New Materials in Construction
New bridge systems using FRP
composites and concrete:
A state-of-the-art review
Lijuan Cheng1 and Vistasp M. Karbhari2
1
University of California, Davis, CA, USA
2
University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
Summary
Substantial progress has been made in the past
25 years in the area of fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) composites as viable structural materials
in bridge construction. The technologies
developed to date have moved rapidly from
their initial stage of concept validation, into
full-scale prototype construction and field
implementations. They have been used either on
their own in bridge applications or being
Key words: fiber reinforced polymer (FRP); composites; deck; girder; bridge; slab-on-girder
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
Published online 11 October 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pse.221
1 Introduction
While many bridges under the nation’s inventory are
all going through major repairing and strengthening
operations, novel structural systems utilizing new
materials that themselves have longer durability and
require less maintenance during the service lifetime of
the bridge have been widely sought. Fiber reinforced
polymer composites have demonstrated their
capability to achieve such objective by serving as
major reinforcing materials for bridges rather than
retrofitting or strengthening materials to existing
reinforced structures. A great number of FRP bridge
systems have successfully been developed and
implemented in many world-wide field projects in the
past 25 years. Some of their deck and girder
components have even been or are now being
industrialized to provide standard commercial
products. This new generation of bridge systems not
only provides a high level of functionality, but also
offers diversified options for design and construction
of modern bridges.
Bridge decks have long been recognized as the
critical components in bridges that could greatly
benefit from the appropriate use of composite
materials[1]. The major systems involved in this
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
combined with other conventional structural
materials such as concrete, to provide
economical solutions to many critical bridge
problems such as deficiency. This paper presents
a state-of-the-art review of these developments
on typical bridge components (i.e. decks and
girders) as well as bridge systems that have been
available from the early 1980s to the beginning of
2006.
evolution include the steel-free arching deck
developed in Canada, the deck systems made
completely out of fiber reinforced polymer
composites, and the most recently developed hybrid
FRP-concrete deck systems where FRP serves as major
reinforcement for concrete in the form of 1-D tendons
or rebars, 2-D or 3-D grid and grating, or continuous
textile sheets and plates. Bridge girders and beams
fabricated from glass (GFRP) and carbon (CFRP)
composites, and hybrid GFRP/CFRP/concrete have
also been explored in several applications. Bridge
systems developed so far are either entirely utilizing
FRP composites (i.e. all-FRP system) or partially
composite with the combination of conventional
materials such as concrete (i.e. hybrid system). The
latter appears more cost effective due to the hybrid
concept of combining low-cost but high compressive
concrete with high performance FRP composites. The
recent review by GangaRao and Siva[2] evaluates the
design and construction details of several all-FRP
deck systems that are currently available in North
America. The 2001 review by Keller[3] further involves
the development of several hybrid FRP–concrete
systems from 1997 up to 2000, but does not include
the remarkable work done on the systems using FRP
as reinforcement for concrete. In addition, quite a few
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
144
new developments have been achieved in the last 5
years, which are worthy of mentioning in state-of-the-
art survey. It is the focus of this paper to update all the
research and field development starting from the
early 1980s to the beginning of 2006 on bridge
components (slabs and girders) and commonly used
slab-on-girder bridge systems. Other components
such as cables and piers and systems using FRP for
rehabilitation purposes are outside the scope of this
paper.
2 Bridge decks
Conventional design of reinforced concrete (RC)
bridge slabs typically leads to a high level of steel
reinforcement, oftentimes causing maintenance
penalties in the slab due to the existence of corrosion-
prone steel rebars. Preventing methods, such as
replacement with epoxy coated galvanized or
stainless steel bars and concrete surface treatment
with siloxanes and cathodic protection, are very costly
and of limited use. In some cases they are not enough
to prevent the inevitable penetration of salts into the
concrete slab. A noticeable effort with an attempt to
eliminate such corrosion problem has been conducted
by Mufti et al.[4] in developing a fiber reinforced steel-
free concrete deck by utilizing the internal arching
action in the slab. This concept has been recognized
by the Canadian Highway Bridge Code for empirical
design methods and has been successfully
implemented in several field projects in North
America[5].
2.1 FRP REBAR REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK
SYSTEMS
With a similar attempt to reduce or delay the
corrosion of steel, alternative reinforcing rebars and
tendons made of corrosion-resistant FRP composites
have attracted much attention. The research program
established in Japan in early 1990s[6,7] examined the
static fracture, fatigue, creep behavior, and long-term
environmental durability of FRP rebars. In late 1990s,
Kumar and GangaRao[8] and GangaRao et al.[9]
experimentally investigated the fatigue response of
concrete decks reinforced with GFRP rebars and
established the stiffness and strength degradation
rates for the system. The experimental and analytical
research performed by Hassan et al.[10] in 2000 led to
the development of design guidelines and
recommendations for the use of CFRP and GFRP bars
as flexural reinforcement. Codified guidelines have
then been proposed by the ACI Committee for the
design and construction of concrete building
members reinforced with FRP bars[11] and tendons [12].
A number of state DOTs have also developed some
primary guidelines for bridge applications inside the
state, such as Texas DOT[13,14].
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
2.2 FRP GRID AND GRATING REINFORCED
CONCRETE DECK SYSTEMS
FRP grids and gratings in two-dimensional or three-
dimensional forms have recently been explored as a
new type of reinforcement for concrete slabs. In 1991,
Larralde and Zerva[15] introduced the concept of
concrete filled FRP molded grating into the concrete
slab that is cast monolithically on top of the grating.
The deck system was found to have significantly
increased flexural stiffness with reduced deflection
and higher load carrying capacity as compared to
conventional RC slabs. The failure mode was due to
the combination of concrete spalling in the
compression zone and the shear between concrete
inside the grating and the concrete above the
grating. Three-dimensional FRP grating cages were
employed for concrete slabs and beams in lieu of steel
rebars[16–18]. The grating consists of an orthogonal grid
with longitudinal and transverse glass/polyester or
glass/vinylester pultruded bars[19]. The longitudinal
bars normally have miniature I or T cross-sectional
profiles and the transverse bars are of circular cross-
section. Quasi-static tests performed on the deck
system showed satisfactory service load deflection
and load carrying capacity. Failure in the system was
mainly caused by the compressive failure of the
concrete at the edge of the loading pad followed
immediately by the propagation of a flexural shear
crack along a diagonal path towards the outer
support[17].
In 2001, Yost and Schmeckpeper[20] explored the
commercially available FRP thin flat NEFMAC grids
(New Fiber Composite Material for Reinforcing
Concrete[21]) for concrete reinforcement. The grid
consists of orthogonally intersecting longitudinal and
transverse members that are composed of high
performance reinforcing fibers (glass, carbon and
aramid) impregnated with appropriate resin systems.
The grid has a rectangular cross-section formed
through a repeated layering of individual fiber-resin
laminated section and has a much lighter weight than
steel rebars. Design procedures similar to that for
conventional reinforced concrete slabs were followed,
except that the design was controlled by the
serviceability limit state rather than the ultimate
strength limit state[20]. Good structural performance
was found based on the laboratory investigation and
the field application as reported in the Joffre Bridge
project in Canada[22].
2.3 DECK SYSTEMS MADE COMPLETELY OUT OF
FRP COMPOSITES
With the development of composite manufacturing
process ranging from hand lay-up to automated
methods such as pultrusion, modular bridge decks
fabricated totally from polymer matrix composites
have been explored since early 1980s. Eight such
systems have been reviewed and summarized in the
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse

