STRENGTH AND SERVICEABILITY OF FRP GRID REINFORCED

BRIDGE DECKS

By Joseph Robert Yost, P.E., and Edwin R. Schmeckpeper, P.E.

1
 CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 TEST SAMPLES & SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS 4

3 TEST RESULTS 7

4 CONCLUSIONS 9

5 REFERENCES 10

2
1. INTRODUCTION
Many bridge structures suffer from premature structural decay as a result of steel reinforcement
corrosion. The physical evidence of this problem is certainly visible in the form of rust smeared concrete,
exposed and rusted reinforcement, cracking and spalling concrete, and pothole littered deck surfaces. All
components of the bridge’s super- and substructure are vulnerable, including abutments, deck, wing
walls, piers, and pier caps. The structural concrete deck, however, is especially vulnerable owing to its
direct exposure to high concentrations of chlorides used for snow and ice removal. Typically, state
Department of Transportation (DOT) reinforcement cover and epoxy rebar mandates are not enough to
prevent the inevitable penetration of salts into the concrete deck slab. Consequently, the problem has
attracted much interest from both state and federal agencies. In particular, the congressional
Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-First Century has established research funding to investigate the
feasibility of using innovative materials in bridge construction. Innovative in this context refers to
materials that extend service life, reduce maintenance costs, and improve life-cycle cost efficiency. One
innovative material that has received much interest for reinforcing concrete in infrastructure application
is fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP). FRP concrete reinforcements are available in a number of geometric
shapes including deformed circular bars and various 2D and 3D grids and cages. The particular FRP
reinforcement used in this study is a rigid 2D grid commercially known as NEFMAC (NEFCOM Corp.,
Tokyo).

In bridge deck applications, shear strength is provided by the concrete only. Recognizing that shear
strength cannot be ‘‘boosted’’ by shear reinforcement, it is critical to understand the threshold limit-state
shear strength. In as much as bridge decks are concerned, length and depth dimensions vary little. That
is, the local state DOT typically has deck design detail sheets that specify concrete strength, deck thickness,
and amount of reinforcement as a function of effective girder spacing. As such, the required shear and
flexural strengths are provided by these standard detail sheets. It needs to be determined what the
implication of substituting the steel reinforcement with FRP is on these standard details. Strength and
serviceability must be experimentally investigated such that the feasibility of using FRP is objectively
demonstrated.

The work contained herein compliments other experimental programs where FRP gratings are
investigated for similar applications (Bank et al. 1992, 1997). Bridge deck application of carbon-fiber
NEFMAC grids have also been investigated by Benmokrane et al. (1999). Their research focused on
laboratory investigation of full-scale deck slabs and field reinforcement of a part of the Joffre Bridge

3
(located in Sherbrooke, Que., Canada) deck slab. Laboratory results were used to optimize flexural design
for the bridge application. Currently, inservice performance of the deck is reported to be excellent.

It is the purpose of this research to address the above-referenced experimental need. The program
includes testing fullscale, 216-mm (8.5-in.) deep concrete deck panels reinforced with two different types
of FRP grid reinforcements. Companion samples are loaded monotonically and cyclically to failure. Service
performance is investigated at a level corresponding to the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) HS25 live load plus impact criteria. Load-deflection, load-strain
(reinforcement and concrete), and failure modes are reported. Conclusions regarding serviceability,
design methodology, and application in bridge decks are discussed.

4
2. TEST SETUP & SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS
The 2D FRP grid used in this study is called NEFMAC (‘‘New’’ 1988; ‘‘Mechanical’’ 1990). NEFMAC is
available in rectangular sheets consisting of rigid, orthogonally intersecting longitudinal and transverse
bars. The manufacturing process used in forming NEFMAC is known as ‘‘pin-winding’’. During pin-winding
the bar cross section is developed through a redundant layering of individual fiber-resin laminations. The
reinforcing fibers and matrix resin, which form the individual FRP laminations, are mixed together during
the bathing process. The amount of fiber material is typically 40% by volume. The resulting fiber resin
composite is then guided either vertically or horizontally by spools over a grid, building up individual
longitudinal and transverse bars. The layering is repeated in alternating longitudinal and transverse
directions until the desired cross section is achieved.

