Construction and monitoring of
a single-span bridge with
precast concrete glass-fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforced
deck panels
Chris P. Pantelides, Jim Ries, and Rebecca Nix
■  The Beaver Creek Bridge in Utah was constructed in 2009
using precast concrete deck panels reinforced with glass-fiber-
reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars.
■  The connections between precast concrete deck panels and
prestressed concrete girders demonstrated good composite
action, and the live load deflections of the prestressed concrete
girders during static load testing were within allowable limits.
■  Strains during lifting and in the load tests indicate that the ACI
440 flexural design method for GFRP reinforced concrete decks
can be applied to precast concrete panels, provided that lifting
and handling stresses are properly designed for.
78 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
P
recast concrete panels are well suited for the con-
struction of bridge decks. When bridge decks do not
perform as expected, it may be because of connec-
tions between the slab and supporting system, configura-
tion of joints between adjacent precast concrete panels,
construction procedures, lack of longitudinal posttensioning,
and/or materials used.1 A full-depth precast, prestressed
concrete bridge deck system investigated by Yamane et al.2
that incorporates transverse posttensioning is an alternative
to the traditional reinforced precast concrete panel system.
Because of transverse posttensioning, the panels can achieve
a smaller slab thickness, better crack control, and better
handling characteristics. In addition, more watertight joints
can be achieved between the panels.
Since 1980, several bridges have been constructed using
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite materials as
internal reinforcement.3 Prestressed reinforcement is com-
monly made of carbon FRP materials, and nonprestressed
reinforcement is made of glass-fiber-reinforced polymer
(GFRP) materials. The physical, mechanical, fatigue, and
durability properties of GFRP bars have been investigated.4
In one of those investigations, GFRP bars were first loaded
at 20% to 80% of the ultimate tensile strength.5 Moisture
absorption and tensile properties of the bars were mea-
sured. The results showed that even a tensile stress of 80%
of the ultimate tensile strength did not have a dramatic
effect on their durability. The fatigue response of concrete
decks reinforced with FRP bars is critical for the durability
of this type of structure.6 Deck deflections were used as a
measure of overall deck degradation during fatigue in that
study, and the rate of degradation was comparable to decks
reinforced with steel bars.
Design concepts, construction details, and results of live
load field tests for cast-in-place concrete bridge decks rein-
forced with GFRP bars have been presented.7,8 However, to
the knowledge of the authors there is no research regard-
ing bridge decks constructed using precast concrete panels
reinforced with GFRP bars.
The goal of the present research was to investigate the
performance and economics of using a newer, more
expensive technology for bridge decks that has potential
savings in terms of life cycle costs. Methods for extending
bridge deck life in Utah are being researched to extend the
deck’s service life to better match that of the entire bridge.
Currently, Utah bridges are designed for a 75-year life, but
the decks often require replacement after 45 years. Deck
replacement increases the life-cycle cost of the structure
and adds to user delays. GFRP bars were evaluated as an
alternative to steel reinforcement in bridge decks. GFRP
reinforcing bars were used for the deck of the Beaver
Creek Bridge on US Route 6 in rural Utah. The bridge
is a single-span creek crossing with access for wildlife
passage. The girders were American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Type IV
prestressed concrete sections.9 The full-depth deck panels
were designed in accordance with the American Concrete
Institute’s (ACI’s) 440.1R-06 Guide for the Design and
Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP
Bars10 with some modifications specific to the lifting and
handling of the precast concrete panels. The deck was con-
structed using precast concrete panels lightly posttensioned
in the longitudinal direction. Accelerated bridge construc-
tion is being actively pursued in Utah for new bridges.
The research described in this paper had two major phases:
preconstruction and in-place truck load testing. Two
GFRP-reinforced precast concrete panels were monitored
during construction, lifting, placement, posttensioning, and
truck load testing using electrical strain gauges and vibrat-
ing wire strain gauges. The deflections of the bridge deck
relative to the two diaphragms connecting the prestressed
concrete girders were monitored using linear variable
differential transducers (LVDTs). Finally, the absolute de-
flections of the girders at midspan during static truck load
testing were monitored using surveying equipment.
GFRP-reinforced
precast concrete panels
The overall span length of the Beaver Creek Bridge
is 88 ft 2 in. (26.9 m), with an out-to-out width of
88 ft 10 in. (27.1 m) (Fig. 1). The bridge was constructed
in two phases (Fig. 1). This required a closure strip
between the eastbound and westbound lanes. The girders
were AASHTO Type IV sections (Fig. 1). Two intermedi-
ate diaphragms were provided at the third points of the
span that were composed of A36 (250 MPa) W18 × 46
(W460 × 68) structural steel sections. The deck was con-
structed using 44 ft 5 in. × 6 ft 10 in. × 91/4 in. (13.4 m ×
2.08 m × 0.23 m) precast concrete panels for the eastbound
lanes and 41 ft 5 in. (12.6 m) × 6 ft 10 in. × 91/4 in. precast
concrete panels for the westbound lanes. Both panel types
were reinforced with GFRP bars. To the authors’ knowl-
edge, these are the largest precast concrete bridge deck
panels constructed with GFRP bars to date. The design of
the deck panels used ACI 440.1R-06 guidelines and was
controlled by crack width and deflection. The relatively
low modulus of elasticity of GFRP bars leads to wider
crack widths than with traditional steel reinforcement. Ac-
ceptable crack width tolerances can be relaxed somewhat
with GFRP bars due to their noncorrosive nature, but wider
cracks can reduce aggregate interlock and shear capacity
due to loss of shear friction. GFRP-reinforced panels also
exhibit higher deflections than steel reinforced panels be-
cause of the lower modulus of elasticity of GFRP compared
with steel.
Due to these limitations, several adjustments were made
to the structural design. The first adjustment was to the
bar spacing. In the transverse direction the spacing was
reduced from 8 in. (200 mm) to 4 in. (100 mm) (Fig. 2).
It was not practical to reduce the spacing any further, so
alternative methods for decreasing crack width and deflec-
tion were used. A balance between thickening the deck
and decreasing the girder spacing was used. The deck was
increased from the standard 83/4 in. (220 mm) thickness
to 91/4 in. (230 mm). To satisfy deflection requirements,
girder spacing was decreased from 9 ft 4 in. (2.8 m) to
7 ft 7 in. (2.3 m), increasing the number of girders by
two. Some additional GFRP bars (S1 and S2 in Fig. 2) at
the panel edges were used to maintain the rigidity of the
panels during lifting.
To reduce construction time and traffic disruptions, the
bridge was constructed using precast concrete deck panels.
The panels were lightly posttensioned with 11 grouted
tendons to secure tightness of the joints between precast
concrete panels by promoting composite action (Fig. 3).
Each tendon comprised three 0.6 in. (15 mm) Grade 270
(1860 MPa) low-relaxation steel strands. (There was no
GFRP alternative.) The GFRP reinforcement posed ad-
ditional challenges during placement. Typical deck panels
are moved and placed using embedded anchors. This was
not practical with the GFRP reinforced panels because of
the low shear strength of the bars. The panels had to be
lifted with straps wrapping around and under the panels,
and detailed in accordance with the PCI Design Hand-
book: Precast and Prestressed Concrete.11
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 79
 88 ft 2 in.
82 ft
N 12 Precast concrete panels 3 ft 1 in. typical

