Construction

and Building

Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Construction and cost analysis of an FRP reinforced

concrete bridge deck
Adam C. Berg, Lawrence C. Bank *, Michael G. Oliva, Jeffrey S. Russell
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA

Received 10 December 2003; received in revised form 15 February 2005; accepted 19 February 2005
Available online 7 April 2005

Abstract

This paper describes the use of FRP materials as reinforcements and formwork for a concrete highway bridge deck. It describes
the construction process and provides a cost analysis of the project. A continuing research program at the University of Wisconsin–
Madison is developing concepts for bridge decks reinforced with fiber reinforced polymers (FRP). This project involved the imple-
mentation of one of these concepts in a major highway bridge. Three forms of FRP reinforcing were combined to reinforce the con-
crete deck: FRP stay-in-place (SIP) forms, deformed FRP reinforcing bars (rebars), and a special prefabricated pultruded FRP
reinforcing grid. The research project, supported by the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program (IBRC) in the Uni-
ted States, resulted in the construction of a two-span highway overpass on US Highway 151 in Wisconsin. Based on the analysis of
the short-term material and labor costs it appears that given the savings in construction time and their potential long-term durability
and maintenance benefits, FRP reinforcements for bridge decks may be cost-effective, notwithstanding their currently high initial
costs. Optimization of FRP stay-in-place formwork is recommended to decrease the cost of the FRP reinforcing system in the
future.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Concrete bridge deck; Cost analysis; Construction process; FRP reinforcing; Stay-in-place formwork

1. Introduction ventional steel in bridge decks. A review of recent appli-

Corrosion of reinforcing steel is a main cause of
deterioration of reinforced concrete bridge decks.
Freeze–thaw cycles cause concrete cracking followed
by corrosion and deterioration, limiting the lifespan of
the bridge deck. The University of Wisconsin–Madison
has worked in cooperation with the Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Transportation (WisDOT), the Federal High-
way Administration (FHWA), and Alfred Benesch and
Company on research projects to extend the lifespan
of reinforced concrete bridge decks by using non-
corroding materials. The research projects involve the
use of Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) in place of con-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 608 262 1604; fax: +1 608 262 5199.
E-mail address: bank@engr.wisc.edu (L.C. Bank).
cations of FRP reinforcements can be found in [1].
While FRP stay-in-place forms and deformed rebar
have been used previously in a highway bridge deck
[2], this is the first combination of those materials along
with a bi-directional FRP reinforcing grid panel selected
to reduce construction cost. In addition, this is the first
application where prestressed bridge girders were used
and where ‘‘composite action’’ was required between
the deck and the girders. Details of the design of the
two-span reinforced bridge deck using these FRP mate-
rials and the development of special provisions that in-
cluded a material specification for all FRP materials
used have been described elsewhere [3,4]. That research
culminated in the work reported here on the construc-
tion process and cost analysis of the FRP reinforced
bridge deck.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.02.007
516 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526

2. Description of the bridge

The FRP reinforced bridge deck is part of a major

new interchange on US Highway 151 (average daily traf-
fic – 18,600) over State Route 26 north of the city of
Waupun, Wisconsin. It is a two-span continuous bridge
with equal spans of 32.7 m (107 ft.) and carries two lanes
of traffic in the northbound direction. The bridge deck is
12.75 m (43 ft.) wide with a 32 horizontal skew and is
supported by five 1.37 m (54 in.) prestressed concrete
girders spaced at 2.65 m (8 ft. 8 in.) on center (Fig. 1).
The deck was reinforced with non-metallic glass–fiber
reinforced vinylester FRP parts, except for the cantile-
vered overhangs and the parapet walls which were rein-
forced with epoxy-coated steel as an FRP reinforced
parapet (or guardrail) has not yet been crash tested
and approved for use in the US. Constructed adjacent
to the FRP reinforced deck was a twin structure that
carries two lanes of southbound traffic. This second
bridge deck was reinforced with conventional epoxy
coated steel rebars. The only other difference between
these two bridges was in the thickness of the concrete

Fig. 1. Cross-Section through roadway.

decks. The steel reinforced deck was 200 mm (8 in.)
thick and the FRP reinforced deck was 215.9 mm
(8.5 in.) thick. The extra 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) of concrete
was needed in the FRP reinforced deck for non-struc-
tural reasons to develop the required top cover at the
crown of the bridge as will be discussed in what follows.

