0.5050 0.5045 0.15303 0.5048 0.077256328 2555.45 33.1 671B0-6 0.15600 0.16035 0.15935 0.5040 0.5055 0.5045 0.15857 0.5047 0.080023311 2776.69 34.7 Average 0.15780 0.50489 0.07967 2769.06 34.8 Std. Dev. 0.00462 0.00036 0.00231 120.13 1.1

COV 2.9% 0.1% 2.9% 4.3% 3.1%

671B90-1 0.16470 0.16720 0.16340 0.5040 0.5045 0.5045 0.16510 0.5043 0.083265433 2758.38 33.1 671B90-2 0.15510 0.15620 0.15380 0.5055 0.5055 0.5050 0.15503 0.5053 0.078343511 2855.31 36.4 671B90-3 0.16350 0.15625 0.15425 0.5050 0.5045 0.5035 0.15800 0.5043 0.079684667 2875.78 36.1 671B90-4 0.15275 0.16200 0.16380 0.5040 0.5050 0.5045 0.15952 0.5045 0.080476158 2580.66 32.1 671B90-5 0.15025 0.15540 0.15635 0.5035 0.5045 0.5055 0.15400 0.5045 0.077693 2478.56 31.9 671B90-6 0.15825 0.15505 0.15935 0.5060 0.5055 0.5055 0.15755 0.5057 0.079667783 2806.91 35.2 Average 0.15820 0.50478 0.07986 2725.93 34.1 Std. Dev. 0.00394 0.00057 0.00195 160.69 2.0

COV 2.5% 0.1% 2.4% 5.9% 6.0%



Ignition Loss of Cured Reinforced Resins ASTM Standard: D 2584

Tester: M Hollmam

Project: 671 Date: 8/6/2009 Caliper: 435 Scale: 657

Specimen Thickness Width Length Initial Weight Residue Weight Crucible Specimen Residue Fraction

1 cover 0.1280 0.9790 0.9805 24.0754 23.3942 20.6870 3.3884 2.7072 79.9% 2 cover 0.1220 0.9970 0.9980 26.0815 25.3548 22.6130 3.4685 2.7418 79.0% 3 cover 0.1180 0.9930 0.9940 25.2661 24.5387 21.8563 3.4098 2.6824 78.7% 4 web 0.1825 0.9850 0.9950 24.3857 22.7644 19.8815 4.5042 2.8829 64.0% 5 web 0.1785 0.9970 0.9645 23.8798 22.3186 19.5644 4.3154 2.7542 63.8% 6 web 0.1810 1.0050 0.9915 24.3497 22.7217 19.8350 4.5147 2.8867 63.9%



Project 671 - HC Bridge - Knickerbocker Bridge Test machine 270 Caliper 536 ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties Load cell 110 Micrometer 450 Beam cover and web witness panels Test fixture 304 Date: 6/9/2009

Slip Load Ult. Load Shear stress Shear MOE Length (in) Thickness (in) Area Instron DAX Aramis at slip

Specimen 1 1 2 3 average (sq.in) (lb) (lb) (psi) (psi) Cover_01 14,300 10,433 Cover_02 5.9950 0.1145 0.1117 0.1115 0.1125 0.6746373 13,100 24,251 9,709 1,834,754 Cover_03 6.0005 0.1137 0.1147 0.1196 0.1160 0.695958 12,298 25,516 8,835 1,754,374 Average 0.1143 0.6853 24,884 9,272 1,794,564 Std. Dev.

COV

Web_01 5.9990 0.1598 0.1603 0.1621 0.1607 0.9641393 15,600 29,531 8,090 1,452,083 Web_02 6.0040 0.1613 0.1560 0.1616 0.1596 0.9581383 15,000 26,396 7,828 1,397,179 Web_03 6.0025 0.1745 0.1786 0.1655 0.1728 1.0375121 10,500 26,891 5,060 1,214,461 Average 0.1393 0.8359 27,606 6,993 1,354,574 Std. Dev. 0.0279 0.1675 1,685 124,408

COV 20.0% 20.0% 6.1% 9.2%



Project 671-HC Beam - Knickerbocker Bridge Test machine 107 Caliper 536 ASTM D3039 Tensile Properties Load cell 268 Micrometer 450 Durability test panel 1 Date: 5/22/2009

Specimen*: T

average W average Area

Ult. Load - Instron

Ult. Load - Aramis

UTS - Instron

UTS - Aramis

MOE - Aramis

(in) (in) (n^2) (lb) (lb) (ksi) (ksi) (msi) 671-Q1-T-10 0.1728 1.0065 0.1739 5494.8 5491.6 31.6 31.6 2.63 671-Q1-T-11 0.1714 1.0020 0.1718 5452.0 5458.9 31.7 31.8 2.63 671-Q1-T-12 0.1665 1.0040 0.1672 5452.0 5448.0 32.6 32.6 2.85 671-Q1-T-13 0.1783 1.0027 0.1788 5293.1 5295.1 29.6 29.6 2.57 671-Q1-T-14 0.1708 1.0037 0.1714 5371.6 5360.6 31.3 31.3 2.80

Average 0.1720 5412.7 5410.8 31.4 31.4 2.70 Std Dev 0.00425 80.32 80.82 1.10 1.09 0.12

COV 2.5% 1.5% 1.5% 3.5% 3.5% 4.5%

671-Q1-U-10 0.1738 1.0018 0.1742 5154.8 5153.2 29.6 29.6 2.59 671-Q1-U-11 0.1702 1.0018 0.1705 5101.3 5109.5 29.9 30.0 2.47 671-Q1-U-12 0.1739 1.0013 0.1742 5031.1 5033.1 28.9 28.9 2.47 671-Q1-U-13 0.1723 1.0020 0.1726 5097.2 5109.5 29.5 29.6 2.35 671-Q1-U-14 0.1710 1.0033 0.1716 4717.3 4705.5 27.5 27.4 2.57

