Reinforcing Concrete Bridge Decks

with Prefabricated FRP Grids and

Stay-in-place Formwork
Michael Oliva,
Lawrence Bank, Jeffrey Russell
Mack Conachen and F. Greg Ehmke
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

April 2005
 Presentation Topics

1. Design Techniques and

Specifications.

2. New highway bridge deck

with FRP stay-in-place (SIP)
formwork and reinforcing
(2003).

3. New highway bridge deck

with very large prefabricated
FRP grids (2004).
 Design with FRP:
Techniques

ACI 440 (2003):

Guide for the Design and Construction of
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars
 FRP Performance Specifications

Available WisDOT Special Provisions

IBRC I: Project I.D. 1420-08-74, Bridge B-20-133
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Deck Form, Stay-In-Place, Item 90002C
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Grid Reinforcement, Item 90002D
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bar, Item 90007A

IBRC II: Project I.D. 1420-05-71, Bridge B-20-148

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement Cage, Item 90031G
 FRP Performance
Specifications

Table 2. Reporting Requirements for Constituent Materials of FRP Reinforcement

ITEM TYPE MANUFACTURER SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS
Fiber E-glass roving type E-glass roving manufacturer NA
E-glass fabric type(s) E-glass fabric manufacturer NA
E-glass mat type E-glass mat manufacturer type NA
Veil Surface veil type Surface veil manufacturer NA
Resin Vinylester type(s) Vinylester manufacturer NA
Styrene type Styrene manufacturer pph (less than 10 pph resin)
Filler Filler type Filler manufacturer pph (less than 20 pph resin)
Additives Shrink additive type Shrink additive manufacturer pph (less than 10 pph resin)
Process Pultrusion die temperature NA NA
Date of production NA NA
Lot size NA NA
 FRP Performance
Specifications
Table 1. Limiting Properties for FRP Formwork Panel
Material Property GV2 GV3
Longitudinal Tensile Strength (min) 552 MPa 414 MPa
Transverse Tensile Strength (min) 28 MPa 28 MPa
Longitudinal Compressive Strength (min) 552 MPa 414 MPa
Transverse Compressive Strength (min) 69 MPa 69 MPa
Longitudinal Flexural Strength (min) 552 MPa 414 MPa
Long. Short Beam Shear Strength (min) 38 MPa 35 MPa
Longitudinal Tensile Modulus (min) 31 GPa 28 GPa
Longitudinal Compressive Modulus (min) 28 GPa 21 GPa
In-Plane Shear Stiffness (min) 3 GPa 2 GPa
Major (longitudinal) Poisson Ratio (min) 0.25 0.25
Fiber Volume Fraction (min) 45% 45%
Longitudinal Fiber Fraction (min) 75% 40%
Barcol Hardness (min) 50 50
Glass Transition Temperature (min) 95°C 95°C
Water absorption (max) 1.50% 2.00%
Longitudinal CTE (max) x 10 -6 /°C 11 11
Transverse CTE (max) x 10 -6 /°C 54 54
FRP Performance
Specifications

Performance test for grid

 FRP Performance Specifications

Unique FRP Performance Spec Attributes

• Certified Quality Control testing performed
by Material Supplier
– Materials as individual items and as units
– Constructability testing
• Quality Assurance testing performed by
UW-Madison
• Sole Supplier and Prequalification
 Bridge #1
IBRC - 2003
• Two 33m spans
• 14 m wide
• 2 lanes of traffic
• 5 prestressed
concrete girders
• 32° skew
• twin bridges
• 18000 ADT
Bridge cross section
 FRP Reinforcing System

composite stay-in-place deck form panel also acts as

transverse bottom reinforcing for deck flexure
 FRP Reinforcing System

FRP prefabricated grid acts as

transverse top reinforcing for deck flexure
 FRP Reinforcing System

FRP reinforcing bar as needed for:

T&S crack control,
-M continuity reinforcing over center pier
 FRP Reinforcing System

FRP grid
top reinf.

FRP rebar
FRP deck
form bottom
reinf.
 Haunches
Prestressed
Rigid polyurethane foam haunch Concrete girder

Stirrup Lifting hook

 Placing FRP deck
panels
Ends cut for 32° skew

acts as bottom reinforcing

 Haunch and grout

Cell ends filled with foam Overhang

formwork

Polyurethane
haunch Grout- under sip form
 FRP rebar
Epoxy coated rebar
in parapet

FRP rebar
-M continuity over Plastic continuous chair
mid-pier
 FRP grid – top reinf.

