Evaluation of the Economic Feasibility of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Bridge Decks

Sidharta Sahirman, Dr. Robert C. Creese, Bina R. Setyawati

Industrial and Management Systems Engineering Department

West Virginia University,

PO BOX 6070, Morgantown, WV 26506-6070

Phone: (304) 293 4607

Email addresses:

<ssahirma@mix.wvu.edu>, <Robert.Creese@mail.wvu.edu>,

<bsetyawa@mix.wvu.edu>

ISPA/SCEA International Joint Conference

2003 Annual Meeting

Orlando, Florida, June 2003

Evaluation of the Economic Feasibility of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Bridge Decks. Sidharta Sahirman, Dr. Robert C. Creese, CCE, Bina R.
Setyawati.

**Abstract**

The application of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites for bridge
decks has been successfully demonstrated. Regardless of the well known
advantages of FRP, one critical issue need to be justified. The
important issue that must be determined is the competitiveness of FRP
bridge decks on a cost basis in the future, compare to conventional
methods such as SRC decks.

Life Cycle Cost is probably the best process to answer that issue. Life
Cycle Cost of FRP Bridge Decks includes the Initial Costs,
Maintenance/Inspection/Repair Costs, and Disposal Costs. The use of FRP
composites as a replacement for Steel Reinforced Concrete (SRC) bridge
deck is expected to increase service life and lower maintenance costs.
The main problem encountered is the initial costs of FRP bridge decks
are significantly higher than those from SRC. Hence, the initial costs
of FRP decks must be reduced to be cost competitive with the SRC decks
on a life cycle cost basis.

The initial future costs can be estimated by utilizing improvement
(learning) curve theory and various improvement models to predict future
costs are under development. The various models apply the improvement
theory with different bases and the results obtained are varied. Two
data sets were investigated, and the preliminary results indicate that
FRP decks should become economically feasible within 10 years.

#### Authors Biography

####### Sidharta Sahirman

***Education:***

Master of Science in Industrial Engineering, The University of
Pittsburgh, 2000.

Ph. D. student in Industrial Engineering, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV.

***Research Interest:***

Cost Estimating Models, Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Industry Waste
Control.

***Professional Societies:***

Institute of Industrial Engineers

Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering

####### Dr. Robert C. Creese, CCE

***Education:***

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering, The Pennsylvania State
University, 1963

Master of Science in Industrial Engineering, The Univ. of California at
Berkeley, 1964

Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Metallurgy, The Pennsylvania State
University 1972

***Research Interests:***

Cost engineering, cost estimating, and cost modeling applied to
manufacturing processes

Constructed facilities systems, health care systems, environmental waste
reclamation and recovery systems

Lean manufacturing

***Professional Societies:***

American Foundry Society, AACE, International (Association for the
Advancement of Cost Engineering), The American Society for Engineering
Education , The American Society for Metals (ASM), The Iron and Steel
Society of AIME , Society of Manufacturing Engineers, American Welding
Society, International Society of Parametric Analysts, Society of Cost
Estimating and Analysis

####### Bina R. Setyawati

***Education:***

Ph. D. student in Industrial Engineering, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, WV

***Research Interest:***

Neural Networks Applications, Applied Statistical Models, Cost
Estimating Models, Time Series Models, Production and Operation Research

***Professional Societies:***

Institute of Industrial Engineers

Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering

1\. **Introduction**

A fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite is defined as a combination
of a polymer (plastic) matrix (either a thermoplastic or thermoset
resin, such as polyester, isopolyester, vinyl ester, epoxy, phenolic), a
reinforcing agent such as glass, carbon, aramid or other reinforcing
material such that there is a sufficient aspect ratio (length to
thickness) to provide a discernable reinforcing function in one or more
directions \[10\]. FRP composite may also contain fillers, additives,
and core materials that modify and enhance the final product. Mechanical
properties of the composite depend on many variables such as fiber
types, fiber orientations, and composite architecture. The fiber is the
critical constituent in composites, and occupies 30-70% of the composite
matrix volume \[21\].

