FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

FRP STAY-IN-PLACE FORMWORK AND REINFORCING

FOR CONCRETE HIGHWAY BRIDGE DECKS
1 1 1 1 2
Michael OLIVA Lawrence BANK Han-Ug BAE Jeffrey BARKER Seung-Woon YOO
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A.
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Kwandong University, Korea

Keywords: bridges, bridge decks, crack control, FRP bond, FRP formwork, FRP reinforcing.

1 INTRODUCTION

All bridge designers regularly face issues of cost, efficiency, traffic disruption during construction,
construction safety, and infrastructure durability in their stewardship role for the traveling public. United
States designers are using new types of precast concrete bridge girders to reduce costs and increase
efficiency. These concrete girders typically have top flanges that are 1.2m to 1.8m wide and are often
spaced 1.8m to 2.8m apart. The wide flanges result in a short span for the bridge deck, less than
1.6m, and traditional methods of deck design for flexural moment may no longer be appropriate or
efficient.
The research described in this paper is aimed at developing an innovative approach to designing
and building concrete bridges, especially bridge decks. This new approach is intended to allow more
rapid construction, improve the deck durability, reduce costs and improve efficiency by making the
design process reflect the actual deck behavior.
As part of the development of this new design and construction process, a prototype bridge is
being constructed in 2007. This bridge has been designed using an unconventional approach. When
short span bridge decks fail, the failure mode is likely to be in punching shear under wheel loads. The
new design procedure is based on deck shear capacity, rather than flexure. The deck is designed to
resist shear through compressive membrane action. Deck compression is created by a pseudo arch
action: a compressive arch is developed across the deck, between the girders, and the arch thrust is
created by the girders reacting on the deck. To enhance this thrust, steel bars are added in
construction to tie the girders together as shown in Figure 1. All steel reinforcing is eliminated from the
deck since it is not needed in resisting the vertical shear from the wheel loads with the compressive
membrane action present. The elimination of steel reinforcing from the deck reduces bridge costs in
labor and material and is expected to increase durability by avoiding possible deleterious corrosion of
reinforcing steel.

Fig. 1 Typical cross section of the prototype bridge (dimensions in mm)

Our analytic studies have shown that the deck compressive thrust and resulting ultimate capacity
doesn’t develop until after the deck has cracked in flexure. Without reinforcing in the deck, a single
large and unsightly flexural crack is likely to appear at midspan on the bottom surface running parallel
to the girders with service loading. The use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcing to provide
crack control may be an ideal solution to this dilemma because it would not reduce durability through
corrosion.
Canadian researchers developed similar steel reinforcement free deck systems utilizing
compressive membrane action by providing lateral steel straps on the top flanges of adjacent girders

1
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

attached either to the girders or to the deck. They found that no other internal reinforcing was required
for strength in the deck [1-3]. Decks that had been designed to carry vehicle loads by compressive
membrane action, without using any internal reinforcement, had a visible crack at the bottom of the
deck in the longitudinal direction after service loadings. The crack size needed to be controlled or
distributed to numerous smaller cracks for aesthetics though the cracks did not influence the strength
or the safety of the deck [4].
This paper describes work leading to the development of sufficient composite action between
pultruded FRP plank, with a smooth surface, and field cast concrete as needed for crack control in an
otherwise unreinforced bridge deck. Our goals of rapid construction, cost reduction, and improved
durability can be achieved since the FRP plank provides the dual function of stay-in-place formwork
and durable crack control in one readily available and easily placed component.
The objective of the study was to investigate the means of developing bond between the FRP
plank and concrete, to compare the developed crack control system with steel reinforcement and to
analyze the bond behavior of the proposed method experimentally and analytically. Only one type of
material was examined as a formwork/crack-control system and is already a commercially available
FRP plank. We are using the plank in an inverted fashion; the normal walking surface is placed
downward. An inverted FRP plank having integral T-shaped ribs is shown in Figures 2 & 3. The FRP
plank is produced in 305 and 610mm widths and is normally used in walkway or flooring applications
with the flat side facing up and a smooth inner surface on the bottom side.

