REPORT FHWA/NY/SR-00/134

Design, Fabrication, Construction, and

Testing of an FRP Superstructure
SREENIVAS ALAMPALLI
JEROME OCONNOR
ARTHUR P. YANNOTTI

SPECIAL REPORT 134

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
George E Pataki, Governor/Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner

DESIGN, FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION, AND

TESTING OF AN FRP SUPERSTRUCTURE
Sreenivas Alampalli, Engineering Research Specialist II
Jerome OConnor, Civil Engineer III
Arthur P. Yannotti, Civil Engineer III

Special Report 134

December 2000

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

New York State Department of Transportation, State Campus, Albany, New York 12232-0869

ABSTRACT
New York engineers have been seeking alternatives to steel and concrete for bridge construction and
rehabilitation that may be less vulnerable to environmental damage. In addition, rising public concerns
about traffic delays experienced during the construction have increasingly influenced engineers to
design bridges with materials and details that can be built rapidly. At the same time, life-cycle costs
must be competitive with traditional materials because of limited resources available to maintain the
highway infrastructure. Fiber-reinforced-polymer (FRP) composites are one such alternative material.
New York has recently begun using and evaluating FRPs for bridge repair to strengthen deteriorated
components, remove load postings, and prolong service life. This report describes one such
application, that allowed a bridge superstructure to be replaced in significantly less time than a
conventional bridge project, in a cost-effective manner. The bridge design, fabrication, installation,
proof-testing, long-term monitoring program, and cost-benefit details are documented in this report.

iii

CONTENTS
I.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II.

BRIDGE STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III.

DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A. Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Design Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C. Wearing Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
D. Railing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
E.
Load Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

IV.

FABRICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

V. INSTALLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Erection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C. Completion of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
VI.

PROOF-TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A. Strain and Deflection Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B. Proof Load Test Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C. Load Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
D. Deflection Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
E.
Follow-up Load Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

VII. LONG-TERM MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

VIII. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
IX

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
APPENDICES
A. Partnership Agreement
B. Material Test Results
C. Final Bridge Plans as Constructed

I. INTRODUCTION
The transportation infrastructure is the backbone of American commerce and industry, and includes
more than 6.3 million km (3.9 million miles) or 12 million lane-km (8.1 million lane-miles) of public
roads. Major highways incorporate more than 580,000 large bridges, according to the National
Bridge Inventory. This network is deteriorating at an alarming rate and public agencies are hardpressed to cope with this trend, due to the staggeringly high cost of repair and replacement (1).
Of these 580,000 bridges, more than 180,000 are deficient 31.4 % or nearly one-third. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that repair of deficient or obsolete bridges will cost more
than 20 billion dollars (2). Structural deficiency does not imply that a bridge is unsafe or likely to
collapse. With proper weight restrictions and enforcement, most deficient bridges can continue
serving traffic safely when limited to posted maximum loads (3). The main reasons for classifying
a bridge as structurally deficient are low load ratings (or weight restrictions), deteriorated decks, or
deteriorated substructures. About 114,000 bridges nationwide are posted or should be posted. More
than 21,000 are classified as structurally deficient solely because of a low load rating, approximately
14,000 because of an inadequate substructure, and over 8,000 because of poor deck condition (1).
The condition of bridges in New York State is similar, with a large percentage identified as
structurally or functionally deficient (Table 1). New York State has a higher deficiency rate than the
national average, much of which can be attributed to heavy application of road salts during snowy
winters experienced in the state. The state, nevertheless, has made recent strides in reducing the
number of bridges classified as structurally deficient. The New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) has enhanced its already comprehensive inspection program by adding
safety assurance assessments that measure the degree of risk relative to particular failure modes.
Weight restrictions are typically a first response when agencies become aware of load-carrying
deficiencies, but drivers often ignore these postings. When obeyed, however, postings represent a
hindrance to the areas economic activity and become a deterrent for economic development.

Table 1. Current status of bridges in New York State.

Owner
Number of Bridges
Total

Deficient

Weight-Restricted

State-owned

7,594

2,160

402

Locally-owned

8,581

3,851

1,336

Other

1,181

593

216

Total

17,356

6,604

1,954

New materials, methods, and technologies such as fiber-reinforced-polymer (FRP) composite systems,
are badly needed for cost-effective strengthening of bridges. Also, sensing and monitoring
technologies are necessary to collect long-term performance data on these materials. New York
engineers have been seeking alternatives to steel and concrete that may be less vulnerable to
environmental damage. Additionally, rising public concerns about traffic delays experienced during
the construction increasingly concern influenced engineers to design bridges with materials and details
that can be built rapidly. At the same time, life-cycle costs must be competitive with traditional
materials because of the limited resources available to maintain the highway infrastructure.
Although relatively new in bridge applications in the United States, FRPs have a long record of use
in Europe and Japan (4). New York has recently begun using and evaluating FRPs as viable
alternatives for bridge repair to strengthen deteriorated components, to remove load postings, and to
prolong service life (5-8). This report describes one such application that allowed a deteriorated
bridge superstructure (see Figures 1-2) to be replaced in significantly less time than a conventional
bridge project.