The FRPs have very low weight and a high strength-to-weight ratio, high
tensile strength, and high fatigue resistance. They do not exhibit
chloride corrosion problems, which has been a continued challenge for
bridge engineers. This results in lower maintenance costs. It has also
been observed that FRP composites maintain their superior qualities even
under a wide range of temperatures \[22\]. Other highly desirable
qualities of composites are high resistance to elevated temperature,
abrasion, corrosion, and chemical attack. Some of the advantages in the
use of composite structure include the ease of manufacturing,
fabrication, handling, and erection, which can result in short project
delivery time \[20\].

FRP composite technology has been incorporated into the industrial world
for about 70 years. They have been the material of choice in the
aerospace industry since the 1960's. However, only recently they have
been gaining popularity and getting accepted as a bridge material. In
1986, the world's first highway bridge using composite reinforcing
tendons was built in Germany. The first all composites bridge deck was
demonstrated in China. The first all composites pedestrian bridge was
installed in 1992 in Aberfeldy, Scotland. In the U.S., the first FRP
reinforced concrete bridge deck was built in 1996 at McKinleyville, WV
followed by the first all-composite vehicular bridge deck in Russell, KS
(1996).

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has used FRP to build
pedestrian bridges, highway bridges, as well as for bridge strengthening
and bridge repairs. For more than 20 years FHWA has funded innovative
bridge researches. As a result, there are more vehicular bridge projects
using FRP composite materials in the United States than in any other
country. In West Virginia, i.e., there are 10 completed FRP deck
projects and 3 other projects are in design. The completed FRP deck
projects in West Virginia include: (1). Market St. Bridge, Ohio County,
(2). Laurel Lick Bridge, Lewis County, (3). Wickwire Run Bridge, Taylor
County, (4). Hanover Bridge, Pendleton County, (5). Boy Scout Camp
Bridge, Raleigh County, (6). Katy Truss Bridge, Marion County, (7). La
Chein Bridge, Monroe County, (8). Montrose Bridge, Randolph County, (9).
West Buckeye Bridge, Monongalia County, and (10). Howell\'s Mill Bridge,
Cabel County \[12\].

As a new technology application, FRP bridge decks are hampered by a lack
of standards and experience, as well as high costs. The standards are
being developed, but widespread deployment will not occur until there is
more experience in their use and costs decrease sufficiently to support
this selection. More research is needed to determine if the technology
can become cost competitive for bridge decks.

Ehlen and Marshall suggested that despite FRP advantage over traditional
materials, economic and technical barriers hinder the introduction of
these new technologies \[8\]. Tang and Podolny had a more optimistic
view. They suggested that FRP composite technology could be part of the
solution to the national bridge problem \[22\]. Composites can be used
for the construction of an entire bridge structure, as a decking
material to be supported by concrete or steel girders, or to
rehabilitate current bridges. However, up to 1998, there had only been
approximately 80 bridge projects using FRP composite materials in the
world and most were built within the last few years.

The use of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites as a replacement
for Steel Reinforced Concrete (SRC) bridge deck has significant
potential advantages with increased service life and lower maintenance
costs, but the increased initial costs have made them infeasible on a
life cycle cost basis. The initial costs of FRP decks must be reduced to
be cost competitive with the SRC decks on a life cycle cost basis.

It is critical to note that FRP decks is not just a substitution of
materials; this also involves a major design change in the deck
structure to apply the FRP materials to meet the technological
specifications in a cost effective manner. There are several different
designs being promoted and until the best design is determined, the
various alternatives make the decision to use FRP more difficult.

#### 2. Cost Analysis

There are two approaches one could use for cost analysis, initial costs
and life cycle costs. Basically, initial costs are a subset of life
cycle cost. When initial cost is the major cost component, life cycle
costing results will be similar to considering only initial costs.
However, when inspection, maintenance, and disposal costs become
dominant, life cycle costing should be utilized \[5\].