25mm 25mm
3mm

51mm
3mm
5mm
4mm

102mm 102mm

Fig. 2 305 mm wide pultruded FRP plank Fig. 3 Approximate cross-sectional dimensions of
portion of FRP plank used in tested beams

We selected bonding of aggregate (sand or gravel) by epoxy to the smooth surface of the
pultruded FRP planks, prior to the placement of concrete, as the preferable means of achieving
composite action between the FRP plank and the concrete. Two other options were considered. One
was to apply epoxy on the surface of the FRP plank and to place the concrete before the epoxy cured.
This option was felt to be unrealistic for field bridge construction conditions. The other was to use FRP
cross rods inserted through the webs of the FRP plank (similar to FRP grating construction). This
option was attempted [5] and was found to be difficult and costly to implement in the shop.
The feasibility of using this system in the bridge deck was investigated experimentally in one
series of tests using beams of different lengths that were loaded in three point bending to check crack
control. Another second series of experiments was performed to find a bond stress–slip relation
between the aggregate coated FRP surface and the concrete. The results from this second series
were used in numerical analytic simulation of flexural behavior.

2 TESTING OF BEAM SPECIMENS REINFORCED WITH FRP PLANK

Loading tests on six beams reinforced with FRP plank as a stay-in-pace form were performed to
check bond and crack control performance. The cracking in beams with FRP forms was compared
with results from testing a separate beam with normal steel reinforcing. Detailed illustrations of the
beams and comparisons with strength predictions using American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 and
440 methods [6, 7] are described elsewhere [8].

2.1 Test specimens

One beam was built with the FRP plank, as delivered from the manufacturer, providing the bottom
form without any special coating to provide improved bond with the concrete. Five specimens were
fabricated using an aggregate coating on the FRP plank to improve the concrete bond (see Table 1 for
details and concrete strengths). Two types of aggregate were tested as noted in the Table. No other

2
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

tensile or shear reinforcement was used in any of the FRP beams. A 204mm wide piece of plank,
shown in Figure 3, was cut from the middle of the 305mm wide FRP plank to produce a representative
unit width element of the FRP plank in the beams. The beam with steel reinforcing did not have FRP
forming but did use three 10mm mild steel reinforcing bars. Figure 4 shows the dimensions of the
beam specimens.
Longitudinal tension tests were also conducted on the FRP plank material yielding a longitudinal
tensile strength, σL = 481.3MPa and a longitudinal modulus of elasticity, EL = 26,890MPa [5].

Table 1 Details of the fabricated beams

Specimen I.D. Span (m) Tensile Reinforcement Compressive strength

of concrete (MPa)
1 1.09 Gravel coated FRP plank 25.8
2 1.09 Sand coated FRP plank 25.8
3 1.09 Sand coated FRP plank 24.5
C1* 1.09 FRP plank 25.8
4 1.83 Sand coated FRP plank 32.1
5 1.83 Sand coated FRP plank 33.5
C2* 1.83 Steel reinforcement (3-D10) 32.9
* Control specimen
Load
Strain gauges LVDT

FRP plank
89mm

178
Span 203

Fig. 4 Dimension and instrumentation of fabricated FRP plank reinforced beam specimens

A construction-grade epoxy was spread on the top surface of the flat portion of the inverted plank.
Epoxy was only placed between the ribs of the plank on the horizontal surface without roughening or
sanding the FRP material. No epoxy or aggregate was bonded to the protruding vertical ribs. The
gravel or sand was scattered on the wet epoxy using a perforated bucket to cover approximately 30%
of the total surface area. Sizes of the aggregates were 3.18~6.35mm for the gravel and 1.59~3.18mm
for the sand. Figure 5 shows the aggregate coated FRP planks. The beam specimens were then cast
using concrete having a 28-day target compressive strength of 27.6MPa from a local ready-mixed
concrete vendor.

10mm

a) Gravel coated FRP plank

10mm

b) Sand coated FRP plank

Fig. 5 Aggregate coated FRP planks

The two beams with uncoated FRP and steel reinforcing (C1 and C2) were fabricated as control
specimens. One of the control specimens, C1 was fabricated using the FRP plank as formwork, but no
aggregate was bonded on top of the FRP plank. The other control specimen, C2, was a conventional

3
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

steel reinforced concrete beam, with no shear reinforcement and no FRP plank. The steel
reinforcement (three 10mm bars) had the same area as would be needed for the bottom transverse
reinforcement in a typical steel reinforced bridge deck with a 914mm clear span between girders (as in
the prototype bridge).