reviews[2,3], including: (1) Superdeck system via
pultrusion[23]; (2) E–Z span system using
pultrusion[24]; (3) Duraspan system by
pultrusion[25,26]; (4) Hardcore system via vacuum
assistant resin transfer molding (VARTM) process; (5)
Kansas system by hand lay-up process; (6) Strongwell
system (rectangular hollow sections)[27–31]; (7) fiber-
reinforced recycled plastic lumber system using
compression molding process; (8) lightweight FRP
deck system through pultrusion process. Geometrical
details of these systems are available in surveys[2,3].
Other systems not being covered include the
X-shaped filament wound FRP deck system[1] and the
cell core truss deck system[32]. The X-shaped FRP deck
has a configuration formed from assembling the
individual diamond and triangular parts that are then
bonded on top and bottom with a combination of
woven roving and chopped mat (Fig. 1). The cell core
truss deck is made of E-glass stitched fiber fabric
wrapped around isocycrinate foam blocks.
2.4 HYBRID FRP PLATE REINFORCED CONCRETE
DECK SYSTEMS
Several concrete deck systems utilizing continuous
flat or curved FRP plates have been developed in the
recent few years. In 1989, a concept of using light
weight concrete mixed with hooked-end steel fibers as
filling material in glass-fiber reinforced pultruded
truss or membrane slabs was proposed[33] (Fig. 2a).
Mechanical performance of the system was
analytically evaluated but no experimental
information was available. In 1994, Japanese
researchers employed a pultruded glass fiber
reinforced polymer plate (stiffened with I-beam ribs)
that is attached to the bottom of a conventionally
designed steel reinforced concrete slab[34], as shown in
Fig. 2b. This so-called FRP–RC deck system can be
Fig. 1 X-shaped filament wound FRP deck
(a)
Fig. 2 Hybrid FRP plate reinforced concrete deck systems: (a) concrete filled membrane deck system; and (b) FRP–RC deck system
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FRP COMPOSITES AND CONCRETE 145
considered as a modification of the previously
discussed FRP grating reinforced system (Section 2.2).
Experimental results showed that the deck system
have higher durability when comparing to
conventional steel reinforced concrete slabs[35]. The
design of the system, however, was still based on the
traditional method for conventional RC slabs since
only the steel rebars was assumed to contribute to the
flexural reinforcement in the deck, while the
composite plate was utilized for durability
consideration only.
A new system consisting of a concrete slab cast on a
pultruded FRP panel with a flat continuous vase and
two T-up stands (shear studs) was proposed in
1998[36]. The overall behavior of the system was
shown to be linear elastic within the serviceability
range. One year after, another deck system cast from
GFRP rebar reinforced concrete slab and GFRP panel
with externally bonded tubular sections (running
transversely to the traffic direction) was investigated
by Harik et al.[37]. A three-point bending static test was
performed on the specimens designed with different
lengths and depths. The test results indicated that the
panels were able to meet the deflection and strength
criteria specified by Ohio DOT with the factor of
safety (load at failure/load at service) greater than 3
for all panels. The failure of the specimens was found
due to the combined flexure and shear and debonding
of the GFRP tubular sections from the concrete. The
high-temperature fatigue performance of this system
was also experimentally evaluated[38], where the
system was found to meet the service load design
criteria specified by the Ohio DOT after one million
fatigue cycling at a controlled high temperature
of 498C.
In 2001, a hybrid system consisting of a concrete
slab cast over pultruded GFRP panels and reinforced
with GFRP tubular sections was used in constructing
one- and an half-spans of a five-span steel stringer
supported concrete bridge[39]. The bridge deck also
contains three other different polymer GFRP decks for
comparison purpose. The bridge was experimentally
tested and monitored through controlled truck load
and modal tests, where the structural performance
was further compared with an adjacent companion
reinforced concrete bridge. Issues such as impact
(b)
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse
146
factor and girder distribution factor were addressed in
their investigation. In 2002, a full-scale prototype
laboratory test was conducted on a FRP-concrete deck
system that uses FRP stay-in-place formwork as
bottom transverse reinforcement for the slab and a
heavy-duty prefabricated FRP grid as the top layer of
concrete reinforcing[40]. The effective design wheel
load distribution width, positive and negative
transverse bending moment capacity, and
serviceability fatigue behavior were examined. The
deck system was adopted by the Wisconsin DOT in
constructing a two span highway overpass on US
Highway 151 in 2003[41].
In a comparison study conducted by Kwon et al. in
2003[42], three full-size differently manufactured
polymer decks, one hybrid FRP-concrete deck, and
one conventional steel reinforced concrete deck were
investigated for fatigue behavior under extreme
temperatures of
308C and 508C. Each of these five
decks was subjected to 10 million cycles of fatigue
load and the deck stiffness was found to be more
susceptible to the selected temperature changes than
to the cumulative number of applied load cycles. It
was concluded that the reduction with temperature
was more important for the FRP composite decks than
for the reinforced concrete deck and the FRP-concrete
deck. The hybrid deck system developed by Kitane
et al.[43] comprises a layer of concrete placed on the
compression side of the all GFRP deck section
consisting of several trapezoidal GFRP box parts
bonded together and wrapped with an FRP laminate
to produce an integral section. With the consideration
of reducing initial costs and increasing stiffness of the
all GFRP deck, the system was proposed for a one-
lane superstructure with a span length of 18.3 m.
Static test results on the one-fifth scaled bridge model
showed that the model met the stiffness requirement
with significant reserve strength and the fatigue
testing revealed insignificant stiffness degradation in
the system.
Most recently, a new hybrid FRP-concrete deck
system was developed by Cheng et al.[44], where a
hybrid polypropylene (PP) fiber mixed concrete and
thin continuous FRP mesh and laminated plates (as
illustrated in Fig. 3) are utilized. A series studies on
static and fatigue experiment and analysis have been
completed to demonstrate the feasibility of this
system in the construction of typical slab-on-girder
type of bridges. Satisfactory performance was
(a)
Fig. 3 Steel-free hybrid FRP-concrete deck system: (a) composition of deck system; and (b) photograph of deck panel
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
obtained from the 12 concrete slabs tests
characterizing slab–plate interface, component and
system level flexural, shear and fatigue response.
Simplified design procedures and guidelines are also
developed in the same study[45].
2.5 COMPARISON OF DECK PERFORMANCE
Full-scale laboratory and field experimental tests have
been extensively conducted on many of the
previously discussed hybrid FRP-concrete deck and
all FRP composite deck systems. Typical tests include
static 3-point bending test and low or high cycle
fatigue test under design truck loads. The structural
performance of all the systems, such as displacement
and strain response, load carrying capacity and failure
modes, are compared in Table 1, based upon the
availability of the data that were reported in the
individual references. It should be noted that the
absolute level of the displacement response and load
carrying capacity of each system is highly dependent
on the size of the testing specimen and also the
loading and boundary conditions used during the
test. Due to these size and condition differences, and
also the availability of result data, only a qualitative
comparison is made possible in this study, from which
the following general comments are drawn among all
those deck systems:
(1) The design of hybrid FRP–concrete deck systems
are primarily driven by the flexural-shear
strength of concrete, instead of the stiffness
related deflection constraints that are typical for
all FRP composite decks;
(2) Punching shear and fatigue state do not appear to
be the governing limit states for the design of both
hybrid FRP–concrete and all FRP composite deck
systems;
(3) Compared to reinforced concrete decks, hybrid
FRP–concrete decks display higher durability
with less deterioration in stiffness under design
truck loads;
(4) In hybrid FRP–concrete deck systems, over-
reinforcement of FRP composites is commonly
adopted and recommended. This is in order to
force the crushing type of failure in concrete and
attempt to avoid the sudden brittle type of failure
in FRP composites;
(5) Catastrophic failure is found in neither hybrid
FRP–concrete deck systems nor all FRP composite
deck systems.
Stiffener
Shear Rib End Hook
(b)
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse
 Table 1 Performance comparison of hybrid FRP–concrete (FRP–C), FRP–reinforced concrete (FRP–RC) and all FRP composite deck systems
Deck system Specimen size Test and Slab Deflection-to-span ratio (d/L) Maximum Strain level Failure
load type type ................................................................... load (kN) (le) mode
Service Initial stiffness Ultimate
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hybrid FRP and Concrete Deck Systems
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
FRP Grid 2.44  Static (3-point FRP-C1 L/384 50.65 kN/mm L/89 426 econ ¼
3420 Combined flexural
System[20] 1.2  0.216 m bending, eFRP ¼ 4670 compression and
(L ¼ 2.44 m) monotonic+10 diagonal tension
cycles, AASHTO shear
1996)
RC2 (ref) L/1030 50.65 kN/mm L/66 445 econ ¼
5500 Yielding of steel,
no shear failure

Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
FRP Grating 2.44  Static (3-point FRP-C L/555 N.A.4 L/89 490 econ ¼
4290 Concrete compres-
System[16–18] 1.2  0.216 m bending, eFRP ¼ 10 950 sive failure with
(L ¼ 2.44 m) monotonic+10 diagonal
cycles, AASHTO flexural-shear
1989 HS-25) crack
RC (ref) L/1130 N.A. L/67 445 econ ¼
6000 Yielding of tensile
rebars, subsequent
concrete crushing
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
FRP-RC 4.5  Fatigue only FRP-RC3 N.A. N.A. L/455 392 (at 520k econ ¼
140 Horizontal crack
System[34,35] 2.8  0.23 m (1-span, cycles) eFRP ¼ 840 above top
(L ¼ 3 m) stair-shaped reinforcement
load, JSHB)
FRP

RC (ref) N.A. N.A. L/349 274 (at 256k N.A. N.A.

cycles)
3.0  Static FRP-RC N.A. N.A. L/142 1300 N.A. Punching shear
2.0  0.18 m (3-point
(L ¼ 1.8 m) bending, JSHB)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Steel-Free Static: 2.238  Static FRP-C, L/448 38.08 kN/mm L/133 312 econ ¼
1787 Combined flexural
FRP-Concrete 0.61  0.203 m; (3-point Static eFRP ¼ 3821 and diagonal shear
Deck[44] Fatigue: 4.97 bending),
 1.22  0.203 m fatigue (2-span,
2.36 million
cycles, AASHTO
COMPOSITES AND CONCRETE

1998 HS-20)
Fatigue L/3377 Little stiffness degradation after 2 mil cycles (P), 37.6% after subsequent 250k cycles (2P); 44% after
subsequent 10k cycles (3P); ultimate capacity of 957 kN after fatigue with failure due to combined
flexural and diagonal shear
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Concrete Layer 3.658  Static (3- and FRP-C, N.A. 4.55 kN/mm L/41 308 N.A. Top and interior
with GFRP Tube 0.591  0.232 m 4-point), fatigue Static (3.24 kN/mm GFRP flange and
Box[43] (1-span, AASHTO before cast web compression
1998 tandem concrete) failure
load)
147

DOI: 10.1002/pse
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
Fatigue 5.9% stiffness loss in fatigue
 Table 1 (continued)
148

Deck system Specimen size Test and Slab Deflection-to-span ratio (d/L) Maximum Strain level Failure
load type type ................................................................... load (kN) (le) mode
Service Initial stiffness Ultimate
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
FRP form Static: 2.65  Static (3-point FRP-C, L/2370 63.7 kN/mm L/125 320 N.A. Flexural concrete
with GFRP Grid 0.914  0.203 m; bending), fatigue Static crushing and shear
System[40,41] Fatigue: (2-span, 2 million
5.28  0.914  cycles)
0.2 m
Fatigue Little stiffness loss (at P ¼ 71.2 kN and 21.4–92.6 kN)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
FRP with 2.3  0.12  Static FRP-C L/250 2.625 kN/mm L/46 60 eFRP ¼ 5000 Concrete in shear
T-up Stands[36] 0.18 m (L ¼ 2 m) (4-point

Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

bending),
bond test
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Membrane[33] 15.25– No FRP-C N.A. N.A. L/1204 (analytical) N.A. N.A. N.A.
30.5  2.134- experimental
0.26 m tests
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
GFRP Rebar 2.18  0.914- Static FRP-RC L/2274 Ps ¼ 53.4 kN/mm L/112 402 N.A. Flexural-shear
with Tubular 0.203 m[37] (3-point bending,
Sections and AASHTO
GFRP Plate 1996 HS-25)
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
5.48  1.83- Fatigue at high FRP-C Stiffness reduction about 5.23% after 1 million cycles and no further reduction during higher number of cycles.
0.203 m[38] temperature
NEW

(2-span, 1 side
loaded, 1 million
cycles, AASHTO
HS20)
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
6.1  1.828 Fatigue under FRP-C, RC and FRP-C has higher stiffness than polymer decks; stiffness reduction is more important in FRP decks than for RC
 0.203 m[42] extreme temp RC, FRP and FRP-C ones; stiffness reduction is more sensitive to temperature change than to the number of cycles.
(2-span, 10 million
cycles, AASHTO
HS20)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
All FRP Composite Deck Systems
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Superdeck 2.743  1.143 Static (3-point Static L/500 16.2 kN/mm N.A. 1192 N.A. No catastrophic
MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION

system via  0.203 m bending), failure

pultrusion[23] Fatigue
(2-million cycle,
AASHTO 1994
HS-20)
Fatigue No stiffness degradation (under load ranging from 8.9 kN to 222 kN)
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
5
E-Z span system 3.0  1.0 Static FRP L/380 17.7 kN/mm L/62 585 eser ¼ 1000 Delamination
via pultrusion[24]  0.22 m (3-point bending, eult ¼ 3300

DOI: 10.1002/pse
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
AASHTO 1996
HS-30)
 Table 1 (continued)
Deck system Specimen size Test and Slab Deflection-to-span ratio (d/L) Maximum Strain level Failure
load type type ................................................................... load (kN) (le) mode
Service Initial stiffness Ultimate
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Duraspan system 4.3 m long[25] Static FRP N.A. 148.7 kN/mm N.A. 979 (not fail) N.A. N.A.
by pultrusion (3-point bending
with overhang)
RC N.A. Kuncrack ¼ N.A. 267 N.A. N.A.
312 kN/mm
kcrack ¼
88 kN/mm
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Static[26]: Static Static N.A. N.A. N.A. 489 N.A. Debonding

Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2.44  1.02 (3-point bending)
 0.194 m; Fatigue (continuity,
Fatigue: 3.66 10.5 million cycles,
 1.02  0.194 m AASHTO)
Fatigue No significant damage but some fatigue sensitivity in negative moment region
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hardcore system and Kansas system[2,3]
Strongwell 0.914  Static (3-point FRP N.A. 1.75 kN/mm L/14 75 N.A. N.A.
system with b  0.0508 m[27] bending, AASHTO
rectangular HS20-44)
hollow sections
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
3.05  3.05 Static (3-point FRP N.A. 19 kN/mm N.A. (only N.A. N.A. N.A.
FRP

 0.203 m (3 bending on stiffness test)

or 4 spans[28]) each span,
AASHTO)
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
4.27  1.22 Static (AASHTO Static L/270 Pser ¼ 92.5 kN L/70 347 ecomp ¼
2800 Punching shear
 0.122 m 1992 HS20-44), etes ¼ 4680
(3 spans[29]) Fatigue (3 million
cycles)
Fatigue No change in stiffness and strength
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Fiber reinforced recycled plastic lumbersystem and lightweight FRP deck using pultrusion process[2,3]
X-shaped 2.13  Fatigue (3-point 2) million cycles with P ¼ 9:45–37.8 kN and 2 million cycles with P ¼ 13:9–55.6 kN; initial stiffness is estimated as
COMPOSITES AND CONCRETE

filament 0.457  0.229 m bending, k ¼ 10.8 kN/mm; stiffness loss of 5.06% for the first 2 million cycles and more loss for the 2nd 2 million cycles; failure mode
wound deck[1] 4 million due interlaminate bond
cycles)
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Cell core truss 42.7  7.3 Static (HS-20), N.A.
deck[32]  0.35 m (entire loaded with
bridge test) 2 trucks)
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Note: 1Hybrid FRP and plain concrete; 2Reinforced Concrete (reference test); 3Hybrid FRP and reinforced concrete; 4Data is not available from the reference; 5All FRP composite deck.
149