3. FRP Reinforcing materials

FRP reinforcing materials have been used in numer-

ous concrete structures over the last 20 years. Neverthe-
less, the combination of FRP materials used in this
bridge was unique. The system was developed to reduce
construction labor cost to offset the higher initial cost of
the FRP materials relative to conventional steel rein-
forcing. Additional, long-term cost savings due to de-
creased maintenance or increased service life of the
bridge deck in the future are also anticipated from the
FRP reinforcing system, however, an attempt to ac-
count for these cost savings are not documented at this
time. The possible long-term economic benefits of FRP
reinforcements in terms of constructibility and service
life extensions have been discussed elsewhere [5,6]. The
FRP reinforcing system consisted of three different com-
ponents (Fig. 2); stay-in-place (SIP) FRP pultruded
deck panels, pultruded FRP rebars, and bi-directional
FRP pultruded grids.

3.1. Stay-in-place (SIP) FRP pultruded deck panel

The SIP FRP deck panels were 457 mm (1 ft. 6 in.) by

2350 mm (7 ft. 10 in.). Each panel was stiffened by two
76 mm (3 in.) square hollow tubular ‘‘cells’’ spaced
 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526 517

Fig. 2. FRP reinforcement system.

229 mm (9 in.) apart. The deck panels spanned perpen-
dicularly between the prestressed concrete girders and
were discontinuous at the girders (Fig. 3). Their upper
horizontal surfaces were partially covered (30% per
unit surface area) with a 6.35 mm (1/4 in.) limestone
aggregate that was bonded to the surface with a con-
struction grade epoxy (Concresive 1090). The aggre-
gate was used to assist in the development of
composite action between the deck panel and the con-
crete slab through horizontal shear transfer. After the
concrete was poured, the deck panels served as the bot-
tom tensile reinforcement for the deck in the transverse
direction. The panels were designed to be simply sup-
ported between the girders so that the concrete slab
would act compositely with the girders. The panels were
designed in accordance with ACI procedures developed
for FRP rebars [7]. They were over-reinforced (qf > qfb)
to control the failure mode (concrete crushing) and to
limit deflections [3]. Diversified Composites of Erlanger,
Kentucky produced the FRP SIP deck panels, which
were supplied by Composite Deck Solutions (CDS) of
Dayton, Ohio. A total of 620.88 m2 of deck panels were
purchased at a cost of $270.00 per m2 ($25.08 per ft2).
The total cost of deck panels was $167,637.60.
3.2. FRP reinforcing bars
The second component of the FRP reinforcing sys-
tem was the FRP rebar (Fig. 4). The FRP bars were
used in the deck to provide negative moment continuity
for the girders over the center pier and as temperature
and shrinkage reinforcement elsewhere. The rebars came
in three sizes, 13 mm, 19 mm, and 25 mm (#4, #6, and
#8). The FRP bars were finished with a fine sand texture

Fig. 3. FRP deck panels over concrete girders.

518 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526

Fig. 4. FRP deck panels, FRP rebars, and epoxy coated rebars during placement.

and had a helical deformation to develop bond with the
concrete. Hughes Brothers, Inc. located in Seward, Ne-
braska produced the FRP rebars. 224 #4 bars, 112 #6
bars, and 111 #8 bars were used at costs of $1.57 per me-
ter ($0.48 per foot), $2.62 per meter ($0.80 per foot), and
$4.36 per meter ($1.33 per foot), respectively. The total
cost of the FRP rebars was $25,369.10.
3.3. FRP reinforcing grid
The third component of the FRP reinforcement sys-
tem was a prefabricated bi-directional FRP pultruded
grid. The grid was assembled from 50 mm (2 in.) high
T-bars spaced at 100 mm (4 in.) on center and 13 mm
(0.5 in.) diameter three-part cross-rods spaced at

Fig. 5. Bi-directional FRP grid and mechanical splice connection.

