Preliminary Design Report 

Composite Bridge Decking, 

Deliverable D3

Publication No. FHWA-HIF-12-021 

December 2011 
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to 

ensure continuous quality improvement. 
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

FHWA-HIF-12-021

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Composite Bridge Decking: December 2011

Preliminary Design Report 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

J. O’Connor

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

BridgeComposites, LLC

121 Upper Bennett St. 11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-09-RA-00006 Hornell, NY 14843-1451

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Federal Highway Administration

Highways for LIFE Program – HIHL-1 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

This report describes an existing lightweight bridge decking system that is being refined for use on moveable 

bridges such as bascule spans. The deck is a 5-inch-deep section consisting of fiber-reinforced polymer materials 

and high-strength grout. Fabrication steps have been simplified, global behavior and local details have been 

analyzed, and construction details have been developed so that owners can be assured of satisfactory structural 

performance. Particular attention has been given to the wearing surface, since some other decking systems have 

not provided long-term durability. While performance has been established as the primary objective, the installed 

cost must be affordable and competitive against other alternatives when consideration is given to the potential for 

lower life cycle bridge costs.

The proposed section is symmetrical about a horizontal plane so that it is well suited for the alternating positive 

and negative bending moments that the deck experiences in service. Deflection controls the design of the deck, 

and the grout makes an important contribution toward bending stiffness. Alternating the grout between the top 

and bottom of the deck makes the section stiffer, and presumably more durable, since cracking is less likely to 

occur due to local deformation. The deck is intended for use on steel stringers spaced up to 5 feet but will first be 

installed on a town-owned fixed bridge to demonstrate that the installation details have been addressed

adequately. 

This report documents the early stages of design and constructability discussions so that input can be received 

from the project’s Technical Advisory Panel and other potential stakeholders. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Fiber-reinforced polymer, FRP, laminate, bridge No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

decking through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 51

FORM DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) REPRODUCTION OF COMPLETED PAGE AUTHORIZED 
ii
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................1

1.2 Preliminary Research and Development ................................................................................2

2.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ...............................................................................................5

2.1 Performance Objectives .........................................................................................................5

2.2 Design Methodology ..............................................................................................................6

2.3 Loads ......................................................................................................................................6

2.4 Strength ..................................................................................................................................7

2.5 Serviceability ..........................................................................................................................7

2.6 Weight ....................................................................................................................................7

2.7 Cost.........................................................................................................................................8

3.0 PROPOSED DECK DESIGN .................................................................................................9

3.1 Assumptions ...........................................................................................................................9

3.2 General Description................................................................................................................9

3.3 Geometrics ...........................................................................................................................11

3.4 Materials ...............................................................................................................................14

3.5 Subcomponents ....................................................................................................................16

3.6 Finite Element Analysis .......................................................................................................17

3.7 Fabrication ............................................................................................................................18

3.8 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................18

4.0 PROOF-OF-CONCEPT INSTALLATION ........................................................................21

5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................27

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................30

7.0 GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................33

8.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .....................................................................................................35

APPENDIX A: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ....................................................................37

APPENDIX B: SIMPLIFIED DESIGN CHECK .....................................................................41
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Photo. Typical installation of FRP deck panels on an existing bridge. ........................... 1

Figure 2. Photo. Basic configuration of a prototype of the hybrid deck. ........................................ 3

Figure 3. Diagram. AASHTO HS-20-44 design vehicle. ............................................................... 6

Figure 4. Diagram. Proposed deck on steel stringers.................................................................... 10

Figure 5. Diagram. Deck cross-section. ........................................................................................ 10

Figure 6. Diagram. Deck schematic showing components. .......................................................... 11

Figure 7. Diagram. Deck panel. .................................................................................................... 11

Figure 8. Diagram. Dimensions of inner tube (Part 1) and outer tube (Part 2). ........................... 12

Figure 9. Diagram. Part 1 (inner tube). ......................................................................................... 12

Figure 10. Diagram. Part 2 (outer tube). ....................................................................................... 13

Figure 11. Diagram. Combination tube (inner and outer tube to be pultruded together). ............ 13

Figure 12. Diagram. Finite element analysis allows the generation of images that graphically 

illustrate the maximum deflection of the bridge under loading. ................................................... 17

Figure 13. Diagram. Quality assurance phases. ............................................................................ 18

Figure 14. Map. Western New York State with the bridge located with a yellow pin. ................ 21

Figure 15. Map. The Village of Bolivar with the bridge located with a yellow pin. .................... 21

Figure 16. Photos. Existing conditions as of November 2010. ..................................................... 22

Figure 17. Diagram. Existing stringer spacing. ............................................................................ 23

Figure 18. Diagram. Existing fascia detail.................................................................................... 23

Figure 19. Diagram. Proposed fascia detail. ................................................................................. 24

Figure 20. Diagram. Proposed connection detail. ......................................................................... 25

Figure 21. Diagram. Field joint between panels. .......................................................................... 26

Figure 22. Diagram. Schematic of proposed wearing surface. ..................................................... 26

Figure 23. Diagram. View of the bridge. ...................................................................................... 38

Figure 24. Diagram. Magnified view of the deck after applying the loads (around the truck load).