Figure 1. Rte. 248 carried by the old bridge structure.

Figure 2. Deteriorated superstructure.

II. BRIDGE STRUCTURE

New York State Route 248 is a rural two lane highway in Steuben County. There is an average daily
traffic of approximately 300 vehicles per day, 17% of which is truck traffic. The economy in the area
is agriculturally based, therefore the highway regularly carries farm vehicles, milk trucks, and logging
trucks. The road is classified as a rural major collector.
The bridge crossing Bennetts Creek, just south of Rexville, NY, is a state owned bridge (see Figure
1). It was built in 1926 in an environmentally sensitive area, with designated wetlands immediately
adjacent to the north side of the highway. The highway alignment in the project area is on tangent and
the grade is nearly flat. Both approaches consist of two 2.75-m lanes with a 900-mm shoulder on each
side.
The existing reinforced concrete slab bridge was constructed at a 30-degree skew to the creek. There
was approximately 1.2 m of clearance between the channel and the superstructure. The total length
of the bridge was 7.6 m, with a 6.4 m clear span distance. The existing structure width was 10 m outto-out. Railing consisted of an integral vertical face, concrete parapet.
De-icing salts had deteriorated the structure significantly (see Figure 2). Full depth holes had
developed along the curb lines and the slab had been overlaid with several courses of asphalt
pavement over the years which resulted in a total thickness of concrete slab and asphalt measuring 864
mm deep. The overall condition of the bridge was poor with a computed weighted average condition
rating (9) of 1.917 (see Table 2 for condition rating scale) and a federal sufficiency rating (10) of 40
(of a possible 100).
Table 2. New York State Department of Transportation Condition Ratings (9).
Rating

Condition

Totally deteriorated

Used to shade between ratings of 1 and 3

Serious deterioration or not functioning as originally designed

Used to shade between ratings of 3 and 5

Minor deterioration and functioning as originally designed

Used to shade between ratings of 6 and 7

New condition
5

The bridge was posted with a 10-ton weight restriction in March of 1997 because of its poor
condition and reduced load capacity. Detoured truck traffic used local county roads to
circumvent the restricted structure. In addition to the added distance and expense to truckers,
this created a concern on the part of the county about potential damage to their roads. At the
same time, the 10-ton bridge posting was a hardship to local residents due to the economic
impact of the detours. A capital construction project being designed provided a new structure
that would not have been in service until January of 2000. This was viewed by local residents
as too long a wait. In response to the situation, the county proposed to build an on-site detour
that would allow trucks unrestricted use of route 248. The detour was completed in March
of 1998 (see Figure 3).
NYSDOT had been investigating the feasibility of using FRP composites for a short span
bridge superstructure and this site provided an excellent opportunity for such efforts.
NYSDOT Region 6 reached an agreement with composite manufacturer Hardcore Composites,
LLC to construct the bridge as a demonstration project at the Steuben County site. A
Partnering Agreement was drawn up (Appendix A) in March 1998. The partnership team
included: NYSDOT (Transportation R&D Bureau, Region 6 Bridge Maintenance and
Structures, Structures Design and Construction Division), Town of West Union, Steuben
County, FHWA, Hardcore Composites, Wagh Engineers, and Century Engineering.
A key point that made the project possible was a change in the project scope, which relied on
the original design. Approach and other ancillary work was minimized through rebuilding the
bridge to its original size and meeting the existing road profile. Though the freeboard was
raised by 254 mm because of the slimmer superstructure, there was no attempt to establish new
waterway area requirements for the new bridge. An improvement to the channel waterway
area was not a primary objective of a maintenance project. This approach was adopted since
the structure had withstood several flood events over its life-span with no record of high
waters touching the superstructure. Replacing the bridge required raising the road profile due
to increased waterway opening, and a deeper section for a longer span. Highway work due
to the change in profile might have resulted in an additional cost of $477,000. Demolition of
the old bridge began after the environmental permits were obtained, and the original structure
was fully removed by April 1, 1998 (Figures 4-6).

Figure 3. On-site detour built before bridge rehabilitation.

Figure 4. Removal of the old superstructure.

Figure 5. Typical abutment prior to reconstruction.

Figure 6. Drilling holes for dowels in

existing concrete.

III. DESIGN
A change in the scope from the originally conceived replacement project was made. It was
determined that maintaining the waterway opening and highway profile of the existing bridge
would not present any adverse effect at the site. The existing abutments were removed to
sound concrete which was found just below the streambed, and reconstructed to their original
dimensions (see Figures 7-10). The existing abutments were founded on timber piles,
permitting the reuse of the footings without concern for scour problems.