2.2 Experimental results

Each beam was tested with a single point load at midspan. The initial flexural cracking load was
identified by observing the change in slope of load vs. strain curves measured at center span of the
beam as well as visual indications of cracking. The beams (specimens 1-5) with the aggregate coated
FRP planks showed higher initial cracking capacities compared to the control specimen reinforced by
the smooth surface FRP plank (specimen C1) and compared to the specimen with the steel reinforcing
bars (specimen C2). Clearly the FRP form is bonded better with the aggregate coating and the form
increases the beam’s cracking capacity. This higher capacity is believed to be related to the
continuous contact area between concrete and FRP with the plank as compared to discreet steel bars.
The cracking load values are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Test results for the beam specimens

Normalized1 # of
Initial Deflection
initial Failure flexural
Specimen Span cracking at failure Failure
cracking load cracks
I.D. (m) load load mode
moment (kN) at both
(kN) (mm)
(kN-mm) side
1 1.09 15.6 4395 63.2 3.556 11 Shear
2 1.09 20.9 5909 66.7 4.216 9 Shear
3 1.09 22.2 6451 57.4 4.216 9 Shear
C1 1.09 15.1 4271 16.9 0.432 3 Flexural
4 1.83 12.5 5276 59.616.993 22 Hybrid
5 1.83 12.0 4983 65.817.907 29 Hybrid
8.557(Y)2
C2 1.83 8.0 3356 38.3 22 Flexural
54.483(U)
1
Normalized moment to concrete with 27.6 MPa compressive strength by multiplying √(fc’/27.6MPa),
4316kN-mm is the design service load moment, including impact, from U.S. design practice;
2
values given for yield (Y) and ultimate (U) deflection;

The number of visible flexural cracks was counted after each specimen reached its peak load
capacity (failure). In the short beams (specimens 1-3) with aggregate coating, nine to eleven small
flexural cracks developed. Three large cracks occurred in the short beam without aggregate coating
(specimen C1). In the long beams (specimens 4 and 5), twenty two to twenty nine flexural cracks were
counted. This was similar to that of the steel control beam (specimen C2). The FRP plank appeared to
be as efficient as steel reinforcing in causing multiple distributed cracking of small width or ‘crack
control’. Figure 6 shows cracks in an FRP and the steel reinforced beams after the test and Figures 7-
8 show the load vs. deflection curves for selected test specimens.

a) cracking in steel reinforced beam C2, b) cracking in FRP reinforced beam 5,

Fig. 6 Specimens after test

4
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

70 70
S p e c ime n 1 Spec imen 4
S p e c ime n 2 Spec imen 5
60 S p e c ime n 3 60 Spec imen C2
S p e c ime n C1

50 50

40 40

Load (kN)
Load (kN)
30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
De f le c t io n (mm) Deflection (mm)

Fig. 7 Load-deflection plots for specimens Fig.8 Load-deflection plots for specimens
1-3 and C1 4-5 and C2

3 MEASURING BOND STRESS AND SLIP BEHAVIOR

In applying general analysis techniques to evaluate the performance of bridge decks with the FRP
stay-in-place forming, as a prelude to defining design methods, it is essential that characteristics of the
bond stress-slip relation be identified. This relation can only be found experimentally. Commonly used
experimental methods include double shear pull testing, double shear push testing, beam bending
tests and modified beam bending tests [9]. In this study, the beam bending test was selected as an
experimental method to measure the bond characteristics.

3.1 Test specimens

Four beams (specimens 6-9) were fabricated for measuring the bond vs slip behavior. The
dimensions of the beams are shown in Figure 9. Specimens 6 and 7 were fabricated using 1041mm
long FRP strips with the strip extending into the bearing region at the beam end support. Specimens 8
and 9 were fabricated using 813mm long FRP strips to measure behaviour without having the strip in
the end support bearing region. The concrete beams, however, were all the same length.
The FRP strips attached to the bottom of the beams were 76mm wide and cut from the FRP plank
between ribs (not including ribs). A sand coating was applied on the surface of the strip by the same
method as used in the previous beams (specimens 2-5). Steel anchors were used on one half of the
strip length, in addition to aggregate bonding, to attach the strip and prevent slip over that portion of
the beam as noted in Figure 9. The beam was cast with two separated portions of concrete and a
steel hinge was placed at the center of span to simulate a flexural crack and provide a predefined
‘hinge’ location. The known geometry at the hinge allowed an exact calculation of stress in the FRP
strip based on the static moment at the section. Details of all the specimens are summarized in the
Table 3.
127 127

