Narendran Lokesh

Cost Estimation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Repairs on Rail and Highway Bridges
Lokesh Narendran
Problem Report submitted to the

Benjamin M. Statler College of Engineering and Mineral Resources
at West Virginia University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
In
Industrial Engineering
Robert C. Creese, Ph.D., Chair

Hota V. Gangarao, Ph.D.
Majid Jaridi, Ph.D.
Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering
Morgantown, West Virginia

2013
Keywords: Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP); FRP Wrapping; Cost Estimation; Highway
Bridges; Railroad Bridges
ABSTRACT
Cost Estimation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Repairs on Rail and Highway Bridges
Lokesh Narendran
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping is used in a large number of construction

projects for repair and rehabilitation works. The strong physical properties, ease of repair and
maintainability of FRP wraps make it a preferred alternative over conventional repair methods.
In the United States, the FRP wrapping technique is used for strengthening of bridge elements
and to repair many railway and highway bridges. This study focuses on the cost estimation of
four bridges repaired using FRP wrapping in the Chicago region and also bridges repaired in
Oregon and California. There are many variables associated with the total project costs like the
concrete and FRP area, labor, material and equipment costs, etc. Regression through origin
(RTO) analysis is used to predict the total project costs and identify the relationships between the
variables of rail and highway bridges.
The results show that the total concrete area was the dominant factor of the total costs for
the railway bridges (Total Contract ($) = 107.58 x Concrete Area (ft2) + 195,783). The total
equipment costs were greater than the total material or total labor costs. A relationship between
the total project cost and the total concrete cost (Total Contract ($) = 1.6864 x Total Concrete
Cost ($) + 23,831) and total FRP cost (Total Contract ($) = 3.249 x Total FRP Cost ($) +
6,512.8) was developed. The productivity of FRP repair (10ft2/hr) was found to be higher than
concrete repair (3 ft2/hr).
A cost model was generated for the various cost parameters of highway bridges in
Oregon. The temporary features and roadwork were found to be significant. Finally, a
relationship (FRP Cost ($) = 24.79 FRP Area (ft2) + 23,616) between the FRP cost and the FRP
repair area was obtained. Least squares percentage regression method (FRP Cost ($) = 23.95
FRP Area (ft2) + 4622.97) is used to check the reduction of the percentage error and to compare
the results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Robert C. Creese for his valuable support and
remarkable patience. I cannot thank him enough for providing help throughout my time here at
West Virginia University.
I would also extend my thanks to my committee members Dr. Majid Jaridi and Dr. Hota
V. Gangarao for their support and valuable comments in completing this problem report.
I am thankful to the Industrial and Management Systems Engineering department for its
continued support, which enabled me to complete my graduate work. I really enjoyed my time at
Safety and Health Extension, WVU for its great people and work environment. I would like to
thank Dr. Mark D. Fullen and my colleagues for providing me with the opportunity to work and
support me throughout my graduate education.
I am very grateful to my mom, dad, and sister for supporting me in all my decisions. I am
also very thankful to my cousins, family, and friends for their loving support and encouragement
which made all this possible.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Status of Bridges in the United States ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation........................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Concrete Repair and Rehabilitation ................................................................................................. 2
1.2.2 Steel Reinforcement Repair and Rehabilitation ............................................................................... 4
1.2.3 FRP Repair and Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Organization of the Report.................................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) for Infrastructure ....................................................................... 8
2.1.1.1 Fibers............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1.2 Matrices....................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.1 Review on FRP Bridges ................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Review on FRP Wraps ................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Case Histories ................................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 Previous Projects on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of FRP Bridges ...................................................... 20
2.5 Cost Estimates of FRP Wrapping from Contractors in the Construction Industry and Various State
Departments of Transportation ............................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 25
iii
3.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Repair Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Classification of Variables ................................................................................................................ 35
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 38
4.1 Cost Analysis of Railway Bridges .................................................................................................... 38
4.2 Predicting the Unit Cost of the Bridge Repairs................................................................................. 46
4.3 Calculating the Time Standards or Productivity for Concrete and FRP Repairs .............................. 50
4.4 Cost Analysis of Highway Bridges ................................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 67
5.1 Chicago Bridge Findings .................................................................................................................. 67
5.2 Oregon and California Bridge Findings ............................................................................................ 68
5.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 70
5.4 Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................................. 71
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 75
Appendix A: FRP Costs of All Bidders of Bridge Repairs in the Oregon and California Region
Adjusted for Inflation .............................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix B: Least Squares Percentage Regression for FRP Area and FRP Cost of All Bridges in
Oregon, California and Illinois ............................................................................................................... 82
Appendix C: Scatter Plots of Average and Low Cost of all Bridges in Oregon and California ............. 83
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Bridges by Functional Classification (Data from FHWA, 2012)……………………1
Figure 1-2: Epoxy Crack Injection (www.strongtie.com)………………………………………..3
Figure 1-3: Concrete Jacketing (www.corecut-jo.com) ………………………………………….3
Figure 1-4: Column Strengthening Using Steel Plate Bonding (www.marinland.com)……….....4
Figure 1-5: FRP Wraps Being Applied on a Column (www.ncn-uk.co.uk).……………………..5
Figure 2-1: Repaired 56th St. Bridge (AREMA, 2011)………………………………………....17
Figure 2-2: California Avenue Bridge Before Rehabilitation (AREMA, 2011)………...............17
Figure 2-3: California Avenue Bridge After Rehabilitation (AREMA, 2011)………………….18
Figure 2-4: Decatur Bridge Enclosure (AREMA, 2011)………………………………………..18
Figure 2-5: Completed Champaign Bridge (AREMA, 2011……………………………………19
Figure 2-6: Work on Sandy River Bridge in Oregon……………………………………….…...20
Figure 2-7: Preparation on Beaver Creek Bridge in Oregon………………………………...…..20
Figure 3-1: Distribution of Costs for the Repair for Four Bridges in Chicago………………….32
Figure 3-2: Comparison and Distribution of Costs and Area for Concrete and FRP Repairs…..32
Figure 3-3: Seasonal Difference of Costs and Total Work Hours for the Repair of Bridges in
Chicago……………….....………………….…………….........................................33
Figure 4-1: Scatter Plot of Total Repair Cost Against Total Repair Area of the Concrete
Repairs........................................................................................................................38
Figure 4-2: ANOVA of Total Repair Cost Against Total Repair Area of the Concrete Repairs..39
Figure 4-3: Stepwise Regression on Concrete and FRP Repair Area...........................................40
Figure 4-4: Scatter Plot of Total Repair Cost Against Total Area of the FRP Repairs.................41
Figure 4-5: ANOVA of Total Repair Cost Against Total Repair Area of the FRP Repairs..........41
Figure 4-6: ANOVA of Total Project Cost against the Total Concrete Repairs Cost...................41
Figure 4-7: Scatter Plot of Total Project Cost against the Total Concrete Repairs Cost...............42
Figure 4-8: Scatter Plot of Total Project Cost against the Total FRP Repairs Cost......................42
Figure 4-9: ANOVA of Total Project Cost against the Total FRP Repairs Cost..........................42
Figure 4-10: Scatter Plot of Total FRP Cost Against the Total Concrete Cost.............................43
Figure 4-11: ANOVA of Total FRP Repair Cost Against the Total Concrete Repair Cost..........43
Figure 4-12: Scatter Plot of Total Cost to Repair Against the Material Cost of the FRP
Repairs......................................................................................................................44
v
Figure 4-13: ANOVA of Total Cost to Repair Against the Material Cost of the FRP Repairs....44
Figure 4-14: Scatter Plot of Total Cost to Repair Against the Equipment Cost of the FRP
Repairs......................................................................................................................45
Figure 4-15: ANOVA of Total Cost to Repair Against the Equipment Cost of the FRP
Repairs......................................................................................................................46
Figure 4-16: Scatter Plot of Total Contract to Repair Against the Total Repair Area..................47
Figure 4-17: ANOVA of Total Contract to Repair Against the Total Repair Area......................47
Figure 4-18: Scatter Plot of Total Concrete Cost to Repair Against the Total Concrete Repair...48
Figure 4-19: ANOVA of Total Concrete Cost to Repair Against the Total Concrete Repair
Area...........................................................................................................................48
Figure 4-20: Scatter Plot of Total FRP Repair Cost Against the Total FRP Repair Area.............49
Figure 4-21: ANOVA of Total FRP Repair Cost Against the Total FRP Repair Area.................49
Figure 4-22: Stepwise Regression Output of Cost Items of Bridges in Oregon............................52
Figure 4-23: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the Oregon Bridges....54
Figure 4-24: ANOVA of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the Oregon Bridges........55
Figure 4-25: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the Oregon Bridges By
Regression Through Origin Method.........................................................................55
Figure 4-26: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the California
Bridges......................................................................................................................56
Figure 4-27: ANOVA of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the California Bridges....56
Figure 4-28: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the California Bridges
By Regression Through Origin Method.................................................................. 56
Figure 4-29: Scatter plot of Total FRP Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Cost of the Accepted
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California, Oregon and Illinois)....................................57
Figure 4-30: ANOVA of Total FRP Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Cost of the
Accepted Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California, Oregon and Illinois).....................57
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California, Oregon and Illinois) By Regression Through
Origin Method.........................................................................................................58
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (Illinois and Oregon).....................................................60
vi
Figure 4-33: ANOVA of Total FRP Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Cost of the Accepted
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (Illinois and Oregon)......................................................60
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (Illinois and Oregon) by Regression Through Origin....61
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California and Oregon).................................................63
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California and Oregon).................................................63
Figure 4-37: Scatter plot of Total FRP Repair Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Cost of the
Accepted Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California and Oregon) by Regression Through
Origin.........................................................................................................................64
Figure 4-38: Scatter Plot of Total FRP Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Unit Cost of
Accepted Bids in Oregon...........................................................................................66
Figure 4-39: ANOVA of Total FRP Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Unit Cost of Accepted
Bids in Oregon...........................................................................................................66
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: General Properties of Fibers Used in FRP Materials………………………………….8
Table 2-2: Estimated Material and Installation Cost for Glass and Carbon Wrap Systems..........15
Table 2-3: Approximate Unit Costs of Various Cost Items……………………..........................22
Table 2-4: Cost Items of FRP Repairs of 10 Bridges in California……………………...............23
Table 3-1: Producer Price Index (PPI) Values from the Year 1999 to 2012……………….........26
Table 3-2: FRP Area and Cost Data for Four Railway Bridges for the Respective Wrapping
Procedures……………………………………………………………….....................29
Table 3-3: Total FRP Wrapping Cost Data with Sub-Costs……………………………………..29
Table 3-4: Transportation, Overhead & Profit Cost Data with Total Contract Cost.....................29
Table 3-5: Material Costs of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks……………………....................30
Table 3-6: Equipment Costs of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks……………………................30
Table 3-7: Man-Hours Involved of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks..........................................31
Table 3-8: Man-Hours Costs of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks……………………...............31
Table 3-9: Project Costs for the Four Railway Bridges in Chicago……………………..............34
Table 3-10: Categorized List of Variables for Three Main Cost Items…………………….........35
Table 3-11: Other Variables Involved in Predicting the Total Contract of the FRP Repairs........36
Table 3-12: Categorized List of Variables for Three Main Cost Items for Bridges in Oregon.....37
Table 4-1: Predicted Values and Residuals for Total Area of the Concrete Repairs.....................39
Table 4-2: Least Squares Percentage Regression of Total Concrete Area and Total Project
Cost....………………………………………………………………..........................39
Table 4-3: Predicted Values and Residuals for Total Cost of the FRP Repairs Against the FRP
Material Cost………………………………………………………………................44
Table 4-4: Least Squares Percentage Regression of FRP Material Cost and Total Project
Cost.......……………………………………………………………………………....45
Table 4-5: Predicted Values and Residuals for Total Cost of the FRP Repairs against the FRP
Equipment Cost.............................................................................................................46
Table 4-6: Predicted Unit Cost for the Total Repairs…………………………………………....46
Table 4-7: Predicted Unit Cost for the Concrete Repairs……………………………………......47
Table 4-8: Predicted Unit Cost for the FRP Repairs………………………………………….....49
Table 4-9: Estimated Time Required in Man Hours for the Concrete Repairs.............................50
viii
Table 4-10: Estimated Time Required in Man Hours for the FRP Repairs………......................50
Table 4-11: Cost Items of Different Parameters of the Highway Bridges of Oregon…………..51
Table 4-12: FRP Cost Data with Bridge Area Covered by FRP and their Accepted, Average and
Low Bidders’ Unit Cost……………………………………………………………53
Table 4-13: Predicted Values and Residuals of FRP Cost of All Bridges………………………59
Table 4-14: Predicted Values and Residuals of FRP Cost of All Bridges (Oregon and
Illinois).......................................................................................................................62
Table 4-15: Predicted Values and Residuals of FRP Cost of All Bridges (California and
Oregon).......................................................................................................................65
Table 5-1: Relationships Obtained for Rail and Highway Bridges and Their Coefficient of
Determination (R2) and p-values..................................................................................70
ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
ERV Explained Relative Variation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRP Fiber Reinforced Polymer
GFRP Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
IBRC Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program
MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation
NBI National Bridge Inventory
NDT Nondestructive Testing
NSM Near Surface Mounted
PAN Polyacrylonitrile
PEEK Polysulfone and Polyether Ether Ketone
PPI Producer Price Index
PR Percentage Regression
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RC Reinforced Concrete
SIP Stay-In-Place
RTO Regression Through Origin
TRV Total Relative Variation
URV Unexplained Relative Variation
UMR University of Missouri-Rolla
UK United Kingdom
x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Status of Bridges in the United States
The United States highway network consists of more than 600,000 bridges that make up a
critical link in the nation’s infrastructure e. The United States rail freight and passenger network
consists of about 70,000 bridges. Many of these structures are close to or have exceeded their
original design life. According to a study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), 25% of the 607,380 bridges in the United States were structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete as shown in Figure 1-1 [1]. Structurally deficient is defined as when a
highway bridge’s deck, substructure, superstructure or culvert is rated as “poor” (0 to 9 on the
National Bridge Inventory (NBI) rating scale with 0 - 4 as poor, 5 as fair, 6 - 8 as good, and 9 as
excellent condition [2]). Also if the load carrying capacity is significantly lower than the current
design standards or if a waterway below frequently overflows the bridge during floods.
Functionally obsolete highway bridges have lower load carrying capacity, narrower shoulders or
less clearance underneath than bridges built to the current standard [3]. Thus, the designation of
the bridges based on their functional classification has a great impact on the bridge maintenance,
rehabilitation or replacement.
84,748 (14%)
66,749 (11%)
Non Deficient
455,883 (75%) Structurally Deficient

Functionally Obsolete
Figure 1-1: Bridges by Functional Classification (Data from FHWA, 2012) [1]
1
The US infrastructure rehabilitation cost is estimated at 2.2 trillion dollars [3], the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) estimated in 2008 that it
would cost roughly $140 billion to repair every deficient bridge in the country, about $48 billion
to repair structurally deficient bridges and $91 billion to improve functionally obsolete bridges
[3]. In the context of this issue, it is necessary to invest in advanced composites and to consider
alternate bridge rehabilitation techniques.
1.2 Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation
There are a wide variety of bridge repair and rehabilitation techniques available. Some of
the techniques are discussed below. They include:
 Concrete Repair and Rehabilitation
 Steel Reinforcement Repair and Rehabilitation
 FRP Repair and Rehabilitation
1.2.1 Concrete Repair and Rehabilitation: The most common method of bridge rehabilitation
has different types of repair techniques. They are:
 Repair with Concrete or Mortar: Used to repair the damage caused by impact,
cracking, spalling, delamination, reinforcement corrosion and chemical
contamination.
 Polymer Concrete Repair: It is often desirable for patch repairs due to its low
permeability. Polymer concrete patch repairs are often applied by hand.
 Crack Injection: Epoxies, polyesters, methacrylates and polyurethanes have all
been used to fill cracks in concrete structures. The injection equipment is inserted
into the ports that are installed at the crack surface and epoxy is injected through
a hand gun until all portions of the crack are filled. Figure 1-2 shows epoxy crack
injection.
2
Figure 1-2: Epoxy Crack Injection (www.strongtie.com)[4]
 Coatings and Sealers: There are three primary types of material that are used to
seal concrete and prevent ingress of contaminants: film-forming coatings, pore
liners/blockers and sealers. Most coatings can be applied using brush, roller or
spray.
 Concrete Jacketing: Concrete Jacketing involves enlargement of the existing
structural members by placing reinforcing steel rebars around its periphery and
then concreting it as shown in Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-3: Concrete Jacketing (www.corecut-jo.com) [5]
3
1.2.2 Steel Reinforcement Repair and Rehabilitation
 Cleaning: When concrete patch repair is implemented, steel reinforcement bars
are cleaned to remove contaminants from the steel surface. Cleaning the
reinforcement bars also promotes adhesion between the steel and the concrete.
 Rebar Splicing: New portions of steel rebar are added to the corroded section of
reinforcing steel. This can be done by tying in new sections of steel rebar to
restore the member to its original capacity.
 Coating: Fusion bonded coatings, which consists of thermoset polymers in
powder form; undergo an irreversible chemical reaction that causes them to
strongly adhere to the steel.
 Steel Plate Bonding: The structural elements are strengthened by bonding steel
plates to their external surfaces by using adhesives as shown in Figure 1-4.
Figure 1-4: Column Strengthening using Steel Plate Bonding (www.marinland.com) [6]
1.2.3 FRP Repair and Rehabilitation