Average 0.1723 5020.3 5022.2 29.1 29.1 2.49 Std Dev 0.00166 175.00 182.20 0.97 1.01 0.09

COV 1.0% 3.5% 3.6% 3.3% 3.5% 3.7%

* "T" in specimen name indicates exposed panel; "U" indicates unexposed panel



Project 671-HC Beam - Knickerbocker Bridge Test machine 107 Caliper 516 ASTM D3039 Tensile Properties Load cell 268 Micrometer 450 Durability test panel 1 Date: 6/12/2009

Specimen (See Note 1) T

average W

average Area Ult. Load - Instron

Ult. Load - Aramis

UTS - Instron

UTS - Aramis

MOE - Aramis

(in) (in) (in^2) (lb) (lb) (ksi) (ksi) (msi) 671-Q2-T-10 0.1693 1.0058 0.1702 4951.5 4956.7 29.1 29.1 2.52 671-Q2-T-11 0.1747 0.9990 0.1745 5127.1 5142.3 29.4 29.5 2.53 671-Q2-T-12 0.1748 1.0018 0.1751 5090.5 5098.6 29.1 29.1 2.51 671-Q2-T-13 0.1736 1.0060 0.1747 4940.2 4934.8 28.3 28.3 2.62 671-Q2-T-14 0.1751 1.0015 0.1754 5237.2 5240.5 29.9 29.9 2.47

Average 0.1735 5069.3 5074.6 29.1 29.2 2.53 Std Dev 0.00243 125.03 128.58 0.57 0.60 0.06

COV 1.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.0% 2.1% 2.2%

671-Q2-U-10 (See Note 2) 0.1742 1.0010 0.1744 3977.2 3974.1 22.8 22.8 1.82 671-Q2-U-11 0.1686 1.0032 0.1691 4725.7 4716.5 27.9 27.9 2.31 671-Q2-U-12 0.1667 1.0063 0.1677 4787.5 4792.9 28.5 28.6 2.34 671-Q2-U-13 0.1723 0.9992 0.1721 4739.7 4749.2 27.5 27.6 2.26 671-Q2-U-14 0.1716 1.0003 0.1716 4842.3 4847.5 28.2 28.2 2.26

Average 0.1698 4773.8 4776.5 28.1 28.1 2.29 Std Dev 0.00261 52.79 56.73 0.43 0.43 0.04

COV 1.5% 1.1% 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% (1) "T" in specimen name indicates exposed panel; "U" indicates unexposed panel (2) Bad test - load rate was 0.50"/min. Results are not included in statistics



Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 108 Durability test panel 1 Load cell 668 Caliper 537 ASTM D790 Tensile Properties Test fixture 298 Micrometer 450

Date 6/3/2009

Specimen * T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 Tavg Wavg Support

Span Ult.

Load Slope

Ult. Bending Stress

Flexural MOE

(in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (lb) (lb/in) (ksi) (Msi) Q-1-U-30 0.17765 0.1796 0.1792 0.645 0.645 0.645 0.1788 0.6450 2.80 134.67 898.2 27.4 1.34 Q-1-U-31 0.17111 0.168 0.1655 0.647 0.646 0.647 0.1682 0.6467 2.80 134.98 818.5 31.0 1.46 Q-1-U-32 0.1734 0.1742 0.1756 0.644 0.647 0.645 0.1744 0.6453 2.80 135.33 934.8 29.0 1.50 Q-1-U-33 0.1792 0.1789 0.1755 0.647 0.647 0.648 0.1779 0.6473 2.80 140.99 975.7 28.9 1.47 Q-1-U-34 0.1775 0.178 0.1738 0.648 0.6475 0.648 0.1764 0.6478 2.80 154.93 940.6 32.3 1.45 Q-1-U-35 0.1763 0.1778 0.1746 0.647 0.6465 0.647 0.1762 0.6468 2.80 143.82 937.3 30.1 1.45 Average 0.1753 29.8 1.44 Std. Dev 0.0038 1.71 0.056 COV 2.2% 5.8% 3.9% Q-1-T-30 0.1797 0.1723 0.1678 0.648 0.648 0.6475 0.1733 0.6478 2.80 139.71 943.4 30.2 1.54 Q-1-T-31 0.1783 0.1796 0.1793 0.645 0.645 0.645 0.1791 0.6450 2.80 166.92 1021.7 33.9 1.51 Q-1-T-32 0.1751 0.1751 0.1773 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.1758 0.6500 2.80 146.92 978.9 30.7 1.52 Q-1-T-33 0.1663 0.1688 0.1697 0.648 0.647 0.646 0.1683 0.6470 2.80 153.67 962.0 35.2 1.71 Q-1-T-34 0.1679 0.176 0.1756 0.65 0.649 0.649 0.1732 0.6493 2.80 154.72 1034.7 33.4 1.68 Q-1-T-35 0.1732 0.1702 0.1635 0.649 0.65 0.649 0.1690 0.6493 2.80 130.37 770.0 29.5 1.35 Average 0.1731 32.2 1.55 Std. Dev 0.0041 2.32 0.132 COV 2.4% 7.2% 8.5% * "T" in specimen name indicates exposed panel; "U" indicates unexposed panel



Project 671 - HCB Knickerbocker beam Test machine 108 Durability test panel 1 Load cell 656 Caliper 537 ASTM D790 Tensile Properties Test fixture 298 Micrometer 450