Figure 7. Abutment reconstruction.

Figure 8. Form work for the abutment reconstruction.

Figure 9. Plan-view of the new abutments.

Figure 10. Completed abutments ready for FRP superstructure.

The substructure and approach details were prepared by NYSDOT Region 6. The FRP
superstructure was designed for standard AASHTO loadings (11). Additional criteria were
specified wherever the code did not specifically address FRP structures. The standard New
York live load of AASHTO MS 23 (HS-25) was used with the maximum strain on the
composite material limited to 20% of ultimate under service loads. Live load deflection was
limited to the span length divided by 800, the same as the AASHTO standard. In this case, the
FRP superstructure was limited to a maximum live load deflection of 8.76 mm. A dead load
allowance for a 50 mm future wearing surface was made. A team consisting of Hardcore
Composites, LLC, Century Engineering International, Inc., and Wagh Engineers, P.C. designed
the FRP superstructure using a finite element method. The design was reviewed by the
NYSDOT engineering team responsible for the construction of the bridge.
A. Materials
10

The superstructure was fabricated from an E-glass-stitched bonded fabric and vinyl ester resin
(See Figure 11). The superstructure used a cell core system that provides stiffness in two
directions. The deck was manufactured using a resin infusion molding process (12). The
composite material was considered isotropic in the horizontal plane and was designed with
the following properties:
Linear Elastic Modulus in Compression
18479 MPa
Linear Elastic Modulus in Tension
18479 MPa
Shear Modulus
5861 MPa
Density of Material
1826 Kg/m3
Ultimate Tensile Strength
310 MPa
Ultimate Compressive Strength
221 MPa
Ultimate Shear Strength
114 MPa
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
0.0000144/oC
The elastic modulus in tension was verified to be in the range of values obtained from the
laboratory testing conducted according to ASTM specifications (13-16). Ultimate breaking
stress was found to be 235.9 MPa. The fiber mass was 77.3%, with average specific density
of 1927.6 kg/m3. The laboratory test results are given in Appendix B.
The concrete used had a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 31 MPa with AASHTO
M284 Grade 60 reinforcement. Plain neoprene (50 durometer hardness) bearing pads -- 19
mm thick and 305 mm wide (perpendicular to the abutment stem) -- were used. The bearing
pads extended the full length of the bridge seat. Hilti 25 mm HAS SS HY150 anchor bolts
connect the composite deck to the abutment.

Figure 11. FRP superstructure during shop-fabrication showing

centerline shear-key.

11

Figure 12. FRP superstructure during shop-fabrication showing

epoxy rebars protruding for the parapet.
B. Design Section
The details of the superstructure are shown in Appendix C. The superstructure has a depth of
621 mm with a 10-mm thick polymer-concrete integral wearing surface. The superstructure
was fabricated in two skewed pieces -- each 5.036 m wide and 7.807 m long -- with a
longitudinal joint along the centerline of the bridge (see Figure 11). This was designed to
carry the shear that developed along this plane resulting from the differential deflection of the
two superstructure panels. The shear at the joint was resisted through a combination of a
mechanical key-way and a resin glue. In addition, a bottom face plate was installed over the
bottom of the longitudinal joint. The face plate was attached to one section first and glued on
the other section after both deck panels were in place.
The bridge is skewed at 30 degrees. A cross slope of 2% with a crown at the centerline is
provided by sloping the bridge seat. The design section of the superstructure consists of
interior foam cell cores with top and bottom fiber mats. The interior cell cores are 200 mm
x 200 mm x 600 mm foam and are wrapped with a 1 ply fiber mat. The top and bottom face
skin mats are each composed of 7 plies of fiber mat (see Table 3). Each mat has a total
thickness of 12.8 mm. Each ply has fiber orientations of 0E (warp), 90E(weft), +45E and -45E.
The fascias have three plies of fiber mat with the warp parallel to the span direction. The
span ends also have three plies with the warp oriented vertically. All exposed composite
surfaces are coated with epoxy paint for UV protection.
Both ends of the bridge are fixed against movement. Thermal expansion is expected to be
negligible. A pourable silicone seal was used between the superstructure and the concrete
approach slabs. The approach slabs are increased from their normal 300 mm depth to the full
height of the superstructure at the abutments to act as backwalls.

12

Table 3. Material Specifications.

