This study explores innovative applications of concrete formwork reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars in bridge deck construction. Two distinct formwork variants were designed: a non-structural type (designated as Type S), serving primarily as a technological aid, and a structural type (Type P), which actively collaborates with the reinforcement system of the bridge deck. The clear span capabilities of the formworks are 1.5 m for Type S and 3.4 m for Type P, with respective thicknesses of 4 cm and 7 cm. These geometrical parameters were tailored to meet the specific requirements of two separate bridge construction projects. Prior to integration into the bridge structures, the formworks underwent performance verification: Type S was evaluated under actual construction site conditions, whereas Type P was subjected to laboratory testing. The Type S formwork was utilized in a composite steel–concrete bridge employing a 52-m-long frame system, while Type P was incorporated into a composite bridge with a continuous beam design, extending to a total length of 200 m.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Innovative Solutions for Stay-In-Place Formwork Reinforced with GFRP Bars for Bridge Structures

  • Aleksander Duda

摘要

This study explores innovative applications of concrete formwork reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars in bridge deck construction. Two distinct formwork variants were designed: a non-structural type (designated as Type S), serving primarily as a technological aid, and a structural type (Type P), which actively collaborates with the reinforcement system of the bridge deck. The clear span capabilities of the formworks are 1.5 m for Type S and 3.4 m for Type P, with respective thicknesses of 4 cm and 7 cm. These geometrical parameters were tailored to meet the specific requirements of two separate bridge construction projects. Prior to integration into the bridge structures, the formworks underwent performance verification: Type S was evaluated under actual construction site conditions, whereas Type P was subjected to laboratory testing. The Type S formwork was utilized in a composite steel–concrete bridge employing a 52-m-long frame system, while Type P was incorporated into a composite bridge with a continuous beam design, extending to a total length of 200 m.