....................................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 25. Cross-section sketch. ................................................................................................... 41
v 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Approximate weight of various deck systems. ................................................................. 8

Table 2. Depth of proposed deck section. ..................................................................................... 11

Table 3. Possible fiber architecture for either tube (inner or outer).............................................. 14

Table 4. Possible fiber architecture for the outer wrap. ................................................................ 14

Table 5. Laminate properties. ....................................................................................................... 15

Table 6. Potential sources for tube subcomponents. ..................................................................... 17

Table 7. Test procedures. .............................................................................................................. 18

Table 8. FE mesh details. .............................................................................................................. 37

Table 9. Service load deflection and failure index. ...................................................................... 37

Table 10. State of stress in the composite. .................................................................................... 39

Table 11. Laminate properties. ..................................................................................................... 39

Table 12. State of stress in the concrete. ....................................................................................... 40

Table 13. Concrete properties. ...................................................................................................... 40

Table 14. Description of parameters. ............................................................................................ 42

Table 15. Deck beam analysis summary – no factors. .................................................................. 43

Table 16. Deck beam analysis summary – with factors. ............................................................... 44

Table 17. Deflection...................................................................................................................... 44

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRP Fiber-Reinforced Polymer 

HfL Highways for LIFE

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design

FEM Finite Element Model 

NBI National Bridge Inventory 

VARTM Vacuum-Assisted Resin Transfer Molding 

SHM Structural Health Monitoring

AOTR Agreement Officer’s Technical Representative
vi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fundamentally, the deck described in this report is the same as the design that was developed 

and tested by Dr. Amjad Aref between 2003 and 2009 for the New York State Department of 

Transportation at the University at Buffalo, Department of Civil Structural and Environmental 

Engineering. Refinements have been made to improve performance while facilitating its 

fabrication so that the cost per square foot can be reduced. Integral with the design and 

production improvements are the development of suitable construction details such as 

connections to the supporting steel and a durable wearing surface. 

This illustration depicts a deck on steel beams. 

It is a hybrid of fiber-reinforced polymer 

composite materials and grout, made by nesting 

two trapezoidal tubes to form a 1-inch-thick 

grout pocket between them. This provides 

support for truck tires and effectively distributes 

wheel loads over a wide area. Adjacent tube 

assemblies are inverted to provide a grouted 

section on the bottom as well as the top. This 

provides good bearing strength and a means to connect the deck to the steel firmly. The section, 

symmetrical about a horizontal plane, will also better handle the alternating positive and negative 

bending moments that it experiences as a continuous beam over steel supporting stringers. 

Deflection controls the design of the deck, so the grout is important as a low-cost means of 

providing bending stiffness, when working in conjunction with the glass fiber-reinforced 

polymer. Alternating the grout makes the section stiffer, and presumably more durable, since 

cracking is less likely to occur due to local deformation. The proposed deck is approximately 5 

inches thick, after the application of a thin wearing surface. This is a common depth for decks 

used on moveable bridges. 

Further analysis will be required before a final decision is made on the method of fabrication. 

After analysis is complete, input is received, and subcomponent testing is done to identify the 

best combination of materials to use, the deck will be installed on a bridge in Bolivar, NY. The 

existing Pleasant Street Bridge (BIN 2215390) is 40 feet long by 20 feet wide and will be redecked using Allegany County forces in May or June of 2012. This process will be similar to the 

installations envisioned for moveable bridges, which is the primary target of the Highways for 

LIFE project. A fixed-span bridge was selected to keep the scope small enough that it can be 

built under the present project. 

Input received from the project Technical Advisory Panel is included in this report. Additional 

comments on this document, as well as all aspects of the design and detailing, are welcome. 
1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored this project to identify means and 

methods for the economical production of prefabricated fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) decking 

panels for moveable bridges, along with the necessary details for joining and installing them. 

Over the course of 2 years, studies and testing will be done to identify the most suitable 

materials, subcomponents, assembly methods, wearing surface, and detailing that will enhance 

the likelihood of the technology becoming a viable and competitive option in construction 

practice. Constructability will be demonstrated on a small fixed bridge, with the expectation of 

using the same design on a large moveable bridge for a subsequent project. Figure 1 illustrates 

the installation of FRP deck panels on an existing bridge. 

Figure 1. Photo. Typical installation of FRP deck panels on an existing bridge. 

The FHWA’s Highways for LIFE (HfL) program includes a component called Technology 

Partnerships, which is intended to accelerate the adoption of promising innovations into 

everyday construction practice by teaming with private industry. The project Composite Bridge 

Decking has been selected because of its potential to yield substantial 

reward by facilitating the production and deployment of innovative technology that is capable of 

transforming the construction industry. There are 856 moveable bridges in the U.S., and this 

type of bridge can reap unique benefits by using a lightweight, yet corrosion-resistant decking 

system. The project team is tasked with refining the existing equipment, materials, practices, and 

processes that have been used to produce a hybrid bridge deck comprised of FRP composites and 

concrete/grout. The project builds on the research and development of a prototype that was done 

by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) at the University at Buffalo 

over the past 10 years. Since the past research and testing has already shown that the technology 

is feasible, the purpose of this HfL project is to develop an economical means of producing the 

hybrid design so that it can be adopted and used routinely for bridge rehabilitations or for new 

construction. 
2 

The HfL project consists of two phases, subdivided into 20 tasks, as shown below. 

T1 Project Management

Phase I – Preliminary Design

T2 Define Performance Objectives

T3 Set Deck Geometrics

T4 Create Finite Element Model

T5 Analyze Details

T6 Preliminary Design Review

Phase I – Testing

T7 Qualify Materials

T8 Qualify Tubes

T9 Consider Alternative Assembly Methods 

T10 Fabricate & Test 3-Foot by 10-Foot Panels

T11 Evaluate Details

T12 Report 

T13 After-Test Review

Phase II - Final Design

T14 Set Final Materials, Tubes & Assembly Methods

T15 Final Design Review 

T16 Update Finite Element Model 

Phase II – Field Installation 

T17 Fabricate Proof-of-Concept Panels 

T18 Field Installation

T19 Field Validation

T20 Final Report 

As part of the current project, a deck will be fabricated and installed on a small bridge to 

demonstrate that all details have been addressed adequately. The deck will be installed on a 

bridge in Bolivar, NY. The existing Pleasant Street Bridge (BIN 2215390) is 40 feet long by 20 

feet wide and will be re-decked using Allegany County forces as part of a rehabilitation project 

in the spring of 2012. This process will be similar to the installations envisioned for moveable 

bridges, which is the primary target of the HfL project. A fixed-span bridge was selected to keep 

the scope small enough that it can be built under the present HfL project. 

1.2 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

This section of the report describes the deck prototype that was produced at the University at 

Buffalo prior to the start of the current HfL project (see Figure 2). 
3 

Figure 2. Photo. Basic configuration of a prototype of the hybrid deck. 