25 25
140

140

76 813 76
914
1,041 914

a) Specimens 6-7 b) Specimens 8-9

Fig. 9 Dimensions of the specimens for the bond stress–slip experiments (dimensions in mm)

Table 3 Details of the beams for bond stress-slip experiments

Specimen Length of the attached Thickness of the attached Compressive strength

I.D. FRP strip (mm) FRP strip (mm) of concrete (MPa)
6 1,041 4.3 29.2
7 1,041 4.3 31.0
8 813 4.3 31.6
9 813 4.3 33.5

5
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

3.2 Experimental setup and instrumentation

The specimens were placed on two 51mm wide steel bearing plates in a simply supported
configuration. Data was primarily recorded with electrical resistance strain gauges, but linear variable
differential transformers (LVDTs) and a load cell were also used. The first strain gauge (G0) was
located at center span and the center of the FRP strip at the preformed concrete crack. The second
strain gauge (G1) was located near the starting edge of the bonded area near center span. The other
gauges were located further along the strips with spacing of either 12.7mm (G1-G3) or 25.4mm (G3-
G6). Deflection was measured at the center of the beam and the relative slip displacement between
the FRP strip and concrete was measured at the location of gauge G6 by LVDTs. The load was
applied at the center of the specimen with a hydraulic actuator. Figure 10 shows the typical
experimental instrumentation used for the test.

FRP strain gauges

G0 G1G2G3 G4 G5 G6

0 51 64 76 102 127 152 X coordinate(mm)

Fig. 10 Typical experimental instrumentationfor bond-slip experiments

3.3 Experimental results

All the specimens were loaded at the center of the span to failure. The failure occurred on one half
of the beam at the interface between the FRP strip and concrete as expected. There was no failure or
slip at the other side where steel anchors were used to attach the FRP strip. Figure 11 shows the
failed interface between the FRP strip and the concrete. A small amount of concrete and most of the
sand were still bonded to the FRP strip which implies that the bond strength of the aggregate to the
epoxy is higher than the bond strength of the concrete to the aggregate and strip. Brittle failure
occurred after reaching a critical load level followed by a large amount of slip for all the specimens.
There was no measurable difference in the failure mode of the specimens with the FRP strip in the
bearing region versus those with the shorter strip.

Fig. 11. Interface of the FRP strip and concrete after the bond-slip experiments.

The distributions of strains along the length of the FRP strip at differing load levels are plotted in
Figure 12 for specimen 8. There are three general shapes of strain distribution depending on the level
of the applied load. At the initial stage of low loading the strain adjacent to the midspan crack (G1),
where bonding started, had the largest strain and the strain decreased gradually toward the support.
The distribution of strains changed under increasing load (7.12kN) once hairline cracks developed in
the concrete adjacent to the preformed crack. In this condition strains were slightly higher in the first
part of the bonded region a short distance away from the preformed crack compared to the strain near
the crack. They then again decreased linearly toward the support. Finally, the strains along the entire
length of the strip became closer to uniform as the failure load was approached. The strain from the
G1 gauge (near the start of the bonded region)always had the highest value of the gauges - a result of
flexural stress concentration in the strip due to severe bending across the preformed crack.

6
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Applied load(kN)
Applied load(kN)
0.0040 0.89 4.14 0.89
1.78
0.0035 1.78
2.67
3.45 2.67
3.56

Shear Stress (MPa)

0.0030
3.56
4.45
0.0025 2.76 4.45
5.34 5.34
Strain

0.0020 6.23 2.07 6.23

7.12 7.12
0.0015 8.01 8.01
1.38 8.90
8.90
0.0010 9.34
9.34
0.69 9.79
0.0005 9.79

0.0000 10.68 0.00

0 25 51 76 102 127 152 11.12 51 64 76 89 102 114 127 140 152
11.17
X coordinate (mm) X coordinate (mm)

Fig. 12 Distribution of strain from bond stress– Fig. 13 Distribution of bond shear stress from
slip experiment bond stress–slip experiment

3.4 Local bond stress versus slip relation

The local bond stress between the FRP and concrete is obtained from changes in the measured
FRP strains between gauge locations. The average bond stress between two adjacent strain gauges
is calculated from the following equation. The longitudinal bond shear stress along the FRP strip is
found as:

ε i − ε i +1
τ i , i +1 = tEL , i = 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (1)
xi +1 − xi
where, τ i , i +1 is the average bond stress between gages Gi and Gi+1, t is the FRP strip thickness, E L
is FRP strip longitudinal modulus of elasticity, ε i is the measured strain at the location of Gi and xi is
the distance of the gage from center span.