## **2.1*.* Initial Costs**

Initial costs include the material cost, component manufacturing,
fabrication, assembly, shipment, installation and testing costs. They
reflect the largest costs in most bridges and are appropriate for a
majority of the applications \[16\].\
When comparing conventional and composite structures on the basis of
initial costs, it's clear that the direct initial costs favor
conventional structures. The higher initial cost of FRP bridge decks is
expected due to the high fiber and resins costs. However, the
maintenance, rehabilitation, demolition, and indirect costs favor
composite structures. Projects with long lives require that life cycle
costing be utilized, as polymer decks should have reduced rehabilitation
and maintenance costs. In order to be competitive, it is felt that the
initial costs of FRP decks must be approximately \$ 40/square foot to be
competitive with SRC decks.

#### 

#### 2.1.1. Improvement Curves 

Learning curve was first applied in the aircraft industry, and
translated into an empirical theory in 1925. In 1936 T. P. Wright
disclosed the results of empirical tests of the learning curve and
described a basic theory for obtaining cost estimates based on
repetitive production of airplane assemblies. Since then, learning
curves have been applied to all types of work from simple tasks to
complex jobs. Improvement curves are a more appropriate name for
learning curves. Improvement rate is the complement of learning rate;
thus if the learning rate is 90 percent, the improvement is 10 percent.

There is three types of improvement curve models that are different
based on their definition of the dependent variable: the average time
basis, the marginal time basis, and the individual unit-time basis. The
model should be applied is the one that give the highest coefficient of
determination (R^2^) of its logarithmic linear regression. The two most
important models are Wright model (average time basis) and Crawford
model (unit time basis.

The Wright Model first describe by TP Wright in 1936 is cumulative
average learning curve model. The theory states that as the total
quantity of units doubles, the average time per unit decrease by a
constant percentage \[18\]. The average time model specifies that the
new cumulative average time per unit (Y) will decrease by a constant
percentage (I) as the cumulative production (X) doubles.

Y= a X ^b^ (1)

Y=average cumulative time (cost) for X number of units

X= cumulative number of units produced

a = theoretical or actual value of the first unit

b= slope coefficient, \[-1 0\]

b=log (\[100-I\]/100)/log 2 (2)

I = improvement rate, percent

The unit time for the Wright Model can be approximated by:

U~w~ = (b+1) A X^b^ (3)

Where

U~w~ is the unit time (cost) for the Wright Model and this approximation
can be used when X is greater than 10.

The Crawford Model, an individual unit-time model, specifies that the
new individual time (U~c~) per unit will decrease by a constant
percentage as cumulative production doubles

U~c~=aX^b^ (4)

Where

U~c~=new individual time (cost) per unit

X=cumulative number of units produced

### 2.2. Life Cycle Costs 

**2.2.1. The Theory**

Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is defined as \"The total cost of the system or
product under study over its complete life cycle or the duration of the
period of study, whichever is the shorter \[16\]\". The study period of
LCC is defined as the length of time over which an investment is
evaluated. It depends on time horizon of investor or expected life of
system. Three key dates of study period are base date (beginning of
study period), service date (beginning of operational period), and end
date (end of study period) \[11\].

Life Cycle Cost of FRP Bridge Decks includes the Initial Fabrication and
Erection Costs, Maintenance/Inspection/Repair Costs, and the Disposal
Costs. Maintenance includes material, equipment, labor and safety costs
during maintenance process (traffic control), bridge users costs and
third party costs. These costs will depend on the frequency and amount
of maintenance performed during the life cycle. The maintenance costs
should include the preventive maintenance, the scheduled maintenance,
and breakdown maintenance. Inspection includes the cost of the quality
assurance procedures, testing, and record maintenance. Repair is similar
to maintenance costs, but done for major items such as deck replacement,
overlay replacement, and typically is not performed on a regular basis
\[6\].

It is suggested that the application of LCC at an early design stage
will greatly enhance system design and operation \[15\]. Infrastructural
projects, such as bridges, which have high investment costs and long
life expectations, should use life cycle costing. It is necessary
because of its high investment costs, high cumulative maintenance costs
and removal costs during the life of the project \[5\].