Concrete for all slabs was standard Virginia DOT (VDOT) standard ‘‘post and rail’’ mix (VDOT 1990). The
mix design specifies a maximum aggregate size of 13 mm (1/2 in.), slump between 38 and 76 mm (1.5 and
3 in.), and minimum 28-day compressive strength of 27.6 MPa (4.0 ksi). The concrete was obtained by a
local ready-mix supplier. Uniaxial compression tests were conducted over a period of 120 days according
to ASTM C 39-24 (1999). This was necessary because of the extended period of the testing program.

The experimental work for this study was conducted at the Federal Highway Administration’s Turner
Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Va. A total of seven deck samples were tested: three
reinforced with H22 NEFMAC (designated H1, H2, and H3), three reinforced with C22 NEFMAC (designated
C4, C5, and C6), and a single control reinforced with No. 5 Grade 60 steel rebar (designated S7). The sample
depth (216 mm, or 8.5 in.) and span (2.44 m, or 8 ft) were selected as typical for highway bridge deck
thickness and girder spacing, respectively. In this context, the 1.22m (4-ft) dimension corresponds to the
direction of traffic, perpendicular to which the main flexural reinforcement is placed. Load was applied
over an area of 254 X 635 mm (10 X 25 in.). These dimensions were selected as per AASHTO Art. 3.30
(1996) and represent the truck tire contact area. The steel sample (S7) was loaded monotonically to
failure. For each group of three NEFMAC samples, one was loaded monotonically (H2 and C5) and the
remaining two were loaded cyclically (H1, H3, C4, and C6).

Flexure reinforcement was provided in the tension zone only. Clear cover to the reinforcement was 25.4
mm (1 in.). All NEFMAC samples were reinforced with 11 longitudinal bars equally spaced at 100 mm (4
in.). The control steel sample was reinforced with 11 No. 5 Grade 60 bars equally spaced at 112 mm (4.4
in.). For all NEFMAC samples, transverse and longitudinal bar spacing was 100 mm (4 in.). All samples were

5
instrumented with strain gauges located on the concrete and bottom of the reinforcement. Strain gauges
were located at the planarmetric center of the slab. Deflection measurements were made using linear
variable deflection transducers.

Using the allowable stress method, the slab moment strength Mallow is calculated with respect to limiting
material stresses and elastic analysis. Setting the concrete and reinforcement material stresses at their
respective allowable limits defines the balanced service stress reinforcement ratio pbs, which is calculated
as follows:

The allowable service moment strength Mallow is then calculated as follows:

For p < pbs:

For p > pbs:

Ultimate limit-state sample flexural strength Mn is calculated relative to a balanced strain condition at
ultimate pb. As per ACI 10.2.7.1, a rectangular compression block of constant depth a is assumed in the
concrete. From strain compatibility and force equilibrium, the balanced strain design is calculated as
follows:

6
3. TEST RESULTS
Test results are summarized in Table 3. The shear span to depth ratio (av /d) for all slabs was about 5.5,
classifying them as ‘‘intermediate length beams.’’ Failure of intermediate beams usually occurs as a result
of diagonal cracking (diagonal-tension shear failure) and flexural deficiencies. Considering that the
NEFMAC samples are overreinforced, flexural compression failure is to be expected. The steel sample is
underreinforced and expected to fail as a result of steel yield.

The serviceability results identified above suggest that deflection may be more of a limiting factor in
design than strength. As was shown, all NEFMAC samples were in violation of the referenced deflection
service limit state. It may be necessary to further reduce allowable stress limits on the concrete, thus
increasing reinforcement density so that service deflections are consistent with imposed limits. Also,
reducing stress will increase relative deformability, thus increasing energy absorption. It remains to be
determined what the appropriate service stress limits for FRP-reinforced bridge decks should be such that
this mandate is achieved.