Fiber Mass

Component

No. of Plies

Total Thickness (mm)

0.915

Top Skin

12.80

0.559

Bottom Skin

12.80

0.415

Rib Cores

3.60

0.415

Sides

3.60

C. Wearing Surface
The wearing surface is a Transpo Corporation T-48 epoxy thin polymer-concrete overlay that was
applied in the shop. Spot repairs were made in the field where lifting lugs were located, and where
the anchor bolts were drilled and grouted.
D. Railing
The railings on the structure are built with two steel box beams attached to a vertical faced concrete
parapet. The parapet consists of composite facing panels that are used as stay-in-place forms for
conventional concrete. The concrete parapet is of the same dimension and has the same reinforcing
steel as a conventional crash tested barrier. The epoxy coated steel reinforcing bars are embedded in
the FRP superstructure (see Figure 12). Pull out tests were conducted to verify that the reinforcement
could develop its full strength. After the composite facing panels were filled with concrete, composite
cap pieces were glued in place.
In lieu of the normal practice of transitioning steel box beams to a concrete parapet, steel box beams
run completely across the bridge on the inside face of the parapet. This was done because of the
extremely short length of the bridge. This decision simplifies the details, is more economical, and is
also more aesthetically pleasing. The parapet was designed with a gap at midspan so that the barrier
would not provide unintended, additional stiffness to the FRP slab.
E. Load Ratings
Since the design is controlled by deflection criteria, both the computed inventory and operating ratings
are very high. The load ratings (17) are summarized as follows:
Inventory Rating: MS-120, 114 Metric Tons (HS-118, 236 tons)
Operating Rating: MS-160, 286 Metric Tons (HS-158, 315 Tons)
Though these are the theoretical ratings, the performance of the superstructure during the load testing
indicated that actual ratings are even higher.

13

IV. FABRICATION
Bennetts Creek FRP Bridge was fabricated by Hardcore Composites, LLC, using a vacuum assisted
resin transfer molding process which saturates a dry fabric preform with a vinyl ester resin by vacuum
force at room temperature (12) . The resin cures after full wet out of the dry fabric pre-form is
achieved resulting in a high fiber volume, low void content, high performance FRP composite. Cell
cores are utilized to create an internal core structure for bridge sections. Cell core is a term used to
describe a foam or polyethylene rectangular prismatic section having characteristic resin distribution
grooves on all of it surfaces. The foam or polyethylene prismatic sections are wrapped in a dry fabric
pre-form and stacked next to one another forming an internal lattice structure or grid. This grid is
captured on all sides by upper and lower face skins which, when infused with the resin, bond
intimately with the cell core structure and form a sandwich panel. Upper and lower face skins with
core create the deck section (see Figures 11-12).
The tooling, i.e. the form-work for fabricating the deck, was set on an angle (60E) to reflect the bridge
skew. The entire bridge section was laid-up all at once with an internal key way placed midway
through the transverse direction of the bridge deck (A two-piece deck was necessary due to shipping
constraints). In addition, the key-way was fabricated with a 2-degree angle so that when both deck
sections were mated in the field, the deck would have a 2% grade from the center to the edge.
Initially, 7 plies of QM6408 E-glass stitched fabric (supplied by Brunswick Technologies, Inc.) were
placed in the bottom of the mold. The internal cell core then was placed on top of the lower face
skins. The cell core was constructed of 9-N (2-lb) closed cell foam machined in 200 mm x 200 mm
parallelogram sections nominally 600 mm tall. The cells were wrapped with one ply of QM6408 Eglass stitched fabric and placed side by side in the tool. Cells that were sized approximately half of
the above dimensions were placed on the edges to accommodate placement of the #16 U-rebar for the
parapet connection. After all the cells had been placed, 7 plies of QM 6408 E-glass stitched fabric
were placed on top of the core, forming the upper face skins. Placement of the top skins were
followed by insertion of the #16 U-rebars on 114 mm centers on each side of the deck. These bars
were placed at the corner interface of the internal cells. A vacuum bag was placed over the entire
assembly. Vacuum was applied to the system and Dow Derekane 411-PC vinyl ester resin was
infused into the deck saturating the lower face skins, core, and upper face skins. The infusion process
also locked the parapet rebar in place. After approximately 4 hours, the resin gelled and the
superstructure sat for an additional 24 hours to ensure adequate curing of the resin. Lastly, the vacuum
bag, process disposables, and tools were pulled away from the composite deck structure.
Once the deck was fabricated, additional work had to be performed for the edge parapet connection.
Longitudinal reinforcing bars were attached to the #16 U-rebar protruding out of the deck (see Figure
12). A 12.7 mm rectangular balsa core with QM-6408 E-glass-stitched bonded fabric face skins was
placed around the protruding steel rebar. This form was capped on both ends and the top. Holes were
15

placed on the top of the composite form to provide access areas for concrete filling. Additional
whaler/stiffener clamps were placed through the composite form to prevent bowing of the structure
from the wet concrete. These served as sleeves for bolting the steel bridge rail in-place through the
concrete. A 10-mm epoxy overlay with broadcast aggregate was placed on the deck as a wear
surface. Both edges and the underside of the bridge were painted to comply with NYSDOT
requirements. Prior to shipping, the deck was mated to itself at the longitudinal shear key to ensure
compatibility.

Figure 13. Transportation of the superstructure components.

