PSI - Issue 18

Muhammad Fawad et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 18 (2019) 189–197 M. Fawad/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

196

8

4.2 Comparison between Un-Strengthened and Strengthened Bridge (both techniques) Following graphs and curves, completely describe the variation of results when we applied strengthening to bridge with different material. This comparison clearly shows that FRP strips have worked a lot and reduces the damages to the minimum possible values.

Table 6-Comparison between Un-Strengthened and Strengthened Bridge (both techniques)

Parameter/Max Value

Before Strengthening 125.5 (30%)

Steel Plate Strengthening

FRP Strip Strengthening 20.92 (5%)

Cracked Area (m²)/414 m²

66.24 (16%)

Crack Width (mm)/0.3 mm 0.619

0.237 3.37

0.037 2.74

Deflection (mm)/ 69mm

19.9

CRACKED AREA REDUCTION WITH STRENGTHENING

CRACK WIDTH COMPARISON

FRP=0.037

30%

16%

Steel…

5%

Origional= 0,619

125.5 m² (Un Strengthen)

66.24m² (S.Plate Strng)

20.92m² (FRP Strip Strng)

Figure 7- Comparison of Cracked Area

Figure 8- Crack Width Comparison

Comparsion Graph of 3-States of Bridge

DEFLECTION REDUCTION BY STRENGTHENING

15

Un Strengthe n 19,9mm

10

S.Plate Strng 3,37mm

FRP Strn. 2,74mm

Steel Plate FRP Strips Origional Structure

5

1

Load (KN/m² )

2

3

0

0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02 0,025 Displacement (m)

0

Figure 9- Deflection Comparison

Figure 10- Comparison of LD Curves

5 Conclusions After carrying out the extensive literature review about damage detection and strengthening techniques, Static analysis, 3D nonlinear analysis and strengthening of bridge using FRPs and Steel plates, it can be concluded that the Retrofitting techniques have a great influence on the service life as well as on the efficiency of structure; therefore, selection of proper strengthening technique should be given a proper consideration. Non-linear analysis gives more accurate and precise results than static analysis.