Through the following series of research projects, a deck based on this design was produced and 

tested:

• Use of New and Durable Advanced Materials for Infrastructure Applications (C008737), 

1999-2000. 

• Analysis and Design Procedures of FRP Bridge Deck Systems (C008737), 2000-2001. 

• Hybrid FRP-Concrete Bridge Deck Systems (C02-07) 2003-2006. 

The deck is a hybrid of FRP composite materials and grout, made by nesting two trapezoidal 

tubes to form a grout pocket between them. The grout near the deck surface provides support for 

truck tires and effectively distributes wheel loads over a wide area. Since it is much more 

efficient at carrying compressive loads than FRP materials, it is also an efficient means of 

increasing strength and stiffness of the section. 
4 
5 

2.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

2.1 PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

The expectations of the deck system are as follows: 

• Excellent technical performance. 

o The deck needs to carry full legal loads repeatedly and must be able to withstand 

occasional overloads without damage. Global deflection, local deformations, and 

thermal distortions are to be kept small enough that cracking and spalling do not 

occur in the wearing surface, internal delaminations do not occur, and fatigue 

problems do not arise at the connection points. For instance, there was a 

composite deck that experienced excessive movement around stud shear 

connectors that were encased in grout pockets. This resulted in deterioration of 

the connection and loss of intended composite action. 

o Serviceability: Maintenance should be minimal, perhaps limited to cleaning. The 

wearing surface should stay bonded and not suffer excessive wear. Resurfacing 

due to polishing should not be necessary for at least 10 years. There needs to be a 

way to repair the deck if it becomes damaged by impact, puncture, or some 

extreme event.

o Service life is expected to exceed that of the bridge on which the deck is placed. 

For a new bridge, the design life is set at 75 years per the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance 

Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications.

(1) 

o Constructability: The deck should be able to be installed quickly and easily, using 

light equipment. 

o Adaptability: The system should be able to accommodate future widening or 

strengthening to accommodate heavier vehicles. With mechanical connections, it 

also can be removed and reused.

• Lightweight: The weight per square foot should be comparable to other lightweight 

decking systems.

• Reasonable cost: The primary emphasis will be given to initial material cost per square 

foot because that is the easiest for owners to understand and measure and is most relevant 

when budgets are tight. Recognizing that time and ease of installation affect the initial

cost, design and detailing will be developed to minimize the installed cost as well as the 

cost per square foot for material. A long service life with minimal maintenance 

requirements also will reduce the life cycle cost. Despite these exceedingly important

cost considerations, the primary emphasis will be given to initial material cost. 

In addition, an effort will be made to develop a deck that is sustainable in the long run. Energy 

consumption and impact to the atmosphere and water resources should be minimized. 

Sustainability is becoming an important issue in all fields. According to Daniel, energy 

consumption of a composite bridge project is less than half that of steel or concrete.(2) It is also 

attractive when loads to air and loads to water are considered. Future studies may be necessary 

to calculate the environmental impact of the particular composite deck being considered in the 

current project.
6 

2.2 DESIGN METHODOLOGY

Neither the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications nor the AASHTO Standard 

Specifications for Highway Bridges has explicit provisions for using composite materials in 

highway bridges.(1,3) As such, the project team is proposing a methodology for FRP (or hybrid 

decks) that draws from aspects of each specification that has merit and proposes to apply sound 

engineering judgment to reach a holistic design approach. The Technical Advisory Panel has 

been involved in the proposed design approach. 

2.3 LOADS

Standard AASHTO loading is used in the design of the deck. Figure 3 illustrates the design 

vehicle used in the Standard Specification for Highway Bridges.(3) The LRFD specification 

specifies HL-93, which is the HS-20 and lane loading combined. Since the design of the deck is 

driven by serviceability restrictions (i.e., deflection limits), strength requirements are not 

anticipated to present a problem, regardless of design vehicle. 

Wheel Load

Per AASHTO LRFD Tire Contact Area Section 3.6.1.2.5

Contact area = 10-ft length by 20-ft width = 200 sq in

Design Truck

front axle 8 kips

rear axle 1 32 kips

rear axle 2 32 kips

load on each front wheel 4,000 lb

load on each rear wheel (both tires) 16,000 lb

pressure on each front wheel 20 psi

pressure on each rear wheel 80 psi

Figure 3. Diagram. AASHTO HS-20-44 design vehicle. 
7 

2.4 STRENGTH

Analyses have shown that the hybrid deck has excess capacity to carry load because of 

serviceability considerations (see Appendix A). A finite element analysis and past 

experimentation show that adding load to the deck system until ultimate failure results in pseudoductile behavior prior to failure and that the failure mode is not catastrophic.(4) First failure of a 

previous prototype was crushing of concrete. However, since composite materials themselves 

are considered linear elastic to failure, working stresses will be kept low relative to the ultimate 

strength of the laminate to prevent the possibility of a deck failing without adequate warning. 

The maximum allowable live load stress will be on the order of 20 percent of ultimate, and dead 

load will be kept below 10 percent. Though dead load is not significant on a deck, dead load 

stresses usually are kept low on any composite structure to avoid the potential for creep rupture. 

2.5 SERVICEABILITY

As discussed above, the design of the deck is driven by deflection. Criteria for global deflection 

need to be met (the deflection of the bridge superstructure). Typically, this is set at L/800 (span

length divided by 800). In addition, and perhaps more importantly for a deck, local deformation 

needs to kept low enough that the wearing surface does not crack. The support length between 

steel stringers is the span that is most important. A three-dimensional analysis will be used to 

determine the maximum anticipated deflection and the strains at these locations. 

2.6 WEIGHT

Since the project involves the development of a deck system specifically for moveable bridges, it 

is assumed that the weight per square foot is an important consideration. Table 1 provides the 

relative weight of various decking systems. The objective of the current project is to provide a 

new alternative to lightweight decking. Although grout is part of the hybrid deck and it adds a 

significant amount of weight, it is used to help meet the other objectives of good performance 

and low cost. The grout increases the stiffness of the section and is much more cost-effective 

than composite material at carrying compressive loads. 