The distributions of bond shear stress for specimen 8, with the shorter strips, along the FRP strip
length at different load levels are shown in Figure 13. At low loads, the bond stress was highest at the
start of the bonded region near the preformed crack at the center span of the beam. The stress then
decreased rapidly toward the beam support. As the loading was increased, the location of peak bond
stress gradually moved toward the support due concrete cracking and bond damage near the center
of the beam span. As the beam failure load was approached (7.12kN) it is evident that the bond shear
stress near midspan (x = 51mm to 70mm) reduced to zero indicating full debonding.
The bond slip at any gauge location Gi, ignoring deformation of the concrete, would be the same
as the extension of the FRP strip between the gauge location Gi and the location Gi+1. The slip
between two adjacent strain gauges is calculated from the following equation.

xi +1 − xi
S i , i +1 = S i +1, i + 2 + (ε i + ε i +1 ) , i = 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (2)
2
where, S i ,i +1 is slip between location i and i + 1 , ε i is the measured strain at location of gauge Gi,
xi is the value of the x coordinate measured from midspan and S 6,7 is the relative displacement
between the FRP strip and concrete measured at location of gauge G6. Since concrete deformation is
ignored, this equation will conservatively overestimate the bond slip.

The strain at the G1 strain gauge had excessively high values due to bending of the FRP strip
across the preformed crack. Near the supports the slip was small until sudden debonding of the entire
strip occurred. The slip was, therefore, analyzed using only the strains from the G2, G3 and G4 strain
gauges. The bond stress–slip relation for each section between two points was obtained using
equations (1) and (2) and is shown in Figure 14 for the four beams. The maximum bond stress in the
tests ranged between 1.32 to 3.95MPa, the slip at maximum bond stress was 0.021 to 0.099mm and
the final slip was 0.067 to 0.444mm. The bond stress–slip plots for the sections G2-G3 and G3-G4 are
similar and the general character might be used for numerical analysis of beam behaviour, but there

7
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

are deviations in the peak bond stress, the initial slope and the declining curve. Such variation was
also observed in reported experiments with externally bonded FRP material for strengthening or
repairing beams.

5.52
800.0
800.0
5.52
TT2- 3
G2-G3
4.83
700.0
T2- 3(ShS)
G2-G3
TT3- 4
G3-G4 4.83
700.0
4.14
600.0
T3- 4(ShS)
G3-G4
600.0
4.14

BOND STRESS (MPa)

3.45

BOND STRESS (Mpa)

500.0 3.45
500.0
2.76
400.0
400.0
2.76
2.07
300.0
300.0
2.07
1.38
200.0
200.0
1.38
0.69
100.0
100.0
0.69
0.00
0.0 0.00
0.0
0.000
0.000
0.127
0.005
0.254
0.010
0.381
0.015
0.508
0.020
0.635
0.025
0.762
0.030
0.889
0.035 0.000 0.127 0.254 0.381 0.508 0.635 0.762 0.889
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
SLIP (mm)
SLIP (mm)

a) Specimen 6 b) Specimen 7
800.0
5.52 800.0
5.52
T2- 3(ShearS)
G2-G3 T2- 3(ShS)
G2-G3
700.0
4.83 4.83
700.0
T3- 4(ShearS)
G3-G4 T3- 4(ShS)
G3-G4
600.0
4.14 600.0
4.14
BOND STRESS ( MPa)

3.45
500.0

BOND STRESS (MPa)

3.45
500.0

2.76
400.0 2.76
400.0
2.07
300.0
300.0
2.07
1.38
200.0
1.38
200.0
0.69
100.0
0.69
100.0
0.00
0.0
0.000 0.127 0.254 0.381 0.508 0.635 0.762 0.889 0.00
0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0 .0 2 0 0 .0 2 5 0 .0 3 0 0 .0 3 5 0.0
0.000 0.127 0.254 0.381 0.508 0.635 0.762 0.889
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035
SLIP ( mm) SLIP (mm)

c) Specimen 8 d) Specimen 9
Fig. 14 Bond stress–slip relations from bond stress–slip experiments