DOI: 10.1002/pse
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
150
3 FRP composite bridge girders and
beams
Bridge girders and beams made of FRP composites
are known to be lighter and more corrosion resistant
than steel or concrete girders. Typical FRP girder may
have a circular shaped, Z-/I-/C-shaped, rectangular
or trapezoidal shaped cross section (as shown in
Fig. 4). Manufacture of composite girders by
automated process, such as pultrusion and filament
winding, can produce high-quality components with
good dimensional stability at relatively low labor cost.
The girders or beams can be made of: (a) glass fiber
reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites; (b) carbon
fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites; or
(c) hybrid GFRP–CFRP or hybrid FRP–concrete
materials.
3.1 GFRP COMPOSITE GIRDERS
GFRP composites have been found economically very
attractive among the commonly used FRP composites
in civil engineering applications. In early 1980s, creep
behavior was already studied through experimental
tests on three 6 m long GFRP box beams with a cross
section of 150 mm by 300 mm subjected to various
loading procedures[46]. It was reported that GFRP
composites were more liable to creep than other
conventional construction materials. In early 1990s,
the structural behavior of box beams made of glass
fiber and epoxy resin was experimentally investigated
in Switzerland[47]. Good load bearing properties were
obtained from static and fatigue tests of six partially
filament-wound GFRP-box beams, each with a length
of 3 m, a height of 188 mm and a width of 118 mm. In
1995, Salim et al.[48] evaluated the flexural behavior of
two pultruded GFRP box beams and two pultruded
H-shaped beams with the development of an
analytical model for thin-walled laminated beams.
Research on behavior of I-beams and rectangular
tubes and their joint connections has been conducted
by Nagaraj and GangaRao[49] and Smith et al.[50].
3.2 CFRP COMPOSITE GIRDERS
Although economically attractive, GFRP composites
are usually less stiff than some other composites in the
family, such as CFRP. Due to this reason, using GFRP
typically results in a very thick girder cross section in
order to bring the deflection of the member within the
permissible limits[51]. In addition, CFRP composites
have lower order of thermal expansion coefficients
Fig. 4 Typical cross section of FRP composite girders
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
than steel under temperature extremes. They also
exhibit enhanced fatigue life and relatively good
inertness to corrosion. In 1994, Gordaninejad et al.[52]
studied the flexural response of three 1/8 scaled
I-shaped Graphite/Epoxy composite girders that had
been used to construct several concrete slab-on-girder
sections[53] through four-point bending tests and
theoretical sectional analysis. The investigation
carried out by Huang and Minnetyan[54] involves
a numerical simulation for damage growth and
progression to fracture in the proposed CFRP I-beams,
where design implications regarding damage
tolerance and residual strength were assessed as well.
I-shaped beams combining CFRP and GFRP (glass/
carbon/vinylester FRP double web box beams) have
been used in constructing a two lane 5.5 m (18 ft) span
bridge (Tom’ Creek) composed of 24 such pultruded
beams that support a glue-laminated timber panel
deck[55].
3.3 HYBRID GIRDERS
In order to use FRP composites both optimally and
economically, combinations of GFRP, CFRP, and
inexpensive but compressively strong concrete
materials have been considered in forming many
bridge girders. This all-hybrid construction concept
was first explored in 1995, where the girder consists of
a filament-wound GFRP box section and a layer of
concrete in top compression flange to sustain
compressive stress, and a CFRP laminate in the
bottom tension zone to serve as a warning of an
imminent collapse[56]. Short-term and long-term
behavior of the girder was experimentally and
analytically studied. The results showed that the
hybrid GFRP–CFRP–concrete composite girder was
cost effective with pseudo-ductile characteristics and
high stiffness and strength properties. In 2002, a
similar girder design was evaluated[57] where the
GFRP box section is reinforced with a CFRP layer at
the bottom, but the top GFRP flange is actually
designed to sustain the compression force and
crushing of the top concrete layer is considered as the
warning of failure. A full-scale bridge superstructure
utilizing this girder design concept was built in
Toowoomba, Australia in 2002, with a total length of
10 m and a width of 5 m. Another example falling into
the same category is the hybrid girder system
developed in 2001 that combines GFRP pultruded
rectangular profile with polymer concrete[58].
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse

Investigations on FRP shells and tubes filled with
normal or light weight concrete have been widely
undertaken in many research projects. Girders made
of concrete filled filament-wound carbon/epoxy
shells with a cylindrical tube geometry has been
investigated by Zhao et al.[59] and Mirmiran et al.[60].
The design was successfully implemented in the
construction of a two-lane highway bridge (known as
the Kings Stormwater Channel Bridge) on Route 86 in
California in 2001. In 2002, Fam and Rizkalla[61]
experimentally investigated the flexural behavior of
20 beams made of concrete-filled GFRP circular tubes
using filament-winding and pultrusion process.
The effects of concrete filling, cross-sectional
configurations including tubes with a central hole,
tube-in-tube with concrete filling in between, and
different laminate structures of the GFRP tubes were
studied. Test results suggested that the contribution of
concrete confinement to the flexural strength is
insignificant, but the ductility of the beam was
improved.
In 2002, an investigation on a hybrid girder design
with a nominal depth of 711 mm and a width of
458 mm and made of pultruded hollow rectangular
tubes with top caps having dovetail grooves was
completed through full-scale flexural tests and
laminate failure analysis[59]. The primary
reinforcement uses E-Glass fiber in the triaxial
(08/
458/458) and unidirectional fabric form with
additional unidirectional carbon fabric embedded in
the bottom flange of the girder for stiffness
enhancement. The tested 8.534 m long girder behaved
quite linear elastically under four-point bending
fixture up to failure, which did not occur until very
large and clearly visible girder displacement was
achieved.
4 Slab-on-girder bridge systems
FRP bridge technology has moved rapidly from
laboratory prototypes to actual demonstration
projects in the field. Worthy of mentioning, the
world’s first vehicle bridge constructed entirely of
FRP composites is dated back to 1982, a single span
two-lane bridge in Beijing, China with glass fiber
reinforced composite box girders made from hand
lay-up process[62,63]. The bridge was constructed by
approximately 20 workers within two weeks assisted
only by a light gin pole and capstan winches. In 1987,
construction of a long-span carbon fiber reinforced
composite bridge was proposed in Switzerland for
across the Strait of Gibraltar at its narrowest site[64],
using GFRP box beams[47] as discussed in Section 4.1.
Many of the previously discussed all polymer-
matrix deck systems (Section 2.3) have been
implemented in field constructions with the use of
either conventional steel and concrete or composite
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FRP COMPOSITES AND CONCRETE 151
girders as primary supporting members. Noteworthy
systems include the bridge system using Superdecks
supported by steel and pultruded composite
beams[23]; system using multi-cellular deck on steel
stringers[39]; system consisting of 2D and 3D truss
deck supported by steel beams[32]; and system using
Strongwell decks placed over wide-flange FRP
I-beams[28]. Representative examples of such
composite bridge systems are given in Table 2 below.
By employing the hybrid FRP-concrete decks, a
number of slab-on-girder bridge systems have been
implemented to date. The 207 m long five-span Salem
Avenue Bridge on Route 49 in Dayton, Ohio[39]
contains a 1.5-span hybrid GFRP–concrete deck (the
rest of the bridge uses all polymer deck) constructed
from pouring a concrete slab over pultruded GFRP
panels reinforced with GFRP tubular sections and
additional GFRP rebars. Environmental and live load
studies through long-term monitoring and repetition
of controlled static and dynamic testing over a period
of 2 years showed that the composite action was
partially lost in all the regions except for the 1.5 spans
with hybrid FRP–concrete portion. The FRP
reinforced bridge deck on US Highway 151 in
Wisconsin is a two-span (with an equal span of
32.7 m) highway overpass supported by five
prestressed I-shaped concrete girders[41]. The deck
combines three forms of glass-vinylester FRP
reinforcement: FRP stay-in-place form, deformed FRP
rebar, and a specially prefabricated FRP reinforcing
grid. The recently developed modular slab-on-girder
bridge system by Cheng et al.[44] is constructed from a
steel-free concrete slab cast on a carbon fiber
reinforced FRP stiffened panel (Fig. 3), which is then
connected to hollow hybrid E-glass-carbon/
Vinylester rectangular girders (2.438 m apart) through
‘dovetail’ shaped pockets along with channel-shaped
shear stirrups (see Section 3.3). Short polypropylene
fibers are mixed in the concrete to reduce cracking in
the slab due to shrinkage and temperature effects.
Satisfactory structural response was observed from
such a two-girder system assembly test under various
loading conditions. Several other representative
hybrid systems are summarized in Table 2 with a brief
description of each of the systems. Extensive statistics
on all existing bridges using FRP composites are
available in the reference provided by the American
Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA)[65].
5 Conclusions
The comprehensive state-of-the-art review presented
in this paper on bridge systems using all FRP or
hybrid FRP–concrete as primary construction
materials reveals the considerably made progress in
this area during the past 25 years. Current reviewing
focus has been given to the development of typical
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse
152
Table 2 Representative bridge systems using FRP composites and concrete
Bridge name
.........................................................................................................................................................
All-composite bridges
.........................................................................................................................................................
Miyun Traffic Bridge
Aberfeldy Footg Bridge
No-Name Creek Bridge
Pontresina Pedestrian Bridge
Bennetts Creek Bridge (Route 248)
Smart Composite Bridge
.........................................................................................................................................................
Hybrid FRP-Concrete Bridges
.........................................................................................................................................................
Tom’s Creek Bridge
Kings Stromwater Channel Bridge (I-56)
Steel-Free Hybrid FRP-Concrete Bridge
Salem Avenue Bridge (Route 49)
Route S-655 Bridge
US-151/Hwy 26 Bridge
Coutts Crossing Demonstrator
Bridge
.........................................................................................................................................................
bridge components of decks and girders, and the
commonly used slab-on-girder bridge systems.
Laboratory developments driven under research
initiatives and field projects implementing these
designs are also summarized in this paper.
Broad demonstration experience has shown that
FRP composites are promising and possible
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
Year and venue General description
China, 1982[63] A 20.4 m long GFRP vehicle bridge consisting
of 5 honeycomb box girders.
Scotland, 1992[66] World’s first cable-stayed bridge made com-
pletely out of composites (GFRP for super-
structure, aramid fiber for cable), 113 m long.
West Russell, 1996[67] The first all-composite bridges in US (3 large
honeycomb FRP panels), 7 m long and 8 m
wide, vehicle bridge.
Switzerland, 1997[3] All composite bridge using fiberline decks
supported by FRP truss girders and cross
beams.
Steuben County, New York, 1998[32] First state-owned and -operated single-span
composite bridge secured to abutment with
steel dowels, 7.6 m long, hardcore deck from
hand lay-up sandwich slab and E-glass face
sheet and orthogonal honeycomb core.
University of Missouri-Rolla First all-composite highway-rated bridge in
campus, Missouri, 2000[68] Missouri (span length of 9.1 m) made of
pultruded square carbon/glass/vinylester
tubes and girders running transversely and
longitudinally with FRP railing.
Blacksburg, Virginia, 1997[55] A two lane 5.5 m span bridge composed of 24
pultruded glass/carbon/vinylester double web
box beams supporting a glue-laminated tim-
ber panel deck.
Near Salton Sea, California, 1999[25] A 20 m long two-lane vehicle bridge consist-
ing of PMC deck with trapezoidal pultruded
core, hand lay-up face sheet and concrete-
filled carbon shell beams.
University of California, Slab-on-girder system for short span bridges
San Diego, 2000[44] consisting of steel-free polypropylene fiber
mixed concrete slab reinforced by CFRP deck
panels and E-glass/carbon box girders spaced
at 2.438 m.
Dayton, Ohio, 2001[69] A 207 m long, five-span bridge retrofitted by
four different FRP deck panel systems (3 all-
FRP fiberglass deck and 1 hybrid GFRP-
concrete deck).
Spartanburg County, An 18.29 m-length span bridge made with
South Carolina, 2001[41] Duraspan deck system supported by
W36  150 galavanized steel I-beams.
Wisconsin, 2003[41] A bridge consisting of FRP decks using
combined GFRP stay-in-place forms, de-
formed GFRP rebar, and a prefabricated
GFRP reinforcing grid and 5 prestressed
I-shaped concrete girders.
Northern New South Wales, First fiber composite bridge in Australian
Australia, 2003[70] road network (deck-on-abutment), consisting
of 14 box shaped GFRP/CFRP/concrete
girders laterally post-tensioned to provide
slab-action.
alternatives to conventional construction materials.
Nevertheless, their wide-spread application offsetting
the high initial cost drawback is still likely to be
achieved through the hybrid form with the
combination of conventional structural materials such
as concrete. Areas of synergizing these materials that
exhibit different physical properties will need
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse

attention in the future in order to ensure the integrity
of the structural system. In addition, more research is
needed in the fields of durability and sustainability of
the system under environmental effects and extreme
conditions (such as fire and impact), long-term
performance through structural health monitoring
and non-destructive evaluation, and incorporating the
design into the current conventional code
specifications or establishing the needed new
guidelines specific to this type of novel system.
References
[1] Plecnik JM & Azar WA. Structural components, highway bridge deck
applications. International Encyclopedia of Composites 1991: 6: 430–445.
[2] GangaRao VSH & Siva RVH. Advances in fibre-reinforced polymer
composite bridge decks. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 2002: 4(2):
161–168.
[3] Keller T. Recent all-composite and hybrid fibre-reinforced polymer
bridges and buildings. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials 2001: 3(2):
132–140.
[4] Mufti AA & Bakht B. Design provisions for steel-free deck slab.
Proceedings, Sixth International Colloquium on Concrete in Developing Countries, Lahore,
Pakistan, 1997: 35–44.
[5] Klowsk C, Eden R, Mufti A, Elkholy I, Tadros G, Bakht B &
Loewen E. First application of second-generation steel-free deck slabs for bridge
rehabilitation. Proceedings of the International Association for Bridge Maintenance and
Safety Conference (IABMAS ‘04), Kyoto, Japan, 19–22 October 2004: 453.
[6] Taniguchi H & Machida A. Ductile behavior of beams using FRP as
tendons and transverse reinforcement. American Concrete Institute ACI SP-138, 1993:
651–670.
[7] Machida A & Uomoto T. Recommendation for design, construction of
concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing materials. Concrete Library of
JSCE 1997: 30: 1–64 (Translation from the Concrete Library, No. 88, Published by
JSCE, September 1996).
[8] Kumar SV & GangaRao HVS. Fatigue response of concrete decks
reinforced with FRP rebars. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998: 124(1): 11–16.
[9] GangaRao HVS, Thippeswamy HK, Shekar V & Craigo C.
Development of glass fiber reinforced polymer composite bridge deck. SAMPE Journal
1999: 35(4): 12–24.
[10] Hassan T, Abdelrahman A, Tadros G & Rizkalla S. Fibre reinforced
polymer reinforcing bars for bridge decks. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2000:
27: 839–849.
[11] ACI. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with
FRP bars. ACI 440. 1R-03, American Concrete Institute, 2004.
[12] ACI. Prestressing concrete structures with FRP tendons. ACI 440.4 R-04,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington, Hills, MI, 2004: 1–35.
[13] Trejo D, Aguiniga F, Yuan RL, James RW & Keating PB.
Characterization of design parameters for fiber reinforced polymer composite
reinforced concrete systems. Texas Transportation Institute, Report 9-1520-3, June
2005.
[14] Trejo D, Aguiniga F, Buth EC, Yuan RL, James RW & Keating PB.
FRP reinforcing bars in bridge decks: state of the art review, Texas Transportation
Institute, Research Report 1520-2, November 2000.
[15] Larralde J & Zerva A. Load-deflection performance of FRP grating-
concrete composites. Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Advanced Composites
Materials in Civil Engineering Structures, ASCE, Las Vegas, NV, 1991: 271–277.
[16] Bank LC, Zuhan X & Munley E. Tests of full-size pultruded FRP grating
reinforced concrete bridge decks. Proceedings, Materials: Performance and Prevention of
Deficiencies and Failures; Material Engineering Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1992:
618–630.
[17] Bank LC, Yehoshua F & Shapira A. Three-dimensional fiber-
reinforced plastic grating cages for concrete beams: a pilot study. ACI Structural Journal
1997: 94(6): 643–652.
[18] Shapira A & Bank LC. Constructability and economics of FRP
reinforcement cages for concrete beams. Journal of Composites for Construction 1997:
1(3): 82–89.
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
FRP COMPOSITES AND CONCRETE 153
[19] Seasafe, Inc. Website: http://www.seasafe.com/, 2002.
[20] Yost JR & Schmeckpeper ER. Strength and serviceability of FRP grid
reinforced bridge deck. Journal of Bridge Engineering 2001: 6(6): 605–612.
[21] Autocon Composites. Inc., http://www.autoconcomposites.com/
NEFMAC.html, 2002.
[22] Benmokrane B, Masmoudi R, Chekired M, Rahman H,
Debbache Z & Tadros G. Design, construction, and monitoring of fiber reinforced
polymer reinforced concrete bridge deck. Proceedings, 4th International Symposium on
Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1999: 87–102.
[23] Lopez-Anido R, GangaRao HVS, Vedam V & Overby N. Design and
evaluation of a modular FRP bridge deck. International Composites Expo ‘97,
Composites Institute, Paper 3-E, Nashville, TN, 1997: 1–6.
[24] Williams B, Shehata E & Rizkalla SH. Filament-wound glass fiber
reinforced polymer bridge deck modules. Journal of Composites for Construction 2003:
7(3): 266–273.
[25] Karbhari VM & Seible F. Fiber reinforced composites}advanced
materials for the renewal of civil infrastructure. Applied Composite Materials.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2000: vol. 7: 95–124.
[26] Cassity P, Richards D & Gillespie J. Compositely acting FRP deck and
girder system. Structural Engineering International: Journal of the International Association
for Bridge & Structural Engineering (IABSE) 2002: 12(2): 71–75.
[27] Dumlao C, Lauraitis K, Abrahamson E, Hurlburt B, Jacoby M,
Miller A & Thomas A. Demonstration low-cost modular composite highway
bridge. First International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, Tucson, AZ, 1996:
1141–1155.
[28] Salim HA & Davalos JF. FRP composite short-span bridges: analysis,
design and testing. Journal of Advanced Materials 1999: 31(1): 18–26.
[29] Hayes MD, Ohanehi D, Lesko JJ, Cousins TE & Witcher D.
Performance of tube and plate fiberglass composite bridge deck. Journal of Composites
for Construction 2000: 4(2): 48–55.
[30] Shen Y, Xu M, Chandrashekhara K & Nanni A. Finite element
analysis of FRP tube assemblies for bridge decks. Composite Materials 2002: 11(2):
151–169.
[31] Tromp E & Souren WHM. Design of a composite draw bridge.
Proceeding of ICCM-14, San Diego, CA, 2003: 1–9.
[32] Chiewanichakorn M, Aref AJ & Alamphalli S. Failure analysis of fiber-
reinforced polymer bridge deck system. Journal of Composites, Technology & Research
2003: 25(2): 121–129.
[33] Bakeri PA. Analysis and Design of Polymer Composite Bridge Decks.
Thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering In partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, 1989.
[34] Ishizaki S, Matsui S & Kubo K. A Study on FRP permanent form for
reinforced concrete slabs. Technology Reports of the Osaka University 1994: 44(2196):
295–307.
[35] Matsui S, Ishizaki S & Kubo K. An Experimental study on durability of
FRP-RC composite deck slabs of highway bridges. Third International Conference on
Concrete under Severe Conditions: Environment & Loading, Vancouver, Canada, 18–20
June 2001: 933–940.
[36] Hall JE & Mottram JT. Combined FRP reinforcement and permanent
formwork for concrete members. Journal of Composites for Construction 1998: 2(2):