Aside from steel used for connecting the deck to the bridge, the proposed deck is projected to 

weigh approximately 25 psf, excluding a thin wearing surface. 
8 

Table 1. Approximate weight of various deck systems. 

Deck Type Weight, excluding 

wearing surface

Weight, including typical wearing 

surface

Reinforced concrete (88% 

of decks, per NBI 12/08)

100-120 psf 100-120 psf

Exodermic 50-75 psf 50-75 psf

Open steel grate 17-55 psf 17-55 psf

Filled steel grate 70 -100 psf 70 -100 psf

Timber 22-30 psf 46-54 psf (assume 2-in asphalt)

FRP 12-25 psf 16-29 psf (assume 3/8-in polymer 

concrete)

Hybrid (FRP and grout) ~ 25 psf ~28-30 psf (assume 1⁄4-in polymer 

concrete)

Notes: Use manufacturers’ weights for design; the above weights are approximate ranges.

NBI = National Bridge Inventory

2.7 COST

Since a fabrication process has not been established yet, it is too early to project the cost of the 

proposed deck system. For comparison purposes, it may be worthwhile to point out that the 

initial unit costs generally are higher than those of conventional concrete decks (~$35/sf). As a 

rule, 100 percent FRP composite decks have run about three times the cost of a concrete deck. 

Until production picks up, this deck may be in a similar price range. A deck that has been 

developed as an alternative for moveable bridges is aluminum decking. The deck developed for 

NYSDOT is expected to cost less than this option, which is in the range of ~$140/sf. 

Although the deck may cost more per square foot, there may be net savings to the project and 

over the life of the bridge because of its quick installation, low maintenance requirements, and 

the fact that its service life is expected to be much longer than that of most decks in use today. 

Savings are also associated with a shorter project because it requires no cure, whereas a concrete 

deck needs up to 30 days to cure. An FRP deck is prefabricated so it can be driven on almost 

immediately. A reduction in the duration of a construction project translates to fuel savings, 

pollution reduction, less wasted time on the part of the driver, and other such benefits. 

For moveable bridges, there are additional savings associated with the lightweight nature of the 

deck. Less mass in the deck means less weight to lift (or move laterally, in the case of a swing 

bridge) or to account for in the counterbalance. This translates to lower equipment and 

operational expenses for both mechanical and electrical systems. During bridge rehabilitation, 

use of a lightweight deck may make it possible to retain the same design dead loads, instead of 

having to find a way to accommodate a deck system that is heavier than the original. This would 

result in substantial savings during the rehabilitation project. 
9 

3.0 PROPOSED DECK DESIGN

3.1 ASSUMPTIONS

The following assumptions are made in the design of the bridge deck prototype under this 

project: 

• The product will be made in the U.S. 

• The prototype deck design is not patent-protected. 

• The most important evaluation criteria are performance, weight, and cost. 

• Supporting structural members are steel. 

• Supporting stringers are typically spaced 5 feet apart or less.

• A mechanical fastening system is preferred over welding. Adhesive bonding may be 

considered.

• A thin wearing surface is preferred over asphalt because of weight savings.

• Installation procedures should be kept as simple as possible. 

• The service life of the deck should exceed that of the bridge it is installed on. This may 

be an ambitious goal, but the researchers feel that it is very possible with a corrosionresistant FRP deck. Typically, decks need repair much sooner than the bridge 

superstructure does, primarily due to rusting of the deck reinforcing steel, but this is not a 

concern with FRP. The prospect of a long service life is a primary driver for owners’ 

interest in the proposed decking system. 

• The deck should be capable of carrying HL-93 service loads without damaging 

deformation. 

3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The deck section proposed is a hybrid of FRP composite materials and grout, made by nesting 

two trapezoidal tubes to form a 1-inch-thick grout pocket between them. The cured grout 

provides support for truck tires and effectively distributes wheel loads over a wide area. 

Adjacent tube assemblies are inverted to provide a grouted section on the bottom as well as the 

top. This provides good bearing and a means to connect the deck to the steel firmly. Since the 

proposed section is symmetrical about a horizontal plane, it will accommodate both positive and 

negative bending moments equally as well. Finite element analysis and testing of this approach 

is being done as part of this project. 

Although deck panels theoretically are made by making two tubes and grouting between them, 

an evaluation is underway to determine if better quality is obtainable and the cost of fabrication 

can be reduced by constructing the tube assembly in one step. The tube assemblies are wrapped 

in FRP to form a structural panel. 

Deck panels can be custom made and oriented on the bridge as necessary. For instance, if a 

bridge is 20 feet wide and 40 feet long, panels can be have nominal dimensions of 8 feet by 20 

feet and placed transversely, as has been done in the past. Alternatively, to facilitate the 

construction of a crown, the panels may be made lengthwise and shipped to the bridge as 10 feet 
10 

by 40 feet. In this case, the structural tubes that are within the panels can still run transversely, 

perpendicular to the steel stringers. 

Figure 4 is an image generated from a finite element model (FEM) that illustrates the proposed 

cross section. Notice that the grout is alternating between the top and bottom of the deck. This 

had advantages during the fabrication process because each tube assembly (i.e., the inner and 

outer tube combined and the cavity between them filled with grout) is identical. The only 

difference is that every other one is inverted. Figure 5 distinguishes the various components that 

make up the deck panel: the inner tube, outer tube, the grout between them, and an outer wrap. 

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show what a panel would look like. 

Although it appears that the lack of grout in the top part of some tubes may be a concern, this 

dimension is only 3.5 inches and will be bridged easily by the footprint of any tire. According to 

AASHTO, the longitudinal dimension of a truck tire is 10 inches, so the load will be distributed 

over at least two grouted sections. Local stresses also have been analyzed and do not appear to 

be a problem. A simplified analysis similar to the one in Appendix B showed that this type of 

section is over 50 percent stiffer than one with grout only in the top. 

Figure 4. Diagram. Proposed deck on steel stringers. 

Figure 5. Diagram. Deck cross-section. 
11 

Figure 6. Diagram. Deck schematic showing components.

