-------------

DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BRIDGE DECK SLABS

REINFORCED by CFRP and GFRP

Tarek Hassan 1, Amr Abdelrahman 2, Gamil Tadros 3, and Sami Rizkalla 4

Summary
The use of carbon and glass fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP, GFRP) reinforcements provides
an alternative solution to extending the service life of bridge deck slabs. The linear properties
of FRPs up to failure and their relatively low elastic modulus and strain at ultimate have raised
concerns regarding their use as reinforcements for flexural members. The concern is related to
the serviceability in terms of deflection and crack width, as well as the mode of failure due to
the limit of ductility of these types of materials. Another concern is the relatively high cost of
these materials.
Based on the testing of two full-scale models of a concrete bridge deck slab reinforced by
CFRP and hybrid GFRPlsteel, respectively, as well as a comprehensive non-linear finite
element analysis, this paper presents design recommendations for bridge deck slabs reinforced
with CFRP and GFRP. The influence of the degree of edge restraint, type of reinforcement and
percentage of reinforcements on the serviceability and mode of failure is discussed. Specific
reinforcement ratios, satisfying the serviceability and ultimate strength requirements for each
type of reinforcement are presented.
Keywords: bridges, deflection, fibre, reinforcement, concrete, punching, shear

Introduction
Deterioration of concrete bridge structures subjected to aggressive environmental conditions
more likely attributes to corrosion of the steel reinforcement. This paper describes a study to
replace the steel reinforcement with FRP reinforcement as an alternative solution to increase
the service life of bridges. The study investigated the behaviour of two continuous full-scale
bridge deck models with double cantilevers tested up to failure using a concentrated load to
simulate the truck wheel load. The first model was reinforced totally with CFRP reinforcement,
while a hybrid GFRPlsteel reinforcement was used for the second model.
Ph.D student, Department of Civil and Geological Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
2 Assistant Professor, Ain-shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
3 Technical Application Consultant, Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures,
(ISIS Canada)
4 President of the Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence on Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures, (ISIS Canada)
and Professor in the Department of Civil and Geological Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
I

.1

A non-linear finite element model was performed to predict the behaviour of the deck slabs
under various parameters including the type of reinforcement, boundary conditions and
reinforcement ratio. The accuracy of the analytical model was verified by comparing the
predicted behaviour to test results conducted by others. This paper presents an extension of the
analysis to investigate the effect of various parameters on the ultimate load-carrying capacity
of deck slabs. The behaviour prior to and after cracking, the ultimate load-carrying capacity,
and the mode of failure are discussed. Design guidelines for the use of CFRP and GFRP as a
reinforcement for bridge deck slabs are proposed.

Experimental Program
1. Deck Slab Reinforced with CFRP

A full-scale model of a continuous bridge deck slab with double cantilever was tested
(Abdelrahman 1998) to examine the behaviour and ultimate capacity of typical bridge deck
slabs totally reinforced with CFRP. The models consisted of three continuous spans of 1.8
meters each and two cantilevers, with overall dimensions of7.2 x 3.0 m and a thickness of 200
mm, as shown schematically and during testing in Fig. 1. The slab was tested at five different
locations. The applied load was cycled three times every 200 kN. Test #1 of the mid-span was
performed in the presence of steel straps connected to the two ends of the supporting beam to
restrain the rotation and lateral movement up to a load of 600 kN. The slab was reloaded up to
failure without the presence of the end restraints. The steel straps were used to simulate the
effect of typical cross-girders used in bridges. Test #2 was conducted on the outer span of the
continuous slab using stiffer straps up to failure. Test #3 included testing of the other outer
span using the same stiffer straps used in Test #2. In addition, the edges of the slab in Test #3
were constrained using four HSS steel sections of 203 x 203 mm supported horizontally using
four 25 mm diameter Diwidag bars to restrain the slab in the direction of the supporting beams
as illustrated in Fig. 1. This mechanism was used to simulate the continuity of the slab in the
direction of the traffic.
The slab was reinforced with Leadline CFRP bars produced by Mitsubishi Chemical
Corporation, Japan (elastic modulus of 147 GPa, ultimate strength of 2250 MPa). The bottom
reinforcement consisted of two 10 mm diameter Leadline bars spaced at 125 mm in the main
direction, providing a reinforcement ratio of 0.29 percent, and one 10 mm diameter bar at 125
mm in the secondary direction, which is equivalent to a reinforcement ratio of 0.57 percent.
The top reinforcement consisted of one 10 mm diameter Leadline bar at 125 mm in each
direction. The average concrete compressive strength and elastic modulus were 59 MPa and
36 GPa, respectively. The slab was instrumented using linear variable differential transducers
(LVDT) to measure the deflection of the slab and the rotation of the supporting beams, as well
as PI gauges to measure the concrete strain at different locations. The strain of the top and
bottom reinforcement was monitored using 64 electrical strain gauges and eight Bragg grating
fibre optic sensors.