 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526 519

100 mm (4 in.) on center and resembled a pultruded
FRP walkway grating (with wider spaces than normal
between the bars). The grid served as the top rein-
forcement of the concrete deck and carried tensile
stress over the girders caused by negative bending mo-
ments in the transverse direction of the deck. The
FRP grids came in two sizes, 1224 mm (4 ft. 1 in.)
by 2650 mm (8 ft. 10 in.) and 1224 mm (4 ft. 1 in.) by
4230 mm (14 ft. 1 in.). They were joined in the positive
moment region of the slab between the girders. A
mechanical splice connection (i.e., a pultruded coupler)
was used at the ends of the grids to hold them in po-
sition during construction. The coupler was not de-
signed to provide tensile load transfer between two
adjacent grids. During construction, three to four pul-
truded couplers were used per grid pair. In addition to
the couplers, epoxy coated tie wires were used to hold
the grids together during casting (Fig. 5). Strongwell
of Chatfield, Minnesota, produced the bi-directional
FRP pultruded grid and the couplers. A total of 162
bi-directional FRP grid pieces were used at a cost of
$90.00 per m2 ($8.36 per ft2). The total cost of FRP
grids was $64,922.40.
The material cost for the entire FRP reinforcement
system was $370.17 per m2 ($34.39 per ft2) for a total
cost of $257,929.10. Although the SIP deck panels were
the most expensive FRP components, they were inten-
tionally selected as a means of reducing construction
time and labor costs. Steel SIP forms reduce construction
costs in a similar manner. Unfortunately, they are subject
to corrosion and deterioration when used in overpass
structures where significant salt spray from de-icing salts
exists in northern climates, and are therefore not used by
the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
4. FRP Specifications and quality control
According to the construction specifications for the
project detailed in the Special Provisions, each FRP
material manufacturer was required to submit certified
test reports that provided strength, stiffness, and physi-
cal properties of each FRP component. Shown in Tables
1–3 are the specifications for the FRP deck forms, FRP
grids, and FRP rebars. The FRP deck panel and FRP
grid were classified into two material classes while the
FRP rebars were classified as a single class [8]. Class 1
FRP material was required to have a total fiber volume
fraction of 55% or greater and a total longitudinal fiber
volume (relative to the total fiber volume) of 95% or
greater. Class 2 FRP material was required to have a to-
tal fiber volume fraction of 45% or greater and a total
longitudinal fiber volume (relative to the total fiber vol-
ume) of 75% or greater. Class 3 FRP material was re-
quired to have a total fiber volume fraction of 45% or
greater and a total longitudinal fiber volume of (relative
to the total fiber volume) 40% or greater.
For the FRP deck panel, GV2 (i.e., glass vinylester
class 2) materials were specified for parts less than or
equal to 8 mm (0.32 in.) thick and GV3 materials were
specified for parts greater than 8 mm (0.32 in.) thick.
For the FRP grid, GV1 material was specified for the
three-part cross rod and GV2 material for the main
load-bearing T-bars. For the FRP rebars only GV1
material was specified. As noted in Tables 1–3 the three
different FRP components had different property
requirements even for the same classification. Detailed
test data for the FRP materials may be found in [9].
In addition to the manufacturerÕs test reports, the
University of Wisconsin–Madison (UW) performed