Figure 14. Placement of bearing pads during construction.

16

Figure 15. Placement of the first half of the superstructure.

Figure 16. Placement of the first half of the superstructure.

17

Figure 17. First half of the superstructure in place on abutments.

18

V. INSTALLATION
A. Transportation
The superstructure was transported from Hardcore's plant in New Castle, Delaware to the bridge site
near Rexville, New York by truck (see Figure 13). Special oversize vehicle permits were required
because of the width of the shipment. The superstructure was shipped in two pieces, each 5.03 m
wide. The shipping weight of each piece was approximately 71 kN. The cost of shipping from New
Castle, Delaware to the job site was approximately $7,000. Both pieces were shipped on one truck.
B. Erection
The truck carrying the two superstructure pieces arrived on-site at approximately 10:30 a.m. on August
26, 1998. Erection was performed by NYSDOT Bridge Maintenance crews. A rented 75 ton capacity
crane provided ample capacity to position the two superstructure pieces. A representative from
Hardcore Composites was on site to provide technical guidance.
When the truck arrived on-site, the neoprene bearing pads were placed on the abutment bridge seats
in preparation for installation of the superstructure sections (see Figure 14). The face plate along the
bottom of the longitudinal joint was glued to one section while it was still on the truck using an acrylic
adhesive. The holes for the anchor dowels at the centerline of bearings were also drilled while the
superstructure sections were still on the truck. This operation probably could have been done in the
fabrication shop to reduce the time required in the field.
The roadway centerline was located and marked on the bridge seats. The first superstructure section
was brought into its final position using the centerline marks as a guide (see Figures 15-17). The
second superstructure section was then set (see Figures 18-19) leaving a 10 mm gap between the two
panels. The first section was anchored with 25 mm stainless steel Hilti anchors that were drilled and
grouted into the concrete bridge seat. Acrylic adhesive was placed on the bottom backer plate and
the gap between the panels was filled with an adhesive before the second section was anchored to the
abutments. The anchor bolt openings in the FRP were filled with a non-shrink grout and the centerline
joint was filled with a silicone sealant. Erection of the superstructure was completed around 5:00
p.m. on August 25, 1998. Total erection time was approximately six hours.

19

Figure 18. Placement of the second half of the superstructure.

Figure 19. Placement of the second-half of the superstructure.

C. Completion of Construction
The structure was completed over the next several weeks (Figures 20-23). The remaining work
consisted of:
CPlacement of concrete inside the FRP shells for the traffic barrier (see Figure 20).
CPlacement of 5-m long concrete approach slabs (see Figure 21).
CInstallation of pourable silicone joint seal between deck and approach slabs.
CPlacement of remaining portions of concrete wing walls to meet the FRP deck.
CAsphalt paving between approach slab and highway pavement.
20

CPlacement of gravel and asphalt shoulders on the approach.

CInstallation of steel box beam bridge and approach railing.
CCompletion of grading and site work.

Figure 20. Traffic barriers before concrete placement.

Figure 21. Construction of concrete approach slabs.

21

Using modular fast-track FRP components for the bridge superstructure allowed the project to be
handled as maintenance work. DOT crews, very experienced in concrete repairs, were able to
rebuild the abutments to their original dimensions. The prefabricated FRP superstructure, with
integral wearing surface, was secured within one day of its delivery. The state was able to obtain
a long-lasting bridge which was hydraulically better than the previous structure but for a fraction of
the cost of the capital project that was being designed. The Bennetts Creek Bridge was opened to
unrestricted traffic on October 16, 1998.

Figure 22. Finished bridge opened to traffic.

Figure 23. Proof-testing of the structure.

22

VI. PROOF TESTING

The bridge was instrumented and a load test was conducted before the structure was opened to traffic.
This was done for three reasons. First, to ensure the structures integrity before opening it to the
public. Second, to establish base line conditions for a future monitoring program. Third, to compare
actual performance with theoretical calculations.
Proof load tests establish inventory and operating ratings for bridges using a test operating factor (1.4
in this case). A target proof load is employed to load the bridge beyond the design load (18). Four
ten-wheel, loaded dump trucks were used during the load test (see Figure 23). They were loaded to
capacity and weighed on-site with portable truck scales. Although the target proof load could not be
reached, due to truck size and load limitations, MS 23 (HS 25) loadings were achieved (Table 4).

Table 4. Comparison of test loads with proof-load and MS23 load.

MS23

Target ProofLoad

Actual TestLoad

Moment (kN-m)

624

873

755

Shear (kN)

495

693

486

A. Strain and Deflection Monitoring

The superstructure was instrumented with 24 conventional strain gauges mounted externally on the
bottom face skin of the superstructure. The locations of the strain gages are shown in Figure 24. The
locations were chosen to investigate strains at the span midpoints and quarter points. Gages placed
along the centerline shear key check strain compatibility across the longitudinal joint. Gages were
also placed transversely to investigate the load distribution characteristics of the structure. In addition
to monitoring strains, mid-span deflections were obtained at each fascia and at the centerline joint of
the structure, using LVDTs supplemented by dial gages and high-precision field survey measurements
during the proof-load test.