41 ft 5 in.
Westbound

EP3

P2
Beam centerline

3 ft Closure strip
44 ft 5 in.
Eastbound

Parapet typical Precast concrete

4 ft 2 in. Closure strip panel typical
Abutment 1 centerline Abutment 2 centerline

Panel layout plan

88 ft 10 in. out to out deck

44 ft 5 in. 44 ft 5 in.

12 ft 12 ft 12 ft 14 ft 12 ft 12 ft 12 ft
Shoulder Lane LaneMedian Lane Lane Shoulder
1 ft 5 in. Centerline US-6
91/4 in. GFRP deck panel -2%

2 ft 81/2 in. 5 spaces at 7 ft. 7 in. = 37 ft 11 in. 5 spaces at 7 ft.7 in. = 37 ft 11 in. 2 ft 81/2 in.
AASHTO type IV AASHTO type IV
prestressed concrete girders 3 ft 91/2 in. 3 ft 91/2 in. prestressed concrete girders
Cross section

44 ft 5 in. 44 ft 5 in.
Phase II construction Phase II traffic
Shoulder Shoulder
6 ft 8 in. 12 ft 12 ft 6 ft 8 in.
New 3 ft 8 in. Lane Lane
parapet 3 ft 2 ft
New deck Closure strip

AASHTO Centerline US-6

type IV
Construction sequence and layout

Figure 1. Beaver Creek Bridge on US Route 6. Note: GFRP = glass-fiber-reinforced polymer. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

80 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal

 41 ft 5 in.

1 ft 3 in.
3 ft 91/2 in. 2 ft 81/4 in.

centerline centerline
93/4 in. Shear stud Post tensioning
blockout blockout

Joint
26 in. 26 in.
6 ft 10 in.

Direction
of traffic

Joint
Beam centerline
Beam centerline
1 ft 3 in.