 FRP Wrapping: FRP wrapping has emerged as an alternative to traditional
materials for repair of concrete bridges. It can be used to rehabilitate different
structural members of a bridge like columns, girders and beams to improve the
load bearing capacity. The rehabilitation is done by wrapping composite sheets
around the structural members as shown in Figure 1-5. There are many
advantages to using FRP composite systems in structural applications. They are
corrosion resistant, high strength, light weight, easy to install and have a low
4
impact on the existing dimensions of a structure. They provide life-cycle
advantages that make these bridges financially viable even if they do sustain an
initial cost premium. But when considering the entire life-cycle of the
rehabilitation, the initial material cost of the FRP wrap is only a fraction of the
total retrofitting cost; the rest is attributed to the application, labor and
maintenance costs. Also the overall cost of rehabilitation is reduced due to the
ease of installing, storage, handling and transportation benefits of FRP wraps.
Figure 1-5: FRP Wraps Being Applied on a Column (www.ncn-uk.co.uk)[7]
 FRP Plates: FRP plates are essentially FRP fabric that has already been
impregnated and cured by the manufacturer. A primer coat is applied to a sound
concrete substrate and then the plates are cut to the desired dimensions and are
placed onto the concrete member with epoxy adhesives.
 Near Surface Mounted (NSM) FRP Bars: NSM bars are long and cylindrical like
rebar. A shallow groove is cut into a sound concrete substrate and an embedding
paste is used to half fill the grooves. The bars are then lightly pressed into the
groove so that the paste completely fills the space between FRP and the groove.
5
1.3 Objectives
The objective of this study is to estimate the cost of FRP wrapping and to identify the
variables that affect the total project costs based on the data available from four FRP wrapping
projects for railway bridges in the Chicago area and other highway bridges in Oregon and
California. The data for the railroad bridges have been categorized into many variables. Some of
the variables that are considered here are concrete total area; concrete beam area; injection joint
cost; FRP application task cost; labor, material and equipment cost; total concrete cost; total FRP
cost; overhead and profit.
The main objectives of this study are to:

 Obtain and analyze the cost data of previous FRP wrapping projects.
 Identify the variables that affect the total cost of FRP wrapping projects.
 Predict the total project costs and thereby identify relationships between the variables of
both the railway bridges and highway bridges that affect the total project costs.
 Generate regression equations based on the data available and estimate the FRP wrapping
total cost.
 Calculate the time standards or the productivity of the concrete and FRP repairs.
 Estimate the FRP cost and total cost using least squares percentage regression and
compare with the traditional linear regression.
1.4 Organization of the Report
Chapter 2 presents a literature review of different types of fibers and matrices. It also
gives some background information on the railway bridges and the highway bridges for which
the study is done. A discussion about the technical publications in the areas of FRP wraps by
different researchers is provided in this chapter.
Chapter 3 discusses the methodology. A discussion about the cost analysis of the railway
and highway project is made. The data providing the costs of the railway and highway projects
and the variables considered for estimating the total cost is discussed.
6
Chapter 4 provides the analysis of the data for both the rail and highway bridges. Results
of this report show the variables that have a significant relationship in predicting the project
costs. It provides the productivity of the FRP repair in comparison to the concrete repairs of the
bridges. It also provides the relationships between the FRP area, FRP cost and the Unit cost of
FRP repairs.
Chapter 5 describes the conclusions drawn from the results of this study and
recommendations for further study.
7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Background
2.1.1 Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) for Infrastructure

Composite materials have been used in civil engineering structures because of their
mechanical properties and their advantages in regards to harsh environmental conditions. A
composite material is defined as a “combination of two or more distinct materials to form a new
material with enhanced properties” [8]. FRP composites are manufactured to the needs of
specific industries like the construction, aerospace, sporting goods and leisure industries. A
variety of forms like reinforcing bars and fabric wraps are used in different applications.
Excellent corrosion and fatigue resistance of FRP composites gives them an economical
advantage in the life-cycle costs of structures, especially bridges which are prone to heavy loads
and environmental hazards [9]. Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are made of two constituent
materials: fibers and polymer matrices. The common properties of FRP fibers are presented in
Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: General Properties of Fibers Used in FRP Materials [10]
Tensile Tensile Coefficient of Strain to

Specific
Strength Modulus Thermal Expansion Failure
Gravity
(ksi) (106 )psi (10–6/°C) (%)
Glass 2.48–2.62 217–700 10.2–13.0 2.9–5.0 4.8–5.0
Carbon PAN 1.76–1.96 220–820 33–70 –0.60 to –0.75 0.38–1.81
Carbon Pitch 2.0–2.15 275–350 55–110 –1.30 to –1.45 0.32–0.50
Aramid 1.39–1.47 435–525 10.1–19.0 –2.0 to –6.0 1.9–4.4
Boron 2.7 450 57 5 0.2
2.1.1.1 Fibers
FRP fiber is generally made from one of three materials: carbon, glass or aramid.
 Carbon Fibers (Graphite Fibers): Carbon fiber is defined as a fiber containing at least
90% carbon by weight. Graphite fibers have carbon levels above 95% by weight. Carbon
or graphite fibers have a high tensile strength-to-weight ratio, a high tensile modulus-to
weight ratio, a very low coefficient of linear thermal expansion, high fatigue strength,
8
variety of material properties and excellent chemical resistance, which are considered to
be advantageous. The disadvantages of using carbon fibers are their relatively high cost,
their high brittleness and their high electrical conductivity. The material properties of
carbon fibers greatly depend on what precursors, or raw materials, they were derived
from. The two primary classes of material are polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fibers,
which is stronger, more expensive but also the most common and isotropic pitch carbon
fiber, which is cheaper but not as strong [9].
 Glass Fibers: Glass fibers are widely used and are available in a variety of forms suited
for different applications. The most common type is E-glass which is used for its low
susceptibility to moisture and high mechanical properties. Other types of glass fibers that
are used include S-glass, which has approximately 25% greater tensile strength than E-
glass but is more expensive, C-glass, which was developed for application in corrosive
environments, D-glass, which has lower density and dielectric constant than the other
types of glass fibers, and Z-glass, which is used for cement mortars and concretes due to
its resistance towards high alkali attack. Glass fibers are advantageous because they are
very hard, corrosion and chemical resistant, inert, flexible, a good insulator and
inexpensive. The disadvantages of glass fibers are low tensile modulus, high specific
gravity and sensitivity to abrasion during handling, high hardness and low fatigue
resistance [9].
 Aramid Fibers: Aramid fibers or Kevlar fibers are made from aromatic polyamides; these
have the lowest specific gravity and highest specific tensile strength among all type of
fibers [10]. Some of the characteristics are no melting point, low flammability and good
fabric integrity at elevated temperatures. The advantages of aramid fibers include very
low thermal conductivity, high damping coefficient and high degree of yielding under
compression. Their disadvantages include low compressive strength, loss of strength and
modulus at high temperatures and are hygroscopic (can absorb moisture up to about 10%
of fiber weight) [9].
 Boron Fibers: Boron fibers are usually made of a tungsten-filament core with elemental
boron vapor deposited on it to give strength and stiffness. The advantages of using boron
fibers include very high tensile modulus, in the range of 50x106 to 60x106 psi and good
resistance under compressive loads to buckling. The main disadvantage of Boron is its
9
high cost, which is even higher than that of many forms of carbon fibers. For this main
reason, its use is restricted to aerospace applications [9].
2.1.1.2 Matrices
The matrix is considered the secondary material in FRPs and does not contribute any
significant strength. Its major roles are transferring stresses between the fibers and protecting
fibers against the environmental and mechanical conditions. The importance of the matrix in a
composite is its effect on interlaminar and in-plane shear strengths. It also provides support
against buckling of the fibers under compressive loads. Polymer matrices are divided into two
categories:
 Thermoplastic Polymers: Individual molecules are in a linear structural form. Weak
secondary bond holds these molecules together. Heat or pressure temporarily breaks the
bonds, which causes movement between the molecules. After cooling the molecules set
into their new position. Thermoplastics have higher impact strength, fracture and micro
cracking resistance compared to thermosetting polymers. Examples of thermoplastic
polymers are acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), acrylics, fluoropolymers, polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polysulfone and polyether
ether ketone (PEEK) [9].
 Thermosetting Polymers: They are also known as epoxy resins that are used commonly
for fiber reinforced polymers as a matrix material. The molecules are joined together by
crosslinks, which leads to a more stable three-dimensional form that cannot be reshaped
by heat or pressure. They have better bonding between fibers and the matrix with an
ability to cool at room temperature in the presence of a catalyst. Some of the most
common types of thermosetting polymers are epoxy, polyester and vinyl ester [9].
2.2 Literature Review
There is a lot of research in the area of FRP and its application in various infrastructure
projects, but FRP wrappings undertaken by private companies for various infrastructures projects
are not published in the literature to allow verification of details. This section includes review on
both FRP bridges and FRP wraps to analyze the advantages of FRP over the conventional
rehabilitation methods.
10
2.2.1 Review on FRP Bridges
In a research paper titled “Financial Viability of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

Bridges”, the authors (H. E. Nystrom, S. E. Watkins, A. Nanni, S. Murray, 2003)[11] investigate
current and future costs to determine the cost effectiveness of this technology, by taking into
account the expected improvements in manufacturing, transport, installation and life-cycle
differences. This analysis also examines the future costs for the construction and life cycle costs.
Based on two case studies of short span FRP bridges, the learning curve approach and
comparison with traditional methods, the results show that probable improvements would not be
sufficient to compete on cost with reinforced-concrete bridges. The total direct costs are
estimated to be $3000/m2 ($275/ft2) for UMR Bridge and $1150/m2 ($107/ft2) for St. James
Bridge. The total cost of the UMR Bridge is $76,500 and the total cost for St. James Bridge is
$76,719. The estimated total direct cost for the Future Bridge similar to the other bridge is
approximately $740/m2 ($70/ft2), which reflects a 35% reduction from the St. James Bridge but it
is still 71% higher than the traditional RC bridge. Unless there is a significant improvement in
the cost of component material, this technology will not be cost competitive for the standard
short-span bridge and the application of FRP technology will be limited to other segments of the
market such as bridge repair and bridge deck construction.
“Construction and cost analysis of an FRP reinforced concrete bridge deck” by the
authors (A. C. Berg, L. C. Bank, M. G. Oliva, and J. S. Russell, 2005) [12] describes the use of
FRP materials as reinforcements and formwork for a concrete highway bridge deck. It provides
the description of the bridge and the FRP reinforcing systems that have been used in many
structures. Three forms of FRP reinforcing were combined to reinforce the concrete 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), resulted in the construction of a two-span highway
overpass on US Highway 151 in Wisconsin. The total material costs for the FRP reinforced
bridge were $632,718. The material costs for the steel reinforced bridge were $391,649. This
translates to over a 60% materials cost increase over conventional construction (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
11
$25,369.10(rebar) for a total FRP material cost of $257,929.10 at $370.17 per m2 ($34.39 per
ft2). The cost of the steel reinforcement was $37,060.10. Based on the analysis of the short-term
material and labor costs it appears that given the savings in construction time and their likely
long-term durability and maintenance benefits, FRP reinforcements for bridge decks may be
cost-effective, notwithstanding their currently high initial costs. The future optimization of the
design of FRP stay-in-place formwork and competitive bidding between FRP manufacturers is
recommended to decrease the cost of the FRP reinforcement system. The use of larger
prefabricated FRP grids in place of the FRP rebars may yield more labor and time savings.
“A Viable Alternative: Fiber-Reinforced Polymer” (by H.S. Ramnath, 2012) [31] talks
about the potential cost savings of fiber-reinforced polymer composites over steel-reinforcement
based on a life cycle cost analysis. The study compares two geometrically identical bridge decks
made from conventional steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
composites. BridgeLCC was the software used to calculate the life cycle cost analysis. The
conditions assumed for the analysis are the length of the study was 70 years, and the base year
was 2011; the inflation rate was 1.80% and the real discount rate was 3.20%. It is assumed that
there are two lanes on and under the bridge and the bridges are of medium length with a deck
area of 4500 ft2 and a length of 100 ft. Finally, the costs of Construction, Operation, Maintenance
and Repair (OM&R), and Disposal costs were given. The total OM&R of the SRC deck is
estimated at $390,005 and the FRP deck is $185,048 in base-year dollars which shows that FRP
bridge decks cost less to maintain than SRC bridge decks. The total cost in base-year dollars for
the FRP bridge deck is $79,957 less, or 14.3% cheaper than the SRC bridge deck. It is to be
noted that the total cost is estimated without considering the inflation. After approximately 20
years, the FRP bridge deck becomes the less expensive option. When inflation is factored in the
FRP is 35% cheaper than SRC.
2.2.2 Review on FRP Wraps
A paper by the “Highways Agency and Network Rail” in the United Kingdom titled
“FRP strengthening of concrete road and rail bridges in the UK” by the authors (N. Loudon and
B. Bell, 2010) [13] discusses the uses of fiber-reinforced composites by the Highways Agency
and Network Rail in the UK to strengthen concrete bridges. In construction, there are still
uncertainties about the use of composites such as glass, aramid and carbon fiber. They are light
12
and easily handled materials and not subject to corrosion, and are therefore a low-maintenance
and durable option for bridge decking and strengthening of structures. There are some potential
disadvantages when using composites such as longer-term durability. Alternatively, the
Highways Agency and Network Rail have successfully undertaken a lot of projects using
composites to strengthen their existing structures. There have been two main applications namely
column strengthening and deck strengthening which are primarily used for impact loading and
bending. The paper highlights case studies and the development of design guidance. The first
project was the strengthening of the M11 Coopersale Bridge in Essex. Aramid was used as a
wrap which was highly effective and resulted in significant savings in budget and installation
times. This led to the use of prefabricated glass fiber shell to surround the columns of most
bridges. The network rail projects such as the Glade Bridge used carbon-fiber-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) plate bonding. Three 100mm wide by 1.2 mm thick CFRP plates on each of the
six beams of the deck increased the capacity from 293KNm to 441KNm, providing 50% strength
gain and 104% increase in load capability. Mill’s Hill Bridge traverse concrete slab was
strengthened with CFRP plates of 80mm wide by 1.2 mm thick. It also summarizes research that
has been carried out with support from the two client organizations and other structural
applications of composites that are being undertaken by these organizations. Finally, the paper
suggests prospective future research activities with FRP system components, design
considerations and testing, and discusses the standards and guidance to manage the use of FRP’s
on their networks.
“Application of FRP laminates for strengthening of a reinforced-concrete T-beam bridge

structure” paper by the authors (O. H.Elsa, S. Alampalli, J. Kunin, 2000) [14] describes
application of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite laminates to strengthen an aging
reinforced-concrete T-beam bridge in South Troy, Rensselaer County, New York. Leakage at the
end joints of this single-span structure led to substantial moisture and salt infiltration in the
bridge superstructure. Presence of efflorescence was observed and freeze-thaw cracking and
concrete delamination at some locations on the beams were noted. Concerns about integrity of
the steel reinforcing and overall safety of the bridge were raised. These concerns were increased
by the absence of any documents pertaining to the bridge design such as rebar size, steel type,
concrete strength, and design loads. Thus, a decision was made to strengthen the bridge using
13
bonded FRP-laminates. Load tests were conducted before and after installation of the laminates
to evaluate effectiveness of the strengthening system and investigate its effect on structural
behavior. Tests results were analyzed and compared with those obtained using classical analysis.
Using bonded FRP laminates, as a cost-effective bridge rehabilitation technique, total cost of the
rehabilitation is estimated at $300,000, which may be compared to $1.2 million required for
replacement of the structure or, about 25% of the replacement cost.
The paper “Reliability analysis of bridge beams retrofitted with fiber reinforced
polymers” (H. B. Pham, R. A. Mahaidi, 2006) [15] presents a study of reliability of RC beams
retrofitted with FRP. The beam variables and their variability are assessed. Three common
failure modes are considered, flexural failure, intermediate span debond, and end debond. The
prediction models used in this study were developed previously by the authors. Monte Carlo
simulation was carried out to study the variability of the capacity of CFRP-strengthened beams
for each failure mode. A reliability analysis was carried out based on the guidance provided by
Eurocode 2. The analysis provides the bases for recommendation of capacity reduction factors
for different failure modes. It was found that for flexural failure and intermediate span debond a
factor of 0.6 is needed whereas a factor of 0.5 can be applied for end debond. These factors are
relatively low and reflect the uncertainty over FRP failure and debonding.
In a research report titled “Repair of Corrosion-Damaged Columns using FRP Wraps,”