Date 6/22/2009

Specimen * Length T1 T2 T3 W1 W2 W3 Thick Avg. Width Avg. Support

Span Ult Load Slope

Ult. Bending Stress

FlexuMOE

Specimen # (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (lb) (lb/in) (ksi) (Ms671-Q2-U-30 3.4615 0.1621 0.1626 0.1637 0.6480 0.6485 0.6470 0.1628 0.6478 2.80 145.54 647.39651 35.6 1.27671-Q2-U-31 3.4630 0.1674 0.1699 0.1670 0.6495 0.6475 0.6500 0.1681 0.6490 2.80 132.17 626.45219 30.3 1.12671-Q2-U-32 3.4600 0.1700 0.1653 0.1643 0.6475 0.6490 0.6490 0.1665 0.6485 2.80 133.62 712.80205 31.2 1.31671-Q2-U-33 3.4640 0.1655 0.1679 0.1667 0.6495 0.6500 0.6510 0.1667 0.6502 2.80 143.95 730.32805 33.5 1.33671-Q2-U-34 3.4700 0.1780 0.1676 0.1748 0.6470 0.6490 0.6470 0.1734 0.6477 2.80 148.65 716.94106 32.0 1.16671-Q2-U-35 3.4615 0.1746 0.1675 0.1672 0.6510 0.6470 0.6470 0.1697 0.6483 2.80 135.34 665.6958 30.4 1.15

Average 0.1679 32.2 1.22Std. Dev 0.0036 2.05 0.09COV 2.1% 6.4% 7.4%

671-Q2-T-30 3.4595 0.1661 0.1703 0.1760 0.6495 0.6525 0.6495 0.1708 0.6505 2.80 153.83 797.06886 34.1 1.35671-Q2-T-31 3.4600 0.1667 0.1629 0.1658 0.6490 0.6490 0.6480 0.1651 0.6487 2.80 157.26 781.92697 37.4 1.47671-Q2-T-32 3.4635 0.1730 0.1709 0.1643 0.6500 0.6510 0.6490 0.1694 0.6500 2.80 167.69 725.98682 37.8 1.26671-Q2-T-33 3.4590 0.1656 0.1686 0.1696 0.6490 0.6530 0.6495 0.1679 0.6505 2.80 161.48 784.67958 37.0 1.40671-Q2-T-34 3.4650 0.1636 0.1674 0.1652 0.6490 0.6510 0.6465 0.1654 0.6488 2.80 156.49 777.42935 37.0 1.45671-Q2-T-35 3.4615 0.1592 0.1757 0.1738 0.6490 0.6510 0.6490 0.1695 0.6497 2.80 158.70 794.57786 35.7 1.38

Average 0.1680 36.5 1.39Std. Dev 0.0023 1.38 0.07COV 1.4% 3.8% 5.5%* "T" in specimen name indicates exposed panel; "U" indicates unexposed panel



Project 671 - HC Beam - Knickerbocker Bridge Test machine 107 Caliper 536 ASTM D2344 Short Beam Strength Load cell 656 Micrometer 450 Durability Test Panel 1 Test fixture 298 Date: 5/26/2009

Specimen: Thickness Width Length Area Ult. Load (DAX) Short Beam Strength (psi) 671-Q1-T-20 0.17745 0.32600 1.44350 0.0578 357.59 4636 671-Q1-T-21 0.17980 0.36300 1.44800 0.0653 383.12 4403 671-Q1-T-22 0.18690 0.36250 1.44550 0.0678 436.27 4829 671-Q1-T-23 0.16805 0.36250 1.44750 0.0609 391.68 4822 671-Q1-T-24 0.17010 0.36150 1.45500 0.0615 382.23 4662 671-Q1-T-25 0.17100 0.36250 1.44450 0.0620 366.7 4437 671-Q1-T-26 0.17455 0.36300 1.44000 0.0634 357.3 4229

Average 0.1754 4574 Std. Dev. 0.0066 226

COV 3.74% 4.9%

671-Q1-U-20 0.17215 0.36200 1.32450 0.0623 391.48 4711 671-Q1-U-21 0.17845 0.36250 1.32300 0.0647 371.37 4306 671-Q1-U-22 0.17050 0.36150 1.32500 0.0616 378.77 4609 671-Q1-U-23 0.17305 0.36050 1.32700 0.0624 359.24 4319 671-Q1-U-24 0.16235 0.36000 1.31800 0.0584 322.73 4141 671-Q1-U-25 0.16685 0.36200 1.32000 0.0604 358.49 4451 671-Q1-U-26 0.17540 0.36150 1.31900 0.0634 244.69 2894

Average 0.1713 4423 Std. Dev. 0.0054 211

COV 3.13% 4.8% * "T" in specimen name indicates exposed panel; "U" indicates unexposed panel



Project 671 - HC Beam - Knickerbocker Bridge Test machine 108 Caliper 537 ASTM D2344 Short Beam Strength Load cell 656 Micrometer 450 Durability Test Panel 2 Test fixture 298 Date: 6/22/2009

Specimen * W T Area Ult Load Short-Beam Strength (in) (in) (in^2) (lb) (psi)

Q2U20 0.3590 0.18145 0.06514 371.0 4271.6 Q2U21 0.3620 0.18535 0.06710 376.1 4204.4 Q2U22 0.3575 0.17285 0.06179 329.5 3999.6 Q2U23 0.3595 0.16710 0.06007 336.8 4204.8 Q2U24 0.3600 0.17195 0.06190 368.2 4461.4 Q2U25 0.3630 0.17320 0.06287 361.2 4308.4 Q2U26 0.3620 0.16585 0.06004 331.6 4142.2