Extend GFRP bars

for closure strip
S1
S2

A
S3
S4

A
S2
S1

S5 Top 42 no.5 at 12 in.

.
S6 Bottom 100 no.5 at 5 in.

Top S3 17 no.5 at 4 in.

Bottom S4 17 no.5 at 4 in.
Top S1 4 no.5 at 21/2 in. 4 no.5 at 21/2 in. Top
1
S1
Bottom S2 4 no.5 at 21/2 in. 4 no.5 at 2 /2 in.
clear

S2 Bottom
13/4 in.

S5 1/
2 2 in.
21/2 in.
91/4 in.

Shear
key
Shear stud
clear
1 in.

Joint centerline S6 Joint centerline

blockout

Section A-A

Figure 2. Plan and GFRP reinforcement of precast concrete panels for westbound lanes of Beaver Creek Bridge on US Route 6. Note: GFRP = glass-fiber-reinforced
polymer. No. 5 = 16M; 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

The low shear strength also affected the posttensioning an-
chors because GFRP bars could not provide adequate shear
strength. Some galvanized steel bars were placed on the
end panels for anchorage of posttensioning. Bars extend
from the panels into closure strips at the abutments and
along the centerline of the bridge to tie the approach slabs
in, as well as to connect the two phases of bridge construc-
tion (Fig. 1). Traditionally, the steel bars have been bent
to avoid conflicts during placement and posttensioning.
GFRP bars cannot be bent, making placement and post-
tensioning operations more difficult. A few GFRP bars had
to be cut during placement. New GFRP bars were drilled
in and secured with epoxy at the locations where bars were
cut. GFRP bars were used for all deck closure strips.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 81

 4 1/2 in.
Posttensioning tendon
centerline GFRP bar
A

A AASHTO type IV
9 1/4 in.

panel
Deck
girder

3 ft 9 1/2 in.
Posttensioning tendon centerline Posttensioning tendon centerline

9 1/4 in. panel

6 in.

12 in. maximum AASHTO type IV

girder
Section A-A

Figure 3. Posttensioning tendon details at an end panel. Note: GFRP = glass-fiber-reinforced polymer. 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m

The precast concrete deck panels were designed to act Instrumentation

compositely with the girders, requiring the deck panels
to be connected to the girders through shear connectors.
Figure 4 shows the shear stud blockout plan and shear stud
plate and section details. The posttensioning of the tendons
for the panels and grouting of the ducts were completed
before placement of the shear studs and grouting of the
shear stud blockouts.
Research methods
Material properties
of precast concrete panels
In the summer of 2009, construction began on the Beaver
Creek Bridge, located approximately 20 mi (32 km) north
of Price, Utah, on US Route 6. GFRP bars offer many
advantages over traditional steel bars, including increased
tensile strength, reduced unit weight, and corrosion resis-
tance. The preconstruction phase focused on instrumenta-
tion and monitoring of two precast concrete deck panels.
End panel EP3 and center panel P2 were instrumented
because of their location in the westbound lanes (Fig. 1).

The specified design strength for the precast concrete
panels was 4000 psi (28 MPa); the 28-day compres-
sive strength was 6200 psi (43 MPa). The specified
design strength for the prestressed concrete girders was
6000 psi (41 MPa); at 80 days the compressive strength
was 10,000 psi (69 MPa). The prestressing reinforcement
was Grade 270 (1860 MPa) low-relaxation steel strands.
The GFRP bars used for construction were no. 5 (16M)
bars. The specified tensile strength of the GFRP bars was
104 ksi (717 MPa), and the modulus of elasticity was
6280 ksi (43 GPa).
Monitoring during this phase was conducted to quantify
the effects of lifting, transportation, and handling on the
deck panels. This type of monitoring is conducted to better
understand the behavior of deck panels, even for steel-
reinforced precast concrete panels.12 Monitoring included
the initial lift from the formwork, the lift from the casting
yard to the truck, transit of the panel to the bridge, the final
lift placing the panel on the bridge, and the posttension-
ing. Each panel was instrumented with 28 electrical strain
gauges to be used during lifting and transportation. These
gauges were attached to both the top and bottom GFRP

82 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal

 B

9 1/4 in.
4 in.
Shear 5 in.
A A stud 2 1/2 in.

Precast concrete
12 in.
Girder

11 in.
centerline

panel
4 in. Shear stud
B blockout
5 in. Section A-A

2 1/2 in.
3 1/2 in.
1 ft 8 in.
11 in.
11 in. x 9 1/2 in. x 1/2 in.
steel plate
7 in.

8 in.
1 in. diameter
7 in. long 11 in. x 9 1/2 in. x 1/2 in.

