The Applicability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bridge Decks in

Sustainable Bridge Design

Brandon Weaver
















Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering

Drexel University

Fall 2011



Abstract


The Applicability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bridge Decks in
Sustainable Bridge Design



Brandon Weaver



Fiber reinforced polymer bridge decks are undergoing significant research because of
their advantages to traditional reinforced concrete bridge decks. Fiber reinforced polymer
composites offer great strength and stiffness-to-weight ratios, a reduced construction time, and
improved corrosion resistance. Despite their high initial cost they typically incur lower
maintenance costs and exhibit a longer service life because of their environmental deterioration
resistance. In addition, their reduced dead load on the structure can help support a greater live
load, or reduce the structural supporting members.
The use of fiber reinforced polymer bridge decks may greatly aid in the rehabilitation of
many of the country's structurally deficient bridges. This paper will examine the feasibility of
using fiber reinforced polymer bridge decks rather than the traditional steel reinforced concrete
bridge decks in bridge rehabilitation applications. As well as current applications and cost
assessment, it will present current testing methods, and areas of concern.









Table of Contents







































List of Tables













































List of Figures













































I. Introduction

With the current state of the American infrastructure, many bridges are in dire need of
rehabilitation. Based on ASCE's most recent report card, completed in 2009, over a quarter of the
nation's bridges have been listed as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. This
equivalent to approximately 162,000 bridges across the country [ASCE]. Although these bridges
are not often dangerous, they do not meet current demand. This limited capacity often results in
greater congestion and an increased travel time. In order to address these concerns much research
has been poured into innovating the design and construction of these bridges.
One such design innovation is the use of fiber reinforced polymers as a material for
bridge decks and super structures instead of the conventional reinforced concrete and steel
designs. Many researchers have been studying the feasibility of designing and retrofitting bridges
with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) decks or superstructures because of their impressive
structural and environmental qualities. The use of structural composites offers improvements in
areas where steel and concrete are lacking. Current steel structures often deteriorate largely due
to corrosion. After time the strength and durability of steel decays as the metal is corroded away.
Concrete often decays due to cracking as water penetrates concrete and expands under frozen
conditions. FRP composites should be considered in sustainable bridge deign as they require
little maintenance over their long service lifetime.

II. Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymers
Fiber reinforced polymer composites are produced of primarily two element. These
include a polymer matrix resin and reinforced fibers. The polymer resin is molded in a liquid
state then chemically cured to into a solid. The reinforcing fibers are typically E-glass or high
strength carbon, as they are most economically feasible. Currently there are several different
types of FRP bridge decks. They are highly customizable as they are often produced using molds
in manufacturing plants, which can then be shipped to the site. The first type of bridge deck is a
honeycomb sandwich. It is composed of vertical honeycomb core that is adhered to two
facesheets. A second type of FRP bridge decks are solid sandwich core. These decks are filled
with foam or other lightweight filler between two facesheets. They are often manufactured using
vacuum assisted resin transfer molding methods. Typically, however, the most common FRP
deck choice is a hollow sandwich core. They are composed of horizontally pultruded hollow core
patterns.
Compared to reinforced concrete, fiber reinforced polymer composites exhibit different,
and often beneficial structural properties. An advantage of fiber reinforced polymers is that they
do not often exhibit these same qualities seen in concrete or steel. In addition they also provide
many other benefits. These benefits include light weight, corrosion resistance, reduced
installation time, as well as high strength and durability. The largest load on a bridge is the dead
load of the structure itself. By using fiber reinforced polymers, the dead load can be greatly
reduced from a standard reinforced concrete design. A FRP bridge deck weighs about ten to
twenty percent compared to a reinforced concrete deck of similar load rating [1]. This results in
many beneficial outcomes. The bridge can accept a higher load rating or if the structure is
deemed deficient it may become adequate as the structural supporting members are subject to a
much reduced stress. A lighter load can also mean smaller design modifications for the
foundation. Along with light weight they provide a very high strength to weight ratio, however,
FRP composites typically exhibit less stiffness than traditional steel. As a result structural
deflections are a large performance criteria in designing a FRP bridge deck [1]. Unlike concrete,
FRP composites can take both compressive and tensile stresses, thus broadening their
applications. The strength of FRP composites can vary widely and depends on several factors
including fiber type and orientation, resin type, percent volume of fiber to resin, manufacturing
style, and the bonding adhesive.
Another large benefit of FRP bridge decks is their resistance to corrosion. Water
penetration is a major concern of concrete reinforced bridge decks. One reason this is a large
concern is that over time steel corrodes due to expose with the elements. This corrosion of the
steel is a primary means of deterioration in the reinforced concrete deck. Another major cause of
deck deterioration occurs when water penetrates the concrete and then later freezes. When the
water freezes, it expands. Over time repeated contractions and expansions cause cracking as
concrete is not very effective in tension. Standard reinforced concrete decks are especially
vulnerable in cold climate locations where there are many freeze thaw cycles or coastal areas
where salt water is present. Composite materials including FRP have proven themselves durable
in corrosive environments due to their low void content. This allows for a longer service lifetime
of approximately 75-100 years as composites can resist the deterioration that typically plagues
traditional design [1].
A quick installation time is another attractive component of FRP bridge decks. Much
like precast concrete, fiber reinforced polymers are created in a manufacturing plant where the
quality can be closely monitored. The FRP deck panels however weigh much less than their
reinforced concrete counterparts. This will also prove beneficial in transport and assembly of the
deck panels. When the panels arrive on site they can easily be hoisted and placed on the girders,
which they will then be secured. A shear key is then placed between panels to provide rigid
support and continuity. This process is much faster than the standard cast-in-place concrete,
which requires time consuming formwork, rebar, and concrete curing. The reduced installation
time is very cost beneficial, as it greatly reduces the traffic impacts.

III. FRP Deck Applications Today
Although still presently under extensive research, the world of FRP bridges has grown to
provide viable solutions for many applications. Today there are close to 100 bridge projects that
have been rehabilitated using polymer composites. Currently FRP bridge decks provide great
solutions for applications where weight is a large concern. These applications include movable
bridges, historic retrofits, protecting the superstructure from open grate decks, and pedestrian
deck additions. Movable bridges are often great candidates for FRP bridge decks because they
require a low dead load to optimize the operational cost of the mechanical equipment. These
style of bridges can often be found on the East Coast of the United States, near marine
waterways. Due to the environmental nature of the areas FRP decks provide a better solution
than the weight comparable steel grating because it is corrosion resistant unlike steel. Historic
retrofits also fit the need for FRP decks because many communities would like to preserve
historical bridges instead of replacing them. Unfortunately many of these bridges were not
designed to handle current capacity or have simply deteriorated to a degree as to limit the load
rating. Using FRP composite decks can significantly reduce the dead load and accommodate
current vehicular demand.
Currently many bridges concerned with excessive weight use a steel grating deck system.
There are several problematic issues with steel grating. They allow the superstructure to be
exposed to water, salts, chemicals and other debris that can have detrimental effects.
Additionally the teeth within the steel grating deteriorate over time. This proves especially
dangerous in inclement weather where vehicles can lose traction from the already limited contact
area between the steel grating and tire. Another issue with open steel grating is that it creates
noise as vehicles drive over the bridge, which can be problematic for nearby businesses.
Although open steel grating provides a light weight decking option of 17-28 lb/ft
2
, FRP decking
provides an enclosed option at 16-20 lb/ft
2
[1]. Because they are enclosed, FRP decks protect the
superstructure, limit road noise, and provide greater traction.
Another great candidate for FRP bridge decks includes pedestrian deck additions. With
the population growth of many riverfront communities, pedestrian access is becoming a priority.
It is often much more feasible to construct a cantilevered pedestrian bridge off an existing
structure rather than construct a new bridge [1]. In order for a cantilevered bridge to be viable,
the dead load must be minimized to mitigate the stress on the existing super structure. For this
reason FRP decks provide excellent option.