Average 0.17396 4227.5 Std. Dev. 0.00712 143.5

COV 4.1% 3.4%

Q2T20 0.3630 0.17095 0.06205 445.8 5388.0 Q2T21 0.3625 0.17175 0.06226 392.3 4725.2 Q2T22 0.3640 0.16790 0.06112 358.3 4396.9 Q2T23 0.3670 0.16615 0.06098 390.4 4802.3 Q2T24 0.3640 0.16770 0.06104 407.3 5004.0 Q2T25 0.3615 0.17015 0.06151 419.5 5115.4 Q2T26 0.3640 0.16310 0.05937 371.0 4686.4

Average 0.16824 4874.0 Std. Dev. 0.00301 323.9

COV 1.8% 6.6% * "T" in specimen name indicates exposed panel; "U" indicates unexposed panel



Project 671 - HC Bridge - Knickerbocker Bridge Test machine 270 Caliper 536

ASTM D4255 In-plane shear properties Load cell 110 Micrometer 450 Durability test panels Test fixture 304

Date (Panel 1): 6/9/2009 Date (Panel 2) : 6/24/2009

Slip Load Ult. Load Shear Stress Shear MOE Length (in) Thickness (in) Area Instron DAX Aramis at Slip

Specimen* 1 1 2 3 average (sq.in) (lb) (lb) (psi) (psi) Q1-T-1 5.9945 0.1713 0.1809 0.1807 0.1776 1.0648 16,000 28,321 7,513 1,349,299 Q1-T-2 6.0035 0.1766 0.1830 0.1742 0.1779 1.0680 11,600 29,311 5,431 1,349,163 Q1-T-3 6.0045 0.1713 0.1777 0.1763 0.1751 1.0513 14,000 27,606 6,658 1,357,090

Average 0.1769 1.0614 28,412 1351850.5 Std. Dev. 0.0016 0.0089 856 4537.7

COV 0.9% 0.8% 3.0% 0.3% Q1-U-1 5.9995 0.1851 0.1753 0.1774 0.1792 1.0753 14,000 21,612 6,510 1,510,177 Q1-U-2 5.9975 0.1748 0.1727 0.1830 0.1768 1.0606 13,000 27,276 6,129 1,250,949 Q1-U-3 6.0005 0.1765 0.1749 0.1716 0.1743 1.0460 17,000 26,671 8,126 1,539,343 Average 0.1768 1.0606 25,186 1433489.4 Std. Dev. 0.0025 0.0147 3110.3 158756.2

COV 1.4% 1.4% 12.3% 11.1% Q2-T-1 6.0120 0.17865 0.17865 0.17880 0.1787 1.0743 24,000 27,111 11,170 1,605,731 Q2-T-2 6.0150 0.17715 0.17290 0.17900 0.1764 1.0607 19,000 26,231 8,956 1,693,051 Q2-T-3 5.9785 0.17435 0.17745 0.17210 0.1746 1.0440 13,000 26,286 6,226 1,420,186

Average 0.1766 1.0597 26,543 1572989.3 Std. Dev. 0.0020 0.0152 492.9 139347.6

COV 1.2% 1.4% 1.9% 8.9% Q2-U-1 6.0080 0.17105 0.17440 0.17440 0.1733 1.0411 18,000 25,021 8,645 1,614,722 Q2-U-2 6.0215 0.17725 0.17395 0.17385 0.1750 1.0539 12,000 26,836 5,693 1,329,096 Q2-U-3 5.9755 0.17800 0.17950 0.15945 0.1723 1.0297 13,000 25,076 6,313 1,339,845 Average 0.1735 1.0415 25,644 1427888.0 Std. Dev. 0.0014 0.0121 1032.2 161892.5

COV 0.8% 1.2% 4.0% 11.3%

* "Q1" indicates Panel 1; "Q2" indicates Panel 2" - "T" indicates weathered panel; "U" indicated unexposed panel



Appendix E: Special Provisions Document for Hybrid Composite Beam SPECIAL PROVISION

SECTION 509.72 FURNISHING HYBRID-COMPOSITE BEAMS

Description: This work shall consist of furnishing (fabricating beam and witness panels, applying gel coat for 16 exterior beams to all exposed exterior surfaces, installing strain gages, storing and delivering) all Hybrid-Composite Beams (HCB’s) to the dimensions and details shown on the plans and according to the requirements of the Standard Specifications and these Special Provisions. HCB’s for incorporation into the project shall include the FRP shell and shear connectors. The Contractor for this work shall hereinafter be referred to as the Fabrication Contractor. Anchor bolts, shim plates and bearings will be paid for separately under items to be furnished and erected by an Erection Contractor under a separate contract. Gel Coat: The Fabricator Contractor shall apply a gel coat to the permanently exposed surfaces of the fascia girders, including the webs and bottom flanges, to provide for protection of the laminate from Ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the completed FRP Shell. The gel coat may be applied either directly to the tooling surface by spraying prior to placement of the glass reinforcing, or it may be applied subsequent to the infusion of the FRP Shell by spraying or rolling. If applied subsequent to infusion and if necessary due to the formulation of the gel coat, any residual form release agents on the FRP Shell shall be removed by suitable means to facilitate bonding of the gel coat to the FRP Shell. The gel coat shall be a gray, isophthalic polyester with a dry thickness of 1.8 to 2.0 mils. Acceptable products include Polycor Stypol DS-44 as manufactured by Cook Composites and Polymers, or approved equal.