6 1/2 in.
shear stud steel plate 1
8 in.
1
3/4 in. diameter x 6 in. long
shear stud
6 in.

Section B-B

Figure 4. Shear stud blockout details. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

mats. Of the 28 electrical strain gauges, 20 were placed in
the transverse direction of the bridge (along the length of
the panel) to record strains during lifting (Fig. 5). Only half
of the panel length was monitored. The remaining eight
gauges were placed longitudinally to record strains in the
short dimension of the panel and to measure strains during
posttensioning.
Panels EP3 and P2 were each instrumented with four
vibrating wire strain gauges in the longitudinal direc-
tion of the bridge. For panel EP3 these gauges were
numbered 1 through 4, and for panel P2 the gauges
were numbered 5 through 8 (Fig. 5). These gauges were
used to record strains induced by posttensioning as well
as the change in strain due to creep and shrinkage for
long-term monitoring. In addition to the four longitudi-
nal vibrating wire strain gauges, panel P2 was equipped
with 16 additional vibrating wire strain gauges in the
transverse direction of the bridge (Fig. 5). These gauges
were primarily used during truck load testing and for
long-term monitoring. Figure 6 shows an example of
the electrical and vibrating wire strain gauges placed in
panel P2 prior to placing concrete.
Deflection instrumentation
and data collection methods
The relative deflection from the bottom of the bridge
deck to the top of the steel diaphragms joining the
prestressed girders was measured using LVDTs (Fig. 6).
The bridge was instrumented with six LVDTs. LVDTs
1 through 5 were placed above the west diaphragms
between girders 1 and 6. LVDT 6 was placed between
girders 2 and 3 above the east diaphragm.
Data were collected by an electronic data acquisition
system every two seconds. Monitoring of lifting strains
in the precast concrete panels was achieved wirelessly
using a modem. During the truck load test, the data
were also recorded using the modem.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 83

 19 ft 9 in.
11 in.
11 in.
11 in. 27, 28
25, 26
Panel centerline 23, 24
21, 22
Two sets of electrical
strain gauges
Plan

24 in.
6 at 26 in.
3 at 19 in.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Elevation

Electrical

4 ft 9 in.

15 ft from Panel centerline

Plan
parapet 5, 6 7, 8
10 in.

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Elevation
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
15 ft from
parapet 35 in. 3 at 15 in. 45 in. 3 at 15 in.

Vibrating wire for panel P2

Figure 5. Location of strain gauges. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

84 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal

Figure 6. Electrical and vibrating wire strain gauge installation in panel P2.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 85