Plan
prestressed
beam

Cross section

Fig.1 Full-scale bridge deck model

2. Deck Slab Reinforced with Hybrid GFRPISteel

The same dimensions of the previous model were used to evaluate the performance of the
bridge deck slab reinforced with hybrid reinforcement (Louka 1999). The cantilever portion of
the model was built according to the reinforcement details of the Crowchild Trail Bridge
constructed in 1997 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The load was applied through a 225 x 575
mm steel plate at a location that represents the closest point for a truck tire travelling near a
barrier wall on the bridge. Two types of FRP bars were used for top reinforcement in the slab.
The right cantilever, the adjacent span and the middle span were reinforced with two 15 mm CBAR bars spaced at 250 mm on centre resulting in a reinforcement ratio of 0.8 percent. C-BAR
is produced by Marshall Industries Composites Ltd. of Lima, Ohio, U.S.A. (elastic modulus of
42 GPa, ultimate strength of 746 MPa). The top reinforcement of the left cantilever and the
adjacent slab consisted of two 15 mm ISOROD bars spaced at 250 mm on centre resulting in a
reinforcement ratio of 0.8 percent. ISOROD is produced by Pultrall Inc. of Quebec, Canada
(elastic modulus of 41 GPa, ultimate strength of 689 MPa). In addition, one 15 mm diameter

steel bar spaced at 150 mm was used as bottom reinforcement, providing a reinforcement ratio
of 0.67 percent with the exception of the right cantilever, where no bottom reinforcement was
used. The average concrete compressive strength and elastic modulus were 45 MPa and 30
GPa, respectively. For the mid-span test, the slab was loaded up to failure in the presence of
steel straps.
The instrumentation used to monitor the behaviour of the cantilever slab consisted of a
combination of electrical strain gauges, LVDTs, PI gauges, dial gauges. The L VDTs located on
the top surface of the slab were used to measure the deflection of the slab and the supporting
girder. Demec points and mechanical gauges were used to measure the strain of the concrete
surface. One LVDT was attached to the end of the slab, parallel to the direction of the
reinforcement to measure the slip of an exposed GFRP bar located directly below the load.

Test Results
1. Deck Slab Reinforced with CFRP

The envelopes of the load-deflection relationships of the three tests of the three spans are
shown in Fig. 2. The deflection ranged from 0.15 to 0.5 mm for the three tests at a load level of
250 kN, which is more than double the service load. The initial load-deflection was linear up to
cracking followed by a non-linear behaviour, with reduced stiffness, after cracking. The nonlinearity of the load-deflection was highly pronounced for the test without end restraints due to
the presence of extensive cracks at the bottom surface of the mid-span of the slab and at the top
surface close to the supporting beams. The stiffness of all tested slabs with end restraints was
similar. However, the deflection of the second and third tests were slightly higher than the first
test since the slabs at the support sections were already cracked from the first test. Edge
stiffening of the slab in the third test did not reduce the deflection of the slab compared to the
second test; however, it did increase the ultimate capacity.
1400r-------------------------------~

1200

~ 1000
"C

~ 800

...~
i-<

600
(unrestrained)
P max= 1000 kN

400

Fig. 2 Load-deflection behaviour of the

deck slab reinforced with CFRP

200
0~L-~~~~~_+~~~~~4_~+_~+_~

4
5
6
7
Deflection (nun)

10

The first crack was observed at the bottom surface of the slab at loads of 100,92 and 132 kN
for the three tests, respectively. This indicates that edge stiffening increased the cracking load
by 40 percent. Crack patterns at the bottom of the slab are compared in Fig. 3. Flexural cracks
were more pronounced in the first test without the end restraints than in the second test with the
end restraints. Radial cracks were more pronounced in the third test due to the presence of edge
stiffening as illustrated in Fig. 3. The failure mode of the three tests was punching shear of the
deck slab as shown in Fig. 4. The top surface of the failure zone had an elliptical shape with a
perimeter of 25 percent larger than the perimeter of the loaded area. The failure load of the
mid-span test was 1000 kN. Restraining the slab laterally increased the ultimate load-carrying
capacity by 20 percent. Edge stiffening increased the capacity of the slab by an additional 12
percent.