Delivery of Hybrid-Composite Beams: The delivery of the beams to the jobsite in Boothbay will be required by March 1, 2010. It is the Fabrication Contractor responsibility to store the beams at his facility up until this date. Delivery of HCB’s to the jobsite shall be coordinated with the Erection Contractor to permit the erection without delaying the progress of the Erection Contractor. It shall be the Fabrication Contractor’s responsibility to deliver the HCB’s on time in accordance with these Special Provisions. The Erection Contractor will provide the Fabrication Contractor with a working schedule for shipping the HCB’s to the jobsite, within 30 calendar days after the execution of the erection contract. The Erection Contractor will notify the Fabrication Contractor of any changes in the scheduled delivery dates a minimum of three calendar weeks in advance of his/her HCB erection date. If necessary, the Erection Contractor will be allowed up to and including the Fabrication Contractor’s contract completion date to make such changes. Any changes to the working or shipping schedule requested by either Contractor after the Fabrication Contractor’s completion date shall require the Resident’s written approval and shall be agreed upon in writing by both Contractors. No additional compensation shall be allowed nor will an extension of time be considered because of the above requirements.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance: Within 30 calendar days the Fabrication Contractor shall submit to Maine DOT a Quality Control Quality Assurance (QCQA) Plan for fabrication of the



HCB’s. Fabrication of HCB’s shall not commence until the QCQA Plan has been reviewed and approved by the Department.

Definitions: Terms and definitions found within this document shall be defined as outlined in the Maine DOT Standard Specifications, with the following added terms: Hybrid-Composite Beam: A structural framing member comprised of three main sub-

components that include a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) shell, compression reinforcement and tension reinforcement.

FRP shell: An external, fiber reinforced polymer shell consisting of a quad-weave glass fabric infused with an epoxy, vinyl ester resin matrix that encapsulates the other components of the HCB.

Compression Reinforcement: A cementitious material such as Portland cement concrete which is pumped into a profiled conduit fabricated within the FRP shell. The profile of the conduit is designed to resist the internal compression forces in the beam.

Tension Reinforcement: A high strength, high modulus material such as high strength prestressing steel fibers infused integrally into the FRP shell and designed to equilibrate the internal compression forces in the beam.

Shear Connector: A diagonal tension member with one end anchored in the compression reinforcement and the opposing end anchored in the deck slab. A plurality of shear connectors are utilized to provide a positive connection to the bridge deck as well as to facilitate composite bending behavior between the HCB and the concrete deck. Preforms: Individual element components of materials to be incorporated into the manufactured FRP shell, e.g. glass fabric and tension reinforcement. Tooling: The molds or forms that are used in the manufacturing of the HCB.

Manufacturer: A firm licensed by the HC Bridge Company, LLC for the manufacturing of Hybrid-Composite Beams (HCB).

Demonstration Project: The Contractor’s attention is called to the fact that the Hybrid-Composite Beams represent an experimental element to be used in this project. Therefore no substitutions or value engineering will be allowed on this item. Materials: Materials shall be according to the following. Any substitutions to the materials specified must be submitted to the Maine DOT for approval. a) FRP Shell: The FRP shell shall be comprised of a glass fiber reinforced polymer laminate

bonded to a low density foam core. The materials used in the laminate shall be as follows: Glass Reinforcement: The glass reinforcement of the FRP laminate shall be a quad-weave fabric having a total weight of 64 oz/yd2 ±5 percent. The orientation of the fibers shall be such that no less than 26 percent of the fibers by weight being oriented in the 0 degree bias (longitudinal to the beam shell), no less than 20 percent of the fibers by weight being oriented in the 90 degree bias (transverse to the beam shell), and no less than 14 percent of the fibers by weight being oriented diagonally in both the plus and minus, 45 degree biases. The remaining percentage of



glass may be comprised of a randomly oriented strand mat to provide stability to the fabric; however the weight of the mat shall not exceed 10 percent of the total weight of the fabric. Acceptable products include: E-QX6200 as manufactured by Vectorply VTX 640 as manufactured by V2 QM-5608 as manufactured by FGI Additional non-structural layers of glass veil such as PRE 0700-02014-074 REEMAY may be placed between the glass layers and tooling surfaces as necessary to enhance resin infusion. Additional non-structural layers of resin distribution media may be placed between the glass layers and the low density foam. (2) Vinyl Ester Resin: The matrix used in the manufacturing of the FRP Shell shall be a bisphenol-A epoxy-vinyl ester resin with a dynamic viscosity between 100 and 400 centipoise at 77 degrees F. The resin shall be promoted with 12% cobalt solution comprising of between 0.07 to 0.15% by weight of resin, along with between 0 to 0.07% by weight N, N-Dimethylanileine (DMA), or as recommended by the manufacturer. The resin shall also contain 0.30% by weight UV-9 as a UV Stabilizer. 2, 4 Pentanedione may be used as an inhibitor to increase the gel time if necessary Acceptable products include: DERAKANE MOMENTUM™ 411-45 as manufactured by Ashland Vipel® F007-AAA-00 as manufactured by AOC, L.L.C. Approved equal.

(3) Foam Core: With the exception of the hollow conduit fabricated inside of the FRP Shell to accommodate the compression reinforcement, the interior volume of the shell shall be occupied by a polyisocyanurate (polyiso) foam core. The polyiso foam shall have an average density of no less than 2.0 lb/cubic foot as determined by ASTM D1622 and a compressive strength of no less than 20 lb/square inch as measured by ASTM D1621.

Acceptable products include ELFOAM® P200 as manufactured by Elliott Company of Indianapolis, Inc., 2lbs foam as manufactured by Poly Cel Inc, of Stow, Massachsettes, or approved equal.

(4) Structural Adhesives: The adhesive used in joining pieces of laminate together shall be a two-component, medium viscosity, solvent-free methyl methacrylate suitable for bonding plastics.

Acceptable products include Plexus MA560-1 as manufactured by ITW, Extreme 360M and Extreme 350M as manufactured by Extreme Adhesives, or approved equal.