Figure 7. Diagram. Deck panel. 

3.3 GEOMETRICS

Whereas Figures 5 through 7 showed the general configuration of the deck, Figures 8 through 11 

show the dimensions of the tube subcomponents. The total thickness of the outer wrap is 0.17 

inches. The proposed depth of the section can be calculated as in Table 2. 

Table 2. Depth of proposed deck section. 

Height of outer tube 4.47 in

Thickness of outer wrap on top side of the deck (two layers of VectorPly E-2LTi 7200) 0.17 in

Thickness of outer wrap on bottom side of the deck (two layers of VectorPly E-2LTi 

7200)

0.17 in

Subtotal for FRP deck only 4.80 in

Wearing surface (assume polymer concrete) 0.375 in

Total depth including a thin wearing surface 5.175 in
12 

Figure 8. Diagram. Dimensions of inner tube (Part 1) and outer tube (Part 2). 

Figure 9. Diagram. Part 1 (inner tube). 
13 

Figure 10. Diagram. Part 2 (outer tube). 

Figure 11. Diagram. Combination tube (inner and outer tube to be pultruded together). 
14 

3.4 MATERIALS

3.4.1 FRP Composites

3.4.1.1 Fiber

Table 3 and Table 4 show a combination of E-glass fiber that is being used in trial laminates. 

Table 3. Possible fiber architecture for either tube (inner or outer). 

Layer # VectorPly Reinforcement ID Resin-Infused Laminate 

Thickness (inches)

1 E-QX 2600 0.026

2 E-LT 5500 0.051

3 E-QX 2600 0.026

Table 4. Possible fiber architecture for the outer wrap. 

Layer # VectorPly Reinforcement ID Resin-Infused Laminate Thickness 

(inches)

1 E-2LTi 7200 0.084

2 E-2LTi 7200 0.084

3.4.1.2 Resins

Various resins are being explored. So far, a fire-resistant vinyl ester is the strongest contender. 

3.4.1.3 Adhesives 

Adhesives are expected to be used in the application of the wearing surface but not in the 

construction of the deck panel itself. A methacrylate adhesive has very desirable traits. A good 

bond can be obtained that is strong yet pliable with almost no surface preparation.

The adhesives considered include the following: 

• Huntsman Araldite 2048 Methacrylate.

• Dural Fast-Set Epoxy. 

• IPS Weld-On SS230 HV Methacrylate.

• ITW Plexus MA-822 Methacrylate.

• 3M Marine-5200-Adhesive-Sealant.

• Ashland Pliogrip 8000 Polyurethane.

• ProSet 176/276 Epoxy. 

• Rubber-toughened epoxy. 
15 

3.4.1.3 Laminate Properties

Various laminates are being tested. The material used as a benchmark is the laminate that was 

used in the existing prototype. See Table 5. The properties for the tube and outer wrap given in 

the table are theoretical values provided by the supplier of the glass reinforcement. The finite 

element analysis described in Appendix A uses similar property values, but are more refined 

with each run. The objective is to use values that can be obtained consistently in practice. This 

will be determined through coupon testing. 

Table 5. Laminate properties.

Reference

(Aref/Kitane 

prototype)

Tubes

(per fiber supplier*) 

Outer Wrap

(per fiber supplier)

T1-1 ult (longitudinal) 48.6 ksi 88.6 ksi 63.0 ksi

T2-2 ult (transverse) 41.3 ksi 52.5 ksi 64.0 ksi

E1-1 (longitudinal) 2.60 msi** 4.84 msi 3.35 msi

E2-2 (transverse) 2.41 msi 2.77 msi 3.36 msi

G1-2 0.35 msi 0.71 msi 0.32 msi

V ult 8.1 ksi 13.5 ksi 7.0 ksi

f’c (longitudinal) 38.4 ksi 60.0 ksi 63.0 ksi

f’c (transverse) 35.0 ksi 35.8 ksi 64.0 ksi

*VectorPly

** msi = million psi

3.4.2 Grout

Regular strength concrete was used in the early prototypes. Although this material would 

probably be the least expensive choice, there are other choices that can give better performance. 

Factors being considered when selecting a grout are:

• Cost. 

• Shrinkage. 

• Need for cure (time required may hinder the final assembly of the deck). 

• Workability (i.e., ease of inserting into the void between tubes or ability to pre-cast).

• Compatibility. 

Grouts being considered are listed below:

• Target 1118 non-shrink grout. 

• Unitex Propoxy 2000 epoxy grout. 

• SolidCast Polyester concrete. 

• Sikagrout 212 non-shrink/expanding portland cement. 

• Harris construction non-shrink grout. 

• Polytops methyl methacrylate grout. 

• Chockfast-2821 epoxy grout. 
16 

• Lafarge Ductal ultra-high performance concrete.

3.4.3 Wearing Surface 

A two-course wearing surface is proposed. There will be one course applied to the panels in the 

shop. Its primary function is to bond the second course to the deck without debonding or 

allowing cracking. While polymer concretes used for past applications were intended to do the 

same thing, there are better adhesives that can provide a strong bond while remaining pliable 

(i.e., have a high elongation to failure). This pliability would allow it to accommodate 

differences in thermal characteristics between the deck laminate and the second course of the 

wearing surface. The second course can be added in the field to provide a highly durable, skidresistant protective layer. It will bond mechanically to aggregate that is bonded adhesively to the 

FRP. The second course can be an asphalt material if weight is not a concern. If it is desirable 

to keep weight low, it can be a thin polymer-modified asphalt or polymer concrete. Alternatives 

for the wearing surface will be tested in a laboratory over the course of the project to determine 

the best selection. 

3.5 SUBCOMPONENTS

Fabrication of the proposed deck relies upon tube subcomponents that have a trapezoid-like cross 

section. Efficient production of the deck is based on the premise that these tubes can be 

commoditized through mass production and competition. The deck panel is an assembly of the 

tube subcomponents, with grout and an outer wrap added, followed by the addition of a wearing 

surface.