Table 1
Limiting physical and mechanical properties for FRP deck panel
Material property ASTM test GV2 material GV3 material
Mechanical property
Strength property
Longitudinal tensile strength (min) D3039, D5083, D638 80.0 ksi (552 MPa) 60.0 ksi (414 MPa)
Transverse tensile strength (min) D3039, D5083, D638 4.0 ksi (28 MPa) 4.0 ksi (28 MPa)
Longitudinal compressive strength (min) D3410, D695 80.0 ksi (552 MPa) 60.0 ksi (414 MPa)
Transverse compressive strength (min) D3410, D695 10.0 ksi (69 MPa) 10 ksi (69 MPa)
Longitudinal flexural strength (min) D790 80.0 ksi (552 MPa) 60.0 ksi (414 MPa)
Long. short beam shear strength (min) D2344 5.5 ksi (38 MPa) 5.0 ksi (35 MPa)
Stiffness property
Longitudinal tensile modulus (min) D3039, D5083, D638 4.5 Msi (31 GPa) 4.0 Msi (28 GPa)
Longitudinal compressive modulus (min) D3410, D695 4.0 Msi (28 GPa) 3.0 Msi (21 GPa)
In-plane shear stiffness (min) D5379 0.40 Msi (3 GPa) 0.30 Msi (2 GPa)
Major (longitudinal) Poisson ratio (min) D3039, D5083, D638 0.25 0.25
Physical property
Fiber volume fraction (min) D3171, D2584 45% 45%
Barcol hardness (min) D2583 50 50
Glass transition temperature (min) E1356, D3418 203 F (95 C) 203 F (95 C)
Water absorption (max) D570 (immersion at 50 C for 48 h) 1.5% 2.0%
Long. coeff. of thermal expansion (max) D696 6 · 10 6/F (11 · 10 6/C) 6 · 10 6/F (11 · 10 6/C)
Trans. coeff. of thermal expansion (max) D696 30 · 10 6/F (54 · 10 6/C) 30 · 10 6/F (54 · 10 6/C)
520 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526

Table 2
Limiting physical and mechanical properties for FRP grid
Material property ASTM test GV1 material GV2 material
Mechanical property
Strength property
Longitudinal tensile strength (min) D3039, D5083, D638, D3916 100.0 ksi (690 MPa) 80.0 ksi (552 MPa)
Transverse tensile strength (min) D3039, D5083, D638 NA 4.0 ksi (28 MPa)
Longitudinal compressive strength (min) D3410, D695 75.0 ksi (517 MPa) 80.0 ksi (552 MPa)
Transverse compressive strength (min) D3410, D695 NA 10 ksi (69 MPa)
Long. short beam shear strength (min) D2344, D4475 7.0 ksi (48 MPa) 5.5 ksi (38 MPa)
Stiffness property
Longitudinal tensile modulus (min) D3039, D5083, D638 5.5 Msi (38 GPa) 4.5 Msi (31 GPa)
Longitudinal compressive modulus (min) D3410, D695 NA 4.0 Msi (28 GPa)
in-plane shear stiffness (min) D5379 NA 0.40 Msi (3 GPa)
Major (longitudinal) Poisson ratio (min) D3039, D5083, D638 0.25 0.25
Physical property
Fiber volume fraction (min) D3171, D2584 55% 45%
Barcol hardness (min) D2583 50 50
Glass transition temperature (min) E1356, D3418 203 F (95 C) 203 F (95 C)
Water absorption (max) D570 (immersion at 50 C for 48 h) 1.0% 1.5%
Long. coeff. of thermal expansion (max) D696 6 · 10 6/F (11 · 10 6/C) 6 · 10 6/F (11 · 10 6/C)
Trans. coeff. of thermal expansion (max) D696 NA 30 · 10 6/F (54 · 10 6/C)

Table 3
Limiting physical and mechanical properties for FRP rebar
Material property ASTM test GV1 material
Mechanical property
Strength property
Longitudinal tensile strength (min) D5083 90.0 ksi (620 MPa)
Longitudinal compressive strength (min) D3410 68.0 ksi (465 MPa)
Long. short beam shear strength (min) D2344 5.5 ksi (38 MPa)
Stiffness property
Longitudinal tensile modulus (min) D3039, D5083, D638 5.5 Msi (38 GPa)
Longitudinal compressive modulus (min) D3410 4.1 Msi (28 GPa)
Physical property
Fiber volume fraction (min) D3171, D2584 55%
Barcol hardness (min) D2583 50
Glass transition temperature (min) E1356, D3418 203 F (95 C)
Water absorption (max) D570 (immersion at 50 C for 48 h) 1.0%
Long. coeff. of thermal expansion (max) D696 6 · 10 6/F (11 · 10 6/C)
Trans. coeff. of thermal expansion (max) D696 30 · 10 6/F (54 · 10 6/C)