The FRP shell shall be manufactured using a closed-mold, vacuum assisted resin transfer method (VARTM) of composite manufacturing. The FRP laminate comprising the shell



shall be tested in accordance with the specified ASTM Standards in conformance with the minimum mechanical properties outlined in the table below. For laminate testing, a witness panel shall be manufactured for each beam. A minimum of one panel for every five beams fabricated shall be tested. Adequate supporting documentation and the appointed values for the mechanical properties shall be obtained from the Fabrication Contractor and provided to the Maine DOT Bridge Program.

PROPERTY UNITS ASTM TEST METHOD

MINIMUM

TENSILE STRENGTH Longitudinal Transverse

psi D3039-07 30,000 30,000

TENSILE MODULUS OF ELASTICITY Longitudinal Transverse

psi x 106 D3039-07 3.10 3.10

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Longitudinal Transverse

psi D6641 30,000 30,000

SHEAR STRENGTH psi D4255 8,300 SHEAR MODULUS psi x 106 D4255 0.85 WATER ABSORPTION % max. D570 0.7 DENSITY lb./in3 D792 0.060-0.068 SPECIFIC GRAVITY D792 1.6-1.0 COEFFICIENT OF THERMAL EXPANSION (Longitudinal)

In./in./oF D696 9.0 x 106

GLASS CONTENT % by weight D2584 60 b) Tension Reinforcement: The Tension Reinforcement shall consist of seven-wire, Galvanized

Prestressed Concrete Strand (GPC) conforming to the requirements of ASTM A416, Grade 250 or 270. The strand shall be zinc coated in accordance with ASTM A475 and stress-relieved after galvanizing and stranding. The Tension Reinforcement shall be cut and bent after galvanizing.

c) Shear Connectors: The Shear Connectors shall be ASTM A615 or A706 Grade 60

reinforcement bars. The Shear Connectors shall be zinc-coated (galvanized) in accordance with ASTM A767 after they have been cut and bent to the sizes and shapes indicated on the Contract Plans. Bending tolerances and material certifications shall be in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Standard Specifications.

d) Compression Reinforcement: Compression Reinforcement (self-consolidating concrete) is to

be furnished and installed by the Erection Contractor.



Equipment: Equipment shall be according to the following: a) Vacuum System: A vacuum capable of sustaining a pressure equal to 25 inches of mercury

shall be required for the vacuum infusion of the FRP Shell. The vacuum system shall be outfitted with a filtration system to filter out styrene emissions and a reservoir system to accumulate any over filling of the matrix in the mold. The vacuum system shall meet the approval of the Project Manager or Resident.

b) Brake Press: A manual or hydraulically controlled brake press or reinforcing steel bending device with sufficient dimensions and capacity for bending of the tension reinforcement.

c) Computer-Numerically-Controlled (CNC) Saw: A CNC saw capable of cutting the profiled shape of the compression reinforcement in the polyiso foam core to within ±1/8” per eight foot.

Drawings: Before HCB fabrication begins, the Contractor shall submit duplicate prints of Working Drawings to the Project Manager or Resident for review and preliminary approval in accordance with Article 105.7 of the Standard Specifications. The drawings shall be on 11 x 17 in. sheets. Each sheet shall provide adequate space for review and approval stamps at the lower right corner. Each drawing shall be completely titled according to the contract plans, including structure number, state contract number, route, section, and county and shall pertain to only one structure. If the submitted shop drawings have significant discrepancies, revised sets must be submitted until details comply with the contract requirements. After all review comments have been addressed and preliminary approval is given, the Contractor shall furnish six or more prints of the drawings as directed by the Project Manager or Resident, and these shall be distributed and become a part of the contract. Changes to previously approved shop drawings shall be subject to the approval of the Project Manager or Resident, and the Project Manager or Resident shall be supplied with a record of all such changes. Fabrication: Hybrid-Composite Beams shall be fabricated and stored according to the following requirements. a) Preform Storage and Preparation: Glass fabrics, tension reinforcing and polyiso foam shall be

stored above the ground in a clean, dry environment upon platforms, skids, or other supports. It shall be kept free from water, dirt, grease, or other foreign matter, and shall be protected from corrosion.

Glass fabrics shall be sheared or water-jet cut to the shapes and dimensions indicated on the approved shop drawings. The fabrics shall be cut on a clean cutting surface, free of any deleterious material that could adhere to the fabrics prior to placing in the tooling. Cut-outs within the glass fabric to accommodate details of the infusion process and/or details of the finished HCB shall be clearly indicated on the shop drawings. Any cutting of rovings within a piece of glass fabric that exceed 5 percent of the dimension parallel to the line of the cut may be rejected.



Lap splices in the glass fabric will be permitted along the longitudinal direction of the beam. Lap splices shall be no less than 4-inches in length and placement shall be limited as follows:

• No lap splice will be permitted within 6-feet of either end of the beam • If multiple, longitudinal splices are requires, the splices shall be spaced no less than

10-feet apart within a single layer of the FRP laminate • If splices are required in adjacent layers of the laminate, the splices shall be staggered

to provide no less than 2-feet between splices in adjacent layers of glass within the FRP laminate

• All proposed locations of lap splices shall be indicated on the approved Working Drawings