Test #2
Laterally
restraint

Test #1
unrestraint

Test #3 ;
laterally restraint
and edge stiffening

Fig. 4 Punching shear failure

of the deck slab

Fig. 3 Crack pattern at the bottom

surface of the tested slabs

2. Deck Slab Reinforced with Hybrid GFRPISteel

The behaviour of the restrained mid-span of the deck slab reinforced with hybrid GFRPlsteel
reinforcement is compared to the restrained and unrestrained deck slab totally reinforced with
CFRP and is shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the behaviour of the two slabs is quite similar.
However, as the applied load in the CFRP slab approaches 600 kN, the stiffness decreases at a
greater rate than that of the hybrid slab. This is due to yielding of the steel straps in the deck
slab reinforced with CFRP. The mode of failure of all tested slabs reinforced with CFRP and
hybrid reinforcement was due to punching shear at load levels of 1000 kN and 1055 kN,
respectively. The higher punching strength of the hybrid slab is due to the confining pressure
created by the stiffer steel straps used for this model.

1200~----------------------------~

Restrained
hybrid slab

1000

~ 800

Unrestrained
CFRP slab

't:I
~

:5

Fig. 5 Load-deflection behaviour

of the hybrid bridge deck slab

600

't:I
~

:= 400
:

<

200

4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (mm)

10 11

The deflection of the left cantilever was very small, less than the accuracy of the
instrumentation, up to an equivalent service load of 117 kN as shown in Fig. 6. The
circumferential cracks, which developed at the top surface of the concrete at a load level of330
kN caused considerable reduction of the overall stiffness, as shown in Fig. 6. The measured
deflection in the right cantilever, at an equivalent service load of 117 kN, was 0.5 mm. A
significant reduction in stiffness of the cantilever occurred at a load level of 500 kN, as a result
of extensive cracking of the concrete and continuous slipping of the top reinforcement as
shown in Fig. 7. The slip at service load was approximately 0.003 mm which is significantly
less than the limiting value of 0.064 mm recommended by Ehsani et al. (1996).
1000

800

~o 600

-....
't:I

Right cantilever

8:
<

Right Cantilever
~ 500
--------'-"

't:I
~

400

:; 300

....
~

8: 200
<

200
0

600

10 12 14 16 18

Cantilever deflection (mm)

Fig. 6 Load-deflection behaviour

of the tested cantilevers

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Slip (mm)
Fig. 7 Load-slip behaviour
of the right cantilever

The left cantilever sustained a maximum load of 875 kN and failed due to crushing of the
concrete and extensive cracking, followed by punching shear as illustrated in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8 Punching shear failure

of the left cantilever

Analytical Model
The analytical model is based on the "Anatech Concrete Analysis Program" (ANACAP),
Version 2.1, (1997). Verification of the ANACAP program was evaluated using a two-way
slab model tested at Ghent University, Belgium (Matthys 1997).
The predicted loaddeflection behaviour of the slab compared very well with the measured values, as shown in
Fig. 9. The predicted punching shear failure load was only 1.2 percent higher than the
measured value.
300
~250

-'0

eo:

200

~ 150

Fig. 9 Load-deflection behaviour of the two-way

slab model (Ghent University)

'0
Q,j

:=
: 100
-(

50

Experimental
0

3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (mm)

10

Bridge Deck Model

Based on the confidence established in the analytical model, the analysis was extended to
model the behaviour of the full-scale bridge deck slab reported in this paper. One quarter of
the slab was modelled using 20-node brick elements. To focus on the slab behaviour and
remain with realistic computer execution time, the cantilever was not included for this
particular loading case. The slab thickness was divided into three layers. The spacing between
layers was selected to produce a finer mesh in the compression zone near the top surface of the
slab. The steel straps were modelled using a spring element. The slab was loaded up to 600 kN
in the presence of the spring element and unloaded. The spring element was removed and the
slab was reloaded up to failure to simulate the case without end restraints. The predicted loaddeflection behaviour of the slab with and without end restraint compared well with the
experimental values, as shown in Fig. 10. It was observed from the load-compressive strain
behaviour that, at a load of 1039 kN, there was a change in behaviour leading to a significant
increase in the compressive strain with only a slight increase in the applied load. This
phenomenon was used to identify the failure load criterion. The corresponding compressive
strain at the face of the loaded area at failure was 0.0027, which is in agreement with the
measured value of 0.0029 under the location of the load.

1200

~1000

Analyt\l~~

~P~

1'.-.-iY .'

:;- 800

Exp. Analytical

3
600
-g_-'-Y
:a 400

Exp.