independent quality assurance tests for the client (Wis-
DOT). The six quality assurance tests performed were:
longitudinal tension, longitudinal short beam shear, fi-
ber volume fraction, water absorption, dimensional tol-
erance, and aggregate distribution. The first four tests
were performed on each FRP material. The remaining
two tests were performed on the FRP deck panels only.
After all of the materials were shown to have met the
material specifications, the resident engineer gave ap-
proval for placement of the FRP materials.
5. Construction process
Construction of the bridge began early in 2003. The
abutments and center pier were completed in February
and the prestressed concrete girders were placed in early
April. The FRP materials arrived on the construction
site in mid-March of 2003. The quality assurance tests
were conducted in March and April and the placement
of the FRP deck panels began at the end of May 2003.
After the concrete girders were placed, a haunch was
developed to create the required elevation of the FRP
deck forms and to maintain a uniform thickness of the
deck. When conventional steel reinforced decking is
used, the haunch is formed with the removable plywood
forms. Since the FRP deck panels served as stay-in-place
forms, an alternative method of haunching was needed.
This was accomplished by supporting the deck panels on
the girders using a variable height rigid cellular polysty-
rene foam, which was installed prior to placing the con-
crete. The polystyrene haunches were attached to the
edges of the top flange of the concrete girders (Figs. 6
and 7) with an epoxy adhesive, except for the outsides
 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526
Fig. 6. Haunch detail.
of the exterior girders where conventional plywood
formwork was used for the cantilevered overhang and
parapet.
The FRP deck panels were then placed on the foam
(Fig. 8). To account for the 32 skew, the end panels
were precut to the required angle prior to placement.
The hollow tubular cells at the ends of the panels were
filled with expandable polyurethane foam to prevent
wet concrete and mix water from flowing into the cav-
ities. All of the individual components were light en-
ough for two construction workers to carry. Prior to
a deck panel being positioned, a bead of silicone caulk
(Fig. 9) was placed on the lip of the previously placed
deck panel. An epoxy-coated screw was installed at the
end of each deck panel at the lap splice (Fig. 10). The
bead of silicone caulk was placed to provide a seal be-
Fig. 7. Concrete girders and rigid cellular polystyrene haunches.
521
tween the deck panels to prevent concrete from leaking
between the panels during the pour. The bead was not
intended to provide load transfer in the longitudinal
direction between the panels. The epoxy-coated screws
were installed to secure the ends of the panels to pre-
vent uplift in the event of high winds prior to the pour.
The screws were not intended to provide any fixity be-
tween the panels or between the panels and the girders.
Laboratory testing of the FRP reinforced deck sys-
tem was conducted prior to the construction. Punching
shear, negative and positive moment bending, and fati-
gue tests were conducted to determine the capacity of
the deck system and the load transfer capacity at the pa-
nel splice [3], [10]. Freeze–thaw tests were conducted to
investigate deterioration in the FRP to concrete bond
in the FRP deck panels [11]. The testing indicated that
the FRP reinforcement system could reliably carry the
design loads and was expected to be durable in freeze–
thaw conditions.
During preconstruction meetings, the bridge con-
tractor expressed concern over the ability of the con-
crete (specified to have a maximum large aggregate
size of 18 mm (3/4 in.) and a nominal compressive
strength of 28 MPa (4000 psi)) to flow into the gap
between the top of the girder and the bottom of the
deck panel to provide permanent support for the deck
panel. To solve this problem, a flowable grout was
used to fill the cavity between the foam haunches
prior to the concrete deck being poured. Following
the installation of all of the deck panels, the grout
was placed up to the bottom lip of the deck panel
(Fig. 11) and vibrated to ensure it filled all of the
522 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526

Fig. 8. SIP FRP deck panel placement.

Fig. 9. Silicone bead application.