Tension Reinforcement shall be cut on a clean surface, free of any deleterious material that could adhere to the steel prior to placing in the tooling. Cutting of the Tension Reinforcement shall be performed utilizing a method that will not significantly alter the physical properties of the material. Cutting of the Tension Reinforcement with acetylene or plasma torches will not be permitted. Bends to the longitudinal strands necessary to produce the preformed Tension Reinforcement shall be made with a hydraulic press suitable to provide a tight uniform bend with a radius of no more than 3-inches. The tolerance on the out-to-out dimensions after bending of adjacent strands of Tension Reinforcement shall be +0, -1/2 inch. Polyiso foam shall be prefabricated in large blocks to minimize the number of joints within the beam core. With the exception of some minor modifications to the blocks to accommodate manufacturing, the polyiso blocks shall be machine cut with a band saw of sufficient depth to cut the entire depth of the section. All longitudinal cutting of the polyiso blocks to facilitate the shape of the compression reinforcement must be cut with a Computer-numerically-controlled (CNC) band saw with sufficient depth to cut the entire depth of the section to a tolerance of +/- 1/8 inch. Once the longitudinal cuts for the compression reinforcement have been made, the two separate pieces shall be match marked, shipped and placed in the tooling to maintain the proper dimensions of the conduit for the compression reinforcement. Gaps in the joints between adjacent pieces of foam shall not exceed ¼-inch prior to pulling vacuum on the tooling. Additional processing for recesses and cutouts in the polyiso foam shall be performed with handheld and/or table mounted routers and saws suitable for the intended purpose. Vinyl-Ester Resins and other chemicals necessary for catalyzing the infusion matrix shall be stored in temperature controlled environment, in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations for each component.

b) Tooling: Tooling shall be capable of fabricating units to the dimensions required by the

contract plans within all allowable tolerances. The tooling surfaces shall be manufactured of steel or FRP laminate skins of sufficient thickness so that they will remain true to shape under the vacuum infusion pressures. Clamps, pins and other connecting devices shall be designed to hold the tooling rigidly in place during placement of the preforms and application of vacuum pressure for infusion as well as to allow removal of the FRP Shell without damage



to the laminate. If metal forms are used, they shall be free from rust, grease, or other foreign matter. ¾-inch radius fillets shall be built into the tooling at all sharp corners or as indicated on the Plans. The tooling shall be designed with monolithic joints and/or seals to facilitate an airtight chamber capable of sustaining 1 atmosphere of pressure, without any leaks for the duration of the infusion process. The HCB’s shall be manufactured to the dimensions shown on the Plans. Measurements of the product shall be recorded and compared to design plans and tolerances allowed. The dimensional tolerances for the tooling shall be as follows: Maximum Allowable Dimensional Tolerances for HCB HCB Component Inches (except as noted) Thickness of FRP Shell laminates ± 1/16” Depth, overall ± ¼” Width, overall ± ¼” Length (string line measurement along bottom of beam) ± ¼ per 25 feet

max ± ¾” Variation from specified elevation and squareness or skew ± 1/8” per 12 depth

max ± ¾” Sweep ± ½” maximum Camber variation from design camber ± ½” maximum Tipping and flushness of beam seat bearing area ± 1/8” per 24 inches Shear reinforcing; longitudinal location ± 1 in. Shear reinforcing; projection from beam surface + 1/4 in., - 1/2 in.

Prior to placement of preforms, the tooling shall be cleaned and coated with a semi-permanent form release agent common to the practice of composite manufacturing, e.g. Extend 19MDR or approved equal. Prior to charging the tooling with glass preforms, the Manufacturer may apply a gel coat to provide for protection of the laminate from Ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the completed FRP Shell.

c) Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer: Prior to vacuum infusion of the vinyl-ester matrix, the Manufacturer must thoroughly seal the tooling and demonstrate that the sealed tooling can obtain a minimum vacuum pressure of 25 inches of Mercury and for that vacuum pressure to drop no more than 1” of mercury over a period of five of minutes. Chemical additives and catalysts to be combined with the vinyl-ester resin shall be measured by weight, or the corresponding volume, based on the batch weight of the vinyl-ester resin. The Manufacturer shall maintain a log of each batch of resin and the weights or volumes of each constitutive material included in each batch. Once a batch of resin has been catalyzed, it must be thoroughly mixed and placed into the infusion tank within ten minutes. The manufacture may request an extension of time on a catalyzed batch, contingent on providing sufficient test data to demonstrate an extended gel time for the specific composition of the catalyzed matrix with a specified quantity of gel time inhibitor.



The infusion tank must be charged with a sufficient amount of resin at all times to prevent air bubbles from entering the infusion port(s) in the tooling. Once the matrix is introduced into the tooling, the infusion process shall continue, uninterrupted until it has been demonstrated that all evacuation ports have a surplus of resin flowing past the finished surface of the tooling and that no less than the predicted volume of resin has been introduced into the tool. In the absence of tests to determine the cured state of the vinyl-ester resin matrix, the tooling shall remain in place, under at least 25 inches of mercury until at least 6 hours have elapsed after all evacuation lines have been clamped and the infusion process is considered to have been completed.

d) Post-Processing: Once the laminate of the FRP Shell has been allowed to cure for a period of

no less than 6 hours, the HCB shall be removed from the tooling and ridges or fins (flash) of resin shall be removed by scraping or grinding as required. Any tooling or appurtenances internal to the FRP shell, necessary for forming of the compression reinforcement conduit shall be removed. Subsequent to infusion of the bottom FRP Shell and the FRP top flange, the two match pieces shall be joined using structural adhesive. The two part adhesive shall be mixed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and applied with a trowel or pressure gun and spread with a 3/16-inch, notched trowel to create a 2-inch wide continuous ribbon, centered along the line of fasteners located along the top flange. Within the working time allowed for the adhesive, the FRP top flange shall be joined to the top of the beam shell using #14 x 1-1/2” stainless steel, self-tapping, pan-head screws spaced no more than 3’-0” on center for the entire length of the beam. Holes in the FRP Shell to facilitate the installation of Shear Connectors, diaphragm connections or reinforcing steel, anchor bolt studs and attachments for appurtenances shall be done by the Fabrication Contractor using either a carbide tipped drill bit or water-jet cutting. Once these holes have been drilled, the Fabrication Contractor shall thoroughly remove all debris, including residual chunks of foam from the internal conduit within the FRP Shell.