Figure 7. Lifting points of GFRP-reinforced precast concrete panels at the casting yard and bridge site. Note: GFRP = glass-fiber-reinforced polymer. 1 in. = 25.4 mm;
1 ft = 0.305 m.
Data analysis
Lifting strains
Two different arrangements were used to lift the precast
concrete panels at the casting yard and at the bridge site
(Fig. 7). The 24 deck panels were transported 64 mi
(102 km) from the plant to the bridge site and lifted into
place. Each panel was lifted a total of three times before
ending up in its final position on the bridge. The initial
lift removed the deck panel from its formwork before the
parapet had been cast. Once the parapets had been cast, a
second lift placed the panel on the bed of a tractor trailer.
The final lift placed the panel on top of the girders.
Figure 8 shows representative strain gauge data during the
first lift of panel P2. The panel was fully lifted after 20 sec-
onds, representing the spike in the strain readings. The
maximum lifting strains were 74 με in tension and 32 με in
compression. As the crane swung the panel to a temporary
storage location, the strain remained approximately constant
for 6 minutes. At that point the panel was lowered onto four
wooden supports corresponding to the lifting strap loca-
tions, and the strains dropped to 21 με in tension and 14 με
in compression. After 7 minutes, the panel was again lifted
using the lifting straps and was swung into its final position
86 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
46 in. 156 in. 114 in. 156 in. 25 in.
36 in.
GFRP bars
41 ft 5 in. 3 ft
Casting yard
47 in. 97 in. 181 in. 92 in. 80 in. 36 in.
GFRP bars
41 ft 5 in. 3 ft
Bridge site
in the casting yard. During the second lift (Fig. 8) the strains
increased to the same levels that they were during the first lift.
The second lift lasted 3 minutes. Once the panel was lowered
to its final position in the casting yard, the strain decreased
again. The sequence of events in Fig. 8 demonstrates that the
flexibility of the panel and lifting cables induces higher strains
in the panel when it is suspended in the air than when it is
supported with fixed supports on the ground.
Figure 9 shows the maximum strain profile for half of
the panel P2 during its lift out of the casting yard. The
maximum tensile strain in the GFRP bars was measured as
136 με. The corresponding strain in the extreme concrete
fiber in tension is slightly higher due to the concrete cover.
This indicates that the cracking strain was exceeded at
some locations because the theoretical cracking strain
obtained by dividing the modulus of rupture by the modu-
lus of elasticity of concrete is 132 με. Figure 9 shows the
curvature diagram, which is close to the theoretical shape.
From the curvature diagram, the maximum deflection was
calculated as approximately 0.1 in. (2.5 mm).
Transportation strains
Once the panels were placed on the trucks for the 64 mi
(103 km) trip to the bridge site, the maxima and minima
Figure 8. Strain gauge data during lifting of panel P2 in the casting yard.
of all the strain gauges during the trip were recorded
(Fig. 10). During transport of panel EP3, careful observa-
tions were made and correlated to the strains on the graph:
1. The second lift involved placing the panel on the truck.
2. The truck was stationary while the panel was tied
down, and tie downs were tightened resulting in slight
increases in strain.
3. The truck moved through the casting yard and to the
interstate.
4. The truck was stationary while waiting to get on Inter-
state 15.
5. The truck traveled 64 mi (103 km) to the bridge site on
US Route 6, and the instrumentation was able to detect
any vibrations that occurred during the trip.
6. The truck arrived at the bridge site and remained sta-
tionary until the panels were unloaded.
7. The truck was positioned for lifting the panel with the
crane and remained stationary until it was unloaded.
8. Tie-downs were removed.
9. The panel was lifted into place using the crane and
steel truss with nylon straps (Fig. 7).
Short-term observations, on the order of hours, have re-
sulted in trends that demonstrate the strains experienced by
the panels. The maximum strain in tension was 45 με, and
the maximum strain in compression was 54 με (Fig. 10).
The strains during the third lift were less than those of the
first lift. This is attributed to the fact that the panels had
been curing for approximately two months between the
first and third lifts, thus the concrete modulus of elasticity
was higher.
Posttensioning strains
Posttensioning of the bridge deck was conducted on
September 17, 2009. The posttensioning cables were each
tensioned with a force of 40.8 kip (181 kN). Before and
after data were taken from the vibrating wire strain gauges
in the direction parallel to the axis of the girders, the axis
of posttensioning. Figure 11 displays the change in strain
after temperature adjustment. The odd-numbered gauges
are located near the top of the deck, while the even-num-
bered gauges are located near the bottom (Fig. 5). Gauges
1 through 4 were located on panel EP3, and gauges 5
through 8 were located on panel P2. The average concrete
strain from all eight gauges was approximately 130 με
in compression, while the maximum strain measured
was 164 με. This corresponds to an average stress in the
concrete from posttensioning of 580 psi (4.0 MPa) and a
maximum stress of 720 psi (5.0 MPa). These stresses are
comparable to other research findings for similar types of
precast concrete panels reinforced with steel bars,12 where
the maximum stress of 950 psi (6.6 MPa) was measured
using load cells.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 87
 Figure 9. Lifting at the casting yard for half the length of panel P2. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
Static truck load tests
The truck load tests were performed on September 29,
2009, and consisted of nine diagnostic live load tests. The
tests were conducted a few days before the westbound
lanes were opened to traffic by placing the trucks at a
specific location for at least a few minutes until all readings
were taken. Table 1 shows the description of all static tests.
The static tests were divided into three groups depending
on the lanes being loaded. Tests 1 through 3 were per-
formed on the slow westbound lane and were conducted
using truck A. Tests 4 through 6 were performed on the
fast lane using truck B. Tests 7 through 9 used both trucks
88 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
A and B in their respective lanes. Figure 12 shows the
geometric properties of the three-axle trucks test 7 loading.
Table 2 gives the axle weights for both trucks.
Deck deflections
Figure 13 shows the relative deflections from the five
LVDTs between the bridge deck and the west diaphragm
for static tests 7, 8, and 9 using both trucks. The greatest
deflections were in the fast lane between girders 4 and
5 during tests 8 and 9. This is reasonable because both
trucks A and B are parked close to the west diaphragm
during these tests. The magnitude of the relative deflection
Figure 10. Maximum and minimum strains during lifting and transport of panel EP3.