Epoxy coated wire FRP grid T-bar

Mechanical
Splice FRP 13mm FRP grid
connector rebar cross rod
Concrete pour

Deck poured in 4 hours

 Structural testing
conducted prior to design

140
120
100
Load, kips

80
60
40
11'-6" Span, Ult. = 96 kips 9'-10" Span, Ult. = 87 kips
20
8'-0" Span, Ult. = 91 kips C2 8'-0" Span, Ult. = 130 kips
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Center Deflection, in.
 Quality assurance testing
conducted after materials
delivered
• FRP Manufacturer Test Reports
• Longitudinal Tension
• Longitudinal Short Beam Shear
• Fiber Volume Fraction
• Water Absorption
• Aggregate Distribution
• Dimensional Tolerance
 Cost and Labor Data

Cost Comparison FRP Steel % Difference

2
Total Sq. Ft. Cost ($/ft ) 70.49 43.64 61.5%
2
Deck Sq. Ft. Cost ($/ft ) 38.63 13.26 191.4%

Productivity Comparison FRP Steel % Difference

Laborer hours 310 713 -56.5%
Equipment hours 35 50 -30.0%
 Lessons Learned

•FRP reinforcing is a viable option for bridge construction. Bridge

is currently open to traffic.

•FRP bridge had higher installed cost, but required fewer

equipment and labor hours. We anticipate improved long-term
durability.

•The FRP stay-in-place form was the most expensive component

(~65% of all FRP material costs) and was shown to be “over-
designed” during lab testing.
 Acknowledgements

• Alfred Benesch Co. – Design Engineer

• CH2MHill – on-site Resident Engineer
• Diversified Composites – FRP SIP deck manufacturer
• FHWA – funding
• Hughes Brothers, Inc. – FRP rebar manufacturer
• Lunda Construction – Bridge contractor
• Strongwell – FRP grid manufacturer
• University of Wisconsin at Madison – Conducted research
• Wisconsin Department of Transportation – Owner of bridge
 Bridge #2
IBRC - 2004
• Single 40 m span
• 14 m wide
• 2 lanes of traffic
• 7 prestressed
bulb-Tee
concrete girders
• twin bridges
• 18000 ADT
Bridge cross section

5.6% cross slope

 FRP Reinforcing System

Entire reinforcing made up of:

double layer 3-D prefabricated FRP grid

shipped in 44 ft by 8 ft wide panels to

span full width across bridge deck
 FRP Reinforcing System
Double layer grid
fabrication

Shear connector

Cross bar
Main bar

Overlap “splice” between

panels in longitudinal
direction of bridge
 Prefab FRP Grids
Delivered to Bridge Site
 Haunch
Note: very small formed “span” between
wide flanges
 Placing FRP grid
panels
10 to 12 minutes to set
Each grid panel

Steel rebar deck FRP grid deck

 Placing FRP grid
panels

All grid panels placed in 1-1/2 days

Before concrete pour
Placing parapet bars
 Concrete pour
Very easy to walk and work on top grid!
 Structural testing
conducted prior to design

220
Specimen 8 Specimen 1: Top Pot. Specimen 7: Top LVDT
200
*Did not achieve failure. Specimen 2: Top Pot. Specimen 8: Top LVDT
180 Specimen 3: Top Pot.

160
Specimen 7
140 Specimen 1
Load (k)

120
Specimen 2
100
Specimen 3
80

60

40

20 16 kip Service Load

0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
Displacement (in)
 Quality assurance testing
conducted after materials
delivered

Main Bar Cross Bar Shear Connector

Tensile testing
 Cost and Labor Data

Cost Comparison FRP Steel % Difference

Total Sq. Ft. Cost ($/ft2) 76.66 57.20 34.0%
Deck Sq. Ft. Cost ($/ft2) 31.33 11.54 171.5%

Productivity Comparison FRP Steel % Difference

Laborer hours 111 239 -53.6%
Equipment hours 21.5 32 -32.8%
 Load Testing

University of Missouri-Rolla test

Prisms

Deflection measure with total station

 Lessons Learned

•FRP bridge had higher installed cost, but required fewer

equipment and labor hours. We anticipate improved long-term
durability.

•IBRC II bridge deck costs were 81% of the IBRC I bridge deck
costs (IBRC I: $38.63/s.f. IBRC II: $31.33/s.f.)

•Shear connectors represented ~30% of FRP reinforcing cost.

•Use alternative method of forming gap between girders to reduce

labor costs further.
 Acknowledgements

• Alfred Benesch Co. – Design Engineer

• FHWA – funding
• Lunda Construction – Bridge Contractor
• Strongwell – FRP grid manufacturer
• University of Wisconsin at Madison – Conducted
research
• Wisconsin Department of Transportation – Owner
of bridge
• University of Missouri-Rolla – Load testing
 IBRC 3 project
2005, US I-90/Door Creek, single span, 64.5 ft,
steel girders, precast full-depth deck panel

½ scale test to prove composite action

 Modified System
Greene County - Missouri
Grid system –
Upside down

1/8” SIP FRP

Bottom form
 Modified System
Greene County - Missouri

Loading 3-D grid and

bottom sheet form with sand
to model deflection with
wet concrete
 New Research - IBRC-4 idea

• Deep arch action with “W” girders:

Lateral
Constraint
Thank you