Field Installation of HCB Components: Due to weather restrictions, the Fabrication Contractor may elect to furnish and install the shear connectors subsequent to erection of the HCB’s. In this case, the Fabrication Contractor shall coordinate with the Erection Contractor to gain access during the staging of erection to facilitate installation of the shear connectors. The Fabrication Contractor shall anticipate that installation of the shear connectors shall be completed in no more than two days per span, up to a total of 16 working days for the entire bridge. Installation of Drain Plugs: An additional component of the long term monitoring plan for the bridge will include installation of removable plugs for monitoring water infiltration in the HCB’s. The plugs shall consist of a standard marine bilge plug fitting (approximately ¾” diameter) installed in the bottoms of at least two (2) HCB’s as identified in the monitoring plan. The fittings shall be installed in holes drilled at the centerline of the bottom flanges of the beams at the intersection of the bottom flange of the FRP shell and the intrados of the compression reinforcement arch. The plug fitting shall be adhered with structural adhesives prior to storing



the HCB’s for shipment. The cost of furnishing and installing the plugs shall be borne by the Fabrication Contractor. Storing and Protection of HCB’s: When the fabrication and erection of HCB’s is accomplished under separate contracts, the Fabrication Contractor shall be responsible for storing and protecting all fabricated HCB’s up to March 1, 2010. All storage costs incurred by the Fabrication Contractor during this period shall be borne by the Fabrication Contractor. The Fabrication Contractor will be responsible for sealing the HCB’s against any infiltration of standing water prior to shipment to the jobsite. Upon delivery to the jobsite, the Erection Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the watertight seal of the beams until the shear connectors have been installed in the beams. Handling, Storing and Transporting: The FRP Shell, without compression reinforcement, may be placed upright, upside down or on its side, as necessary for drilling and post-processing of the finished piece. Care shall be taken in the handling of the HCB not to damage the surface finish of the laminate. The Fabrication Contractor shall indicate on the shop drawings the maximum and minimum locations for the desired pick points for handling and shipping of the FRP Shell. The FRP Shells may be double or triple stacked. When stacking, the HCB’s shall be maintained in the upright position at all times and each beam shall be supported with cribbing supporting the upper beam in the same location as the HCB below. All HCB units shall be clearly marked by the Fabrication Contractor with the mark number and date of fabrication of the FRP Shell in the location shown on the shop drawings. Units shall not be shipped until approval by the Project Manager or Resident for shipment. Units shall not be approved for shipment until all dimension tolerances have been checked and a post infusion inspection report has been provided to the Department and the void for the compression reinforcement has been checked to ensure it is the proper size and free of any obstruction. Shipping of HCB’s to Jobsite: The Erection Contractor shall provide the Fabrication Contractor and the Project Manager or Resident with a schedule for shipping the HCB’s to the jobsite within 30 calendar days after the execution of the erection contract. This schedule shall specify the order items are to be received and their orientation for delivery, and must meet the approval of the Project Manager or Resident. The Erection Contractor will be responsible for receiving, unloading, storing and protecting the HCB’s in accordance with this schedule. If the Erection Contractor elects to change this schedule, the Erection Contractor shall be responsible for coordinating the change with the Fabrication Contractor and for all costs and time delays associated with such changes. Delivery of the HCB’s to the jobsite shall be the responsibility of the Fabrication Contractor. The mode of delivery shall be the option of the Fabrication Contractor. Delivery shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays only, excluding any observed holidays, unless otherwise approved by the Project Manager or Resident. The Erection Contractor shall be responsible for coordination of movement of the HCB’s within the contract



limits and shall be responsible for all demurrage charges. At the Erection Contractor’s option and expense, HCB’s may be requested at times other than the stated time.

Field Installation of HCB Components: Components of fabricated HCB’s that cannot be completely installed until the HCB’s are erected, such as the compression reinforcement, shall be installed as required by the Erection Contractor. The compression reinforcement shall provided by the Erection Contractor. Installation of Instrumentation: The Fabrication Contractor shall contract with the University of Maine to install strain gages in two HCB’s. The Fabrication Contractor shall notify the University no less than 14 calendar days prior to the infusion of the HCB’s identified as requiring instrumentation. This work shall be paid for separately; see Basis of Payment below. Method of Measurement: FURNISHING HYBRID-COMPOSITE BEAMS – 33 INCH will be measured as lump sum for payment. Anchor bolts, shim plates, bearings and the Compression reinforcement shall be paid for under separate items. Basis of Payment: Payment for FURNISHING HYBRID-COMPOSITE BEAMS – 33 INCH shall be made at the Contract Unit Lump Sum Price and shall be considered full payment for fabrication of the 64 HCB’s and the associated witness panels for laboratory testing. Lump Sum payment shall also include the gel coat for the exterior 16 beams, the FRP Shells complete with tension reinforcement, longitudinal strands in compression arch and shear connectors, delivered FOB jobsite. Payment schedule is listed below:

Beam materials shall be paid per Special Provision 108 90% payment after beams are fabricated without shear connectors and placed in storage at the Harbor Technology facility. 5% payment after beams are delivered to the Boothbay bridge site 5% payment after shear connectors are installed

Additional payment beyond the amount specified in the Contract Agreement, Offer & Award document shall be paid to the Fabrication Contractor for testing witness panels and installing strain gages, which shall be considered extra work and paid by Force Account. This amount shall consist of receipted bills from the University of Maine plus 5% markup.

Test Results: HC Beam for the Knickerbocker Bridge

Documents

Transcript of Test Results: HC Beam for the Knickerbocker Bridge