The six main steps in an LCC analysis are (1) Identify feasible project
alternatives (2) Establish common assumptions (3) Identify relevant
project costs (4) Convert all dollar amounts to present value (5)
Compute and compare LCCs of alternatives, and (6) Interpret results
\[11\]. In order to get appropriate analysis, assumptions should be
clearly defined; the most common ones are the definition of Life, Costs,
Initial costs, Discounting and Inflation, Taxation, and Benefits.

Since FRP is a new-technology material, it is required to compare this
technology with the conventional technologies. Ehlen and Marshall
recommend the following steps for calculating the life cycle cost of a
new-technology material vis-à-vis a conventional material. Those steps
are:

(1) Define the project objective and minimum performance requirements

(2) Identify the alternatives for achieving the objectives

(3) Establish the basic assumptions for the analysis

(4) Identify, estimate, and determine the timing of all relevant costs

(5) Compute the LCC for each alternative

(6) Perform sensitivity analysis by recomputing the LCC for each
    alternative using different assumptions

(7) Compare the alternative's LCCs for each set of assumptions

(8) Consider the other project effects

(9) Select the best alternative.

> In each alternative the user should use the same fixed discount rate
> and the same study period. Implicit in any LCC analysis is the
> assumption that every proposed alternative will satisfy the minimum
> performance requirements of the project. These requirements include
> structural, safety, reliability, environmental, and specific building
> code requirements. Step 6 is the life cycle cost method is a
> fundamental part of assessing new construction material. The costs and
> technical performance of new materials are intrinsically uncertain;
> and this method must address this uncertainty. The inherent cost
> uncertainty of materials and designs that are not in mainstream use
> can be handled with Monte Carlo simulation \[9\].

Further, those researchers suggested using the LCC classification scheme
when evaluating new-technology material, mainly to make sure that all
costs associated with the project are taken into account in each
alternative. Three level cost classification proposed include: Level 1:
Costs by LCC Category (typically used are construction,
operation/maintenance/repair, and disposal); Level 2: Costs by the
Entity that Bears the Cost (agency costs, user costs, and third-party
costs), and Level 3: Costs by Elemental Breakdown (elemental costs,
non-elemental costs, new-technology introduction costs).

The life cycle cost of an alternative is represented by either (1)
Present Worth Cost or (2) Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost. Another
approach might be used is Benefit/Cost Ratio.

The equation to calculate the life-cycle cost of an alternative using
the first approach is as follows:\
LCC (PV) = PVIC + PVOMR + PVD = ~n~ F~n~ (1+i') ^--n^ , n=\[0 T\] (5)\
PVIC = Present Value of Initial Costs\
PVOMR = Present Value of Operation, Maintenance, and Repair costs\
PVD = Present Value of Disposal costs\
F = sum of all expenditures at time n,\
i' = interest or discount rate corrected for inflation = i + f + i\*f
(6)\
i = interest or discount rate\
f = inflation rate\
T = total number of compounding periods or years.

Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) required the conversions of cash
flows to equivalent values that can be compared. It can be calculated by
first determining the present value life cycle cost as shown above and
then multiply by i'(1+i')^n^/\[(1+i')^n^-1\]\
The generalized replacement model and the rehabilitation model are
presented in the following equations.

EUAC ~Replace~=(A/P,i,N)\[R + G~m~(P/G,I,h~m~ + 1)(P/F,I,g~m~ -- 1) +
F~k~ (P/F,I,n~k~)\] + C (7)

EUAC ~Rehab~=( EUAC ~Replace~ )(P/F,i,N') + i\[D+C(P/A,I,N')
G~m~(P/G,I,h~m~ + 1)(P/F,I,g~m~ -- 1) + F~k~ (P/F,I,n~k~) (8)

Where:

F=Single future expenditure for repair\
D=Initial repair cost\
N=life of bridge\
N'=time to require replacement\
n=time to future expenditure\
R=Replacement structure first cost\
C=Annual maintenance cost\
G=annual increase in maintenance cost due to progressive deterioration\
Benefit Cost Ratio method in principle examines the extra benefits of
advancing one improvement level to the next divided by the corresponding
extra costs. Agency benefits are defined as the present worth of future
cost savings to the agency because of a bridge expenditure \[14\]. In
life cycle cost analysis, future costs must be discounted to a present
worth before they are combined with present costs.