23

Figure 24. Location of the strain gages in field testing.

B. Proof Load Test Procedure

During the load testing conducted in October 1998, four different load cases were used, such that the
load was increased in increments, as follows: Case 1. Two Empty Trucks, Case 2. Two Loaded
Trucks (Normal Load), Case 3. Four Loaded Trucks (Normal Load), and Case 4. Four Loaded Trucks
(Overload). Case 4 was the proof-load condition. The trucks were placed at pre-marked positions
on the bridge to maximize bending moments. Each truck was moved on and off the bridge individually
for each load case and data was recorded at each step. For the cases involving four trucks, the trucks
in each lane were placed back to back (see Fig. 23).
C. Load Test Results
An examination of the data from the gages located along the centerline shows generally consistent
results between adjacent pairs of gages located across the centerline longitudinal joint. For Case 1,
strains at the mid-span gages, 7 and 10, were 41 and 48 respectively. The other pairs of data
for Case 1 had less differential. For Case 4, gages 7 and 10 recorded 147 and 156. The
correlation between opposing gages 8 and 11 were not quite as good. These gages recorded 139
and 113 during Case 4. All gage data for Case 4, the maximum load, is shown in Table 5. It can
be concluded that the loads are being effectively transferred across the centerline longitudinal shear
key.
24

Table 5. Strain data from Load Case 4.

Gage

Strain ()

Gage

Strain ()

Gage

Strain ()

Gage

Strain ()

33

127

12

62

18

-30

204

147

13

134

19

40

67

139

14

64

20

17

81

132

15

67

21

-14

102

10

156

16

156

22

44

157

11

113

17

14

23

-22

The data from other load cases is generally consistent in the sequence and symmetry of the loading.
The data also tends to show generally lower strains in the southeast portion of the bridge (gages 11,
14, and 17) than corresponding gages in other quadrants. This may be attributed to a greater fixity of
the superstructure to substructure attachment in the southeast quadrant due to variations in drilling and
grouting of the anchor bolts during the construction.
Another anomalous condition occurs with gage 1, located at mid-span on the north fascia. For Load
Case 4, significantly higher strains were recorded than at mid-span gages 4 and 7. Similar results
were noted for Load Case 3, but not Load Cases 1 and 2. This was attributed to a problem with gage
1 during this load test. This problem was corrected later as seen in the second load test results (see
Fig. 25).

250

Strain (micro)

200
150
100
50
0
-50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Gage Number
Test 1

Test 2

Figure 25. Comparison of test results from two successive load tests.

25

The maximum strain recorded at any gage was 204 during Load Case 4. This was considerably
less than the approximately 600 predicted by analysis. This indicates a significantly higher load
capacity than that determined by analysis.
D. Deflection Results
The maximum deflection at mid-span during Case 4 was measured to be less than 3.5 mm, which is
considerably less than the Span(L)/800 design limitation of 8.8 mm.
E. Follow-up Load Test
A follow-up load test was conducted in May 1999, seven months after the bridge was open to traffic.
Generally consistent results with the prior load test were obtained except for some gages (e.g. gage
23). The reason for this behavior will be further investigated using finite element analysis, as more
data become available. Subsequent load tests are planned at 6-month intervals.

26

VII. LONG-TERM MONITORING

In addition to the strain and deflection gage monitoring of the bridge, other in-service monitoring
techniques are also being used. The bridge is, of course, subject to the general bridge inspection
requirements required by the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) for all bridges carrying
public highway traffic. The Route 248 bridge has also been subjected to more frequent, supplemental
inspections because of its experimental nature. Because most bridge inspectors are unfamiliar with
FRP materials, supplemental inspection guidelines have been prepared by Hardcore Composites,
LLC, the manufacturer of the superstructure. Particularly, inspectors have been alerted to check for
delaminations in the FRP materials. This has been done by tapping the underside of the bridge surface
with a rubber mallet. A coin or small rounded stone has proven to be equally effective. A void in the
bottom of the deck was discovered soon after placement. The void was repaired in June 2000 by
injecting resin.
Monitoring has also included the checking for cracks in the FRP materials and any signs of ultraviolet
or moisture deterioration. In addition, the condition of the 10-mm polymer concrete wearing surface
has been checked. This has been done by both visual inspection and chain dragging to check for
delamination between the polymer concrete and the FRP structure. Some damage to the polymer
concrete wearing surface at the bridge ends has been noted. The damage has been attributed to heavy
equipment used during approach paving operations or snow plows during the winter. Excessive wear
was reported after the first 1.5 years of service. The wearing surface was renewed in June 2000 by
applying a broom n seed application of the Transpo T- 48 surface after sand blasting the old surface
clean.
In addition to periodic visual and tactile inspections, the load testing will be repeated at six-month
intervals until sufficient confidence is established that the bridge performance is stable. At that time,
an evaluation will be made to extend the interval between load tests. Modal analysis-based
techniques will be used to collect the data to characterize the dynamic behavior of the structure (see
Figure 26). A detailed finite element analysis model is being developed and calibrated using the static
and dynamic data obtained through field test results (19). This data will be used to conduct a
parametric analysis of the structure and to identify necessary methods to monitor its long-term
performance.