Fabrication methods being considered for the tubes are hand lay-up, filament-winding, 

pultrusion, and vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM). Each of these has advantages 

and disadvantages. Hand lay-up has the lowest tooling cost, but the quality (measured by 

percentage of fiber by volume) may not be consistent. Voids can have a significant negative 

impact on strength and long-term durability. Pultrusion requires a long-term commitment to a 

particular shape because tooling and start-up costs are very high. Quality is good because the 

process is highly automated. VARTM can yield high-quality laminates, and the process retains

the flexibility and the ability to change shapes at relatively low cost.

Table 6 lists some potential sources of tubes. 
17 

Table 6. Potential sources for tube subcomponents. 

Manufacturer Manufacturing Process Notes

Plastochem Hand lay-up India

Creative Pultrusions Pultrusion

CST Filament or Pultrusion

Plasan NA Pultrusion or VARTM

CompMillenia Hand lay-up or VARTM

CompMillenia - Fire Hand lay-up or VARTM

XCA Vacuum infusion

StructuralComposites Vacuum with preforms

Huashi FRP Pultrusion China – not responsive

Ancor Plastics Hand lay-up or VARTM

Global Composites VARTM Use of bottle-core has been 

determined to be impractical

3.6 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite element modeling provides a means to investigate stresses and deflections of the deck and 

structural steel system under various loading conditions. Figure 12 represents the layout of the 

steel stringers found on the proof-of-concept bridge and illustrates the response on the entire 

system after a truck load is applied to the deck. 

Figure 12. Diagram. Finite element analysis allows the generation of images that graphically 

illustrate the maximum deflection of the bridge under loading.
18 

3.7 FABRICATION

Fabrication of the deck involves the wrapping of tube assemblies into a panel. A VARTM 

process is envisioned. This technique is used routinely in boat-building with great success. The

fabrication technique being considered is as follows:

1. Fabricate two tubes and pump grout between them. 

2. Use inner tube as tooling to create the outer tube and make the tube assembly at the same 

time.

3. Make one pultrusion that can be used as both the inner and outer tube together. 

4. Assemble.

5. Wrap.

6. Apply wearing surface.

 

Construction details for a field installation are shown in Section 4. 

3.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE

Quality will be assessed through visual inspection of manufactured components, a check of the 

dimensions for compliance with stated manufacturing tolerances, coupon testing of laminates 

that have been cut out of an actual part, sub-component testing, and full-scale testing of panels. 

Upon installation of a deck on a bridge, the bridge will be load tested and monitored visually and

through non-destructive evaluation (NDE) and structural health monitoring (SHM) techniques. 

Quality assurance steps are illustrated in Figure 13. 

Coupon Testing Subcomponent 

Testing

3'x10' Test 

Panels

Proof-Test 

Details Load Test NDE/SHM

Figure 13. Diagram. Quality assurance phases. 

Laminates used for tube construction and the outer wrap will be qualified using the tests listed in

Table 7. 

Table 7. Test procedures. 

Property Test Protocol

Fiber content by volume ASTM D3171

Tension ASTM D3039

Modulus of elasticity (E) ASTM D3039

Compression ASTM D6641

Shear ASTM D5379

Interlaminar shear ASTM D2344

Shear modulus (Gxy) ASTM D2344

Flexure (laminate) ASTM D790, D2276, D7264

Tube flexure To be decided

Hardness ASTM D2583
19 

3.9 Structural Health Monitoring

Numerous health monitoring methods have been investigated. Most have been disqualified 

because they are cost-prohibitive for all but the most important bridges. At the present time, the 

team does not plan to embed sensors into the deck at the time of fabrication. Since local 

deformations are deemed to be the most important parameter to measure, externally mounted 

sensors can be used to remotely monitor strain levels at critical locations. A wireless system 

produced by Direct Measurements, Inc. is being evaluated. 
20 
21 

4.0 PROOF-OF-CONCEPT INSTALLATION

As part of the current project, a deck will be fabricated and installed on a small bridge to 

demonstrate that all details have been addressed adequately. The deck will be installed on a 

bridge in Bolivar, NY. The existing Pleasant Street Bridge (BIN 2215390) is 40 feet long by 20 

feet wide and will be re-decked using Allegany County forces in 2012. The following figures 

show the location and proposed details. 

Lake Ontario

Figure 14. Map. Western New York State with the bridge located with a yellow pin.

Figure 15. Map. The Village of Bolivar with the bridge located with a yellow pin.
22 

20’

40’

Figure 16. Photos. Existing conditions as of November 2010. 
23 

Figure 17. Diagram. Existing stringer spacing.

Figure 18. Diagram. Existing fascia detail. 
24 

The anchorage detail will be analyzed per the AASHTO LRFD specification and proof-tested as 

part of the project. The bridge is an off-system bridge, so the County plans to reuse bridge 

railing that was previously on a NYSDOT bridge. 

Figure 19. Diagram. Proposed fascia detail. 
25 

Figure 20. Diagram. Proposed connection detail. 

Spacing to be determined during final design. 
26 

Figure 21. Diagram. Field joint between panels. 

The stud will be used to provide resistance to longitudinal forces such as braking forces. 

Course 2: Polymer Concrete (0.375”) 

Course 1: Adhesive + 

stone 

Composite Material (4.8”) 

Figure 22. Diagram. Schematic of proposed wearing surface.
27 

5.0 REFERENCES

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, LRFD Bridge Design 

Specifications, 3rd ed., AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2010. 

2. Daniel, R.A., “A Composite Bridge is Favoured by Quantifying Ecological Impact,” 

Structural Engineering International, vol. 20, no. 4, 2010, pp. 385-391. 

3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard 

Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th ed, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2002. 

4. Aref, A.J., and W.I. Alnahhal, Hybrid FRP-Concrete Bridge Deck Systems, Report No. C-02-

07, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany, 2009. 
28 
29 
30 

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aboutaha, R.S., “Investigation of Durability of Wearing Surfaces for FRP Bridge Decks,” 

Project C-01-50, Syracuse University and Cornell University, 2001, 397 pp. 