**2.2.2. LCC Cost Applications**

2.2.2.1. FRP Bridge Applications

LCC on short-span FRP bridges by Nystrom et al. \[16\] have suggested
that total-FRP designs for this kind of bridge are not financially
viable. Short span bridges are small bridges with a span less than 10
meters, which represent over half of the bridge applications nationally
and are critical to rural highways and city streets. They argued that
without particular intangible benefits to justify the premium, or new
low-cost materials are developed that will significantly lower the
material cost, this technology will not be cost competitive for the
standard small bridge. The LCC (PV) obtained based on equation (5) using
discount factor 4%/yr and expected life of 40 yrs and 60 yrs
respectively for RC and FRP bridges were \$ 594/m^2^ for RC bridges, and
\$ 826/m^2^ for future FRP bridges. It should be noted that the LCC
analysis performed based on the assumptions that total RC initial cost
is \$40/ft2 and total FRP initial cost is \$70/ft2, which are derived
from the MRP bridges learning curve performed by the authors.

This article implied that the cast-in-place reinforced concrete would
always be considerably less expensive than the FRP decks. The major
difference in the paper was the material costs, but some data was
missing on the material costs in the paper. The Saint James (Saint
Francis Bridge in Saint James) had a cost of \$ 1,150/square meter (\$
107/square ft) versus \$430/square meter (\$40/square ft) for the
cast-in-place concrete bridge and the FRP had a predicted future best
cost of \$ 750/square meter (\$70/square ft). The St. James was a
prototype bridge and designs have reduced the material consumption by
approximately 30% or more during the last few years for the pultrusion
bridge decks. A major cost is the manufacturing set-up cost (typically
72 hours) and costs for short runs are very high. Standardized designs
and long production runs should reduce costs another 20-25 percent
because of reduced unit set-up times and lower scrap losses.
Improvements due to learning/experience, which is mentioned in this
paper, should reduce costs another 15-20 percent over a ten-fold
production increase. This would reduce the costs from the St. James
values to \$ 483-547 / square meter when the technology is proven. Using
the reported life cycle costs in the paper of \$164/square meter for
concrete bridges and \$76/square meter for FRP bridges are considered,
the total life-cycle costs become \$594/square meter for the
cast-in-place concrete bridges and \$559-623/square meter for the FRP
bridges. Thus FRP bridge systems should be competitive with the
cast-in-place concrete bridges. Savings could be greater as the FRP
designs have focused primarily on the deck and not on the other items
such as guardrails. Secondary advantages of shorter construction times
would provide additional benefits for the FRP designs \[7\].

2.2.2.2. FRP Bridge Deck Applications

Based on life-cycle costs analysis of three fiber-reinforced-polymer
bridge decks, the analysis indicates that one of these decks is cost
effective for a particular class of bridges and traffic levels \[10\].
Further more, life cycle cost analyses conducted by J. Muller
International have shown that FRP bridge decks used on conventional
multi-beam overpass bridges can reduce the life cycle cost of a bridge
anywhere from 10 to 30 percent over a 75 year design life. The major
component of the cost savings is a reduction in user costs associated
with the increased speed of construction and fewer traffic impacts due
to a reduction in maintenance requirements. The user costs were found to
account for as much as 80 percent of the life cycle cost of a bridge
\[3\].

Nathan and Onyemelukwe studied a bridge deck replacement alternatives
for the Sunrise Boulevard movable bridge in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
\[7\]. LCC analysis is done on an existing steel grid deck and a
proposed FRP deck. Cost data for the steel deck as well as the FRP deck
was obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation and
Strongwell Inc. respectively. As the basis of calculation, they used 40
years steel deck life and 50 years FRP deck life, and a discount rate of
2%. The life cycle cost of an alternative was represented by Present
Worth Cost (5), Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (7,8) and Benefit/Cost
Ratio.