27

Figure 26. Modal testing of the bridge.

28

VIII. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The comparison of costs and benefits is subjective since most of the project was done using in-house
staff. The time taken from closing the deteriorated bridge to opening the new bridge to traffic was
about 6 months, in contrast to more than 2 years needed by the the original plans based on the capital
program schedule. Region 6 maintenance forces were responsible for construction and erection of
the bridge and approaches. Engineers from NYSDOT Region 6 Design Section, Main Office
Structures Design and Construction Division, Transportation Research and Development Bureau, and
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) worked with Hardcore Composites staff and their
consultants to finalize design specifications and detailing. The Transportation Research and
Development Bureau instrumented the bridge and conducted the proof-load testing. The FRP
superstructure with integral wearing surface was supplied free-of-cost by Hardcore Composites.
However, Hardcore Composites provided the estimated cost of engineering and fabrication for the
project. Thus, the project costs, given in Table 6, do not include the time spent by in-house engineers
and researchers, overhead charges, and the profit normally charged by the manufacturer.

Table 6. Project costs.

Organization

Item Description

Hardcore Composites

Engineering and Fabrication

$116,000

NYSDOT

Construction

$171,000

NYSDOT

Detour and approaches

$ 55,000

Steuben County

Detour

$ 53,000

NYSDOT

Testing

TOTAL COST

Cost

5,000

$400,000

Projects conducted through the New York State capital program require that the bridge is updated to
new hydraulic and other standards since it is on state highway system. These upgrades include
widening the bridge as well as raising the bridge elevation to allow for a minimum of 600 mm freeboard. In this project, the bridge length might have been increased substantially. The highway
approach would have been elevated to accommodate the increased bridge height. The traditional

29

cost from the Capital Project Estimates are given in Table 7. Note that right-of-way and utilities costs
were not included, as they were the same, regardless of the project type.

Table 7. Estimated traditional reconstruction costs.

Item Description

Cost

Bridge

$672,000

Highway

$477,000

Pre-Engineering @ 15%

$172,000

Construction Inspection @ 12%

$138,000

TOTAL COST

30

$1,459,000

IX. CONCLUSIONS
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) materials can be a viable alternative for replacing short-span
concrete slab bridges in a cost- and time-effective manner. Since most components are shopfabricated, the time required for construction can be reduced significantly for small bridges. Even
though FRP component costs are higher than traditional materials on a square-foot basis, they may be
competitive in terms of life-cycle costs (including construction costs, user costs, maintenance costs,
etc.). This report describes an application that allowed a bridge superstructure to be replaced in
significantly less time than a conventional bridge project. The bridge design, fabrication, installation,
proof-testing, long-term monitoring program, and cost-benefit details were documented in this report.
Since durability of the FRP materials for bridge applications is not yet available, the bridge will be
monitored for its long-term in-service performance before these materials are widely used for such
applications in New York State.

31

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Department personnel, especially the Region 6 bridge
maintenance crews, who constructed the structure. Special recognition goes to Dan Todd for
overseeing the project and John Skillman for the on-site supervision. Khuong T. Luu of FHWA was
very instrumental in project initiation and coordination. George Schongar and Harry Greenberg
assisted in the instrumentation and load testing. Mark Norfolk and Chuck Houser assisted in the load
testing. Robert DesBois assisted in instrumentation and preliminary data analysis for the first load test.
The authors also acknowledge the manufacturer of the superstructure, Hardcore Composites, LLC, for
providing the superstructure free-of-cost, and their associates -- Century Engineering International,
Inc., and Wagh Engineers, P.C. -- for design work. Authors also acknowledge the support of Robert
A. Valenti, James M. OConnell, and Peter E. White of the NYSDOT administration for their support
during the project. Jonathan Kunin and Nancy Troxell assisted in publication of this report. The
testing of material samples was conducted at Union College by Dr. Ronald Bucinell.

33

REFERENCES
1.

Chase, S. Dynamics and Field Testing of Bridges in New Millennium: A Look Forward, A
White Paper prepared for Transportation Research Board Technical Committee A2C05 on
Dynamics and Field Testing of Bridges, January 1999.

2.

Alberski, T., and Alampalli, S. (1998) Composite Materials in Highway Bridge

Construction. Research Proposal for Project 227-1, Transportation R&D Bureau, NYSDOT.