Alampalli, S., J. O’Connor, and A.P. Yannotti, “Advanced Composites for Cost-Effective 

Rehabilitation of Bridges,” in Advances in Composite Materials and Mechanics, A. Maji, ed., 

ASCE, Reston, VA, 1999, pp. 76-84. 

Alnahhal, W.I, M. Chiewanichakorn, M., A.J. Aref, and S. Alampalli, “Temporal Thermal 

Behavior and Damage Simulations of FRP Deck,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 11, no. 4, 

2006, pp. 452-465. 

Aref, A.J., and S. Alampalli, “Vibration Characteristics of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bridge 

Superstructure,” Composite Structures, vol. 52, no. 3-4, 2001, pp. 467-474. 

Aref, A.J., S. Alampalli, and H. Yihong, “Performance of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Web Core 

Skew Bridge Superstructure, Part I: Field Testing and Finite Element Simulations,” Composite 

Structures, vol. 69, no. 4, 2005, pp. 491-499. 

Aref, A.J., S. Alampalli, and H. Yihong, “Performance of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Web Core 

Skew Bridge Superstructure, Part II: Failure Modes and Parametric Study,” Composite 

Structures, vol. 69, no. 4, 2005, pp. 500-509, (2005). 

Aref, A.J., Y. Kitane, and G. Lee, “Analysis of Hybrid FRP-Concrete Multi-Cell Bridge 

Superstructure,” Composite Structures, vol. 69, no. 3, 2005, pp. 346-359. 

Better Roads, Bridge Inventory issue, November 2010.

Chiewanichakorn, M., A.J. Aref, and S. Alampalli, “Failure Analysis of a Fiber-Reinforced 

Polymer Bridge Deck System,” Journal of Composites Technology and Research, vol. 25, no. 2, 

2003, pp. 119-128. 

He, Y. and A.J. Aref, “A Semi-Analytical Procedure for Simplified Design of Bidirectional FRP 

Web-Core Sandwich Bridge Decks,” International Journal of Computational Engineering 

Science, vol. 3, no. 2, 2002, pp. 129-154. 

He, Y. and A.J. Aref, “An Optimization Design Procedure for Fiber Reinforced Web-Core 

Sandwich Bridge Deck Systems,” Composite Structures, vol. 60, no. 2, 2003, pp. 183-195. 

Kitane, Y., A.J. Aref, and G. Lee, “Static and Fatigue Testing of Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced 

Polymer–Concrete Bridge Superstructure,” Journal of Composites for Construction, vol. 8, no. 2, 

2004, pp. 182-190. 
31 

O’Connor, J.S., “Rapid Replacement of a Short Span Bridge Using a Pre-Fabricated Lightweight 

Superstructure,” Proceedings of the Fourth US-Taiwan Bridge Engineering Workshop,

Princeton, NJ, 2008. 

O’Connor, J.S., and A. Aref, “New Materials in Infrastructures: The FRP Experience,” Aging 

Infrastructures Workshop Proceedings, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, pp. 131-135, 

2009. 

O’Connor, J.S., A. Aref, and S. Alampalli, “Strategic Development and Deployment of a 

Composite Bridge Deck,” Advanced Composites in Construction (ACIC) 2011 Conference 

Proceedings, University of Warwick, UK, 2011. 

O’Connor, J.S., and J.M. Hooks, “Experience in the United States with Fiber-Reinforced 

Polymer Composite Bridge Decks and Superstructures,” 6th International Bridge Engineering 

Conference: Reliability, Security, and Sustainability in Bridge Engineering, Transportation 

Research Board, 2005, pp. 57-66. 

O’Connor, J.S., and J.M. Hooks, “A Summary of Six Years Experience Using FRP Composites 

for Bridge Decks,” Society for the Advancement of Material & Process Engineering (SAMPE) 

Conference Proceedings, Long Beach, CA, 2004. 

O’Connor, J.S., and J.M. Hooks, “USA’s Experience Using Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) 

Composite Bridge Decks to Extend Bridge Service Life,” Proceedings of the 19th US-Japan 

Bridge Engineering Workshop, 2003, pp. 237-248. 

Triandafilou, L.N., and J.S. O’Connor, “Field Issues Associated with the Use of FRP Composite 

Bridge Decks and Superstructures in Harsh Environments,” Structural Engineering 

International, vol. 20, no. 4, 2010. 
32 
33 

7.0 GLOSSARY

Composite Behavior 

Two structural components acting in unison as one.

Composite

Any material with more than one constituent that assumes properties that are different from the 

constituents. FRP is an example; these materials are referred to as FRP composites.

Hybrid

A structural component comprised of more than one material, such as FRP and grout. 

Part 1

Inner trapezoidal tube. 

Part 2

Outer trapezoidal tube. 

Tube Assembly

The assembled combination of one inner and one outer tube with grout between them. 

Tube

An FRP subcomponent of the deck panel with a cross-section that is roughly trapezoidal. 

Wearing Surface, Course 1

Aggregate adhesively bonded to the FRP panel, whose primary purpose is to provide 100 percent

bond while remaining pliable enough to withstand extreme deflection and temperature swings.

Wearing Surface, Course 2

A thin polymer concrete layer applied to course 1 of the wearing surface, whose primary purpose 

is to provide a highly durable, skid-resistant, protective coating for the deck. An asphalt layer 

can be used in lieu of polymer concrete when weight is not an issue. 

Wrap, or Outer Wrap 

The FRP laminate that encases a series of tube assemblies to form a deck panel.
34 
35 

8.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FHWA’s Agreement Officer’s Technical Representatives (AOTR’s) are Julie Zirlin and Lou 

Triandafilou. 

Others’ roles are as follows: 

Technical Advisors: 

• Steve Winckler, Global Composites. 

• Laurence Gray, G5 Technologies (industrial manufacturing experience). 

• John Young, Consultant (Six-Sigma black belt). 

• Ed Stewart, Consultant (wind turbine experience). 

Technical Advisory Panel: 

• Ray Bottenberg, OR DOT. 

• Duane Daniels, Larson Design Group. 

• Jeremy Ferris, Allegany County. 