-180 P2
-160 EP3
-140
-120
Strain, µ

-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vibrating wire strain gauge

Figure 11. Vibrating wire strains in bridge deck after longitudinal posttensioning.

is small, corresponding to a span between girders–to–de-
flection ratio of 1/13,000. This shows that the bridge deck
panels and girder spacing were designed conservatively.
Deck strains
The maximum strain in the concrete occurred during test 2
when truck A was directly over the slow lane at point 2,2
(Table 1 and Fig. 12). The maximum compressive strain
was 176 με (Fig. 14). The maximum tensile strain ob-
served throughout the static truck load tests was 150 με.
This indicates that the cracking strain was exceeded in
certain locations during the truck load tests because the
theoretical cracking strain of the concrete is 132 με. Thus,
it is clear that the strains observed in the concrete during
the truck load test were larger than those observed during
lifting and transport of the panels.
Prestressed girder deflections
During the static truck load tests, the total deflection of all
of the prestressed concrete girders at midspan for each test

Table 1. Static truck load tests

Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Truck A A A B B B A,B A,B A,B

Point* 1,1 2,2 3,3 1,1 2,2 3,3 1,1 2,2 3,3
*
Location of rear axle centerline as given in Fig. 12.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 89

 17 ft 6 in.

Front axle

6 ft 1 in.
axles
Rear
13 ft 1 in. 4 ft 5 in.
Typical truck

1 ft 5 in.
88 ft 2 in.
44 ft 1 in.
29 ft 5 in. 29 ft 4 in. 29 ft 5 in.
3 2 1

12 ft 12 ft 12 ft
Shoulder
Truck A

44 ft 5 in.
Slow
lane
Fast
lane
Bridge Truck B
centerline 3 2 1
7 ft

Test 7

Figure 12. Truck load tests. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

was measured using surveying methods. The maximum
deflection occurred at girder 4 during test 8 with both
trucks at midspan (Fig. 15). The trucks were located at the
boundary of the slow lane and fast lane, and girder 4 is
located between the two trucks. This is reasonable because
both trucks A and B would be located at midspan in this
Table 2. Truck load axle weights
configuration. Although each truck applied a smaller load
than the HL-93 AASHTO design truck load of 72 kip
(320 kN), the deflection was significantly smaller than
the allowable deflection of Lg /800 in the AASHTO LRFD
specifications, where Lg is the girder span. The allowable
deflection is 1.32 in. (33.5 mm), whereas the maximum
deflection observed was 0.12 in. (3.0 mm), corresponding
to a span to deflection ratio of Lg /8800.

Front axle Rear axle Load distribution factors

Truck Truck weight, kip
weight, kip weight, kip
Load distribution factors are important because they are
A 43.88 14.78 29.10
used to convert load effects established by a beam-line
B 43.16 14.48 28.68 analysis to the estimated results of the entire bridge sys-
tem.13 The load distribution factors were established for a
Note: 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

90 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal

 0.002

0.001

0
Relative deck deflection, in.

-0.001

-0.002
Test 7
-0.003 Test 8

-0.004 Test 9

-0.005

-0.006

-0.007

-0.008
1 2 3 4 5 6

Linear variable differential transducer

Figure 13. Deck-to-girder relative deflections at west diaphragm. 1 in. = 25.4 mm.

typical interior girder using AASHTO LRFD specifications the truck load tests the shoulder lane was not loaded. The
distribution factors and were compared with experimental results for the present truck load tests were derived for a
results from the truck load tests. The distribution factors particular ith girder from deflection data using Eq. (1) fol-
for an exterior girder were not evaluated because during lowing established procedures for identical girders.14

50

-50
Strain, µ

-100

-150

TLT 2 Top

TLT2 Bottom

-200
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Vibrating wire strain gauge from panel P2

Figure 14. Strains from the vibrating wire strain gauge for truck load test 2.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 91