4 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF BEAM SPECIMENS REINFORCED BY FRP PLANK

The numerical simulations of the beam tests (specimens 1-3) were performed using nonlinear
finite element methods. Commercially available software, i.e. ABAQUS [10], was used and modelling
was based on similar analyses described by other researchers [11,12]. A one quarter segment of each
beam specimen reinforced by the FRP plank was modeled taking advantage of transverse and
longitudinal symmetry. Figure 15 shows the mesh geometry. The model consisted of brick elements
for the concrete and shell elements for the FRP plank. The concrete was modeled with an 8-node
solid element using one point integration. The mesh division was established so that the FRP plank
nodes coincided with the concrete nodes. The beam model was supported on relatively rigid solid
elements with dimensions of 51 x 102 x 13mm to limit the stress concentration and to simulate a
simply supported configuration. The properties of the concrete and the FRP material used in the
analyses are listed in Table 4. Average values were used for the compressive strength of the concrete.

Fig. 15 A quarter model and geometry of FRP plank beam

A damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS was chosen to simulate the nonlinear behavior of
concrete. The model is a continuum damage model for concrete based on plasticity. It assumes that
the two main failure mechanisms are the tensile cracking and the compressive crushing of the
concrete material. The evolution of the failure surface is controlled by two hardening variables linked
to failure mechanisms under tension and compression loading, respectively. In this study, a two-
segment representation of tension softening was used.

8
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

Table 4 Properties of the concrete and FRP used in analytical analysis

Concrete Concrete Concrete

compressive strength tensile strength Young's Concrete
(MPa) (MPa) modulus (MPa) Poisson's ratio
(avg. measured) .415 f c ' 4700 f c '
25.8 2.1 23,868 0.18
FRP FRP transverse FRP FRP
longitudinal modulus modulus of shear modulus of Poisson’s ratio
of elasticity (MPa) elasticity (MPa) elasticity (MPa)
26,890 14,552 3,624 0.26

The available traction-separation model for the FRP bond interface in ABAQUS is similar to the
shape in Figure 14. The results from bond stress-slip experiments showed wide ranges as noted
earlier and they are not easily defined for an application to numerical analysis. Therefore, parametric
studies using the values within the range were required to find an appropriate bond stress-slip relation.
The beam load-deflection plots from the numerical analyses and the experiments are shown in
Figure 16. This best fit result is achieved when the maximum bond stress, the slip at the maximum
bond stress and the final slip of the aggregate coated surface were assumed as 1.90MPa, 0.014mm
and 0.0762mm, consequently. These values were within the range of results achieved in the previous
bond tests. The assumed values were close to the lower bound of the results from bond stress-slip
experiments. The numerical results agreed well with the experimental results up to the ultimate load.
The agreement proves that the FRP-concrete bond modeling can be successfully accomplished and a
similar approach using 3-D finite element modeling may be used to simiulate the actual behavior of a
bridge deck, with FRP plank, supported on the wide flange precast concrete girders.
After ultimate load, there was some difference between the numerical results and the experimental
results. It was found that there is not only an intermediate crack (IC) debonding of FRP plank but also
a critical diagonal crack (CDC) debonding that may occur. When including the interface debonding
effect, numerical analysis requires considerable computer running time and in some cases the
analysis may not converge. Additional parametric studies for the modeling of concrete properties in
the damage plasticity model and for modeling of the FRP-concrete bond in the traction-separation
model of ABAQUS seem to be required to achieve a satisfactory analysis.

18.0
80.07

16.0
71.17

62.28
14.0

53.38
12.0
LOAD (kips)-
Load (kN)

44.48
10.0

8.0
35.59

6.0
26.69 Specimen 1
Specimen 2
4.0
17.79 Specimen 3
Analysis(FEA)
8.90
2.0

0.00
0.0
0.00
0.00 0.05
1.27 0.10
2.54 0.15
3.81 0.20
5.08 0.25
6.35
DISPLACEMENT(in)
Deflection (mm)

Fig. 16 Load-displacement results of FEA for specimens 1-3

5 CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are deduced from the experimental results and numerical analysis:
• The epoxy bonded aggregate coating at the surface of the FRP plank was essential to
developing composite action. Sand and gravel aggregate coatings were found to be
acceptable but the sand coating was judged as preferable in resisting initial concrete cracking.