the authors (R. S. Harichandran, M. I. Baiyasi, 2000) [16] performed experiments to assess the
effects of using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) wraps with fibers oriented in the hoop direction
for rehabilitating corrosion-damaged columns. Issues that were explored are: (1) freeze-thaw
durability of concrete square and cylindrical specimens wrapped with glass and carbon FRP and
subjected to an internal expansive force; (2) effect of wrapping on the rate of corrosion in an
accelerated corrosion test; (3) effect of freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycles on the properties of FRP
panels; (4) impact resistant of FRP panels supported on a concrete substrate; (5) effect of high
temperature on wraps; and (6) field installation of wraps on corrosion-damaged bridge columns.
The results of the freeze-thaw experiment shows that freeze-thaw cycles have no statistically
significant effect on the compressive strength of glass and carbon wrapped specimens. For
cylindrical specimens, glass and carbon wraps increased the strength by a factor of about 2.3 and
2.6, respectively. For square specimens, glass and carbon wraps increased the strength by a
14
factor of 1.4-1.5. Freeze-thaw conditioning generally reduced the longitudinal failure strain of
wrapped specimens. After 190 days of testing the results of the accelerated corrosion experiment
indicate that wrapping reduced the corrosion depth in the reinforcing bars by 46% to 59%. Both
glass and carbon wraps are equally effective in slowing down corrosion. Freeze-thaw and wet-
dry conditioning had no harmful effect on carbon FRP panels other than reduction in the ultimate
strain. Glass FRP panels showed 21% and 20% reductions in ultimate strength and ultimate
strain due to freeze-thaw conditioning, and 18% and 20% reductions in ultimate strength and
ultimate strain due to wet-dry conditioning. At temperatures in excess of 200°C the epoxy in the
FRPs burn and evaporate and the individual plies of wraps unravel. Therefore the wraps become
ineffective at such high temperatures and effective insulation is necessary.
The report also includes the estimated cost for the conventional chip and patch repair
technique that was used in the year 2000 by the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT) which was approximately $500-$725/m2 ($46.50 -$67.37/ft2) of repaired column
surface. The estimated cost of the glass and carbon wrap systems used in this research study as
provided by the respective suppliers is $425/m2 ($39.50/ft2) and $360/m2 ($33.50/ft2)
respectively. Estimated cost of surface preparation prior to wrap installation was provided by
MDOT is given in the Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Estimated Material and Installation Cost for Glass and Carbon Wrap Systems
Material Cost Installation Surface
/m2/layer Cost/m2/layer No. of Prep./ m2 Total
Wrap Type (/ft2/layer) (/ft2/layer) Layers (/ft2) Cost/m2(/ft2)
Glass $54 ($5) $54 ($5) 3 $101 ($10) $425 ($40)
Carbon $75 ($7) $54 ($5) 2 $101 ($10) $360 ($34)
It is evident from the experimental study conducted that both carbon and glass wrap
systems are sufficiently resistant to freeze-thaw cycles and reduce the corrosion rate by about the
same rate. Therefore, three layers of glass wrap or two layers of carbon wrap may be used to
repair Michigan bridge columns.
A report by the Iowa Department of Transportation titled “Repair of impact damaged pre-
stressed concrete beams with CFRP” by the authors (T. J. Wipf, F. W. Klaiber, J. D. Rhodes, B.
J. Kempers, 2004) [24] is about the testing of CFRP for repair/ strengthening of three damaged
15
bridges in the state of Iowa. The three bridges were load tested before the installation of CFRP.
One bridge was retested after the installation of the CFRP to determine the structural changes
after the repair. The experimental results showed some improvement in the structural behavior of
the bridge. The report also draws comparison between the steel jacket and CFRP repair costs
from a case study of five bridges repaired in Iowa.
The cost to repair a 30 ft. beam by steel jacketing for the Polk 3498 bridge was $24,952,
of which $15,312 is for structural steel. This was approximately $826 per lineal foot for repairs
by steel jacketing. The cost of Polk 3400 bridge repair by CFRP is $34,000. With 80 feet being
wrapped and ignoring the cost of the other five beams, the cost of this repair was $425 per lineal
foot. The CFRP repair on the bridge also includes the cost of flexural strengthening with carbon
fiber plates. The 4in. Sika S1012 plates, cost $44 per lineal foot. Four plates were placed side by
side along the bottom with a length of 75 feet for a total of 300 lineal feet. The total cost of the
plates was $13,000. After subtracting the plates cost from the total FRP cost of $34,000, the unit
price for CFRP wrap was $262.50 per lineal foot, which was less than 1/3 of the cost of the steel
jacket repair.
2.3 Case Histories
The four railway bridges for which the cost estimation was performed were restored with
the implementation of FRP technology. All four structures were located in Chicago, Illinois.
 56th Street
This bridge has a constant volume of city traffic. The repair work started in October and
continued through November of 2009. Traffic regulations and mobilization were provided for
speedy rehabilitation of the bridge. The concrete columns, arch beams and slabs were all repaired
and wrapped. The original architecture of the bridge column was to be maintained after the
retrofit, so a thinner GFRP material was applied at these locations so that the column’s
appearance was maintained to minimal or no impact. The 56th St. Bridge in Chicago can be seen
in Figure 2-1 [17].
16
Figure 2-1: Repaired 56th St. Bridge (AREMA, 2011) [17]
 California Avenue
The columns and beams of this bridge had been in very poor condition due to constant
usage by trucks. Before the application of GFRP wrapping, approximately 45% of the
column concrete and 30% of the beam /slab concrete was removed and replaced. The original
condition of the bridge can be seen in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 shows the repaired structure
[17].
Figure 2-2: California Avenue Bridge before Rehabilitation (AREMA, 2011) [17]
17
Figure 2-3: California Avenue Bridge after Rehabilitation (AREMA, 2011) [17]
 Decatur
This bridge was repaired during extreme cold weather, maintaining a minimum surface
temperature of 40°F throughout installation. Due to low volume of traffic the road was closed
and the entire structure was enclosed and heated for the work, as shown in Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-4: Decatur Bridge Enclosure (AREMA, 2011) [17]
18
 Champaign
This structure was enclosed and heated for cold weather conditions during FRP
application. Traffic control and mobilization were provided in this area during construction. In
addition to the columns and slabs, this structure consisted of concrete T-beams and steel encased
beams that were wrapped with GFRP. Construction workers removed and repaired
approximately 40% of the column concrete, 25% of the beam concrete and 50% of the slab
concrete before installing the glass fiber wrap system. Figure 2-5 shows the repaired structure.
Figure 2-5: Completed Champaign Bridge (AREMA, 2011) [17]
The cost estimation of the highway bridges for which the FRP repair and rehabilitation is
performed are located in the states of Oregon and California. The cost data obtained was for 26
bridges located in Oregon and seven bridges in California. Some of the bridges were grouped
into a bundle and the bid for the total contract was obtained for each bundle. A bundle may have
two to five bridges in a contract. The data includes various cost items of all bidders for each
contract. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 show the work on two of the projects involving FRP repairs and
rehabilitation.
19
Figure 2-6: Work on Sandy River Bridge in Oregon [18]
Figure 2-7: Preparation on Beaver Creek Bridge in Oregon [19]
2.4 Previous Projects on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of FRP Bridges
A life cycle cost estimation model was developed in a thesis submitted by

(Roychoudhury, 2001) [20]. The software model takes inputs like the length of the bridge,
geographical location of the bridge, the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) of the bridge, etc. The
model will then compute all the direct or indirect costs associated with the various stages of the
life of the bridge like maintenance costs, repair costs, and rehabilitation costs.
20
In another cost model for the pultrusion process by (Patrawala, 1999) [21], users input
variables for materials, geometry, weight, area, number of cavities, etc. The model selects
exogeneous, process material adjustment factors, etc. or the user may enter his values for these
parameters. The model calculates the cost and life of different equipments and the material cost.
In the Cost Estimation of FRP Wrapping for Bridge Rehabilitation report by

(Manukonda, 2011) [22], regression analysis was used to estimate the contract values of FRP
wrapping for bridge rehabilitation projects using data from different projects. The variables
studied were: the number of layers, the number of elements, the repair area, the type of material,
the type of application, and the product of layers and area. Two regression equations were built
separately, one each for columns and girders. Another equation was built for all contract values
with all element types. The variables element type, number of layers, area, number of elements
and number of layers × area were obtained as significant variables. Number of layers was the
most significant variable and it is present in all regression equations (Total Cost = −46782 +
41386 x Number of layers). A relationship for the FRP installation costs was given, Cost ($/ft2) =
$27 + 20,980/ Area (ft2). The area covered was for two layers and ranged from 600 to 3000 ft2.
In a thesis submitted by (Brayack, 2006) [23], a case study project that presents a
recommendation for possible adoption of FRP for bridge repair and retrofit was discussed. It had
some cost estimates by a consultant, the FRP unit cost was very low ($7/ft2) with two layers of
FRP wraps. It can be noted that the ratio obtained between the concrete repair costs and FRP
repair costs was 1.5 – 2.0. Thus the total project cost can be roughly estimated with a factor of
2.5 times the total FRP costs. The FRP repair area was larger with twice the size of the concrete
repair area and the estimated total unit cost adjusted to inflation was $40/ ft2.
2.5 Cost Estimates of FRP Wrapping from Contractors in the Construction Industry and
Various State Departments of Transportation
Sean Wisotzkey, Project Engineer - Buildings Division of Fyfe Company [26] gave an
approximate installed cost for FRP wrapping of the projects done by the company. He provided
an approximate installed cost (includes all labor and material) for glass around $20-$25 per
square foot per layer and carbon around $35-$40 per square foot per layer, also a general rule of
thumb, that glass FRP is about half the price of carbon FRP (just raw materials, this does not
21
always translate to installed costs). The price includes concrete preparation but not restoration
(no demo, patching, etc).
John Huedepohl of HJ3® Composite Technologies [26] gave an approximate unit cost for
FRP wrapping based on the three main cost items.
Table 2-3: Approximate Unit Costs of Various Cost Items
Surface Preparation $8 - $15/sqft
CFRP $10 - $20/sqft
Misc $10 - $20/sqft
Total Unit Costs $28 - $55/sqft
Justin Jar, Bridge Inspection Manager at the Utah Department of Transportation [27]
provided an approximate unit cost for CFRP ($30 - $50/ sqft) and GFRP ($20/ sqft) including
labor and material costs.
FRP wrapping is limited in Utah and the cost involved is very small (about 10% – 30%)
of the total project costs. These costs are for CFRP only. Concrete repair on column, bent cap
can be estimated by their surface areas, depending on minor, moderate or major repair. The
average concrete cost for column 3 ft in diameter, 15 to 20 ft height with cracks, spalls and rebar
exposed repair at $10,000/each or $25/ft2 range.
A report by the structures division of the New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT) estimated the cost to be approximately $14.52 per layer per square feet for E-glass
and $20.33 per layer per square feet for carbon (adjusted to 2011 cost) [29].
Jeff DeFevere, Division of Engineering Services at the California Department of

Transportation [30] provided the cost summaries for FRP wrap work done to its bridges. Table 2-
4 provides the cost details. Information about all other cost items with all bidders are also given
but not included here. The adjusted price is based on latest US government PPI data released on
April 14, 2013 adjusted to the year 2011.
22
Table 2-4: Cost Items of FRP Repairs of 10 Bridges in California [30]
Adj. Adj.
Unit Unit FRP FRP
Description Year Unit Quantity Cost Cost* Cost Cost* Total Contact
Composite
Column Casing 2008 Sqft 614 $55.70 $58.19 $34,200 $35,731 $39,726,300
Composite
Column Casing 2010 Sqft 420 $77.65 $80.10 $32,613 $33,643 $995,644
Composite
Composite
Composite
Column Casing 2012 Sqft 3,677 $65.00 $63.51 $239,005 $233,521 $3,352,320
Composite Girder
Strengthening 2012 Sqft 2620 $70.50 $68.88 $184,710 $180,472 $2,559,279
Composite Girder
Strengthening 2012 Sqft 170 $99.00 $96.73 $16,830 $16,444 $735,961
Carbon Fiber
Reinforced
Polymer 2009 lf 10132 $24.00 $25.16 $243,168 $254,958 $7,397,807
Carbon Fiber
Reinforced
Polymer Strips 2008 lf 1303 $12.19 $12.73 $15,880 $16,591 $886,360
Carbon Fiber
Reinforced
Polymer Strips 2012 lf 5500 $15.00 $14.66 $82,500 $80,607 $1,563,592
*Cost adjusted to the year 2011.
The four bridges in West Virginia [33] repaired by using Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) wrap are Pond Creek Overpass, East Street Viaduct, Muddy Creek Bridge and Flag Run
Bridge. Five damaged columns on the Pond Creek Overpass were repaired using FRP wraps. The
total cost for the project was $214,940 and the total cost for FRP wrapping was $53,500, with
$10,600 for repair of concrete columns with Fiber Composition Wrap and $42,900 for Fiber.
After the initial repair, the bridge was again damaged by a fire. The total cost of repair was
$42,697.05 and the cost of repair of concrete piers with FRP wrap was $20,000. In 2010, the
periodic inspections of the FRP wraps concluded they are in “good condition” and “have no
visible defects”.
23
The total cost for repairing the East Street Viaduct was $512,000 in which the FRP
installation cost was $160,000. Another estimate for the repair of concrete columns with Fiber
Composites Wrap was $183,408 with additional cost of $5,850 for tack and seal of FRP wrap. In
2002, an inspection concluded that the bridge was in fair condition.
The Muddy Creek Bridge and the Flag Run Bridge cost items could not be obtained. The
inspection of both the bridges rates the overall bridge structures as good.
24
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodology
The purpose of this study is to determine the variables that have a significant effect on the
total cost of the FRP wrapping. The data are also analyzed for cost effectiveness and productivity
of the FRP wrapping in the bridge repairs. The steps performed to do the study are:
1. Obtain cost data for FRP wrapped bridges.

2. Literature review to understand the cost estimation processes and cost estimation
models of FRP wrapping projects and the different publications related to this study.
3. Cost data of previous FRP wrapping projects is used to identify the significant
variables.
4. Cost estimation is performed by categorizing the variables based on three main
items:
 Concrete Substrate Preparation (surface prep only- grinding,
coatings, etc.)
 FRP repair
 Miscellaneous (Traffic Control, Mobilization etc.)
5. All costs are adjusted to the inflation rates that were calculated by using the
Producer Price Index (PPI) for the maintenance and repair construction industry. The PPI
values of every year for which the inflation is calculated were obtained from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) as shown in Table 3-1[25]. The inflation rate of a particular
year can be calculated by using the formula,
I = ((B - A)/A)*100
Where
I = Inflation rate
B = PPI value in 2011
A = PPI value of the year in which contract was done
25
Table 3-1: Producer Price Index (PPI) Values from the Year 1999 to 2012 [25].
Year PPI
1999 133.3
2000 137.1
2001 137.6
2002 137.0
2003 139.6
2004 151.3
2005 164.4
2006 177.6
2007 184.3
2008 202.1
2009 193.0
2010 207.0
2011 225.0
2012 225.9
6. Regression equations are generated to predict the total project costs and the cost per unit
area of the bridge repairs.
7. Relationships between the variables are identified using the regression analysis and plots
between the variables.
8. The least squares percentage regression is performed and compared to the results with
simple linear regression. The least squares regression based on the percentage error,
which is relative to the observed value is developed. Since the data does not have a
constant variance, this approach is used to provide consistent coefficient estimates. The
formulae used are given as
(∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ )
Slope, b = (3.4)
∑ ∑ (∑ )
(∑ ∑ )
Intercept, a = (3.5)
∑
26
The coefficient of relative determination is given by (3.6)
Where Total Relative Variation = Explained Relative Variation + Unexplained Relative

Variation.
( ) ( ) ( )
∑ ∑ ∑ (3.7)
3.2 Repair Procedure
All bridge structures carry the following steps in performing the repairs using FRP wraps.
They are:
 Concrete Repairs
 FRP Repairs
 Non-Destructive Testing
3.2.1 Concrete Repairs:
This step involves preparing the concrete surface before the application of FRP wraps.
The concrete surface is repaired by removing loose concrete, dust and debris from the bridge
column, beam or slab structure. Epoxy cement is applied between the cracks and the reformation
of cross section is performed. The surface is cleaned by sand blasting and localized repair areas
were hand patched using mortar mix. Similarly de-chlorination and re-alkalization is performed.
The report mainly focuses on the cost items of the above mentioned tasks along with traffic
control and permits. Focus is also given to the labor hours and the time standards for the concrete
repairs. Similarly for the highway bridges wearing surfaces, bases are the tasks considered for
the substrate preparation.
3.2.2 FRP Repairs:
After preparing the concrete surface, epoxy primer is applied to all FRP wrap contact
surfaces. The FRP wraps are then applied to the repair areas of any bridge element using hand
layup method to prevent any air bubbles forming on the surface. Painting is done after a required
time to allow the coating and the epoxy to cure together. The focus is given on the labor,
material, and equipment cost along with the FRP application and painting of the FRP repair task.
27
The highway bridges consider the FRP strengthening cost that includes all the cost involved to
do the repair of the bridge sections.
3.2.3 Non-Destructive Testing:
Non-Destructive Testing is performed on the bridge element where the repair work is
completed to evaluate the bonding between the FRP wrap and the surface of the element. The
different types of NDT techniques include infrared thermography, optical microscopy NDT,
microwave sensor techniques, and ultra-sonic testing. There is no data given for the NDT for the
railway brides and the highway bridges.
In the railway project, man hours for concrete repairs, FRP repairs, material, and
equipment and their respective cost items is considered for the estimation. The other costs
involved are transportation and overhead. Regression models are run between the cost items and
the total project costs of the FRP wrapping projects. The highway bridges also use temporary
features, traffic control and right of way cost items along with concrete and FRP repair costs.
3.3 Cost Analysis
According to Sean Wisotzkey, Project Engineer - Buildings Division of Fyfe Company

[26], the cost of the fiber wrap varies greatly depending on the number of wraps and the size of
the job. There are many factors that will affect the price of a project, the major ones being:
 Required material (carbon vs. glass)

 Performance requirement (how many layers are required)
 Application type (wrapping columns vs. applying FRP overhead)
 Site conditions (obstructions, night work, confined space, etc)
 Wage rates (some projects require union wages which drives the cost of the labor up)
 Size of project (larger projects will result in a lower FRP cost per square foot)
From the publications reviewed in Chapter 2, it is observed that the number of layers make a
significant difference in the total FRP cost of the project. The railway bridge projects and the
highway bridge projects had only one layer of FRP for the repairs.
The railway bridges data (Table 3-2 to 3-8) is divided into three categories – concrete
repairs, FRP application and Non-Destructive Testing (NDT). These categories are subdivided
28
into many tasks and provide an opportunity to predict the total FRP cost from many variables.
The type of application used here can have an effect on the total cost. Beams are more labor
intensive than columns, so each application has a different cost per square foot. Based on the
type of application, the variables that are considered here are concrete and FRP total area, beam,
column, and slab area.
Table 3-2: FRP Area and Cost Data for Four Railway Bridges for the Respective Wrapping
Procedures.
Area Costs
Concrete Total Concrete