 Figure 15. Girder deflections at midspan during static truck load tests. Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
(1)
where
DFi = moment distribution factor of ith girder
k = number of girders
Ri = deflection of the ith girder at midspan
Rj = deflection of the jth girder at midspan
Table 3 gives the results using the AASHTO LRFD speci-
fications distribution factor DF for bending moment for an
interior girder for one lane loaded, and Table 4 gives those
for two lanes loaded. The maximum experimental DF was
0.32 for one lane loaded and 0.33 for two lanes loaded,
while the AASHTO LRFD specifications DF was 0.49 for
one lane loaded and 0.68 for two lanes loaded. Compari-
son of the experimental results with the AASHTO LRFD
specifications load distributions shows that the distribution
factors obtained from the truck load tests were less than the
code distributions. This result agrees with similar tests for
steel-reinforced precast concrete–panel bridge decks.12
Cost comparison
The cost of the precast concrete deck panels reinforced
Table 3. Bending moment distribution factors for one lane loaded
Girder Test T1 Test T2
3 0.26 0.24
4 0.32 0.24
92 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal
with GFRP was $59.25/ft2 ($637.76/m2), a 20.8% increase
over the average cost of precast concrete deck panels
reinforced with epoxy-coated steel reinforcing bars. In
addition, two girders were added to the Beaver Creek
Bridge to better control deflection and cracking. Each ad-
ditional girder was $48,000, adding $6.82/ft2 ($73.41/m2)
to the deck cost. Given a 45-year design life for the deck
panels reinforced with steel and a 75-year design life
for the panels reinforced with GFRP, the cost per year
would equal $1.09/ft2/year ($11.73/m2/year) for the steel-
reinforced panels and $0.88/ft2/year ($9.47/m2/year) for
the GFRP-reinforced panels. The cost analysis does not
take into account user costs for construction time for a
deck replacement at 45 years anticipated with a standard
steel-reinforced deck. The life-cycle performance of deck
panels reinforced with GFRP bars is not known due to the
brief history of implementation. Recent work regarding
the durability of GFRP bars in concrete under a variety of
environmental conditions, including humidity and tem-
perature, under constant stress suggests that under typical
stresses the expected life of a concrete deck reinforced
with GFRP bars could be as long as 100 years.15
Conclusion
This paper presents the design, construction details, and
monitoring of the GFRP-reinforced precast concrete deck
panels of the Beaver Creek Bridge on US Route 6 in Utah.
In addition, a comparison of the cost of the GFRP-rein-
forced deck versus a steel-reinforced deck was conducted.
Test T3 Test T4 Test T5 Test T6 AASHTO
0.32 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.49
0.28 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.49

Based on the measurements obtained during lifting,
transportation, placement, and static truck load testing, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• The 44 ft 5 in. × 6 ft 10 in. × 91/4 in. (13.4 m × 2.1 m
× 0.23 m) precast concrete panels were lifted using
steel tubes and straps from the bottom of the panel;
no cracks were observed and deflections were small.
The use of embedments is not recommended for this
application with GFRP bars because the low modu-
lus of elasticity of the GFRP bars would cause large
deflections if the panels were lifted from above using
embeds.
• The bridge deck and the girders had a good composite
action and the shear stud blockout details used were
successful as evidenced by measured deck and girder
deflections.
• Load distribution factors for bending moment of
interior girders obtained from the static truck load tests
showed that the experimental results obtained from
truck load tests were within AASHTO LRFD specifi-
cations load distribution requirements.
• The lifting and transportation strains were smaller than
the strains observed during the truck load tests. The
latter strains exceeded the tensile cracking strain at
only a few deck locations.
• The strains measured during lifting and in truck load
tests indicate that ACI 440.1R-06 Guide for the Design
and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced
with FRP flexural design method for GFRP-reinforced
concrete decks can be applied to precast concrete pan-
els, provided lifting and handling stresses are properly
designed.
• A cost comparison conducted between precast
concrete deck panels reinforced with GFRP bars and
steel bars, taking into account life-cycle performance
considerations, showed that the precast concrete deck
panels reinforced with GFRP bars are a viable option
for implementation.
• More projects are needed to demonstrate the longev-
ity of bridge decks constructed with precast concrete
GFRP-reinforced bridge panels under actual traffic
conditions.
Acknowledgments
The writers wish to acknowledge the financial support of
the Utah Department of Transportation and the University
of Utah. Also, they would like to acknowledge the contri-
butions of Ames Construction Inc., Hughes Brothers Inc.,
and Precast Concrete Products. In addition, the authors
Table 4. Bending moment distribution factors for two lanes loaded
Girder Test T7 Test T8 Test T9 AASHTO
3 0.22 0.27 0.24 0.68
4 0.25 0.33 0.26 0.68
would like to thank Professor Lawrence D. Reaveley,
Brandon Besser, Mark Bryant, Clayton Burningham,
Ruifen Liu, and Brett Raddon for their assistance in instru-
mentation and data collection.
References
1. Issa, M. A., A. A. Yousif, M. A. Issa, I. I. Kaspar, and
S. Y. Khayyat. 1995. “Field Performance of Full Depth
Precast Concrete Panels in Bridge Deck Construc-
tion.” PCI Journal 40 (3): 82–108.
2. Yamane, T., M. K. Tadros, S. S. Badie, and M. C.
Baishya. 1998. “Full Depth Precast, Prestressed
Concrete Bridge Deck System.” PCI Journal 43 (3):
50–66.
3. Bakis, C. E., L. C. Bank, V. L. Brown, E. Cosenza, J.
F. Davalos, J. J. Lesko, A. Machida, F. Rizkalla, and
T. C. Triantafillou. 2002. “Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Composites for Construction—State-of-the-Art Re-
view.” Journal of Composites for Construction 6 (2):
73–87.
4. Karbhari, V. M., J. W. Chin, D. Hunston, B. Ben-
mokrane, T. Juskas, R. Morgan, J. J. Lesko, U.
Sorathia, and D. Reynaud. 2003. “Durability Gap
Analysis for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites
in Civil Infrastructure.” Journal of Composites for
Construction 7 (3): 238–247.
5. Robert, M., and B. Benmokrane. 2010. “Physical, Me-
chanical, and Durability Characterization of Preloaded
GFRP Reinforcing Bars.” Journal of Composites for
Construction 14 (4): 368–375.
6. Kumar, S. V., and H. V. S. GangaRao. 1998. “Fatigue
Response of Concrete Decks Reinforced with FRP
Rebars.” Journal of Structural Engineering 124 (11):
11–16.
7. Benmokrane, B., E. El-Salakawy, A. El-Ragaby, and
T. Lackey. 2006. “Designing and Testing of Concrete
Bridge Decks Reinforced with Glass FRP Bars.” Jour-
nal of Bridge Engineering 11 (2): 217–229.
8. Benmokrane, B., E. El-Salakawy, S. El-Gamal, and
S. Goulet. 2007. “Construction and Testing of an Inno-
vative Concrete Bridge Deck Totally Reinforced with
Glass FRP Bars: Val-Alain Bridge on Highway 20
East.” Journal of Bridge Engineering 12 (5): 632–645.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 93
 9. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Notation
and Transportation Officials). 2007. AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. 4th ed. Washington, DC: DF = distribution factor
AASHTO.
DFi = moment distribution factor of ith girder
10. ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 440.
2006. Guide for the Design and Construction of k = number of girders
Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. ACI
440.1R-06. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. Lg = girder span