IV. Economic Viability
The economic feasibility of FRP bridges has gathered much research in recent years. As
an emerging construction technology there is much promise that FRP composites will be able to
cut costs while providing a more sustainable bridge design. Unfortunately it is difficult to fully
understand the cost comparison as structural FRP materials are only manufactured be a handful
of companies. Currently the FRP bridge decks are customized for each project. If eventually
widely accepted as a bridge material, costs may drop due further manufacturing standards and
design codes. When comparing the cost of FRP bridge decks and conventional reinforced
concrete decks the best approach is to use a life cycle cost analysis [15]. This includes factoring
in the initial, maintenance, and disposal costs.
Initial Costs are often regarded the most important consideration in bridge construction.
Components of the initial cost include materials, manufacturing, shipment, and installation. If
FRP composite decks are compared to convention reinforced concrete decks solely based on
initial costs, reinforced concrete would be more economical. Currently the material costs of
reinforcing fiber and matrix resin greatly outweigh that of steel and concrete. On the other hand,
FRP remains more economical with the indirect aspects of initial cost.
Maintenance is a large expenditure, but unfortunately it is often overlooked in today's
bridge design. Maintenance includes material and installation of repairs, inspections, and user
costs. The cost to maintain FRP deck bridge has proven more economical than standard
reinforced concrete, largely due to the amount of repair work over the design lifetime.
Disposal costs are also undervalued in bridge construction. At the end of a structure's
lifetime, it often must be demolished and removed from the site in order to allow for a
replacement. Even with current practices, FRP composite decks prove more economically
feasible to dispose than conventional reinforced concrete [14].

V. Environmental Effects
FRP composites are relatively new to the civil engineering industry and thus do not have
the extensive research and understanding much like conventional steel and reinforced concrete
structures. One of the main reasons designers have been skeptical to utilize FRP bridge decks is
because there are no well accepted standards of the material. Many researchers have been
evaluating different testing methods in order to develop material correlations and standards for
structural FRP composites. In order to understand the application of various testing methods, it is
crucial to understand the environmental effects and typical defects in FRP materials.
Various environmental loads include thermal effects, radiation, chemicals, moisture
penetration, fire, creep, and fatigue. Cyclical changes in temperature have the potential for
adverse effect on FRP composite materials. Composites are made from two or more material
components. These separate components often have different coefficients of thermal expansion,
which expand and contract at varying degrees. Over time this can cause micro cracking between
the polymer matrix resin and the reinforcing fiber. Ultraviolet radiation can also be detrimental
to FRP materials. Continuing exposure may lead to matrix hardening or change in pigmentation.
Fortunately UV radiation only affects the outermost several microns of the exposed surface,
however this may be critical for thin sections. Additionally UV resistive coatings may be applied
to the FRP to limit the exposure. Long term contact with chemicals may also lead to
deterioration of the material. "Particularly alkaline solutions have been known to effect glass
reinforcing fibers, as they will transition into expansive silica gels" [18]. Moisture accumulation
may present problems as the shear strength can be reduced as the moisture makes its way
through the polymer matrix resin. This is not a large concern as it would take a long expose
period to see such adverse effect because the void content of the FRP composite is very low. Fire
and extreme heat has the potential to pose significant damage to FRP materials. Polymers lose
their stiffness at high temperatures and transform into viscoelastic materials as they approach the
glass transition temperature [2]. Additionally toxic gases will be released as the polymer is
burned. In order to mitigate the risk of fires, additives can be mixed into the matrix resin that
inhibit the combustion of polymers.
Although the previous environmental loads can have adverse effects on FRP bridge
decks, the biggest concerns with FRP composites are their ability to resist creep and fatigue.
Constant loading of a structure induces small plastic deformation over a long time, known as
creep. The design of current FRP decks are largely controlled by creep. The amount of creep can
be measured by examining the change in deck deflection over time. On the other hand fatigue
occurs due to cyclical loading. After a long period, repeated loadings cause micro-cracking in the
material, which eventually expand and lead to failure of the structure. To date there is limited
knowledge on the fatigue behavior of FRP bridge decks [18]. In order to create a widely
acceptable standard, the testing of such effects are imperative.