Repairs Columns Beams Slabs Walls Total Area Labor Material Equipment cost
Decatur 715 200 230 1145 $ 40,500 $ 26,000 $ 128,500 $ 195,000
56th street 390 220 100 200 910 $ 72,000 $ 44,000 $ 23,000 $ 139,000
California 1650 800 2350 460 5260 $ 101,250 $ 93,000 $ 274,000 $ 468,250
Champaign 1100 670 3900 5670 $ 129,935 $ 81,000 $ 223,000 $ 433,935
FRP Areas Columns Beams Slabs Walls Total Area Labor Material Equipment Total FRP cost
Decatur 1860 1850 3500 7210 $ 53,250 $ 33,000 $ 14,000 $ 100,250
56th street 1200 850 1750 3800 $ 55,800 $ 22,000 $ 5,000 $ 82,800
California 2450 1610 3760 7820 $ 108,900 $ 92,000 $ 40,000 $ 240,900
Champaign 800 2400 8800 12000 $ 130,000 $ 75,000 $ 34,000 $ 239,000
Table 3-3: Total FRP and Concrete Wrapping Cost Data with Sub-Costs.
Total Cost Labor Material Equipment Total Cost
Decatur $ 93,750 $ 59,000 $ 142,500 $ 295,250
56th street $ 127,800 $ 66,000 $ 28,000 $ 221,800
California $ 211,230 $ 185,000 $ 314,000 $ 710,230
Champaign $ 260,455 $ 156,000 $ 257,000 $ 673,455
Table 3-4: Transportation, Overhead & Profit Cost Data with Total Contract Cost.
Cost/labor hrs Transportation O/H &Profit Profit% Total Contract

Decatur $ 75 $ 12,000 $ 42,750 12.21% $ 350,000
56th street $ 90 $ 3,000 $ 35,200 13.54% $ 260,000
California $ 90 $ 4,000 $ 95,770 11.82% $ 810,000
Champaign $ 65 $ - $ 86,545 11.39% $ 760,000
29
Table 3-5: Material Costs of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks
Material Costs of All Tasks

Removal of Dust and Enclosures Application Reformation
Concrete Loose Debris & Heating of Epoxy of Cross Inject Traffic
Tasks Concrete Removal for Winter Cement Section Joints Control Permits
Decatur $ 8,000 $ 2,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 2,000
56th street $ - $ 8,000 $ - $ - $ 12,000 $ 5,000 $ 9,000 $ 10,000
California $ 20,000 $ 9,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ 12,000 $ 13,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000
Champaign $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ 12,000 $ 13,000 $ 10,000 $ 12,000
FRP Tasks FRP App Resin App Painting

Decatur $ 29,000 $ - $ 4,000
56th street $ 16,000 $ - $ 6,000
California $ 57,000 $ 10,000 $ 25,000
Champaign $ 55,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Table 3-6: Equipment Costs of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks
Equipment Costs of All Tasks

Concrete Removal of Dust and Enclosures Reformation
Repair Loose Sand Debris & Heating of Cross Inject
Tasks Concrete Blasting Removal for Winter Section Joints Engineering Permits
Decatur $ 4,000 $ 13,500 $ 3,000 $ 30,000 $ 61,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 12,000
56th street $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ -
California $ 22,000 $ 26,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 210,000 $ 3,000 $ 8,000 $ -
Champaign $ 20,000 $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ - $ 165,000 $ 3,000 $ 5,000 $ -
FRP Repair
Tasks Resin App FRP App Painting Other
Decatur $ - $ 11,000 $ 3,000 $ -
56th street $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ -
California $ - $ 32,000 $ 3,000 $ 5,000
Champaign $ - $ 28,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000
30
Table 3-7: Man-Hours Involved of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks
Man-hours of All Tasks

Enclosures &
Concrete Repair Removal of Dust and Debris Reformation of Heating for
Tasks Loose Concrete Removal Cross Section Inject Joints Winter Total Hrs
Decatur 210 110 0 220 120 660
56th street 300 80 200 220 0 800
California 800 150 0 175 0 1125
Champaign 984 189 618 208 0 1999
FRP Repair Tasks FRP App Other (Proj Mgmt) Total Hrs
Decatur 350 360 710
56th street 420 200 620
California 810 400 1210
Champaign 1200 800 2000
Table 3-8: Man-Hours Costs of Various Concrete and FRP Tasks
Man-Hours Cost of All Tasks

Removal of Reformation Enclosures
Concrete Repair Loose Dust and Debris of Cross & Heating
Tasks Concrete Removal Section Inject Joints Total Hrs for Winter
Decatur $ 15,750 $ 8,250 $ - $ 16,500 $ 49,500 $ 9,000
56th street $ 27,000 $ 7,200 $ 18,000 $ 19,800 $ 72,000 0
California $ 72,000 $ 13,500 $ - $ 15,750 $ 101,250 0
Champaign $ 63,960 $ 12,285 $ 40,170 $ 13,520 $ 129,935 0
FRP Repair Tasks FRP App Other (Proj Mgmt)Total Hrs

Decatur $ 26,250 $ 27,000 $ 53,250
56th street $ 37,800 $ 18,000 $ 55,800
California $ 72,900 $ 36,000 $ 108,900
Champaign $ 78,000 $ 52,000 $ 130,000
31
The three main costs involved are labor, material, and equipment cost as presented in
Figure 3-1. From the initial observation it can be seen that the equipment costs were largest with
39% of the total project costs followed by labor with 36.5% and material with 24.5%. The labor
costs for the four bridges varied from $65 to $90 per hour which can make a difference in the
repair costs.
Repair Costs
36.5% 39.0%
24.5%
Total Labor Cost Total Material Cost Total Equipment Cost
Figure 3-1: Distribution of Costs for the Repair of Four Bridges in Chicago
% Concrete Cost % FRP Cost % Concrete Area % FRP Area
29% 32% 30% 31%
60% 68%
86% 81%
56% 53% 58% 57%

40% 32%
14% 19%
Decatur 56th street California Champaign Decatur 56th street California Champaign
Figure 3-2: Comparison and Distribution of Costs and Area for Concrete and FRP
Repairs
Figure 3-2 shows that the concrete repair cost is a major portion in the total repair costs
and the unit cost for FRP repair is lower than the unit cost of the concrete repairs for all the four
32
Chicago bridges. The ratio of the concrete cost to the FRP cost remains similar to all four
bridges, because of different labor costs/ man hours which vary from $65 to $90/hr. for different
concrete and FRP repair areas.
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Other (Project
Total Cost, $ Total Repair, Hrs
Mgmt), $ (100
(1000 Units) (10 Hr)
Units)
Summer / Fall 1070 540 375.5
Winter 1110 790 536.9
Figure 3-3: Seasonal Difference of Costs and Total Work Hours for the Repair of Bridges in
Chicago
Figure 3-3 shows the cost of doing work during winter is high than in the summer or fall
seasons. The cost of repair work in winter increases total repair cost by 3.7%, and increases
project management cost by 46% from the summer/fall cost. The time required increases by 43%
during winter compared to summer or fall. There was no work done during the spring season for
these four bridges in the Chicago region.
The costs for the railway bridges are divided as concrete repairs, FRP repairs and NDT
costs. Each repair section is categorized into three costs – labor cost, materials cost, and
equipment cost. These costs are further subdivided into many tasks (traffic control, inject joints,
etc.). These tasks provide a scope to perform a detailed analysis with variables that affect the
total cost. There is a limitation with the usage of all variables, as there is minimal or no data for
some tasks. The variables considered for both concrete and FRP repairs are labor cost, material
cost, and equipment cost. Some of the other variables considered here are tasks provided for each
costs; like dust and debris removal, inject joints, traffic control, permits, and FRP application.
Transportation, overhead and profit costs are also considered as variables in predicting the total
33
FRP cost. Table 3-9 provides the concrete repair and FRP repair areas and their price for the four
railway bridges in Chicago. The total unit cost is obtained by dividing the total contract with the
total repair area (Concrete area + FRP area).
TABLE 3-9: Project Costs for the Four Railway Bridges in Chicago
FRP FRP Total

Concrete Concrete Concrete FRP
Spans Repair Unit Unit
Bridge Height Repair Repair Unit Cost Repair
(ft) Areas, Cost Cost
Areas, ft2 Cost, $ $/ft2 Cost, $
ft2 $/ft2 $/ft2
Decatur 20/42/20 13'6" 1145 195,000 170.31 7210 100,250 13.90 41.89
10/23/23
56th street 13'6" 910 139,000 152.75 3800 82,800 21.79 55.20
/10
10/23/23
California 13'2" 5260 468,250 89.02 7820 240,900 30.81 61.93
/10
13/26/26
Champaign 15'0" 5670 433,935 76.53 12000 239,000 19.92 43.01
/11
34
3.4 Classification of Variables
From the railway bridges data (Tables 3-2 to 3-8), the cost estimation is performed by
categorizing the variables based on the following three main items as shown in Table 3-10.
 Concrete Substrate Preparation (surface prep only- grinding, coatings, etc.)
 FRP Repair
 Miscellaneous (Traffic Control, Mobilization etc.)
 Other Variables considered in the cost predictions as shown in Table 3-11.
Table 3-10: Categorized List of Variables for Three Main Cost Items for Railway Bridges in
Chicago
Concrete Substrate Preparation FRP Repair Cost Miscellaneous Costs
Cost
 Concrete labor cost  FRP labor cost  Traffic control
 Concrete material cost  FRP material cost  Permits (MC + EC)
 Concrete equipment cost  FRP equipment  Engineering
 Total concrete cost cost  Overhead & Profit
 Dust and Debris removal  Total FRP cost  Transportation
task cost (MC + EC +LC)  FRP application
 Inject joints task cost (MC + EC +LC)
(MC + EC +LC)  Painting (MC +
 Reformation of cross EC)
section (MC + EC +LC)  Other FRP tasks
 Sand blasting (EC) (man-hrs)
 Removal of loose concrete
(MC + EC +LC)
MC – Material Cost; EC – Equipment Cost; LC – Labor Cost
35
Table 3-11: Other Variables Involved in Predicting the Total Contract of the FRP Repairs.
Repair Areas Total Cost

 Concrete Area  Total labor cost
 Concrete column area  Total material cost
 Concrete beam area  Total equipment cost
 Concrete slab area
 FRP Area
 FRP column area
 FRP beam area
 FRP slab area
There were many variables considered in predicting the total FRP repair costs of the
railway bridges. This analysis used simple linear regression to predict costs and identify the
relationship between the two variables. A simple linear equation model shows the relationship
between the two variables: the independent and the dependent variables. The relationship
between the response Y and the independent variable x is given in the form
E (Y) = α + βx, (3.8)
where, α is the intercept, a constant that represents fixed set up costs like cost of equipment,
mobilization, traffic control etc., and β is the slope . The total contract value is the response
variable Y and x is the independent variable that is used to predict the total contract cost of the
project.
Microsoft Excel or Minitab can analyze and plot the graphs. An analysis is performed
and the results are shown in Chapter 4.
The highway bridges data can also be categorized based on the three main cost items as
listed in Table 3-12.
36
Table 3-12: Categorized List of Variables for Three Main Cost Items for Bridges in Oregon
Concrete Substrate FRP Repair Miscellaneous
Preparation
 Roadwork  FRP Strengthening  Temporary features
 Wearing surfaces Cost  Traffic control
 Bases  FRP Area  Right of way, development
and control
Here more than one independent variable explains the variations in the response variable
Y, i.e. total contract; and a multiple regression model can be used which is of the form
Yij = β0 + β1x1 + β2x2 + ·· ·+βixi + βnxn + εij (3.09)
Where β0 is a constant
β1, β2…βn are regression coefficients and
x1, x2…xn are predictor variables.
List of predictor variables:

 X1 – Roadwork
 X2 – Wearing surfaces
 X3 – Bases
 X4 – FRP strengthening cost
 X5 – FRP area
 X6 – Temporary features
 X7 – Traffic control
 X8 – Right of way development and control
Therefore the regression equation is of the form
Yij = β0 + β1x1 + β2x2 + β3x3 + β4x4 + β5x5 + β6x6 + β7x7 + β8x8 + εij (3.10)
A regression analysis was performed on these variables using Minitab to predict the cost and to
determine the significance of the variables.
37
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study show the analysis of four Chicago bridges that are repaired using
FRP wraps. The major limitation for the Chicago railway bridges is having only four data points
and large number of variables. So the variables are individually analyzed in predicting the total
project costs.
4.1 Cost Analysis of Railway Bridges
From the initial analysis of data for the four bridges in the Chicago area, the total
concrete repair area has a high correlation with the total project costs as the concrete repair costs
are typically greater than the FRP costs. The concrete repair area ranged between 910 ft2 and
5670 ft2. The analysis shows that 97% of the variation in total contract is explained by variation
in total area of concrete repairs (Figure 4-1). Further, the p-value (= 0.01) obtained in Figure 4-2
is much lower than 0.05 which suggests that the variables are significant. The table also shows
the values of the actual and predicted values of the total repair cost. A deviation of +/- 10% of
the total cost is also found to predict the variation in the total cost. The intercept value of
$195,783 represents fixed set up costs like cost of equipment, mobilization, traffic control etc.
Let TR = Traditional Regression and PR = Percentage Regression. The regression equations
obtained by traditional regression and percentage regression are
Total Contract (TR-$) = 107.58 x Concrete Repair Area (ft2) + 195,783 (4.1)
Total Contract (PR-$) = 110.41 x Concrete Repair Area (ft2) + 181,844.96 (4.2)
$1,000,000
$900,000 y = 107.58x + 195783
R² = 0.9723
Project Total Contract, $
$800,000
$700,000
Total Cost
$600,000
Total cost +10%
$500,000
Total Cost - 10%
$400,000
Linear (Total Cost)
$300,000
$200,000 Linear (Total cost +10%)
$100,000 Linear (Total Cost - 10%)

$-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Total Concrete Area, ft2
Figure 4-1: Scatter Plot of Total Repair Cost Against Total Repair Area of the Concrete Repairs
38
S = 57136.8 R-Sq = 97.2% R-Sq(adj) = 95.8%
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 2.29171E+11 2.29171E+11 70.20 0.014
Error 2 6.52923E+09 3.26461E+09
Total 3 2.35700E+11
Figure 4-2: ANOVA of Total Repair Cost Against Total Repair Area of the Concrete Repairs
The regression equation obtained by percentage regression produced a coefficient of

relative determination of 0.9829 as against a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.9723 by the
traditional approach. The percentage residuals varied between 12% and -9% and didn’t vary
much from the traditional regression.
Table 4-1: Predicted Values and Residuals for Total Area of the Concrete Repairs
Total
Concrete Total Total
Area Actual Predicted Cost + Cost - % P-
(Sq.ft) Total Cost Total Cost 10% 10% Residuals Residual value
1145 $ 350,000 $ 318,957 $350,853 $287,061 31043 9%
910 $ 260,000 $ 293,677 $323,044 $264,309 -33677 -13%
0.01
5260 $ 810,000 $ 761,630 $837,793 $685,467 48370 6%
5670 $ 760,000 $ 805,736 $886,310 $725,163 -45736 -6%
Table 4-2: Least Squares Percentage Regression of Total Concrete Area and Total Project Cost
Total
Concrete Actual Predicted Coefficient of
Area Total Total Relative
(Sq.ft) Cost Cost ERV URV TRV Determination
1145 $350,000 $308,262 0.4575 0.0142 0.4717
910 $260,000 $282,316 1.0208 0.0074 1.0281
0.9829
5260 $810,000 $762,591 0.0722 0.0034 0.0756
5670 $760,000 $807,858 0.1196 0.0040 0.1236
ERV – Explained Relative Variation; URV - Unexplained Relative Variation; TRV – Total
Relative Variation
39
The concrete area variable is significant when run along with FRP area to predict the total
contract cost. The correlation coefficient (r) is 0.82, which says that concrete repair area and FRP
repair area have a moderate to good correlation. Figure 4-3 shows the stepwise regression on
concrete and FRP area. The concrete area was highly significant with a p-value of 0.01.
Alpha-to-Enter: 0.05 Alpha-to-Remove: 0.05
Response is Total Contract on 2 predictors, with N = 4
Step 1
Constant 195783
Total ConcreteArea 108