. /-'

/F

Ij

200

~~,~~~

__- L__~__~~__~__~~__-L~

01234567891011
Deflection (mm)
Fig. 10 Analytical and experimental load-deflection behaviour
of the continuous deck slab reinforced with CFRP

Parametric Study
1. End Restraint
To demonstrate the effect of the boundary conditions on behaviour, three different cases were
studied. In the first case, no strap was used, while in the other two cases, steel straps of
dimensions 90 x 12 mm and 150 x 12 mm were used to simulate the effect of cross-girders in
restraining the rotation and lateral movement of the supporting girders. For all cases, the slab
was reinforced with CFRP Leadline bars as bottom reinforcement with a reinforcement ratio of
0.4 percent in the main direction. The top reinforcement in the main direction and the top and
bottom reinforcement in the secondary direction were set to 0.3 percent. The load-deflection
behaviour of the three cases studied is shown in Fig. 11. Cracking occurred at a load level of
250 kN, which is more than double the service load. The analysis indicates that increasing the
stiffness of the steel straps decreases the mid-span deflection. Increasing the strap dimensions
from 90 x 12 mm to 150 x 12 mm caused a slight decrease in the deflection. The failure loads
increased by 14 percent and 21 percent by using 90 x 12 mm and 150 x 12 mm steel straps,
respectively. This behaviour is due to an increase in the membrane forces induced by
increasing the strap stiffness which, consequently, increases the punching shear load capacity
of the deck slab.
1200

strap 150 x12 mm 1047 kN

~ 1000

--=

800

600

"0
CI

....
~

-<

400
Fig. 11 Load-deflection behaviour using
different strap dimensions

200
1

4
5
6
7
Deflection (mm)

10

2. Reinforcement Ratio
Six different reinforcement ratios of CFRP and GFRP were studied for the model under
consideration. In the case of CFRP, the bottom reinforcement ratio in the main direction varied
from 0.3 percent to O.S percent. The top reinforcement ratio in the main direction and the top
and bottom reinforcement ratio in the secondary directions were set to 0.3 percent.
The load-deflection behaviour using different reinforcement ratios of CFRP is given in Fig. 12.
Before cracking, linear behaviour was observed and the deflection was almost identical,
regardless of the reinforcement ratio used. After cracking, the deflection decreased with
increasing reinforcement ratio. The reinforcement ratio of 0.4 percent for CFRP was selected to
provide an equivalent steel ratio of 0.3 percent. The behaviour indicated that the failure load
increased by 8 percent and 25 percent as the reinforcement ratio was increased to 0.4 percent
and O.S percent, respectively. Similar behaviour was observed for GFRP bars. For all cases,
the failure was due to crushing of the concrete, resulting in punching shear failure.
120
1002 kN

~100

'-'soo

"0

=
Q

~ 600

..."0
~

:: 400

<

200

Fig. 12 Load-deflection behaviour using different

reinforcement ratios of CFRP

4
5
6
3
Deflection (mm)

10

3. Type of Reinforcement
The load-deflection behaviour of the continuous deck slab reinforced by 0.3 percent steel and
that reinforced by 0.4 percent CFRP and 1.46 percent GFRP as main bottom reinforcement is
shown in Fig. 13. The top reinforcement in the main direction, as well as the top and bottom
reinforcement in the secondary direction, were set to 0.3 percent in all cases. The loaddeflection indicates similar behaviour up to the load corresponding to initiation of the fIrst
crack. In the case of CFRP, the calculated failure load was 17 percent higher than the
corresponding value for the deck slab reinforced with steel. The higher deflection observed for
the case of GFRP is due to the lower elastic modulus and the low reinforcement ratio of 0.3
percent used in the analysis for the top reinforcement, as well as the top and bottom
reinforcement in the secondary direction.

900
741 kN

~800

798kN

'-'700
"0

~ 600

...:l

500
400
c.
< 300

:a

Fig. 13 Load-deflection behaviour using different

types of reinforcement

4
5 6 7
Deflection (mm)

10 11

4. Top Reinforcement
Three different cases were studied to investigate the effect of the top reinforcement on the
behaviour of continuous bridge decks. The bottom reinforcement was kept constant at 1.2
percent GFRP in both directions. In the fIrst case, no top reinforcement was used in either
direction. In the second and third cases, top reinforcement ratios of 0.6 percent and 1.2 percent
GFRP were used in both directions, respectively. The calculated failure load for the deck slab
without top reinforcement was 677 kN. Doubling the top reinforcement ratio increased the
failure load by 4 percent. Therefore, it was concluded that the use of top reinforcement does
not affect the ultimate capacity of the deck slab.