VI. Potential Defects
Related to the various loads and environmental effects there are defects that may occur in the
FRP material. These defects can be both surface and subsurface. They can also be created during
the manufacturing process or occur while in operation. They include: blistering, voids,
discoloration, wrinkling, fiber exposure, cracks, and scratches.
Blistering is the result of moisture accumulation that occurs between layers of the
laminate surface. The defect resembles bubbles that have formed on the surface. The cause of
blistering in FRP composites is not fully understood, but may be due to the effect of freeze-thaw
cycles. As the water within the layers expands it creates a pressure on the outer surface. With
nothing to resist this force, a bubble is formed.
Voids are air pockets where layers of laminate have disbonded. Most voids are created
during the manufacturing process. They are often rarely detected unless special inspection
techniques are utilized as they are often interior defects. Voids are one of the main defects
affecting structural integrity. For this reason, extensive testing techniques are crucial to expose
these defects to assess their potential harm.
Discoloration refers to the change in color or pigmentation of the FRP composite. It may
be caused by a variety of reasons including UV radiation, reactions with chemicals, and extreme
temperatures. Typically discoloration does not have a significant impact on the structural
integrity, however it should not be overlooked.
Wrinkling of the reinforcing fiber sheets is due to errors in manufacturing. Sheets become
wrinkled while stretched or sheared. This type of defect does not usually affect the integrity of
the material unless it prohibits proper bonding.
Fiber exposure is often a manufacturing and handling defect where reinforcing fibers near
the surface become exposed and appear frayed. This type of defect can easily become
detrimental to the structure as various environmental effects are easily able to penetrate the
exposed area. This will lead to further deterioration of the fibers and the bond with the polymer
matrix resin.
Cracks are visible defects located on the facesheets that are often the result of high
impact loads, and usually occur during operation of the bridge deck. They are noted by a material
division in the outer layer of the composite. They can play significant roles in the structural
capacity if given time to permeate by fatigue.
Scratches may occur in the facesheets during improper handling and installation. They
are the result of contact with tools or other materials that have a greater hardness than the FRP
composite. Typically these are not serious defects, however some deeper scratches may turn into
cracks with the addition of environmental effects.



VII. Inspection
Various method of testing are required for the necessary for the standardization of codes
for bridge decks using FRP composites. It is crucial to determine a correlation between defect
and the effect on the structural integrity. Fortunately many of the testing techniques that are
utilized by conventional reinforced concrete decks can also be applied to FRP decks. It is
important to note these inspection methods are nondestructive and do not compromise the
structure's usability.
Visual inspections are the most common form of inspection as they are the most
inexpensive. They provide very basic information that can only be obtained from the surface of
the FRP material. Typical defects found in visual inspections include blistering, fiber exposure,
cracks, discoloration, and scratches [18].
Tap testing is the next prominent testing technique as it is also very economical and
effective. Tap testing can be used to detect shallow subsurface defects such as delaminations and
voids. Using a hammer, an inspector taps the FRP material and listens for changes in sound
frequency [18].
Infrared imaging utilizes an artificial heat source to uniformly heat the surface of the
material and then measures changes in temperature throughout the member using a digital
infrared camera. Subsurface defects such as voids and disbonds can be located as they create
discontinuities in the thermal gradient [3]. Unfortunately this method of inspecting is rather
expensive due to the equipment required.
Acoustic testing uses the knowledge that stress waves develop in a material when an
elastic wave is created in the material. Acoustic testing can detect the presence of voids,
disbonds, fiber breakage, and delaminations [18].
Ultrasonic testing utilizes high-frequency sound to determine the location of various
subsurface defects. Typical defects that are found using ultrasonic testing include voids,
disbonds, broken fibers, and delaminations [18]. Ultrasonic testing is expensive and should only
be conducted after a visual inspection or tap test under knowledge of an existing defect.
Radiography utilizes X-rays and other penetrating radiation to locate defects. The
discontinuities in the member will appear variances in the absorption of the radiation.
Radiography provides a great resolution of the defect, but is unable to distinguish aspects of its
depth. This testing method can be used to locate voids, delaminations, and broken fibers.
Modal analysis is an inspection method by health monitoring. It uses accelerometers to
assess the dynamic response of a bridge deck. This response is then compared to a baseline finite
element model of the design and the integrity of structural members are evaluated [18].
Load testing evaluates the structural integrity of the deck using accelerometers, strain
gages, and displacement sensors. The deck is loaded with a standardized pattern and then data
from the various sensors is compared with the design.