T-Value 8.38
P-Value 0.014
S 57137
R-Sq 97.23
R-Sq(adj) 95.84
Mallows Cp 1.1
Figure 4-3: Stepwise Regression on Concrete and FRP Repair Area
Similarly the concrete beam area repair is the only type of application that shows some
significant relationship with the total cost of the bridge repair with a p-value of 0.01. It is known
that the beam area of the bridge repair is more difficult to repair than the other repair areas.
There was a large percentage error of more than 10% deviation for two of the bridge data. A
relationship was established with the equation
Total Contract (TR-$) = 894.73 x Concrete Beam Area (ft2) + 122,239 (4.3)
The FRP repair areas ranged from 3800 ft2 to 12000ft2. A relationship between the total
contract and the total FRP areas is shown in Figure 4-4 with an R2 of 0.5848. The equation
obtained was
Total Contract (TR-$) = 63.71 x FRP Area (ft2) + 53,927 (4.4)
40
1000000
y = 63.714x + 53927
900000 R² = 0.5848
800000
Total Contract, $ Total Contract, $
700000
600000
Total Cost + 10%
500000
400000 Total Cost -10%
300000
Linear (Total Contract, $)
200000
100000 Linear (Total Cost + 10%
0 )
Linear (Total Cost -10%)
0 5000 10000 15000
FRP Area, ft2
Figure 4-4: Scatter Plot of Total Repair Cost Against Total Area of the FRP Repairs
S = 221207 R-Sq = 58.5% R-Sq(adj) = 37.7%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 1.37835E+11 1.37835E+11 2.82 0.235
Error 2 9.78651E+10 4.89326E+10
Total 3 2.35700E+11
Figure 4-5: ANOVA of Total Repair Cost Against Total Repair Area of the FRP Repairs
Concrete substrate preparation and the FRP repair are the two main components in this
analysis. With the costs involving concrete repairs, the total project costs are approximately two
times the total concrete costs which is given by the relation with a percentage residual of -1% to
1%, (Figure 4-7)
Total Contract (TR-$) = 1.6864 x Total Concrete Repair Cost ($) + 23,831 (4.5)
The concrete repairs included tasks like dust and debris removal, removal of loose concrete,
reformation of cross-sections, sand blasting and injection of joints.
S = 4562.37 R-Sq = 99.9% R-Sq(adj) = 99.9%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 2.35658E+11 2.35658E+11 11321.46 0.000
Error 2 4.16304E+07 2.08152E+07
Total 3 2.35700E+11
Figure 4-6: ANOVA of Total Project Cost against the Total Concrete Repairs Cost
41
$1,000,000
y = 1.6864x + 23831
$900,000
R² = 0.9998
$800,000
Total Contract, $
$700,000
Total Cost
$600,000
$500,000 Total Cost + 10%
$400,000
Total Cost - 10%
$300,000
$200,000 Linear (Total Cost)
$100,000 Linear (Total Cost +
$- 10%)
$- $200,000 $400,000 Linear (Total Cost -
Total Concrete Repair Cost, $ 10%)
Figure 4-7: Scatter Plot of Total Project Cost against the Total Concrete Repairs Cost
The FRP repair areas are larger than the concrete areas for all the four bridges. Similar to
the concrete costs, the total project costs are approximately 3 times the estimate of the FRP
repair costs (Figure 4-8) which is given by
Total Contract (TR-$) = 3.249 x Total FRP Cost ($) + 6,512.8 (4.6)
$1,000,000
y = 3.249x + 6512.8
$900,000
R² = 0.9936
Total Project Cost, $
$800,000
$700,000 FRP Repair Cost
$600,000
FRP Repair Cost +
$500,000
10%
$400,000 FRP Repair Cost -
$300,000 10%
$200,000 Linear (FRP Repair
$100,000 Cost)
$- Linear (FRP Repair
$- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 Cost + 10%)
Linear (FRP Repair
Total FRP Repair Cost, $ Cost - 10%)
Figure 4-8: Scatter Plot of Total Project Cost against the Total FRP Repairs Cost
S = 27568.0 R-Sq = 99.4% R-Sq(adj) = 99.0%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 2.34180E+11 2.34180E+11 308.13 0.003
Error 2 1.51999E+09 7.59997E+08
Total 3 2.35700E+11
Figure 4-9: ANOVA of Total Project Cost against the Total FRP Repairs Cost
42
A relationship between the FRP cost and the Concrete cost is obtained with an R² of
0.9913 and p-value of 0.004 as shown in Figure 4-10.The relationship obtained shows that the
total concrete cost is approximately two times the total FRP cost which is similar to the
relationship shown in the literature review in chapter 2.
Total Concrete Repair Cost (TR-$) = 1.9242 x Total FRP Repair Cost ($) - 9874.1 (4.7)
$600,000
Total Concrete Repair Cost, $
y = 1.9242x - 9874.1
$500,000 R² = 0.9913
$400,000
Total Concrete Cost
$300,000
Total Concrete Cost +
$200,000 10%
Total Concrete Cost -
$100,000 10%
Linear (Total Concrete
$0 Cost)
$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 Linear (Total Concrete
Cost + 10% )
Total FRP Repair Cost, $
Figure 4-10: Scatter Plot of Total FRP Cost Against the Total Concrete Cost
S = 19021.7 R-Sq = 99.1% R-Sq(adj) = 98.7%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 8.21417E+10 8.21417E+10 227.02 0.004
Error 2 7.23647E+08 3.61824E+08
Total 3 8.28653E+10
Figure 4-11: ANOVA of Total FRP Repair Cost Against the Total Concrete Repair Cost
Another cost factor is the FRP material cost, which gives a p-value of 0.009 against the
total contract. The FRP repairs included FRP application task, painting and other (management)
tasks. The FRP application took the majority of the FRP repair task and had a high correlation of
R2 = 0.9948. The FRP material costs had better percentage errors that were less than 10 percent
deviation of the predicted total project costs. The relations obtained were
Total Contract (TR-$) = 8.3209 x FRP Material Cost ($) + 83,192 (4.8)
43
Total Contract (PR-$) = 8.46 x FRP Material Cost ($) + 74,017.02 (4.9)
$1,000,000
$900,000 y = 8.3209x + 83192
Project Total Contract, $ $800,000 R² = 0.9814
$700,000
Total Cost
$600,000
$500,000 Total Cost + 10%
$400,000
Total Cost - 10%
$300,000
$100,000
$- Linear (Total Cost +
10%)
$- $40,000 $80,000 Linear (Total Cost -
Total FRP Material cost, $ 10%)
Figure 4-12: Scatter Plot of Total Cost to Repair Against the Material Cost of the FRP Repairs
S = 46797.6 R-Sq = 98.1% R-Sq(adj) = 97.2%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 2.31320E+11 2.31320E+11 105.62 0.009
Error 2 4.38004E+09 2.19002E+09
Total 3 2.35700E+11
Figure 4-13: ANOVA of Total Cost to Repair Against the Material Cost of the FRP Repairs
The small residuals show a sign of a good fit which varies from -2% to 7%. Table 4-3
and Figure 4-12 shows the predicted cost items and a linear fit of the total repair costs. The least
squares percentage regression equation obtained a coefficient of relative determination of 0.9956
as against an R2 of 0.9814 by the traditional regression.
Table 4-3: Predicted Values and Residuals for Total Cost of the FRP Repairs Against the FRP
Material Cost
Total FRP Actual Predicted Total Total
Material Total Total Cost + Cost - % P-
Cost Cost Cost 10% 10% Residuals Residual value
$ 33,000 $ 350,000 $ 357,781 $393,559 $322,003 -7781 -2%
$ 22,000 $ 260,000 $ 266,251 $292,876 $239,626 -6251 -2%
0.009
$ 92,000 $ 810,000 $ 848,711 $933,583 $763,840 -38711 -5%
$ 75,000 $ 760,000 $ 707,257 $777,982 $636,531 52743 7%
44
Table 4-4: Least Squares Percentage Regression of FRP Material cost and Total Project Cost
Total FRP Actual Predicted Coefficient of

Material Total Total Relative
Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ ERV URV TRV Determination
33000 350000 $353,063 0.3007 0.0001 0.3008
22000 260000 $260,047 1.2012 0.0000 1.2012
0.9956
92000 810000 $851,963 0.1436 0.0027 0.1463
75000 760000 $708,212 0.0461 0.0046 0.0508
ERV – Explained Relative Variation; URV - Unexplained Relative Variation; TRV – Total
Relative Variation
From Figure 4-14 and 4-15, it can be stated from the analysis that 98% of the variation in
total cost of FRP repairs is explained by variation in FRP equipment cost. Further, the p-value (=
0.007) obtained is much lower than 0.05 which suggests that the variables are significant. The
regression equation that can be formed is given by
Total Contract (TR-$) = 16.882 x FRP Equipment Cost ($) + 152,482 (4.10)
$1,000,000
$900,000 y = 16.882x + 152482
Project Total Contract, $
$800,000 R² = 0.9852
$700,000 Total Cost
$600,000
Total Cost + 10%
$500,000
Total Cost - 10%
$400,000
$200,000 Linear (Total Cost + 10%)
$100,000 Linear (Total Cost - 10%)
$-
$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000
Total FRP Equipment cost, $
Figure 4-14: Scatter Plot of Total Cost to Repair Against the Equipment Cost of the FRP
Repairs
45
S = 41722.3 R-Sq = 98.5% R-Sq(adj) = 97.8%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 2.32219E+11 2.32219E+11 133.40 0.007
Error 2 3.48150E+09 1.74075E+09
Total 3 2.35700E+11
Figure 4-15: ANOVA of Total Cost to Repair Against the Equipment Cost of the FRP Repairs
Table 4.5 shows the values of the actual and predicted values of the total repair cost. A
deviation of +/- 10% of the total cost is also found to predict the variation in the total cost.
Table 4-5: Predicted Values and Residuals for Total Cost of the FRP Repairs against the FRP
Equipment Cost
Total FRP Actual Predicted Total Total

Equipment Total Total Cost + Cost - % P-
Cost Cost Cost 10% 10% Residuals Residual value
$ 14,000 $ 350,000 $ 388,837 $427,721 $349,953 -38837 -11%
$ 5,000 $ 260,000 $ 236,895 $260,584 $213,205 23105 9%
0.007
$ 40,000 $ 810,000 $ 827,782 $910,560 $745,003 -17782 -2%
$ 34,000 $ 760,000 $ 726,487 $799,135 $653,838 33513 4%
4.2 Predicting the Unit Cost of the Bridge Repairs
From the given data, a relationship between the total contract and the total area to predict
the unit cost ($/ft2) values, can be established. The scatter plot Figure 4-16 shows the relationship
between the total repair areas of the bridges and the total contract values for the four different
bridges.
Table 4-6: Predicted Unit Cost for the Total Repairs

Total Area (Concrete + FRP Predicted Unit Cost Actual Total Unit
repairs), ft2 Total Contract ($/ft2) Cost $/ft2
8355 $ 350,000 51.23 $41.89
4710 $ 260,000 56.03 $55.20
13080 $ 810,000 48.99 $61.93
17670 $ 760,000 47.96 $43.01
46
$900,000
$800,000
y = 45.023x + 51832
$700,000 R² = 0.8202
Total Contract, $ $600,000
$500,000
$400,000 Total Contract
$300,000 Linear (Total Contract)
$200,000
$100,000
$-
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Total Area (Concrete + FRP repair) ,ft2
Figure 4-16: Scatter Plot of Total Contract to Repair Against the Total Repair Area
S = 145580 R-Sq = 82.0% R-Sq(adj) = 73.0%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 1.93313E+11 1.93313E+11 9.12 0.094
Error 2 4.23871E+10 2.11936E+10
Total 3 2.35700E+11
Figure 4-17: ANOVA of Total Contract to Repair Against the Total Repair Area
From the regression equation obtained, a relationship to predict the unit cost ($/ft2) of the
bridges can be established. The relationship is given as,
Total Unit Cost (TR-$/ft2) = 45.023 + 51,832/ Total Repair Area (ft2) (4.11)
Similarly, the unit cost for concrete repairs can also be obtained in a similar manner (Figure 4-
18).
Table 4-7: Predicted Unit Cost for the Concrete Repairs
Concrete Repair Total Concrete Predicted Unit Cost Actual Unit Cost
Area, ft2 Cost ($/ft2) ($/ft2)
1145 $ 225,504 176.13 170.31
910 $ 159,422 203.56 152.75
5260 $ 525,926 93.03 89.02
5670 $ 483,349 91.35 76.53
47
$600,000
Total Concrete Cost (With y = 69.904x + 121625
$500,000 R² = 0.9625
Overhead), $
$400,000
$300,000 Total Concrete Cost
$200,000 Linear (Total Concrete

Cost)
$100,000
$-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Concrete Repair Area, ft2
Figure 4-18: Scatter Plot of Total Concrete Cost to Repair Against the Total Concrete Repair
Area
S = 43439.7 R-Sq = 96.2% R-Sq(adj) = 94.4%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 9.67687E+10 9.67687E+10 51.28 0.019
Error 2 3.77401E+09 1.88700E+09
Total 3 1.00543E+11
Figure 4-19: ANOVA of Total Concrete Cost to Repair Against the Total Concrete Repair Area
Concrete Repair Cost (TR-$) = 69.904 x Concrete Repair Area + 121,625 (4.12)
It can be seen from Figure 4-18 that there is a significant relationship between the
concrete repair area and the total contract values. From the regression equation obtained, the unit
cost for the concrete repairs can be predicted as follows
Concrete Unit Cost (TR-$/ft2) = 69.904 + 121,625/ Concrete Area (ft2) (4.13)
The scatter plot in Figure 4-20 shows the relationship between the FRP repair area and
the cost required to do the FRP repair work on the bridges. Table 4-8 shows the FRP repair cost
of each bridge, area repaired and their actual and predicted unit cost.
48
Table 4-8: Predicted Unit Cost for the FRP Repairs
FRP Repair FRP Repair Predicted Unit Cost Actual Unit Cost
Area, ft2 Cost ($/ft2) ($/ft2)
7210 $115,932 21.61 $13.90
3800 $94,965 23.03 $21.79
7820 $270,572 21.48 $30.81
12000 $266,216 20.97 $19.92
$300,000
y = 21.924x + 17941
FRP Repair Cost (With
$250,000 R² = 0.6094
Overhead), $
$200,000
$150,000
Total FRP Cost
$100,000 Linear (Total FRP Cost)
$50,000
$0
0 5000 10000 15000
FRP Repair Area, ft2
Figure 4-20: Scatter Plot of Total FRP Repair Cost Against the Total FRP Repair Area
S = 72318.0 R-Sq = 60.9% R-Sq(adj) = 41.4%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 1.63208E+10 1.63208E+10 3.12 0.219
Error 2 1.04598E+10 5.22990E+09
Total 3 2.67806E+10
Figure 4-21: ANOVA of Total FRP Repair Cost Against the Total FRP Repair Area
FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 21.924 x FRP Area + 17,941 (4.14)

The unit cost for the FRP repairs can be predicted from the regression equation obtained
from equation 4.14.
FRP Unit Cost (TR-$/ft2) = 21.924 + 17,941/ FRP Area (ft2) (4.15)
49
4.3 Calculating the Time Standards or Productivity for Concrete and FRP Repairs
The information on the labor hours can be used to determine the time required to perform
Concrete and FRP repairs at a varied labor costs ranging from $65 to $90. There was only one
layer used for FRP repairs. The Tables 4-8 and 4-9 show the Concrete and FRP areas in ft2 and
the total hours spent for the repairs.
Table 4-9: Estimated Time Required in Man Hours for the Concrete Repairs
Concrete Total Concrete ft2/man
Area, ft2 Repair Hrs hr
1145 540 2.12
910 800 1.14
5260 1125 4.68
5670 1999 2.84
Table 4-10: Estimated Time Required in Man Hours for the FRP Repairs
FRP Repair ft2/man
2
FRP Total Area,ft Hrs hr
7210 350 20.60
3800 420 9.04
7820 810 9.65
12000 1200 10.00
It can be noted from the results that the concrete repair costs are greater than the FRP
repair costs and had a significant relationship with the total repair costs. The average based on
the total hours/ total area would be 2.99 ft2/ hr for the concrete repairs and 10.97 ft2/ hr for the
FRP repairs. If the outlier (20.60) was removed, the approximate standards for the concrete
repair would be 3 ft2/ hr and the FRP repairs of 10 ft2/ hr. The FRP areas are much greater than
the concrete areas and the work area covered per man hour is greater than the concrete areas. It
can also be noted that the productivity or the time taken for the FRP repairs (0.10 hr/ft2) is lesser
than the time taken for the concrete repairs (0.33hr/ft2).
50
4.4 Cost Analysis of Highway Bridges
The cost estimation for the highway bridges data is based on the three main cost items, namely concrete substrate preparation,
FRP repair, and miscellaneous cost. The variables considered are FRP area, total FRP cost, permanent traffic control, right of way
development and control, temporary features, road work, drainage and sewers, aggregate base, and wearing surfaces. It can be noted
from Table 4-11, that the areas of the bridges vary greatly. The FRP strengthening costs are a small portion of the total contract costs.
For all the bridges in Oregon and California in this research, only one layer is used for FRP strengthening of the bridge repairs.
Table 4-11: Cost Data of Different Parameters of the Highway Bridges of Oregon
Right of
FRP Unit Wearing Traffic Way, Total
Area, FRP Cost, Temporary Roadwork, Surfaces, Control, Development Contract,
Bundle Date ft2 Cost, $ $/ft2 Features, $ $ Bases, $ $ $ & Control, $ $
203 2007 3144 158709 50.48 1998214 588251 211339 475851 140314 156875 15,245,584
208 2008 1955 189263 96.81 2814696 312501 527019 976486 453373 874214 10.193,994
210 2010 840 32609 38.82 12571595 2656258 1055612 2025445 817128 171999 51,025,387
302 2008 360 18370 51.03 2625208 1043976 449833 886152 466776 86089 13,355,576
309 2008 606 52326 86.35 1219980 147519 171225 853145 242660 3919 3,466,763
313 2008 8095 246042 30.39 584904 141840 36973 164369 127773 73469 2,826,025
405 2009 11654 393459 33.76 1440644 66451 10791 13990 34416 14176 3,997,215
409 2010 440 28261 64.23 199478 2174 2717 35870 46565 2163 608,620
426 2010 9920 305435 30.79 279223 15241 60652 40543 99043 2446 1,057,387
428 2010 2000 97826 48.91 888426 100361 22223 25239 191889 87001 2,168,291
352 2011 126 27000 214.29 104880 102225 50000 87011 31585 48700 1,066,420
654 2011 50 6000 120 520174 20140 14030 84000 79078 23913 1,953,567
51
Table 4-11 gives the cost of various parameters that was involved in the repair of the
bridges in Oregon. These costs are given for each bundle as a whole with one or more bridges to
repair in it. The variables used for the analysis is given in the Table 3-12. The result of the
stepwise regression is given in Figure 4-22.
Response is Total contract, $ on 8 predictors, with N = 12
Step 1 2
Constant 327385 494891
Temporary Features, $ 4.08 2.26