78–86.
[37] Harik I, Alagusundaramoorthy P, Siddiqui R, Lopez-Anido R,
Morton S, Dutta P & Shahrooz B. Testing of concrete/FRP composite deck
panels. 5th Construction Materials Congress, ASCE Materials Engineering Division, 1999:
351–358.
[38] Lopez-Anido R, Dutta P, Bouzon J, Morton S, Shahrooz B &
Harik I. Fatigue evaluation of FRP-concrete bridge deck on steel girders at high
temperature. The 44th International SAMPE Symposium, 23–27 May 1999: 1666–1675.
[39] Reising RMW, Shahrooz BM, Hunt VJ, Lenett MS, Christopher S,
Neumann AR, Helmicki AJ, Miller RA, Kondury S & Morton S. Performance
of five-span steel bridge with fiber-reinforced polymer composite deck panels.
Transportation Research Record 1770, Paper No. 01-0337, 2001: 113–123.
[40] Dieter DA, Dietsche JS, Bank LC, Oliva MG & Russell JS.
Concrete bridge decks constructed with fiber-reinforced polymer stay-in-place
forms and grid reinforcing. Transportation Research Record 1814, Paper No. 02-3205,
2002: 219–226.
[41] Berg AC, Bank LC, Oliva MG & Russell JS. Construction of a FRP
reinforced bridge deck on US Highway 151 in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the 83rd
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse
154
Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, CD-ROM, Washington, DC, 11–14
January 2004: 25.
[42] Kwon SC, Dutta PK, Kim YH & Lopez-Anido R. Comparison of the
fatigue behaviors of FRP bridge decks and reinforced concrete conventional
decks under extreme environment conditions. KSME International Journal 2003:
17(1): 1–10.
[43] Kitane Y, Aref AJ & Lee GC. Static and fatigue testing of hybrid fiber-
reinforced polymer-concrete bridge superstructure. Journal of Composites for
Construction 2004: 8(2): 182–190.
[44] Cheng L, Zhao L, Karbhari VM, Hegemier GA & Seible F.
Assessment of a steel-free fiber reinforced polymer-composite modular bridge
system. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 2005: 131(3): 498–506.
[45] Cheng L & Karbhari VM. Design, analysis of FRP structural formwork
based steel-free modular bridge system. International Journal of Structural Engineering,
Mechanics, Techno-Press, 2006, accepted and in press.
[46] Holmes M & Rahman TA. Creep behavior of glass reinforced plastic
box beams. Composites 1980: 11: 79–85.
[47] Meier U, Muller R & Puck A. FRP-box beams under static and fatigue
loading. Proceedings of the International Conference on Testing, Evaluation and Quality
Control of Composites, Butterworth Scientific Ltd, Sevenoaks, Kent, UK, 1983:
324–336.
[48] Salim HA, Davalos JF, Qiao P & Barbero EJ. Experimental and
analytical evaluation of laminated composite box beams. The 40th International SAMPE
Symposium, 8–11 May 1995: 532–539.
[49] Nagaraj V & GangaRao VS. Static behavior of pultruded GFRP beams.
Journal of Composites for Construction 1997: 1(3): 120–129.
[50] Smith SJ, Parsons ID & Hjelmstad KD. Experimental study of the
behavior of connections for pultruded GFRP I-beams and rectangular tubes.
Composite Structures 1998: 42(3): 281–290.
[51] Bakeri PA & Sunder SS. Concepts for hybrid FRP bridge deck systems.
Services Durability Construction Master Proceedings First Master Engineering Congress,
1990: 1006–1015.
[52] Gordaninejad F, Saiidi MS & Wehbe N. Behavior of adhesively
bonded concrete-graphite/epoxy composite bridge girders. Journal of Advanced
Materials 1993: 25(2): 46–53.
[53] Saiidi M, Gordaninejad F & Wehbe N. Behavior of graphite/epoxy
concrete composite beams. Journal of Structural Engineering 1994: 120(10):
2958–2976.
[54] Huang D & Minnetyan L. Damage progression in carbon-fiber
reinforced plastic I-beams. Journal of Composites for Construction 1998: 2(1):
38–45.
[55] Lesko J, Hayes M, Haramis J, Hou J, Cousins T & Gomex J.
Laboratory field characterization of the Tom’s Creak Bridge composite super-
structure. The 2nd International Conference on Composites in Infrastructure, Tucson,
1998: 634.
Lijuan Cheng
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California,
Davis, CA, USA
E-mail: dawcheng@ucdavis.edu
Vistasp M. Karbhari
Department of Structural Engineering,
University of California,
San Diego, CA, USA
Copyright & 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
NEW MATERIALS IN CONSTRUCTION
[56] Deskovic N, Triantafillou TC & Meier U. Innovative design of FRP
combined with concrete: short-term behavior. Journal of Structural Engineering 1995:
121(7): 1069–1078.
[57] Van Erp G, Heldt T, McCormick L, Carter D & Tranberg C. An
Australian approach to fibre composite bridges. Fibre Composites Design and
Development, 5http://www.fcdd.com.au4, 1 December 2002.
[58] Ribeiro MCS, Tavares CML, Ferreira AJM & Marques AT. Static
flexural performance of GFRP-polymer concrete hybrid beams. Proceedings of the
International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Hongkong, China:
Elsevier Science Ltd., 12–15 December 2001: 1355–1362.
[59] Zhao L, Karbhari VM, Seible F, Burgueño La Rovere H, Broström
M & Godonou P. Experimental investigation of prototype transverse system for the
gilman drive advanced technology overcrossing. Report No. SSRP 2001/04, Depart-
ment of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 2001.
[60] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, Samaan M, El Echary H, Mastrapa JC &
Pico O. Effect of column parameters on FRP-confined concrete. Journal of Composites
for Construction 1998: 2(4): 175–185.
[61] Fam AZ & Rizkalla SH. Flexural behavior of concrete-filled fiber-
reinforced polymer circular tubes. Journal of Composites for Construction 2002: 6(2):
123–132.
[62] McCormick FC. First traffic-bearing composite bridge was built in China.
Readers Write, Civil Engineering, October 1993: 35.
[63] Seible F, Sun Z & Ma G. Glass Fiber Composite Bridges in China. Report
No. ACTT-93/01, University of California, San Diego, 1993.
[64] Meier U. Proposal for a carbon fibre reinforced composite bridge across
the strait of gibraltar at its narrowest site. Proceedings Institution of Mechanical
Engineers 1987: 201(B2): 73–78.
[65] American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA).
Global FRP use in bridge applications. 2003, website: http://www.mdacomposites.org/
mda/bridge statistics.htm.
[66] FHWA. FHWA study tour for advanced composites in bridges in Europe
and Japan. Federal Highway Administration International Technology Scanning Program
Report, Hooks J, Seibles J, Co-Chairs, Seible F, Reporter, Publication No. FHWA-PL-
98-007, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation,
December 1997.
[67] Kansas Structural Composites. Inc. (KSCI), Kansas, website:
www.ksci.com, 2002
[68] Nystrom HE, Watkins SE, Nanni A & Murray S. Financial viability of
fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bridges. Journal of Management in Engineering (ASCE)
2003: 19(1): 2–8.
[69] Composites Worldwide. Inc., Composites News: Infrastructure news-
letter. Solana Beach, CA, 4 August 1997: 74.
[70] Van Erp G, Cattell C & Heldt T. Fibre composite structures in
Australia’s civil engineering market: an anatomy of innovation. Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials 2005: 7(3): 150–160.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2006; 8:143–154
DOI: 10.1002/pse