The results based on present value and equivalent uniform annual cost
showed that rehabilitation or replacement for steel costs more than FRP
deck alternative. While B/C ratio for steel deck is higher, the
difference for both decks (steel 1.8 and FRP 1.7) is only 5%. It is
believed that B/C ratio will favor FRP if the assumption of FRP deck
life is 60 yrs rather than 50 yrs. No attempt can be made to figure this
out since the authors didn't provide the necessary data to accomplish
such effort. The analysis suggested that in the long term FRP deck is
cost effective.

Ehlen (1997) and Lopez-Anido (1998) performed LCC analysis of FRP bridge
decks vs. steel reinforced concrete. In their works, life cycle cost of
an alternative was represented in present value format (Equation 5).
User costs were calculated based on equations 9 and 10. The summary of
their analysis is given in Table 1.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.25in"
height="1.4479166666666667in"}Table 1. LCC analysis of FRP bridge decks

##### 3. Initial Cost Feasibility Study

##### 

Three different models for evaluating the improvement rate were
considered \[20\]. The first model studied the relationships between
cumulative ft sq of FRP bridge deck and average cost /ft sq. The second
model examined cost/ft sq vs. number of bridges. While the third model
investigated the regression between cost/ft sq and number of years FRP
bridge decks applied. It is suggested that the first model (cumulative
ft sq of FRP bridge deck vs. average cost /ft sq) is the most suitable
model for estimating FRP bridge deck future initial cost \[20\].

This approach is applied to the set data collected for WV Bridges (Table
2) and FRP bridges built in NY (Table 3) to get the comparison figures
of FRP bridge decks viability for different states. This issue is
important, since different states most probably will have different cost
features of FRP bridge deck projects, due to different pultrusion
manufacturing involved, different labor costs, etc. The value of \$40/ft
^2^ was selected to be the competitive price at which FRP decks would be
competitive with Steel Reinforced Concrete (SRC) decks. Based on the
findings, the conclusion is drawn.

Table 2. WV FRP Bridge Deck Costs

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.375in" height="1.1548611111111111in"}

Table 3. NY FRP Bridge Deck Costs Data

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.5in" height="1.0131944444444445in"}

The cost equation obtained for the new set of WV bridges data was C (\$/
ft^2^) = 18023.12 \* N ^-.59596^. The equation for unit cost basis is:
Cu (\$/ft^2^) = 7282.06 \* N^-.59596^. Total area of FRP bridge decks
required to be built to get the same unit cost as concrete is
approximately 15,000 sq ft. Since the average area of one bridge deck in
WV is 1000 sq ft, the equilibrium point will be reach after 15 bridge
decks built. The corresponding improvement curve is given in Figure 1;
the complete results are provided in Table 4.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.0in" height="2.1756944444444444in"}

Figure 1. Improvement Curve for WV FRP Bridge Deck Cost and Cumulative
Deck Area

Table 4. Results Obtained for WV FRP Bridge Decks

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.375in" height="1.75in"}

The cost equation obtained for NY bridges was C (\$/sq ft) = 9067 \* N
^-.4422^. This equation is translated to unit cost basis as: C (\$/sq
ft) = 5058 \* N^-.4422^. Based on the equation obtained, it is
calculated that the cost/ft sq will reach the same level as concrete
deck when total area of FRP bridge decks built is approximately 57,000
sq ft. If the average area of one bridge deck is 3500 sq ft, as the
given data, the equilibrium point will be reach after 17 bridge decks
built. The R^2^ is very good for this model, i.e. 0.99, which is
slightly higher than the one for WV data (0.9887). The improvement curve
for the chosen model is given in Figure 2; the complete results are
provided in Table 5.

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.25in" height="2.75in"}

Figure 2. Improvement Curve for NY FRP Bridge Deck Cost and Cumulative
Deck Area

Figure 2. Improvement Curve for NY FRP Bridge Deck Cost and Cumulative
Deck Area

Table 5. Results Obtained for NY FRP Bridges

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.0in" height="1.398611111111111in"}

In a whole, it is suggested that FRP bridge decks will be viable either
in WV or NY in the next 10 years. This assumption is based on a constant
improvement rate of 33.84 % for WV bridge deck projects and a constant
improvement rate of 26.40 % for NY bridge deck projects for the next 10
years as illustrated in the above figures.