Comparison

(to be finished)


[18] pg. 62


VII. Conclusion

(to be finished)



























IX. References


[1] Reeve, Scott. "FRP bridges - 14 years and counting." Reinforced Plastics.
January/February 2010.

[2] Casssity, Patrick. "Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bridge Decks."
(http://www.nabro.unl.edu/articles/20000805/index.asp)

[3] Halabe, U.B.; Vasudevan, A.; GangaRao, H.V.S.; Klinkhachorn, P.; Shives, G.L.
"Nondestructive evaluation of fiber reinforced polymer bridge decks using digital infrared
imaging," System Theory, 2003. Proceedings of the 35th Southeastern Symposium on , vol.,
no., pp. 372- 375, 16-18 March 2003 doi: 10.1109/SSST.2003.1194594
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=119
4594&isnumber=26860

[14] Sahirman, Sidharta. "FRP bridge deck life cycle cost analyzer." Taylor & Francis Group,
London, UK. 2008.

[15] Sahirman, Sidharta. "Evaluation of the Economic Feasibility of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Bridge Decks." ISPA/SCEA International Joint Conference, Orlando, Florida. June
2003.

[18] "Field Inspection of In-Service FRP Bridge Decks." NCHRP Report 564. 2006.



(Currently Unused)

Stallings, J., J. Tedesco, M. El-Mihilmy, and M. McCauley. "Field Performance of Bridge
Repairs." Journal of Bridge Engineering. (2000): 107-113. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.
<http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=
JBENF2000005000002000107000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1061/(ASCE)1084-
0702(2000)5:2(107)&prog=normal>.

Kumar, Prakash, K. Chandrashekhara, and Antonio Nanni. "Structural performance of a FRP
bridge deck." Construction and Building Materials. 18. (2004): 35-47. Print.

Berg, Adam, Lawrence Bank, Michael Oliva, and Jeffrey Russell. "Construction and cost
analysis of an FRP reinforced concrete bridge deck." Construction and Building Materials.
20. (2006): 516-526. Print.

Berman, Adam, and David L. Brown. "Field Monitoring and Repair of a Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Bridge Deck." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 24. (2010): 215-
222. Print.

Alampalli, Sreenivas, and Jonathan Kunin. "Load Testing of an FRP Bridge Deck on a Truss
Bridge." Applied Composite Materials. 10. (2003): 85-102. Print.


Liu, Zihong, Tommy E. Cousins, John J. Lesko, and Elisa D. Sotelino. Design
"Recommendations for a FRP Bridge Deck Supported on Steel Superstructure." Journal of
Composites for Construction. 12. (2008): 660-668. Print.

Hong, Taehoon, and Makarand Hastak. "Simulation study on construction process of FPR bridge
deck panels." Automation in Construction. 16. (2007): 620-631. Print.