voids below the FRP form. The surface of the grout
was roughened to provide sufficient friction between
the girders and the concrete deck to ensure composite
action (together with the steel stirrups protruding
from the top flange of the girders.)
The FRP rebars were then placed parallel to the con-
crete girders and were supported by continuous plastic
chairs, which sat on the tubular cells of the deck panels.
The rebars were cut and placed to accommodate the 32
skew. The 25 mm (#8) rebars were spaced at 100 mm
(4 in.) on center at the center pier. Larger spacing and
smaller bars were used at further distances from the cen-
ter pier. The epoxy coated steel bars used in the parapet
and deck cantilever were installed at the same time as
the FRP bars. The continuous plastic chairs supported
the steel rebars.
 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526
Fig. 10. Installation of epoxy coated screw.
The FRP grid was then placed on top of the re-
bars. The T-bars for the grid were laid perpendicularly
to the FRP rebars (Fig. 12). The grids were placed in
three segments across the bridge width, the two longer
sections on the outside and the shorter section in the
middle. The thickness of the concrete deck was in-
creased from 200 mm (8 in.) as originally planned to
215.9 mm (8.5 in.) to allow for the required top cover
over the grid at the center of the bridge. The grid was
stiff and it was thought it would not bend sufficiently
to form the center crown so extra concrete cover was
required. The ends of all FRP materials were sealed
prior to the pour with the same epoxy that was used
to adhere the aggregate to the horizontal surfaces of
the deck panel.
The deck pour (Fig. 13) began at 6 a.m. on June
11th 2003 and was completed by 10 a.m. (4 h total).
A total of 179 m3 (234 yd3) of concrete were placed.
The concrete pour for the steel reinforced bridge took
5 h. About 145 m3 (190 yd3) of concrete was placed.
There were approximately 10 other bridges at this site
of similar size. The FRP reinforced bridge deck was
the fastest of the deck pours. Several workers com-
mented on the ease of working on the level grid as
opposed to the uneven rebars of conventional steel
reinforced decks. The parapets were poured about
one week after the deck. To do this fully loaded con-
crete trucks were driven up onto the deck giving it its
first unofficial load test. The completed bridge is
shown in Fig. 14. It was opened to traffic in the sum-
mer of 2004 when the approach ramps and connection
roadways were completed.
523
6. Construction costs
During construction, data on the materials and labor
were recorded to provide a comparison between the two
bridges. The total material costs for the FRP reinforced
bridge were $632,718. The material costs for the steel
reinforced bridge were $391,649.53. This translates to
over a 60% materials cost increase over the conventional
construction (i.e., the materials for the bridge with the
steel deck cost 3/5 that of bridge with the FRP deck).
The cost of the individual FRP components was
$167,637.60 (deck panels), $64,922.40(grid), and
$25,369.10(rebar) for a total FRP material cost of
$257,929.10. The cost of the steel reinforcement was
$37,060.10. Since this was the first time FRP materials
had been used as bridge deck reinforcement in Wiscon-
sin, the FRP manufacturers and cost of the material
were predetermined. They were both set in the FRP
specifications prior to when the project was let for bid-
ding. With competitive bidding between FRP manufac-
turers, increased use, and further design optimization,
the cost of the FRP system, especially the deck panel
(which accounted for over 26% of the total bridge cost),
could decrease in the future.
An advantage in the use of FRP materials was seen
in labor savings. Five hundred and eighty five man-
hours were required to install and remove the formwork
on the steel reinforced bridge. The steel reinforcement
was placed in 128 man-hours. Two hundred and six
man-hours were required to place the polystyrene
haunches and set the FRP deck panels in place. The
two other components of the FRP reinforcement, the
524 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526

Fig. 11. Roughened grout between SIP FRP deck panels.

grid and rebars, were placed in 104 man-hours. A total
of 713 h were spent on the decking and placement of
reinforcement on the steel reinforced bridge deck com-
pared to 310 h on the FRP reinforced bridge deck. This
translates to a 57% savings in labor costs. An advantage
was also seen in the productivity of the concrete pour.
The rate of concrete placement on the FRP reinforced
deck was 51.15 m3 (66.9 yd3) per hour compared with
29.05 m3 (38.0 yd3) per hour for the steel reinforced
deck.
7. Conclusions
The construction of an FRP reinforced concrete
bridge deck using conventional construction technology
and labor was accomplished with a 57% savings in con-
struction labor over a nominally identical steel rebar
reinforced deck. Material costs for the FRP reinforced
deck bridge were 60% higher than that of the steel rein-
forced deck bridge. At this time the long-term benefit
due to the anticipated superior durability of the FRP
reinforced deck is not possible to ascertain. Long-term
monitoring of this and other FRP bridge deck projects
in the State of Wisconsin will be conducted to develop
this data, which will be reported periodically. It appears
that given the savings in construction time and the po-
tential long-term benefits, FRP reinforcements for
bridge decks should be cost-effective, notwithstanding
their currently high initial costs. Future optimization
of the design of FRP stay-in-place formwork and com-
petitive bidding between FRP manufacturers is recom-
mended to decrease the cost of the FRP reinforcement
system. In addition, the use of larger prefabricated
 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526 525

Fig. 12. SIP FRP deck panels, FRP rebars, and bi-directional FRP grid during placement.