T-Value 17.98 3.40
P-Value 0.000 0.008
Roadwork, $ 8.5
T-Value 2.84
P-Value 0.019
S 2575915 1970466
R-Sq 97.00 98.42
R-Sq(adj) 96.70 98.07
Mallows Cp 14.1 5.6
Figure 4-22: Stepwise Regression Output of Cost Items of Bridges in Oregon
The results obtained after the stepwise regression shows the variables Temporary
Features and Roadwork as significant with p- values of 0.008 and 0.019 and an R2 = 0.9842.
The p-values obtained are much lower than 0.05, which shows that the variables are highly
significant. The non-significant variables were Area, FRP Cost, Bases, Traffic Control and Right
of way development. The regression equation can be obtained from the slope and the intercept
values,
Total Contract (TR-$) = 494891 + 2.26 x Temporary Features ($) + 8.5 x Roadwork ($) (4.16)
52
Table 4-12: FRP Cost Data with Bridge Area Covered by FRP and their Accepted, Average and
Low Bidders’ Unit Cost
Accepted Average
Accepted Average Low Unit Unit Low Unit
Area, FRP FRP FRP Cost, Cost, Cost,
Location Year ft2 Cost, $ Cost, $ Cost, $ $/ft2 $/ft2 $/ft2
OR 2007 3144 158709 154900 140396 50.48 49.27 44.66
OR 2008 1955 189263 199443 172563 96.81 102.02 88.27
OR 2010 840 32609 36109 32609 38.82 42.99 38.82
OR 2007 360 20144 24213 20144 55.95 67.26 55.95
OR 2008 375 24493 27209 23380 65.31 72.56 62.35
OR 2008 231 27833 23714 15586 120.49 102.66 67.47
OR 2010 376 23913 30967 22283 63.60 82.36 59.26
OR 2010 64 4348 7211 3804 67.93 112.66 59.44
OR 2010 320 10870 12529 10870 33.97 39.15 33.97
OR 2010 3200 86957 93897 81522 27.17 29.34 25.48
OR 2010 2600 71739 77200 68478 27.59 29.69 26.34
OR 2010 1900 59783 57715 51087 31.46 30.38 26.89
OR 2010 1900 76087 63130 51087 40.05 33.23 26.89
OR 2009 101 22150 25764 5829 219.31 255.09 57.71
OR 2009 45 7578 11823 2915 168.39 262.74 64.77
OR 2009 9204 123575 128241 79275 13.43 13.93 8.61
OR 2009 2345 249482 234618 198187 106.39 100.05 84.51
OR 2009 105 20402 21252 17487 194.30 202.40 166.54
OR 2008 712 28946 36368 26719 40.65 51.08 37.53
OR 2008 6103 166997 198540 166997 27.36 32.53 27.36
OR 2008 1280 50099 56593 47872 39.14 44.21 37.40
OR 2010 500 30435 30435 30435 60.87 60.87 60.87
OR 2010 500 30435 30435 30435 60.87 60.87 60.87
OR 2010 500 6522 6522 6522 13.04 13.04 13.04
OR 2010 500 30435 30435 30435 60.87 60.87 60.87
OR 2010 5800 173913 173913 173913 29.99 29.99 29.99
OR 2011 126 27000 31481 25000 214.29 249.85 198.41
OR 2010 50 6000 6314 6000 120.00 126.28 120.00
OR 2010 5845 126087 149976 126087 21.57 25.66 21.57
CA 2008 614 38075 59252 31729 62.01 96.50 51.68
CA 2010 420 35449 68452 35449 84.40 162.98 84.40
CA 2011 3375 320625 328821 273375 95.00 97.43 81.00
CA 2012 4163 248157 219561 74318 59.61 52.74 17.85
CA 2012 3,677 238053 228635 139169 64.74 62.18 37.85
CA 2012 2620 183974 237731 183974 70.22 90.74 70.22
CA 2012 170 16763 22181 14392 98.61 130.48 84.66
53
There is also a scope to predict the unit cost of FRP repairs of all bridges. Table 4-12
shows the accepted, average and low unit cost of the bidders for which scatter plots were drawn
to predict the relationships between the area and FRP repair cost. The cost data of all bridges is
checked for both the average and low cost of all bidders to check for a better fit. After analyzing
all the accepted, average and low cost of the bridge repairs (Appendices C1-4), it is established
that the accepted FRP cost gives a better correlation than the others for Oregon, California and
all the bridges combined. The Total FRP area and the accepted Total FRP cost of all bids are
used to predict the FRP unit cost of all bridges. Scatter plots were also developed to look into the
relationships between the total FRP costs, total FRP area and the FRP unit costs.
The regression equation obtained for FRP repair area against the FRP repair cost for all
bridges in Oregon (Figure 4-23) with a R2 value of 0.9501 is given by
FRP Cost (TR-$) = 24.16 FRP Area (ft2) + 13,451 (4.17)
The intercept value of $13,451 represents fixed set up costs like cost of equipment,
mobilization, traffic control etc.
300000
y = 24.16x + 13451
250000 R² = 0.9501
FRP Repair Cost, $
200000
150000
Adj FRP cost
100000 Linear (Adj FRP cost)
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 4-23: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the Oregon Bridges
54
S = 10739.0 R-Sq = 95.0% R-Sq(adj) = 94.8%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 5.05402E+10 5.05402E+10 438.24 0.000
Error 23 2.65250E+09 1.15326E+08
Total 24 5.31927E+10
Figure 4-24: ANOVA of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the Oregon Bridges
300000
y = 27.613x
R² = 0.8951
250000
200000
FRP Cost, $
150000
Adj FRP cost
100000 Linear (Adj FRP cost)
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Figure 4-25: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the Oregon Bridges By
Regression Through Origin Method
The constant value of 13,451 from equation 4.17 represents the set up costs which is not
very significant. In this case, regression through origin (RTO) approach can be used to develop
the relation between the FRP repair area and the FPR repair cost. The regression equation
obtained through origin for Oregon bridges with a R2 value of 0.8951 is given by
Total FRP Cost (RTO-$) = 27.613 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) (4.18)
Similarly, the regression equation obtained for FRP repair area against the FRP repair
cost for all bridges in California with a R2 value of 0.9907 is given by (Figure 4-26 & 4-27)
FRP Cost (TR-$) = 61.012 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) + 13,451 (4.19)
55
The high slope value of 61.02 is due to the large FRP repair area and high FRP cost
associated with the repairs.
$350,000.00
y = 61.012x + 8138.6
FRP Repair Cost, $ $300,000.00 R² = 0.9907
$250,000.00
$200,000.00
$150,000.00 Adj. FRP Cost
$100,000.00 Linear (Adj. FRP Cost)
$50,000.00
$-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
S = 11665.6 R-Sq = 99.1% R-Sq(adj) = 98.8%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 5.81546E+10 5.81546E+10 427.34 0.000
Error 4 5.44344E+08 1.36086E+08
Total 5 5.86989E+10
Figure 4-27: ANOVA of FRP Area and its Accepted Cost of Bids for the California Bridges
300000
y = 63.49x
250000 R² = 0.988
FRP Repair Cost, $
200000
150000
Adj. FRP Cost
100000 Linear (Adj. FRP Cost)
50000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
By Regression Through Origin Method
56
The regression equation obtained through origin for California bridges with a R2 value of 0.988
is given by
Total FRP Cost (RTO-$) = 63.49 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) (4.20)
Similarly, the regression equation obtained for FRP repair area against the FRP repair
cost for all bridges in California, Oregon and Illinois (Figure 4-29 and 4-30) with a R2 value of
0.7323 is
FRP Cost (TR-$) = 24.79 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) + 23,616 (4.21)
The predicted values of the FRP repair cost and the residuals and percentage residuals are
given in Table 4-12.
350000
y = 24.79x + 23616
300000
R² = 0.7323
FRP Repair Cost, $
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Bid of All Bridge Repairs ( - California, - Oregon and - Illinois)
S = 42691.4 R-Sq = 73.2% R-Sq(adj) = 72.4%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 1.69515E+11 1.69515E+11 93.01 0.000
Error 34 6.19669E+10 1.82256E+09
Total 35 2.31482E+11
Accepted Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California, Oregon and Illinois)
57
The relationship between the FRP cost and the FRP repair area is compared with the least
squares percentage regression (PR) for a better fit. The coefficient of relative determination is
better than the linear regression approach with the value of 0.9901.
Appendix B shows the complete list of values by this method. The equation obtained by
this method is given as
FRP Cost (PR-$) = 23.95 FRP Area (ft2) + 4622.97 (4.22)
A relationship between the total FRP cost and the total area to predict the unit cost ($/ft2)
values, can be established. The predicted FRP unit cost obtained from equation 4.21 is given by
Unit Cost (TR-$/ft2) = 24.79 + 23,616 / FRP Area (ft2) (4.23)
The regression equation obtained through an origin with an R2 value of 0.6795 is

FRP Cost (RTO-$) = 28.954 FRP Area (ft2) (4.24)
400000
y = 28.954x
350000
R² = 0.6795
300000
FRP Cost, $
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Bid of All Bridge Repairs ( - California, - Oregon and - Illinois) By Regression Through
Origin Method
58
Table 4-13: Predicted Values and Residuals of FRP Cost of All Bridges (California, Oregon and
Illinois)
FRP Predicted
Area, Predicted % Unit Cost,
Location ft2 FRP Cost, $ FRP Cost, $ Residual Residual $/ft2
3144 158709 101556 57154 36.01% 32.30
840 32609 44440 -11831 -36.28% 52.90
360 20144 32540 -12397 -61.54% 90.39
375 24493 32912 -8419 -34.37% 87.77
231 27833 29342 -1510 -5.42% 127.02
376 23913 32937 -9024 -37.74% 87.60
64 4348 25203 -20855 -479.66% 393.79
320 10870 31549 -20679 -190.25% 98.59
3200 86957 102944 -15987 -18.38% 32.17
2600 71739 88070 -16330 -22.76% 33.87
1900 59783 70717 -10934 -18.29% 37.22
1900 76087 70717 5370 7.06% 37.22
101 22150 26120 -3970 -17.92% 258.61
OR
45 7578 24732 -17154 -226.37% 549.59
105 20402 26219 -5817 -28.51% 249.70
712 28946 41266 -12320 -42.56% 57.96
6103 166997 174909 -7911 -4.74% 28.66
1280 50099 55347 -5248 -10.48% 43.24
500 30435 36011 -5576 -18.32% 72.02
500 30435 36011 -5576 -18.32% 72.02
500 6522 36011 -29489 -452.17% 72.02
500 30435 36011 -5576 -18.32% 72.02
5800 173913 167398 6517 3.75% 28.86
126 27000 26740 260 0.96% 212.22
50 6000 24856 -18856 -314.26% 497.11
5845 126087 168514 -42425 -33.65% 28.83
614 38075 38837 -762 -2.00% 63.25
420 35449 34028 1421 4.01% 81.02
4163 248157 126817 121342 48.90% 30.46
CA
3677 238053 114769 123285 51.79% 31.21
2620 183974 88566 95409 51.86% 33.80
170 16763 27830 -11067 -66.02% 163.71
7210 115932 202352 -86418 -74.54% 28.07
3800 94965 117818 -22852 -24.06% 31.00
IL
7820 270572 217474 53101 19.63% 27.81
12000 266216 321096 -54877 -20.61% 26.76
59
350000
FRP Repai Cost, $ 300000
250000
y = 23.033x + 16628
200000 R² = 0.8822
150000
100000
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Bid of All Bridge Repairs ( - Illinois, - Oregon)
S = 25629.8 R-Sq = 88.2% R-Sq(adj) = 87.8%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 1.37759E+11 1.37759E+11 209.72 0.000
Error 28 1.83928E+10 6.56887E+08
Total 29 1.56152E+11
Bid of All Bridge Repairs (Illinois and Oregon)
Figure 4-32 shows the relationship between the total FRP area and the FRP cost for the
bridges in Oregon and Illinois. The regression equation obtained with a R2 of 0.8822 and p-value
of less than 0.0001 is
Total FRP Cost (TR-$) = 23.033 x FRP Area (ft2) + 16,628 (4.25)
The predicted unit cost can be obtained from the relation (4.25) is
FRP Unit Cost (TR-$/ft2) = 23.033 + 16,628 / FRP Area (ft2) (4.26)
60
350000
300000
250000
FRP Repair Cost, $
y = 25.769x
R² = 0.849
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Bid of All Bridge Repairs ( - Illinois, - Oregon) by Regression Through Origin
The regression equation obtained through origin for bridges in Oregon and Illinois with a R2
value of 0.849 is given by
Total FRP Cost (RTO-$) = 23.395 x FRP Area (ft2) (4.27)
61
Table 4-14: Predicted Values and Residuals of FRP Cost of All Bridges (Oregon and Illinois)
FRP Predicted Predicted

Area, FRP FRP Cost, % Unit Cost,
Location ft2 Cost, $ $ Residual Residual $/ft2
3144 158709 89044 69664 43.89% 28.32
840 32609 35976 -3367 -10.33% 42.83
360 20144 24920 -4776 -23.71% 69.22
375 24493 25265 -773 -3.16% 67.37
231 27833 21949 5884 21.14% 95.02
376 23913 25288 -1376 -5.75% 67.26
64 4348 18102 -13755 -316.35% 282.85
320 10870 23999 -13129 -120.79% 75.00
3200 86957 90334 -3377 -3.88% 28.23
2600 71739 76514 -4775 -6.66% 29.43
1900 59783 60391 -608 -1.02% 31.78
1900 76087 60391 15696 20.63% 31.78
101 22150 18954 3196 14.43% 187.67
OR
45 7578 17664 -10087 -133.11% 392.54
105 20402 19046 1355 6.64% 181.39
712 28946 33027 -4082 -14.10% 46.39
6103 166997 157198 9798 5.87% 25.76
1280 50099 46110 3988 7.96% 36.02
500 30435 28145 2290 7.52% 56.29
500 30435 28145 2290 7.52% 56.29
500 6522 28145 -21623 -331.55% 56.29
500 30435 28145 2290 7.52% 56.29
5800 173913 150219 23693 13.62% 25.90
126 27000 19530 7470 27.67% 155.00
50 6000 17780 -11780 -196.33% 355.59
5845 126087 151256 -25169 -19.96% 25.88
7210 115932 182696 -66765 -57.59% 25.34
3800 94965 104153 -9189 -9.68% 27.41
IL
7820 270572 196746 73826 27.29% 25.16
12000 266216 293024 -26809 -10.07% 24.42
62
350000
y = 36.096x + 12776
300000 R² = 0.7676
FRP Repair Cost, $
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Bid of All Bridge Repairs ( - California, - Oregon)
S = 34455.9 R-Sq = 76.8% R-Sq(adj) = 76.0%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 1.13721E+11 1.13721E+11 95.79 0.000
Error 29 3.44291E+10 1.18721E+09
Total 30 1.48150E+11
Accepted Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California and Oregon)
Figure 4-35 shows the relationship between the total FRP area and the FRP cost for the
bridges in Oregon and California. The regression equation obtained with a R2 of 0.7676 is
Total FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 36.096 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) + 12,776 (4.28)
Similarly, from the equation (4.28), a relationship to predict the unit cost ($/ft2) of the
bridges is given as,
Unit Cost (TR-$/ft2) = 36.096 + 12,776 / FRP Repair Area (ft2) (4.29)
The values of the predicted FRP cost, predicted FRP unit cost and residuals are shown in
Table 4-15.
63
400,000 y = 36.409x
350,000 R² = 0.6929
300,000
FRP Repair Cost, $
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Figure 4-37: Scatter plot of Total FRP Repair Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Cost of the
Accepted Bid of All Bridge Repairs ( - California, - Oregon) by Regression Through Origin
The regression equation obtained through origin for the highway bridges in California and
Oregon with a R2 value of 0.6929 is given by
FRP Repair Cost (RTO-$) = 36.409 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) (4.30)
64
Table 4-15: Predicted Values and Residuals of FRP Cost of All Bridges (California and Oregon)
FRP Actual Predicted Predicted

Area, FRP FRP % Unit Cost
Location ft2 Cost, $ Cost, $ Residual Residual ($/ft2)
3144 158709 126262 32448 20.44% 40.16
840 32609 43097 -10488 -32.16% 51.31
360 20144 25771 -5627 -27.93% 71.58
375 24493 26312 -1819 -7.43% 70.17
231 27833 21114 6718 24.14% 91.40
376 23913 26348 -2435 -10.18% 70.07
64 4348 15086 -10739 -246.99% 235.72
320 10870 24327 -13457 -123.81% 76.02
3200 86957 128283 -41326 -47.52% 40.09
2600 71739 106626 -34886 -48.63% 41.01
1900 59783 81358 -21575 -36.09% 42.82
1900 76087 81358 -5271 -6.93% 42.82
OR 101 22150 16422 5728 25.86% 162.59
45 7578 14400 -6823 -90.04% 320.01
105 20402 16566 3835 18.80% 157.77
712 28946 38476 -9530 -32.92% 54.04
6103 166997 233070 -66071 -39.56% 38.19
1280 50099 58979 -8880 -17.72% 46.08
500 30435 30824 -389 -1.28% 61.65
500 30435 30824 -389 -1.28% 61.65
500 6522 30824 -24303 -372.64% 61.65
500 30435 30824 -389 -1.28% 61.65
5800 173913 222133 -48218 -27.73% 38.30
126 27000 17324 9675 35.84% 137.49
50 6000 14581 -8581 -143.02% 291.62
614 38075 34939 3136 8.24% 56.90
420 35449 27936 7512 21.19% 66.52
4163 248157 163044 85115 34.30% 39.16
CA
3677 238053 145501 92553 38.88% 39.57
2620 183974 107348 76627 41.65% 40.97
170 16763 18912 -2150 -12.82% 111.25
65
120.0
y = -0.0049x + 52.664
100.0 R² = 0.5336
FRP Unit Cost, $/ft2

80.0
60.0 Unit cost, $/ft2
40.0 Linear (Unit cost,

$/ft2)
20.0
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 4-38: Scatter Plot of Total FRP Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Unit Cost of
Accepted Bids in Oregon
A relationship between the area and the FRP unit cost and the area of repair is identified.
From Appendix A, the percentage of FRP cost with respect to the total contract is established. A
scatter plot is plotted between the total FRP repair area and the FRP unit cost, with FRP repair
area greater than 500 ft2 and less than 6,500 ft2 is only considered for the analysis. The
relationship for the FRP unit cost and the FRP repair area is given by
FRP Unit Cost ($/ft2) = - 0.0049 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) + 52.664 (4.31)
S = 10.1052 R-Sq = 53.4% R-Sq(adj) = 49.1%
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 1285.15 1285.15 12.59 0.005
Error 11 1123.26 102.11
Total 12 2408.41
Figure 4-39: ANOVA of Total FRP Area of the Bridge Against the FRP Unit Cost of
Accepted Bids in Oregon
Appendix A provides the FRP cost and the FRP unit cost of all the bidders of bridge
repair projects in California and Oregon.
66
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
Detailed costs were available on four railroad bridge projects in the Chicago area. These
bridges were repaired in the 2009 – 2010 time frame. Additional data on bridge repairs in
Oregon and California where FRP was a small part of the project were also available. The
problem report started with identifying and analyzing the variables that are significant.
5.1 Chicago Bridge Findings