**4. Conclusion**

The issue that attempted to be answered in this paper is the
competitiveness of FRP bridge decks on a cost basis in the future with
SRC decks. While Life Cycle Cost is probably the best process to answer
that issue, there is not enough data to conduct such efforts. Initial
LCC cost analysis of FRP bridge deck is mixed. The main problem
encountered is the initial costs of FRP bridge decks are significantly
higher than those from SRC. Hence, the initial costs of FRP decks must
be reduced to be cost competitive with the SRC decks on a life cycle
cost basis.

The initial future cost is estimated by utilizing improvement (learning)
curve theory. Two data sets were investigated, and the preliminary
results indicate that FRP decks should become economically feasible
within 10 years.

# **References**

1.  Azama, S. 2000. Application of learning curve theory to system
    acquisition.
    <http://center.dau.mil/Topical_Sessions_templates/FM_Main/Reference_Materials/Learning_Curve_TN.pdf>

2.  Belkaoui, A. 1986. The Learning Curve: a management accounting tool.
    Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut.

3.  Cassity. 2000. Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bridge Decks.
    (http://www.nabro.unl.edu/articles/20000805/index.asp)

4.  Creese, R.C., M. Adithan, and B.S. Pabla. 1992. Estimating and
    Costing for the Metal Manufacturing Industries. Marcel Dekker Inc.,
    New York.

5.  Creese, R. C. 1999. Overcoming Composite Cost Differentials by
    Life-Cycle Costing, Proceeding *of Conference on Polymer Composite:*
    110-116. Parkersburg, West Virginia, 19-21 April 1999.

6.  Creese, R.C. and S. Sahirman. Second Quarterly Report - June 2002.
    Characterization, Evaluation and Implementation of Fiber Reinforced
    Polymer Composites for Highway Infrastructure -- Task 4. The
    Constructed Facilities Center, College of Engineering and Mineral
    Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

7.  Creese, R.C. and S. Sahirman. Third Quarterly Report -- August 2002.
    Characterization, Evaluation and Implementation of Fiber Reinforced
    Polymer Composites for Highway Infrastructure -- Task 4. The
    Constructed Facilities Center, College of Engineering and Mineral
    Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

8.  Ehlen, M.A. and H.E. Marshall. 1996. The Economics of New-Technology
    Materials: A Case study of FRP Bridge Decking. NISTIR 5864, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

9.  Ehlen, M.A. 1997. Life-Cycle Costs of New Construction Materials.
    Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Dec. 1997: 129-133.

10. Ehlen, M.A. 1999. Life-Cycle Costs of Fiber-Reinforced-Polymer
    Bridge Decks. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering August 1999:
    224-

11. Fuller, L. 2001. LCC Methodology. Energy Management Teleworkshops.
    Release: March 2001 (http://www.energyworkshops.org/. PDF).

12. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/frp/deckproj.htm>

13. <http://www.mdacomposites.org/Industry_Overview.htm>

14. Nathan and Onyemelukwe. 2000. 8^th^ ASCE Specialty Conference on
    Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability.

15. Norman, G. 1990. Life Cycle Costing. Property Management 8(4).

16. Nystrom, H., Watkins, S.E., Namni, A., and Murray, S. Financial
    Viability of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bridges.

17. O'Connor, J.S. 2001. New York's Experience with FRP Bridge Decks.
    Polymer Composites II 2001: Applications of composites in
    infrastructure renewal and economic development. CRC Press, NY.

18. Ostwald, P.F. 1984. Cost Estimating. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

19. Robinson, Jon. 1996. Facilities 14(5): 21-25. Plant and equipment
    acquisition: a life cycle costing case study.

20. Sahirman, S., R.C. Creese, and H. GangaRao. 2002. Economic
    Feasibility of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bridge Decks. Working
    Paper.

21. Tang, B. 1997. Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites Applications in
    USA. Proceedings of the First Korea/USA Road Workshop.

22. Tang, B. and W. Podolny. 1998. A Successful Beginning for Fiber
    Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composite Materials in Bridge Applications.
    FWHA Proceedings of International Conference of Corrosion and
    Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Structure.