Design Recommendation
Based on a more detailed parametric study (Hassan 1999), the use of a CFRP reinforcement
ratio of 0.3 percent as top and bottom reinforcement in each direction is recommended.
Alternatively, a GFRP reinforcement ratio of 1.2 percent GFRP as bottom reinforcement in the
main direction and 0.6 percent as top reinforcement in the main direction, as well as top and
bottom reinforcement in the secondary directions. This recommendation is for deck slabs with
a maximum span-to-depth ratio of 15. To check serviceability requirements after cracking of
the concrete, the slab was loaded to 300 kN, then unloaded and reloaded again to failure.
Deflections, compressive stresses in the concrete, and tensile stresses in the reinforcement were
predicted after the initial load cycle of 300 kN and compared to the requirements of the
AASHTO code (1996). Under service loading conditions, the maximum predicted deflection
for the deck slabs reinforced by the above recommendations for CFRP and GFRP
reinforcement were below the limiting values specifIed by the AASHTO code as shown in Fig.
14. The maximum compressive stresses in the concrete directly under the applied load were
specifIed under service load conditions. The results yielded values of 0.36 and 0.28!c' for the
deck slabs reinforced with CFRP and GFRP, respectively, which is less than the allowable
value of 0.4!c'. The maximum tensile stresses in the bottom GFRP reinforcement under service
loading conditions were only 20 percent of the ultimate tensile strength. Consequently, creep
rupture phenomenon of GFRP is not a concern. The predicted strengths of the deck slabs

reinforced by the recommended reinforcement ratios of CFRP and GFRP are 1.8 and 1.6 times
greater, respectively, than the strengths required by the code.
1000
Span-to-depth ratio= 15
800

~ 600
=

0.3% CFRP in all directions

"CI
Q

... 400
~

-<

1.2% GFRP (Main Bottom RFT)

200

_______ 9:..Q~_ Gf_~ J)_op-~(;LS_~.: ~Qt!Qr]tW

:
2

Service 10ad=117 kN (AASHTO,96)

6

Fig. 14 Serviceability requirements

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Deflection (mm)

Conclusions
Based on the findings of this investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The failure loads of continuous full-scale bridge deck slab models are more than seven

times the service load specified by the AASHTO code (1996) and is due to punching shear.
2. Restraining the slab laterally increased the ultimate load-carrying capacity by 20 percent.
Edge stiffening increased the capacity by an additional 12 percent.
3. The analytical model is capable of predicting the behaviour, ultimate load-carrying
capacity and mode of failure of bridge deck slabs reinforced with different types ofFRP.
4. Presence of top reinforcement in continuous bridge deck slabs has a negligible effect on the
punching shear capacity.
5. To satisfy serviceability and ultimate capacity requirements for span-to-depth ratios
ranging between 9 and 15, the use 0.3 percent CFRP (fibre volume ratio of 60 percent or
more) as top and bottom reinforcement in each direction is recommended. For GFRP
reinforcements (fibre volume ratio of 60 percent or more), use of 1.2 percent for the bottom
reinforcement and 0.6 percent for the top reinforcement in the main direction, as well as 0.6
percent as top and bottom reinforcement ratios in the secondary direction, achieves the
code requirements.

'\

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Network of Centres of Excellence
Program and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of the Government of
Canada. The writers gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Mitsubishi Chemical
corporation, Japan, Marshall Industries Composites Ltd, U.S.A. and Pultrall Inc., Quebec,
Canada, for providing the materials used in the test program. Special thanks to Mr. M. McVey
for his assistance during fabrication and testing of the models.

References
AASHTO, "Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges 1996", American Asso-ciation of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C., 450 p.
Abdelrahman, A., Hassan, T., Tadros, G., and Rizkalla, S., (1998), "Behaviour of Concrete
Bridge Deck Model Reinforced by Carbon FRP," Proceedings of the Canadian Society for
Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Vol.IIIb, pp. 521-526.
Ehsani, M.R., H. Saadatmanesh, and S. Tao, (1996) "Design Recommendations for Bond
ofGFRP Rebars to Concrete", Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 122, No.3, March.
Hassan, T., (1999). "Behaviour of Concrete Bridge Decks Reinforced with FRP," M.Sc.
thesis, Dept. of civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Canada.
Louka, H., (1999). "Hybrid Reinforcement for Highway Bridge Deck Slabs," M.Sc. thesis,
Dept. of civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Canada.
Matthys, S. and Taerwe, L., (1997) "Behaviour of Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP
Grids Under Service and Ultimate Loading," Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Fiber Composites in Infrastructure, Tucson, Arizona, USA, pp. 359-373.
OHBDC, 1991 "Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code", Ministry of Transportation of
Ontario, Downsview, Ontario, 370 p.

'.2..