1. On the Chicago railroad bridges, the concrete repair work was a dominant factor of
the total costs. The analysis also shows that the concrete area of the repairs have a
significant relationship with the total project costs for the data obtained from the
Chicago area. The regression equation with an R2 value of 0.9723 was
Total Contract (TR-$) = 107.58 x Total Concrete Area (ft2) + 195,783 (5.1)
2. The best prediction variable for total project cost was the total concrete area. FRP
area was not a good predictor of Total Contract Cost or the FRP Repair Cost for the
Railroad Bridges in the Chicago region. The equation obtained was
Total Contract (TR-$) = 63.71 x FRP Area (ft2) + 53,927 (5.2)
3. The total equipment cost for the four bridges was greater than either the total material
cost or the total labor cost. The initial analysis shows that the equipment costs were
largest with 39% of the total project costs. The project costs may be reduced by
owning the equipment for future projects.
4. The equipment costs for the concrete repair were approximately seven times the
equipment costs for the FRP repair.
5. With labor costs ranging from $65/hr to $90/hr, the total labor costs were greater than
the material costs for both concrete and FRP repair.
6. The regression equation obtained for the total concrete cost and the total FRP cost
reaffirms the relations obtained from the literature review which gives an
approximate estimate of ratio between the total project costs and the concrete and
FRP costs. The equations obtained were
Total Contract (TR-$) = 1.6864 x Total Concrete Cost ($) + 23,831 (R2=0.9998) (5.3)
Total Contract (TR-$) = 3.249 x Total FRP Cost ($) + 6,512.8 (R2 = 0.9936) (5.4)
67
A relationship between the FRP Cost and the Concrete Cost is obtained with an R² =
0.9913,
Total Concrete Cost (TR-$) = 1.9242 x Total FRP Cost ($) - 9874.1 (5.5)
The relationship obtained shows that the total concrete cost is approximately two
times the total FRP cost which is similar to the ratio from the literature review.
7. The FRP material cost and the FRP equipment cost were found to be significant with
a R2 value of 0.9956 and 0.9852 respectively. The equations are
Total Contract (TR-$) = 8.3209 x FRP Material Cost ($) + 83,192 (5.6)
Total Contract (TR-$) = 16.882 x FRP Equipment Cost ($) + 152,482 (5.7)
8. It can be noted from the results that the concrete repair costs are greater than the FRP
repair costs and had a significant relationship with the total repair costs. The
approximate time standards are calculated for each repair. The average based on the
total hours/ total area would be 2.99 ft2/ hr for the concrete repairs and 10.97 ft2/ hr
for the FRP repairs. If the outlier (20.60) was removed, the approximate time
standards for the concrete repair would be 3 ft2/ hr and the FRP repairs of 10 ft2/ hr.
9. The FRP areas are much greater than the concrete areas and the work area covered
per man hour is greater than the concrete areas. It can also be noted that the
productivity or the time taken for the FRP repairs (0.1 hr/ft2) was lesser than the time
taken for the concrete repairs (0.33hr/ft2). This indicates that the FRP repair can be
done faster than the concrete repairs.
5.2 Oregon and California Bridge Findings
1. The FRP costs were only a small portion of the total project costs in most projects.
Only 3 projects had the FRP cost greater than 10% of the total project costs.
2. The second part of the analysis is focused on the cost parameters of highway bridges
of Oregon that can affect the cost of total project costs. Step wise regression was
performed to determine the significant variables and the variables Temporary
Features and Roadwork were found to be significant. The equation obtained with R2
value of 0.9842 was
68
Total Contract (TR-$) = 494891 + 2.26 x Temporary Features ($) + 8.5 x Roadwork ($)
(5.8)
3. A relationship is obtained for FRP cost and the FRP area for the bridges in Oregon
and California separately. The equation obtained for the bridges in Oregon with a R2
value of 0.9501 was
FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 24.16 FRP Repair Area (ft2) + 13,451 (5.9)
2
Similarly the equation obtained for bridges in California with a R value of 0.9907
was
FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 61.012 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) + 13,451 (5.10)
The value of slope for the equation obtained for California is high because of the
large areas of FRP repair for some of the bridges, which increased the total FRP cost.
4. The analysis focuses on predicting the unit cost of FRP repairs thereby obtaining a
relationship between the FRP cost and the FRP area. The regression equation
obtained for all bridges in California, Oregon, and Illinois region with R2 value of
0.7323 is
5. The regression equation obtained for all bridges in Oregon and Illinois region with R2
value of 0.8822 is
Similarly, the regression equation obtained for the highway bridges in California
and Oregon is
6. The least squares percentage regression performed for all bridges in California,
Oregon, and Illinois, reduced the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) to 40%
from 48%. It also gave a better fit with a coefficient of relative determination of
0.9901. Appendix B gives the values of all parameters.
69
5.3 Conclusions
Table 5-1: Relationships Obtained for Rail and Highway Bridges and Their Coefficient of
Determination (R2) and p-values
Location Equation R2 p-value

Total Contract (TR-$) = 107.58 x Concrete Area (ft2) + 195,783 0.9723 0.01
Concrete Repair Area (x) ranges from 910 ft2 to 5670 ft2
Total Contract (TR-$) = 1.6864 x Total Concrete Cost ($) +
23,831 0.9998 < 0.001
Rail Bridges in Total Contract (TR-$) = 3.249 x Total FRP Cost ($) + 6,512.8 0.9936 0.003
Chicago Total Concrete Cost (TR-$) = 1.9242 x Total FRP Cost ($) -
9874.1 0.9913 0.004
Total Contract (TR-$) = 8.3209 x FRP Material Cost ($) +
83,192 0.9948 0.009
Total Contract (TR-$) = 16.882 x FRP Equipment Cost ($) +
152,482 0.9913 0.004
Total Contract (TR-$) = 494891 + 2.26 x Temporary
Features ($) + 8.5 x Roadwork ($)
0.9842
Highway Temporary Features 0.008
Bridges in Roadwork 0.019
Oregon FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 24.16 FRP Repair Area (ft2) +
13,451 0.9501 < 0.001
FRP Repair Area (x) ranging from 45 ft2 to 6103 ft2
Highway FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 61.012 x FRP Repair Area (ft2)
Bridges in + 13,451 0.9907 < 0.001
California FRP Repair Area (x) ranging from 170 ft2 to 4163 ft2
All Bridges in FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 24.79 FRP Repair Area (ft2) +
California, 23,616 0.7323 < 0.001
Oregon, and
2 2
Illinois FRP Repair Area (x) ranging from 45 ft to 12,000 ft
All Bridges in FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 23.033 x FRP Repair Area (ft2)
Oregon and + 16,628 0.8822 < 0.001
Illinois FRP Repair Area (x) ranging from 45 ft2 to 12,000 ft2
All Bridges in FRP Repair Cost (TR-$) = 36.096 x FRP Repair Area (ft2) +
Oregon and 12,776 0.7676 < 0.001
California FRP Repair Area (x) ranging from 45 ft2 to 6103 ft2
The total FRP repair cost of the highway bridges in Oregon and California was very low
of the total project costs. The other two cost factors that are highly significant were temporary
features and roadwork. The two methods used in this study to find the relationship of variables
that factor the total project costs are simple linear regression and least squares percentage
70
regression. The least squares percentage regression method with a slope value of 23.95 and a
correlation of 0.9901 had a better relationship with the total FRP cost than the traditional
regression approach with an R2 of 0.7323. The constant (intercept) value represents the set up
costs which is not very significant for the relationships obtained for the highway bridges. In this
case, regression through origin (RTO) approach can also be used to develop the relation between
the FRP repair area and the FPR repair cost. The regression equation obtained through an origin
(RTO) with an R2 value of 0.6795 for all bridges in California, Oregon and Illinois is
FRP Cost (RTO-$) = 28.954 FRP Area (ft2) (5.15)
The equations for FRP cost obtained by the traditional regression (TR) and the
percentage regression (PR) are
FRP Cost (PR-$) = 23.95 FRP Area (ft2) + 4622.97 (5.17)
For the railroad bridges, the total concrete area, total equipment costs and the FRP
material costs of the railroad bridges were dominant factors of the total costs. The relationship
obtained shows that the total concrete cost is approximately two times the total FRP cost which
is similar to the ratio from the literature review. The productivity is higher for FRP repairs than
for the concrete repairs.
5.4 Recommendations for Future Study