9
FRPRCS-8 University of Patras, Patras, Greece, July 16-18, 2007

• The results of the beam tests indicate that the aggregate coated FRP plank can serve as an
alternative to conventional steel crack control reinforcement for the span tested. The
aggregate coated FRP plank beams performed as well or better than the steel reinforced
beam in terms of initial cracking moment capacity, ability to distribute flexural cracks and
ultimate load carrying capacity.
• Since it has been demonstrated that the aggregate coated FRP plank can be used as a crack
control system, it can also be used as a stay-in-place form. This will lead to construction
efficiency, labor cost reduction, and may also produce a more durable bridge deck.
• Bond-slip behavior of the aggregate coated FRP material and concrete can be found
experimentally but exhibits undesirable variability.
• Numerical analysis with bond-slip modeling between concrete and the FRP plank was
performed for the tested beam specimens and the results showed good agreement with
experiment results using modelling parameters within the range measured in bond-slip tests.
Bond-slip modeling may be used in analytical simulation of the FRP reinforced concrete bridge
deck system.
• The proposed system using FRP plank as stay-in-place formwork and reinforcement to control
flexural cracks was successful and is included in the design of a new prototype bridge that will
be built in 2007.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this project was provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the
Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program (IBRC) and by the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation (WisDOT). Special thanks are due to Finn Hubbard-Design Engineer and Scot Becker-
Development Engineer of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and to Strongwell for supplying
FRP materials for the study.

REFERENCES

[1] Mufti, A. A., Bakht, B. and Jaeger, L. G., “Fiber FRC Deck Slabs with Diminished Steel
Reinforcement”, IABSE Symposium Proceedings (Leningrad), 1991, pp 388-389.
[2] Mufti, A. A., Jaeger, L, G., Bakht, B. and Wegner, L. D., “Experimental Investigation of Fibre-
reinforced Concrete Deck Slabs without Internal Steel Reinforcement”, Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 20, 3, Jun, 1993, pp 398-406
[3] Mufti, A. A. and Newhook, J. P., “Punching Shear Strength of Restrained Concrete Bridge
Deck Slabs”, ACI structural journal, 95, 4, 1998, pp 375-381.
[4] Bakht, B. and Lam, C., “Behavior of Transverse Confining Systems for Steel-free Deck Slabs”,
Journal of Bridge Engineering, 5, 2, May. 2000, pp 139-147.
[5] Ringelstetter, T.E., Bank, L.C., Oliva, M.G., Russell, J.S., Matta, F. and Nanni, A.,
“Development of Cost-Effective Structural FRP Stay-in-Place Formwork System for
Accelerated and Durable Bridge Deck Construction”, Proceedings 85th Annual Transportation
Research Board Meeting, Washington D.C., U.S.A., 2006, CD-ROM.
[6] ACI, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete”, ACI 318-05, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005.
[7] ACI, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”,
ACI 440.1R-06, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2006.
[8] Bank, L.C., Oliva, M.G., Bae, H., Barker, J. and Yoo, S., “Pultruded FRP Plank as Formwork
and Reinforcement for Concrete Structures”, COMPOSITES 2006 Convention and Trade
Show, American Composites Manufacturers Association, St. Louis, MO, U.S.A., 2006.
[9] Yao, J., Teng, J.G. and Chen, J.F., “Experimental Study on FRP-to-concrete Bonded Joints”,
Composite Part B : engineering, 36, 2005, pp 99-113.
[10] Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen Inc., “ABAQUS User’s manual”, Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen
Inc., Pawtucket, RI, USA, 2004.
[11] Kishi, N., Zhang, G. and Mikami, H., “Numerical Cracking and Debonding Analysis of RC
Beams Reinforced with FRP sheet”, Journal of Composites for Construction, 9, 6, 2005, pp
507-514.
[12] Cho, K., Cho, J., Chin, W. and Kim. B., “Bond-slip Model for Coarse Sand Coated Interface
between FRP and Concrete from Optimization Technique”, Computers and Structures, 84,
pp439-449, 2006

10