11. PCI Industry Handbook Committee. 2010. PCI Design Ri = deflection of ith girder
Handbook: Precast and Prestressed Concrete. 7th ed.
Chicago, IL: PCI. Rj = deflection of the jth girder at midspan

12. Wipf, T. J., B. Phares, J. Bigelow, T. Hosteng, and

A. Nadermann. 2010. “Evaluation of the 24th Street
Bridge.” Technical report. Ames, IA: Institute for
Transportation, Iowa State University.

13. Barker, R. A., and J. A. Puckett. 2007. Design of High-

way Bridges—An LRFD Approach. 2nd ed. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

14. Restrepo, E., T. Cousins, and J. Lesko. 2005. “Deter-

mination of Bridge Design Parameters through Field
Evaluation of the Route 601 Bridge Utilizing Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Girders.” Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities 19 (1): 17–27.

15. Weber, A., and C. W. Baquero. 2010. “New Durability

Concept for FRP Reinforcing Bars.” Concrete Interna-
tional 32 (7): 49–53.

94 W int e r 2 0 1 3 | PCI Journal

About the authors
Chris P. Pantelides is a professor
in the Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department of the
University of Utah in Salt Lake
City. He received his bachelor’s
degree at the American University
of Beirut and his MS and PhD
from the University of Missouri–
Rolla. His research interests
include seismic design and
rehabilitation of reinforced
concrete buildings and bridges.
Jim Ries received his BS and MS
from the University of Utah. His
research interests include design
and construction of structural
concrete reinforced with FRP
bars.
Rebecca Nix is a structural
engineer with the Utah Depart-
ment of Transportation. She
received her BS from the Univer-
sity of Utah. Her research
interests include design and
construction of structural concrete
reinforced with FRP bars.
Abstract
The deck of the Beaver Creek Bridge in Utah was con-
structed in 2009 using 44 ft 5 in. × 6 ft 10 in. × 91/4 in.
(13.4 m × 2.1 m × 0.23 m) precast concrete panels
einforced with glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)
bars. This paper presents monitoring data from two pan-
els during lifting, transport, posttensioning, and static
load testing. The relative deflections between the bridge
deck and the diaphragms were small, demonstrating that
the connections between precast concrete deck panels
and prestressed concrete girders provide good compos-
ite action. The live load deflections of the prestressed
concrete girders during static load testing were smaller
than the allowable deflection. The strains measured
during lifting and in the load tests indicate that the ACI
440.1R-06) Guide for the Design and Construction of
Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP flexural de-
sign method for GFRP reinforced concrete decks can be
applied to precast concrete panels, provided that lifting
and handling stresses are properly designed.
Keywords
Bridge, deck, fiber-reinforced polymers, FRP, nonde-
structive test, panels, truck load test.
Review policy
This paper was reviewed in accordance with the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute’s peer-review
process.
Reader comments
Please address and reader comments to journal@pci
.org or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI
Journal, 200 W. Adams St., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL
60606. J
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2013 95