Alternatively, the unified design provisions presented in Appendix B of ACI 318-99 may potentially be used
as the basis for design. Because NEFMAC-reinforced slabs are recommended to be overreinforced with
respect to the balanced design condition, the strain in the concrete will be expected to reach the code
specified limit of 0.003 prior to the strain in the FRP reaching its ultimate limit. The NEFMAC-reinforced
slabs therefore satisfy the ACI definition for a compressioncontrolled section and may be designed using
the strength reduction factor Φflexure = 0.70 as specified in section B.9.3.2.2-b for flexure. Using the ACI

7
provisions, the nominal moment capacity would be multiplied by the flexural strength reduction factor
and this value compared to the service load moments, which have been multiplied by appropriate load
magnification factors.

8
4. CONCLUSIONS
NEFMAC grids are a potentially viable replacement for steel as structural reinforcement for concrete
bridge decks. However, there are several problems that will influence the acceptance of NEFMAC as
reinforcement for concrete bridge decks. First, the modulus of elasticity of NEFMAC is considerably lower
than that of steel. The lower elastic modulus results in larger deflections than in steel-reinforced concrete
members of equal strength. These larger deflections and greater crack widths result in deflection violation
at service and weaker shear strength at ultimate. As shear reinforcement is typically absent in bridge
decks, it is critical that threshold shear strength limits be clearly understood. Second, the elastic-brittle
behavior of the FRP reinforcements suggest that ultimate limit-state flexural strength should be controlled
by concrete crushing and not reinforcement failure. As such, NEFMAC-reinforced sections will be
overreinforced with respect to a balanced design at ultimate. The result will be low working stress levels
in the reinforcement and a high degree of reserve strength. Additional research is necessary to establish

appropriate service stress limits, strength reduction factors, and load magnification factors. Finally, the
greater cross-sectional area of the NEFMAC grid, compared to steel reinforcements, requires that
reinforcement anchorage provisions be considered. This is especially true for the H22 NEFMAC grid and
could potentially suggest that a physical size limit on the reinforcement be mandated if structural depth
is to remain unchanged from existing standard DOT bridge design detail sheets.

9
5. REFERENCES
• American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1996). ‘‘Standard
specifications for highway bridges.’’ 16th Ed., Washington, D.C.
• American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (1991). ‘‘Draft revisions
to the standard specifications for highway bridges.’’ Draft 15th Ed., Washington, D.C.
• American Concrete Institute (ACI). (1999). ‘‘Building code requirements for structural concrete
and commentary.’’ ACI 318-99, ACI 318R-99, Detroit.
• ASTM. (1990). ‘‘Standard test method for volatiles content of epoxy matrix prepeg.’’ ASTM D
3590-90, West Conshohocken, Pa.
• ASTM. (1999). ‘‘C39/C39M-99 standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens.’’ ASTM C 39-99, West Conshohocken, Pa.
• Bank, L. C., Yehoshua, F., and Shapira, A. (1997). ‘‘Three-dimensional fiber-reinforced plastic
grating cages for concrete beams: A pilot study.’’ ACI Struct. J., 94(6), 643–652.
• Bank, L. C., Zuhan, X., and Munley, E. (1992). ‘‘Tests of full-size pultruded FRP grating reinforced
concrete bridge decks.’’ Proc., Mat.: Perf. and Prevention of Deficiencies and Failures; Mat. Engrg.
Congr., ASCE, Reston, Va., 618–630.
• Benmokrane, B., Masmoudi, R., Chekired, M., Rahman, H., Debbache, Z., and Tadros, G. (1999).
‘‘Design, construction, and monitoring of fiber reinforced polymer reinforced concrete bridge
deck.’’ Proc., 4th Int. Symp. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete
Struct., American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 87–102.
• Lee, S. L., Mansur, M. A., Tan, K. H., and Kasiraju, K. (1989). ‘‘Cracking behavior of one-way slabs
reinforced with welded wire fabric.’’ ACI Struct. J., 86(2), 481–491.
• ‘‘Mechanical properties of NEFMAC.’’ (1990). NEFCOM Corp., Tokyo.
• Nanni, A. (1993). ‘‘Flexural behavior and design of RC members using FRP reinforcement.’’ J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 119(11), 3344–3359.
• Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). (1990). ‘‘Standard specifications for bridge and
highway construction.’’ Richmond, Va.

10