This problem report had some limitations in data for the Chicago railroad bridges and
variables for the Oregon and California highway bridges. Some of the recommendations are
1. More variables that affect the total project costs like type of application (beam /
column /slab wrapping) and number of layers can be considered.
2. The study can be verified for more variables with more data for the railway bridges in
Chicago.
3. With more variables and data, interactions between the variables can be considered
for better results.
4. There is a need for doing the least squares percentage regression.
5. Other estimation techniques like Bayesian linear regression and quantile regression
can be used to identify the significant variables.
71
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Bridge" FHWA. 14 Apr. 2013 <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.cfm>.
2. "National Bridge Inventory Rating Scale." MDOT. 18 Aug. 2012
<http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9618_47418-173571--,00.html>.
3. "Bridge Report." AASHTO. 23 Aug. 2012
<http://www.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx>.
4. "ETI Injection Epoxy." Strongtie.com. 23 Aug. 2012
<http://www.strongtie.com/products/anchorsystems/adhesives/crackrepair/eti.html>.
5. "Column Jacketing." Diamond Saw Contracting Co. LLC,. 23 Aug. 2012
<http://www.corecut-jo.com/index.php?module=services>.
6. "Steel Plate Bonding." Marinland Concrete Repair. 23 Aug. 2012
<http://www.marinland.com.my/services08.html>.
7. "Case review - FRP for Seismic Strengthening." National Composites Network. 23 Aug.
2012 <http://www.ncn-uk.co.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=126>.
8. E. J. Barbero, “Introduction to Composite Materials Design”, Philadelphia: Taylor and
Francis, 1999.
9. H. V. GangaRao, N. Taly, P. V. Vijay, “Reinforced Concrete Design with FRP
Composites”, CRC Press, 2007.
10. P. K. Mallick, “Fiber-reinforced Composites: Materials, Manufacturing, and Design”,
New York: M. Dekker, 1993.
11. Halvard E. Nystrom; Steve E. Watkins; Antonio Nanni, and Susan Murray, “Financial
Viability of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer FRP Bridges”, 2003.
12. A. C. Berg, L. C. Bank, M. G. Oliva, and J. S. Russell, “Construction and cost analysis of
an FRP reinforced concrete bridge deck”, 2005.
13. N. Loudon and B. Bell, “FRP strengthening of concrete road and rail bridges in the UK”,
2010.
14. O. H.Elsa, S. Alampalli, J. Kunin, “Application of FRP laminates for strengthening of a
reinforced-concrete T-beam bridge structure”, 2000.
15. H. B. Pham, R. A. Mahaidi, “Reliability analysis of bridge beams retrofitted with Fiber
Reinforced Polymers”, 2006.
72
16. R. S. Harichandran, M. I. Baiyasi , “Repair of Corrosion-Damaged Columns using FRP
Wraps”, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State university,
2000.
17. Aneesh Bethi, Adam Allan, Michael McCullagh, "Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures" The American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), 2011.
18. "I-84 Sandy River and Jordan Rd. Bridges." Hamilton Construction. 28 Aug. 2012
<http://www.hamil.com/projects_sandy.php>.
19. MJ Hughes Construction Company. 28 Aug. 2012
<http://www.mjhughes.com/portfolio/highway/or-42-beaver-creek-bridges-bundle-405/>.
20. Pratik Roychoudhury, “A Life Cycle Cost Estimation Model for FRP Bridge Decks”, MS
Thesis, Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, West Virginia
University, R.C. Creese (Advisor), 2001.
21. Taher B. Patrawala, “Decision Support Tool for Costing of the Pultrusion Process”, MS
Thesis, Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, West Virginia
University, R.C. Creese (Advisor), 1999.
22. Manukonda, Srikanth, “Cost Estimation of FRP wrapping for Bridge Rehabilitation using
Regression Analysis”, MS Problem Report, Department of Industrial and Management
Systems Engineering, West Virginia University, R.C. Creese (Advisor), 2011.
23. Brayack, Daniel A. “Technical and Economic Effectiveness for repair with FRP of
Concrete T-Beam Bridges; Case Study for PennDOT-District3”, MS Thesis, College of
Engineering and Mineral Resources, West Virginia University, J.F. Davalos (Advisor),
2006.
24. T. J. Wipf, F. W. Klaiber, J. D. Rhodes, B. J. Kempers, “Repair of impact damaged pre-
stressed concrete beams with CFRP”, Department of Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, and Iowa Department of
Transportation, 2004.
25. "Producer Price Index-Industry Data." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 02 Jan. 2013
<http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?pc>.
26. Sean Wisotzkey, Project Engineer- Buildings Division of Fyfe Co. LLC, 02 Jan. 2013
<http://www.fyfeco.com/corporate-profile/key-employees.aspx>.
73
27. John Huedopohl, HJ3 Composite Technologies
28. Justin Jar, Bridge Inspection Manager – Utah Department of Transportation.
29. Structures Design Advisory, Structures Division – New York State Department of
Transportation.
30. Jeff DeFevere, Division of Engineering Services, Highway Bridge Cost Data, California
Department of Transportation.
31. Harry S. Ramnath, Fazil T. Najafi, “A Viable Alternative: Fiber-Reinforced Polymer”,
2012 ASEE Southeast Section Conference.
32. Bridge Cost Data, Oregon Department of Transportation.
33. Bridge Cost Data, West Virginia Department of Transportation.
34. Joseph G. Eisenhauer, “Regression through Origin”, Canisius College, Buffalo, USA,
2003.
74
APPENDICES
Appendix A: FRP Costs of All Bidders of Bridge Repairs in the Oregon and California Region Adjusted for Inflation
Adj.
Unit Unit Adj.
Quantity, Cost, Cost, FRP FRP Total Contact, %FRP > > > OL= Q1- OL=Q3+
Location Date ft2 $/ft2 $/ft2 Cost, $ Cost, $ $ Cost 1% 2% 3% 1.5*(range) 1.5*(range)
CA 2008 614 55.70 62.01 34200 38075 39726300.00 0.09% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2008 614 62.76 69.87 38532 42898 40996250.00 0.09% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2008 614 51.99 57.88 31920 35537 41696634.48 0.08% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2008 614 46.42 51.68 28500 31729 43120262.80 0.07% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2008 614 148.53 165.36 91200 101534 43565306.80 0.21% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2008 614 55.70 62.01 34200 38075 44483932.26 0.08% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2008 614 185.67 206.71 114000 126917 52709041.00 0.22% 0 0 0 FALSE TRUE
CA 2010 420 77.65 84.40 32613 35449 995644.05 3.28% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2010 420 120.00 130.43 50400 54783 1018018.00 4.95% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2010 420 240.00 260.87 100800 109565 1169733.80 8.62% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2010 420 113.00 122.83 47460 51587 1490471.00 3.18% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2010 420 235.00 255.43 98700 107283 1566090.90 6.30% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2010 420 114.00 123.91 47880 52043 1744910.00 2.74% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2011 3375 95.00 95.00 320625 320625 1482509.00 21.63% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2011 3375 90.00 90.00 303750 303750 1559800.00 19.47% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2011 3375 85.00 85.00 286875 286875 1647904.00 17.41% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2011 3375 93.00 93.00 313875 313875 1693659.00 18.53% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2011 3375 81.00 81.00 273375 273375 1723994.00 15.86% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2011 3375 138.00 138.00 465750 465750 1758758.00 26.48% 1 1 1 FALSE TRUE
CA 2011 3375 100.00 100.00 337500 337500 1970220.80 17.13% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 4163 59.85 60.12 249150 248157 148155220.24 0.17% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 4163 60.67 60.94 252584 251577 149024961.99 0.17% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 4163 58.73 58.99 244475 243501 154011826.80 0.16% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 4163 17.92 18.00 74615 74318 155724225.67 0.05% 0 0 0 TRUE FALSE
CA 2012 4163 64.23 64.52 267405 266340 158524905.20 0.17% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 4163 56.31 56.56 234404 233470 164022341.35 0.14% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 3,677 65.00 65.29 239005 238053 3352320.40 7.13% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 3,677 60.00 60.27 220620 219741 3360617.50 6.56% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
Appendix A: FRP Costs of All Bidders of Bridge Repairs in the Oregon and California Region Adjusted to Inflation (Cont’d)
Adj.
Unit Unit Adj.
CA 2012 3,677 65.00 65.29 239005 238053 3481435.25 6.87% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 3,677 38.00 38.17 139726 139169 3486486.45 4.01% 1 1 1 TRUE FALSE
CA 2012 3,677 65.00 65.29 239005 238053 3561902.00 6.71% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 3,677 72.00 72.32 264744 263689 3890532.00 6.80% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 3,677 72.00 72.32 264744 263689 3962711.00 6.68% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 2620 70.50 70.81 184710 183974 2559279.30 7.22% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 2620 75.00 75.33 196500 195717 2639958.40 7.44% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 2620 80.00 80.36 209600 208765 2757086.40 7.60% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 2620 100.00 100.45 262000 260956 3503301.00 7.48% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 2620 130.00 130.58 340600 339243 2411778.40 14.12% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 170 99.00 99.44 16830 16763 735961.10 2.29% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 170 183.00 183.82 31110 30986 807624.00 3.85% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 170 100.00 100.45 17000 16932 899123.00 1.89% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 170 100.00 100.45 17000 16932 912670.00 1.86% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 170 85.00 85.38 14450 14392 929301.50 1.55% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 170 200.00 200.89 34000 33865 964740.00 3.52% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
CA 2012 170 150.00 150.67 25500 25398 997151.00 2.56% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 3144 41.35 50.48 130000 158709 12487827.25 1.04% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 3144 45.23 55.22 142200 173603 13919309.40 1.02% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 3144 38.87 47.45 122200 149186 14752653.85 0.83% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 3144 36.58 44.66 115000 140396 15478837.00 0.74% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 3144 39.76 48.54 125000 152604 15836000.00 0.79% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1955 86.96 96.81 170000 189263 9156471.97 1.86% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1955 87.32 97.22 170720 190064 9499889.32 1.80% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1955 79.28 88.27 155000 172563 9692980.00 1.60% 1 0 0 TRUE FALSE
OR 2008 1955 115.09 128.13 225000 250495 9866755.65 2.28% 1 1 0 FALSE TRUE
OR 2008 1955 89.51 99.66 175000 194829 9976148.50 1.75% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 840 35.71 38.82 30000 32609 46943355.67 0.06% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 840 35.71 38.82 30000 32609 48460707.69 0.06% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 840 41.67 45.29 35000 38043 49766619.83 0.07% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 840 40.60 44.13 34100 37065 59960000.00 0.06% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
76
Adj.
Unit Unit Adj.
OR 2010 840 44.05 47.88 37000 40217 71798946.32 0.05% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 360 45.83 55.95 16500 20144 11996275.50 0.14% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 360 50.00 61.04 18000 21975 12034041.20 0.15% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2007 360 69.44 84.78 25000 30521 12692000.00 0.20% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 375 58.67 65.31 22000 24493 3113923.90 0.71% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 375 59.20 65.91 22200 24715 3116401.40 0.71% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 375 93.33 103.91 35000 38966 3279403.40 1.07% 1 0 0 FALSE TRUE
OR 2008 375 56.00 62.35 21000 23380 3728328.00 0.56% 0 0 0 TRUE FALSE
OR 2008 375 58.67 65.31 22000 24493 4343000.00 0.51% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 231 108.23 120.49 25000 27833 3113923.90 0.80% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 231 71.43 79.52 16500 18370 3116401.40 0.53% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 231 129.87 144.59 30000 33399 3279403.40 0.91% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 231 60.61 67.47 14000 15586 3728328.00 0.38% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 231 90.91 101.21 21000 23380 4343000.00 0.48% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 58.51 63.60 22000 23913 559930.00 3.93% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 79.79 86.73 30000 32609 598160.00 5.02% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 59.41 64.58 22340 24283 629584.00 3.55% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 54.52 59.26 20500 22283 644932.00 3.18% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 93.09 101.18 35000 38043 682106.50 5.13% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 82.60 89.79 31059 33760 697015.23 4.46% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 98.40 106.96 37000 40217 697497.00 5.30% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 58.51 63.60 22000 23913 704544.95 3.12% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 93.09 101.18 35000 38043 726575.00 4.82% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 376 79.79 86.73 30000 32609 781423.00 3.84% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 62.50 67.93 4000 4348 559930.00 0.71% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 109.38 118.89 7000 7609 598160.00 1.17% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 59.38 64.54 3800 4130 629584.00 0.60% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 62.50 67.93 4000 4348 644932.00 0.62% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 171.88 186.82 11000 11957 682106.50 1.61% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 86.52 94.04 5537 6019 697015.23 0.79% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 203.13 220.79 13000 14130 697497.00 1.86% 1 0 0 FALSE TRUE
77
Adj.
Unit Unit Adj.
OR 2010 64 54.69 59.44 3500 3804 704544.95 0.50% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 117.19 127.38 7500 8152 726575.00 1.03% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 64 109.38 118.89 7000 7609 781423.00 0.90% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 320 31.25 33.97 10000 10870 972795.87 1.03% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 320 45.31 49.25 14500 15761 1085190.00 1.34% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 320 31.50 34.24 10079 10956 1276774.37 0.79% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 3200 25.00 27.17 80000 86957 972795.87 8.22% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 3200 23.44 25.48 75000 81522 1085190.00 6.91% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 3200 32.55 35.38 104155 113212 1276774.37 8.16% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 2600 25.38 27.59 66000 71739 972795.87 6.78% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 2600 24.23 26.34 63000 68478 1085190.00 5.81% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 2600 32.34 35.15 84071 91382 1276774.37 6.58% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 1900 28.95 31.46 55000 59783 972795.87 5.65% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 1900 24.74 26.89 47000 51087 1085190.00 4.33% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 1900 30.15 32.78 57294 62277 1276774.37 4.49% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 1900 36.84 40.05 70000 76087 972795.87 7.20% 1 1 1 FALSE TRUE
OR 2010 1900 24.74 26.89 47000 51087 1085190.00 4.33% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 1900 30.13 32.75 57239 62216 1276774.37 4.48% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 101 188.12 219.31 19000 22150 576547.00 3.30% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 101 441.58 514.80 44600 51995 609981.52 7.31% 1 1 1 FALSE TRUE
OR 2009 101 237.62 277.02 24000 27979 663785.00 3.62% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 101 49.50 57.71 5000 5829 753370.00 0.66% 0 0 0 TRUE FALSE
OR 2009 101 217.82 253.94 22000 25648 841493.00 2.61% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 101 178.22 207.77 18000 20984 849992.00 2.12% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 45 144.44 168.39 6500 7578 576547.00 1.13% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 45 541.11 630.83 24350 28387 609981.52 3.99% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 45 77.78 90.67 3500 4080 663785.00 0.53% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 45 444.44 518.13 20000 23316 753370.00 2.65% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 45 88.89 103.63 4000 4663 841493.00 0.48% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 45 55.56 64.77 2500 2915 849992.00 0.29% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 9204 11.52 13.43 106000 123575 3428722.50 3.09% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
78
Adj.
Unit Unit Adj.
OR 2009 9204 14.12 16.47 130000 151554 3446796.90 3.77% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 9204 14.67 17.10 135000 157383 3737000.00 3.61% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 9204 10.86 12.67 100000 116580 3762855.18 2.66% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 9204 10.86 12.67 100000 116580 3869554.50 2.58% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 9204 13.58 15.83 125000 145725 3912486.50 3.19% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 9204 12.61 14.70 116019 135255 4029532.50 2.88% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 9204 7.39 8.61 68000 79275 4374727.00 1.55% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 91.26 106.39 214000 249482 3428722.50 6.24% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 77.61 90.48 182000 212176 3446796.90 5.28% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 89.55 104.40 210000 244819 3737000.00 5.62% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 72.49 84.51 170000 198187 3762855.18 4.52% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 72.49 84.51 170000 198187 3869554.50 4.39% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 95.95 111.86 225000 262306 3912486.50 5.75% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 103.20 120.31 242000 282124 4029532.50 6.01% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 2345 84.01 97.94 197000 229663 4374727.00 4.50% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 166.67 194.30 17500 20402 3428722.50 0.51% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 152.38 177.65 16000 18653 3446796.90 0.46% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 161.90 188.75 17000 19819 3737000.00 0.45% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 142.86 166.54 15000 17487 3762855.18 0.40% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 142.86 166.54 15000 17487 3869554.50 0.39% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 142.86 166.54 15000 17487 3912486.50 0.38% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 174.63 203.58 18336 21376 4029532.50 0.46% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2009 105 304.76 355.29 32000 37306 4374727.00 0.73% 0 0 0 FALSE TRUE
OR 2008 712 36.52 40.65 26000 28946 2538398.05 1.02% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 712 35.11 39.09 25000 27833 2592000.00 0.96% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 712 37.92 42.22 27000 30059 2864755.20 0.94% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 712 77.25 86.00 55000 61232 3283063.85 1.68% 1 0 0 FALSE TRUE
OR 2008 712 33.71 37.53 24000 26719 3310935.05 0.72% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 712 54.78 60.98 39000 43419 3807263.50 1.02% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 6103 24.58 27.36 150000 166997 2538398.05 5.91% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 6103 24.58 27.36 150000 166997 2592000.00 5.79% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
79
Adj.
Unit Unit Adj.
OR 2008 6103 26.22 29.19 160000 178130 2864755.20 5.59% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 6103 38.51 42.87 235000 261628 3283063.85 7.16% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 6103 24.58 27.36 150000 166997 3310935.05 4.53% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 6103 36.87 41.04 225000 250495 3807263.50 5.91% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1280 35.16 39.14 45000 50099 2538398.05 1.77% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1280 33.59 37.40 43000 47872 2592000.00 1.66% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1280 35.16 39.14 45000 50099 2864755.20 1.57% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1280 42.97 47.84 55000 61232 3283063.85 1.68% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1280 39.06 43.49 50000 55666 3310935.05 1.51% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2008 1280 52.34 58.27 67000 74592 3807263.50 1.76% 1 0 0 FALSE TRUE
OR 2010 500 56.00 60.87 28000 30435 1994828.00 1.40% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 500 56.00 60.87 28000 30435 1994828.00 1.40% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 500 12.00 13.04 6000 6522 1994828.00 0.30% 0 0 0 TRUE FALSE
OR 2010 500 56.00 60.87 28000 30435 1994828.00 1.40% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 5800 27.59 29.99 160000 173913 455880.00 35.10% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 214.29 214.29 27000 27000 1066419.60 2.53% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 259.51 259.51 32698 32698 1104224.35 2.96% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 219.84 219.84 27700 27700 1142933.77 2.42% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 230.16 230.16 29000 29000 1154661.20 2.51% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 257.94 257.94 32500 32500 1231587.70 2.64% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 261.90 261.90 33000 33000 1251020.10 2.64% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 277.78 277.78 35000 35000 1273621.79 2.75% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 340.55 340.55 42909 42909 1296424.75 3.31% 1 1 1 FALSE TRUE
OR 2011 126 198.41 198.41 25000 25000 1359518.60 1.84% 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 126 238.10 238.10 30000 30000 1390643.35 2.16% 1 1 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 50 120.00 120.00 6000 6000 1953567.37 0.31% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 50 120.00 120.00 6000 6000 1989013.50 0.30% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 50 130.00 130.00 6500 6500 2012000.00 0.32% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 50 130.00 130.00 6500 6500 2221348.75 0.29% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2011 50 131.39 131.39 6570 6570 2362233.89 0.28% 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 5,845 19.85 21.57 116000 126087 917771.74 12.64% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
80
Adj.
Unit Unit Adj.
OR 2010 5,845 20.70 22.50 121000 131522 998604.28 12.12% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 5,845 20.02 21.76 117000 127174 1038203.25 11.27% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 5,845 27.37 29.75 160000 173913 1352799.90 11.83% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 5,845 25.66 27.89 150000 163043 1476168.20 10.16% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
OR 2010 5,845 28.04 30.47 163870 178119 1647372.51 9.95% 1 1 1 FALSE FALSE
Total data points after removal with outliers 127 96 78
Total data points after removal without outliers 116 90 73
OL – Outer Limit; TRUE – Outlier; 1- satisfies the condition of %FRP > 1, 2, 3 of Total Contract, 0 - Otherwise
81
Appendix B: Least Squares Percentage Regression for FRP Area and FRP Cost of All
Bridges in Oregon, California and Illinois
Predicted Actual Predicted

FRP FRP Cost, Unit Unit
Area, FRP Ŷij($) = Cost, Cost, %
Location ft2 Cost, $ bx+a ERV URV TRV $/ft2 $/ft2 Residual
3144 158709 79933 0.00 0.25 0.25 50.48 25.42 50%
840 32609 24744 3.23 0.06 3.28 38.82 29.46 24%
360 20144 13246 12.10 0.12 12.22 55.95 36.80 34%
375 24493 13606 8.10 0.20 8.30 65.31 36.28 44%
231 27833 10156 6.91 0.40 7.31 120.49 43.97 64%
376 23913 13630 8.49 0.18 8.68 63.60 36.25 43%
64 4348 6156 314.92 0.17 315.10 67.93 96.19 -42%
320 10870 12288 42.70 0.02 42.71 33.97 38.40 -13%
3200 86957 81275 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.17 25.40 7%
2600 71739 66903 0.05 0.00 0.06 27.59 25.73 7%
1900 59783 50135 0.31 0.03 0.33 31.46 26.39 16%
1900 76087 50135 0.19 0.12 0.31 40.05 26.39 34%
101 22150 7042 11.86 0.47 12.32 219.31 69.73 68%
OR
45 7578 5701 104.90 0.06 104.96 168.39 126.69 25%
105 20402 7138 13.94 0.42 14.36 194.30 67.98 65%
712 28946 21678 4.53 0.06 4.60 40.65 30.45 25%
6103 166997 150812 0.16 0.01 0.17 27.36 24.71 10%
1280 50099 35284 0.92 0.09 1.01 39.14 27.57 30%
500 30435 16600 4.80 0.21 5.01 60.87 33.20 45%
500 30435 16600 4.80 0.21 5.01 60.87 33.20 45%
500 6522 16600 104.64 2.39 107.03 13.04 33.20 -155%
500 30435 16600 4.80 0.21 5.01 60.87 33.20 45%
5800 173913 143554 0.12 0.03 0.15 29.99 24.75 17%
126 27000 7641 7.85 0.51 8.37 214.29 60.64 72%
50 6000 5821 166.81 0.00 166.81 120.00 116.41 3%
5845 126087 144632 0.24 0.02 0.26 21.57 24.74 -15%
614 38075 19331 2.82 0.24 3.07 62.01 31.48 49%
420 35449 14684 3.75 0.34 4.09 84.40 34.96 59%
4163 248157 104342 0.01 0.34 0.34 59.61 25.06 58%
CA
3677 238053 92701 0.00 0.37 0.37 64.74 25.21 61%
2620 183974 67382 0.01 0.40 0.41 70.22 25.72 63%
170 16763 8695 19.81 0.23 20.05 98.61 51.15 48%
7210 115932 177329 0.66 0.28 0.94 16.08 24.59 -53%
3800 94965 95647 0.02 0.00 0.02 24.99 25.17 -1%
IL
7820 270572 191941 0.16 0.08 0.25 34.60 24.54 29%
12000 266216 292067 0.61 0.01 0.62 22.18 24.34 -10%
a = 4622.97, b = 23.95 & Coefficient of relative determination = 0.9901
82
Appendix C: Scatter Plots of Average and Low Cost of all Bridges in Oregon and
California
300000
y = 30.325x
R² = 0.9183
250000
200000
FRP Cost, $
150000 Average FRP cost
100000 Linear (Average FRP

cost)
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
FRP Area, ft2
Appendix C-1: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Average Cost of All Bids for the Oregon
Bridges
300000
y = 26.861x
250000 R² = 0.9291
200000
FRP Cost, $
150000 Low FRP Cost
100000 Linear (Low FRP

Cost)
50000
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
FRP Area, ft2
Appendix C-2: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Low Cost of All Bids for the Oregon Bridges
83
300000
y = 63.881x
R² = 0.8091
250000
200000
FRP Cost, $
Average FRP cost

150000
Linear (Average FRP
100000 cost)
Linear (Average FRP
50000 cost)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
FRP Area, ft2
Appendix C-3: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Average Cost of All Bids for the California
Bridges
200000
y = 34.988x
180000
R² = 0.3761
160000
140000
FRP Cost, $
120000
100000 Low FRP Cost
80000
Linear (Low FRP
60000 Cost)
40000
20000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
FRP Area, ft2
Appendix C-4: Scatter Plot of FRP Area and its Low Cost of All Bids for the California Bridges
84

Narendran Lokesh

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Narendran Lokesh

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cost Estimation of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Repairs on Rail and Highway Bridges

Problem Report submitted to the

Robert C. Creese, Ph.D., Chair

Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering

Morgantown, West Virginia

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrapping is used in a large number of construction

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Status of Bridges in the United States ................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation........................................................................................................ 2

1.2.1 Concrete Repair and Rehabilitation ................................................................................................. 2

1.2.2 Steel Reinforcement Repair and Rehabilitation ............................................................................... 4

1.2.3 FRP Repair and Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Organization of the Report.................................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.1 Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) for Infrastructure ....................................................................... 8

2.2 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 10

2.2.1 Review on FRP Bridges ................................................................................................................. 11

2.2.2 Review on FRP Wraps ................................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Case Histories ................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4 Previous Projects on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of FRP Bridges ...................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 25

3.2 Repair Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 27

3.3 Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 28

3.4 Classification of Variables ................................................................................................................ 35

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 38

4.1 Cost Analysis of Railway Bridges .................................................................................................... 38

4.2 Predicting the Unit Cost of the Bridge Repairs................................................................................. 46

4.4 Cost Analysis of Highway Bridges ................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 67

5.1 Chicago Bridge Findings .................................................................................................................. 67

5.2 Oregon and California Bridge Findings ............................................................................................ 68

5.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 70

5.4 Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................................. 71

Bid of All Bridge Repairs (California, Oregon and Illinois)....................................57

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

1.1 Status of Bridges in the United States

455,883 (75%) Structurally Deficient

1.2 Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation

Figure 1-3: Concrete Jacketing (www.corecut-jo.com) [5]

1.2.3 FRP Repair and Rehabilitation

Figure 1-5: FRP Wraps Being Applied on a Column (www.ncn-uk.co.uk)[7]

The main objectives of this study are to:

1.4 Organization of the Report

2.1.1 Fiber Reinforced Polymers (FRP) for Infrastructure

Table 2-1: General Properties of Fibers Used in FRP Materials [10]

Tensile Tensile Coefficient of Strain to

2.2 Literature Review

In a research paper titled “Financial Viability of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)

2.2.2 Review on FRP Wraps

“Application of FRP laminates for strengthening of a reinforced-concrete T-beam bridge

In a research report titled “Repair of Corrosion-Damaged Columns using FRP Wraps,”

2.3 Case Histories

Figure 2-4: Decatur Bridge Enclosure (AREMA, 2011) [17]

Figure 2-5: Completed Champaign Bridge (AREMA, 2011) [17]

Figure 2-7: Preparation on Beaver Creek Bridge in Oregon [19]

2.4 Previous Projects on Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of FRP Bridges

A life cycle cost estimation model was developed in a thesis submitted by

In the Cost Estimation of FRP Wrapping for Bridge Rehabilitation report by

Table 2-3: Approximate Unit Costs of Various Cost Items