Fig. 13. Pouring and vibration of concrete at FRP reinforced bridge deck.

FRP grids in place of the FRP rebars may yield yet more
labor and time savings.
The importance of close communication between the
FRP material manufacturers, the construction contrac-
tor, the bridge designers, and the local authorities can-
not be over-emphasized with regard to successful
completion of a novel FRP project of this type. Further-
more, the development of detailed special provisions,
that include both material and construction specifica-
tions for the FRP components is a vital part of the pro-
cess. Manufacturer quality control testing and
independent client quality assurance testing of the as-
delivered (as-received) FRP materials is necessary to en-
sure compliance with specifications and to develop the
required regulatory approvals for large infrastructure
projects of the type reported in this paper.
526 A.C. Berg et al. / Construction and Building Materials 20 (2006) 515–526
Fig. 14. Completed FRP reinforced bridge deck.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the following people for
their contributions: John Hooks and Tom Strock
(FHWA), Gerry Anderson, Mark Klipstein, and Stan
Woods (Wisconsin Department of Transportation),
Jay Carter, Bernie Gallagher, and Rich Hill (Alfred
Benesch and Company), Ceci Peroni (CH2MHill),
‘‘Cricket’’ (Lunda Construction), and the financial
support from the Innovative Bridge Research and
Construction Program (IBRC).
References
[1] Rizkalla S, Nanni A. Field applications of FRP reinforce-
ment: case studies, SP-215. Farmington Hills, Michigan: ACI
Int; 2003.
[2] Reising RMW, Shahrooz BM, Hunt VJ, Lenett MS, Christorper
S, Neumann AR, et al.. Performance of five-span steel bridge
with fiber-reinforced polymer composite deck panels. Transport
Res Rec 2001;1770:113–23.
[3] Dieter D, Dietsche J, Bank L, Oliva M, Russell J. Concrete bridge
decks constructed with fiber-reinforced polymer stay-in-place
forms and grid reinforcing. Transport Res Rec 2002;1814:219–26.
[4] Bank LC, Oliva MG, Russell JS, Dieter DA, Dietsche JS, Hill
RA, et al.. Details and specifications for a bridge deck with FRP
formwork, grid and rebar. In: Tan KW, editor. Proceedings of
FRPRCS-6, Singapore, July 8–10, 2003. p. 1301–10.
[5] Nystrom HE, Watkins SE, Nanni A, Murray S. Financial viability
of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bridges. ASCE J Manage Eng
2003;19(1):2–8.
[6] Shapira A, Bank LC. Constructibility and Economics of FRP
reinforcement cages for concrete beams. ASCE J Compos Constr
1997;1(3):82–9.
[7] ACI 440.1 R-01. Guide for the design and construction of
concrete reinforced with FRP bars, ACI International, Farming-
ton Hills, Michigan, 2001.
[8] Bank LC, Gentry TR, Thompson BP, Russell JS. A model
specification for FRP composites for civil engineering structures.
Constr Build Mater 2003;17(6–7):405–37.
[9] Dietsche JS. Development of material specification for FRP
structural elements for the reinforcing of a concrete bridge deck,
MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002.
[10] Dieter DA. Experimental and analytical study of concrete bridge
decks constructed with FRP stay-in-place forms and FRP grid
reinforcing, MS Thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002.
[11] Helmueller EJ, Bank LC, Dieter DA, Dietsche JS, Oliva MG,
Russell JS. The effect of freeze–thaw on bond between FRP stay-
in-place deck forms and concrete. In: Benmokrane B, editor.
Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on durability of
fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites for construction,
Montreal, Canada, May 29–31, 2002. p. 141–52.