3.

The Status of the Nations Highway Bridges: Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program and National Bridge Inventory, Thirteenth Report to the United States
Congress, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 1997.

4.

Advanced Composites in Europe and Japan, Scanning Program Report, Federal Highway
Administration, USDOT, 1997.

5.

Alampalli, S., OConnor, J.S., and Yannotti, A.P. Advanced Composites for Cost-Effective
Rehabilitation of Bridges, Advances in Composite Materials and Mechanics, ASCE Special
Publication, pp. 76-84, 1999.

6.

OConnor, J.S., Hoyos, H., Yannotti, A., Alampalli, S., and Luu, K.T. Reinforced Concrete
Capbeam Strengthening Using Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites, Fourth International
Symposium on Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for RC Structures, SP-188, ACI,
Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 481-490, 1999.

7.

Hag-Elsafi, O., and Alampalli, S. Strengthening Prestressed-Concrete Beams Using Bonded

FRP Laminates, Structural Materials Technology: An NDT Conference, Atlantic City, NJ,
pp. 287-292, February-March 2000.

8.

Hag-Elsafi, O., Alampalli, S., Kunin, J., and Lund, R. Application of FRP Materials in
Bridge Retrofit, Seventh Annual International Conference on Composites Engineering,
Denver, CO, pp. 305-306, July 2000.

9.

Bridge Inspection Manual - 97, Structures Design and Construction Division, New York
State Department of Transportation, 1997.

35

10.

Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nations
Bridges, Report No. FHWA-PD-96-001, Federal Highway Administration, December 1995.

11.

Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, American Association for Highway and
Transportation Officials, 15th Edition, Washington, D.C., 1994.

12.

Fabrication Process Used for Bennetts Creek Bridge, Personal Communication from
Hardcore Composites, 1999.

13.

Bucinell, R.B. Evaluation of the Composite Bridge Repair Material System, Report
prepared for New York State Department of Transportation, June 1999.

14.

Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, ASTMD3039/D3039M - 95a.

15.

Test Methods for Fiber Content of Resin Matrix Composites by Matrix Digestion, ASTM-D3171-76.

16.

Test Methods for Specific Gravity (Relative Density) and Density of Plastics by Displacement,
ASTM-D792-91.

17.

Level 1 Load Rating - BIN 1043150" Report submitted to New York State Department of
Transportation by Wagh Engineers, P.C., January 1999.

18.

Lichtenstein, A.G. Bridge Rating Through Nondestructive Load Testing, Technical Report,
NCHRP Project 12-28 (13)A, June 1993.

19.

Aref, A.J., and Alampalli, S. Dynamic Behavior and Damage Detection of a Fiber Reinforced
Plastic Bridge Structure, ASCE Structures Congress 2000, Philadelphia, PA, May 2000.

36

APPENDIX A. PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

37

38

APPENDIX B. MATERIAL TEST RESULTS

MATERIAL TEST RESULTS

The testing of material samples was conducted at Union College, Schenectady, NY. The following were excepted
from the test results (13).

Table B1.Summary of the material system.

Manufacturer

Hardcore

Product Name

Hardshell

Fiber Type

E-Glass

Fiber Form

Laminate

Designation

BD (Bridge Deck)

Table B2. Summary of tensile test results.

(14)

Width
(mm)

Thickness
(mm)

Area
(mm2)

Modulus
(GPa)

Max. Break
Load
(kN)

25.58

3.58

91.60

18.25

23.62

257.8

20908

25.58

3.58

91.60

25.58

3.61

92.25

15.42

21.79

236.2

18514

25.53

3.63

92.72

12.87

18.33

197.7

16701

25.40

3.66

92.90

17.01

22.10

237.9

18374

25.50

3.63

92.63

18.61

23.01

248.4

20757

25.45

3.51

89.21

19.90

21.18

237.4

19886

Avg.

25.52

3.60

91.85

17.01

21.67

235.9

19190

ID

Max. Break
Stress
(MPa)

Max. Break
Strain
(m/m)

Type

Area

Location

Failure Details

43

Table B3. Summary of ASTM D3171-76 fiber content tests using hydrolysis.
Sample

Size
(cm)

Number of
Samples

Mass
(g)

Time

Fiber
Mass

Fiber (%)
(by mass)

BD

1.2x0.5x0.3

0.5222
0.4200

32.5
44.0

0.4171
0.3138

79.9
74.7

Table B4. Summary of ASTM D792-91 density tests.

44

Sample

Mass in Air
(g)

Mass in Water
(g)

Specific Gravity
(24oC)

Density
(kg/m3)

BD

3.7700
3.5678

1.8500
1.6922

1.9635
1.9022

1958.2
1897.1

APPENDIX C. FINAL BRIDGE PLANS AS CONSTRUCTED

45

46

47

48

49

50

51