• Paul Fossier, LA DOTD. 

• Paul Liles, GA DOT. 

• William Potter, FL DOT. 

• Herbert Protin, HDR. 

• Tom Sheehan, NYSTA Canals Division. 

• Kevin Thompson, Arora & Associates, PC. 

• Art Yannotti, NY DOT. 

Project Management Advisory Panel: 

• Sreenivas Alampalli, NYSDOT. 

• Paul McAnany, PE. 

Project Team:

• Amjad Aref, Integrated Materials and Applied Computing, Inc. 

• Stephen Ayers, LeTourneau University. 

• Maria Lopez de Murphy, Penn State University. 

• BridgeComposites, LLC (Jerome O’Connor, Kate O’Connor). 

• XC Associates, Inc. (Frank Burzesi, Lynda Fiorini, Dave Loucks). 
36 
37 

APPENDIX A: FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Composite Bridge Decking 

Grant Number DTFH61-09-RA-00006 

Highways for LIFE Technology Partnerships Program 

FE Analysis of FRP Deck, by Amjad J. Aref 

April 12, 2011 

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

This short summary reports the finite element results of the preliminary design of the FRP deck 

on steel girders. 

Table 8. FE mesh details. 

Part Element Type Elements Nodes 

FRP S4R 147374 137844

Concrete C3D8R 119700 185440

Steel C3D8R 22880 49588

Total 289954 372872

RESULTS

Using AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: 

Load Factor for Lane Load = 1.75 

Load Factor for Truck Load = 1.75*(1+0.33)= 2.3275 

Table 9. Service load deflection and failure index. 

Loading Maximum deflection (in)

(Service Load)

Tsai-Hill Index (

(LRFD)

ITH ) 

HL-93 0.373 0.443 

Note: The deflection is measured under the service load. 

Maximum Local Deflection between 2 girders = 0.035 in 
38 

Figure 23. Diagram. View of the bridge. 

1 

2 

4 3 

Figure 24. Diagram. Magnified view of the deck after applying the loads (around the truck load). 
39 

Table 10. State of stress in the composite. 

Element No. S11 (psi)

% of 

ultimate S22 (psi)

% of 

ultimate S12 (psi)

% of 

ultimate

1 5500 6.2 2500 4.8 0 - 

2 -4000 6.6 -1300 3.6 250 1.8 

3 -2000 3.3 -7200 20 30 0.2 

4 -2000 3.3 -2500 6.9 1500 11.11 

Table 11. Laminate properties. 

Laminate Unit Value

Elastic modulus of 0 degree, Ex psi 4.84E+6 

Elastic modulus of 90 degree, Ey psi 2.77E+6 

Shear modulus, Gxy psi 0.71 E+6 

Ultimate tensile strength of 0 degree psi 88.6 E+3 

Ultimate tensile strength of 90 degree psi 52.5 E+3 

Ultimate compressive strength of 0 degree psi 60.0 E+3 

Ultimate compressive strength of 90 degree psi 35.8 E+3 

Ultimate shear strength psi 13.5 E+3 

Possion’s ratio 0.3 
40 

Table 12. State of stress in the concrete. 

Element S11 (psi)

% of 

ultimate S22 (psi)

% of 

ultimate S12 (psi) S33 (psi)

% of 

ultimate

top -1200 9 -450 3.4 -250 - -1200 9.1 

bottom 1250 53.2 75 3.2 -120 - 1000 42.5 

Table 13. Concrete properties. 

Properties Unit Value

Compressive strength psi 1.32E+4 

Tensile strength psi 2.35E+3 

Elastic modulus psi 2.16E+6 

Possion’s ratio 0.2 
41 

APPENDIX B: SIMPLIFIED DESIGN CHECK

Composite Bridge Decking 

Grant Number DTFH61-09-RA-00006 

Highways for LIFE Technology Partnerships Program 

Beam analysis of alternating grout, by Steven Winckler, Global Composites. 

May 2, 2011 

DECK BEAM ANALYSIS

This analysis refers to the document “PM2 BC Basic design formulas-Alternating Grout.docx” 

for the formulas used. 

The loading considered is an ASHTO tire, 20” wide by 10” @ 80 psi pressure. 

The deck is modeled as a beam 9.5” wide (one representative element), a span of 24” (girder 

spacing), and includes 2 webs. 

Typical “Alternating Grout” Deck Section

 

Figure 25. Cross-section sketch. 
42 

Table 14. Description of parameters. 

Parameter Description

h Total deck height 

wg Average width of grout section 

wr Width of representative element

tg Thickness of grout 

ts1 Thickness of inner grout skin laminate 

ts2 Thickness of outer grout skin laminate 

tw Thickness of web laminate 

tn Thickness of narrow section laminate (top and bottom) 

Yna Neutral axis position above bottom 

 Web angle

y Coordinate measured upward starting at the bottom of the 

deck (i.e. y=0 @ deck bottom) 

Bending Analysis

Maximum Bending Moment (simple supports, 80 psi NO FACTORS) 

The bending moment at the center span of a simply supported beam element 24” long (24” 

between girders), by 9.5” wide (one representative width), under a surface load of 80 psi, is 

54720 in-lb. This is slightly higher than the ASHTO tire because the 80 psi covers a width of 24” 

instead of 20”. 

Section Elements, Bending stiffness (EI), Neutral Axis position, Bending Stress 

The maximum laminate stresses are: +/- 3.9 ksi; compared to +88.6 ksi and -60.0 ksi strength 

properties. Not a concern. 

The maximum grout stresses are: +/- 1.6 ksi; compared to +2.4 ksi and -14.5 ksi strength results. 

No problem in compression, more of a concern in tension. Details are below.
43 

Table 15. Deck beam analysis summary – no factors. 

Deck thickness "h" (in) 4.5 Bending Moment (in-lb)

Web angle (deg) 68 5.47E+04

Grout width avg. "Wg" (in) 5.5

Rep. width "wr" (in) 9.5

Input Thickness & Modulus Stress (ksi)

Deck Region

E 

(msi)

t 

(in) Top Bottom

Top outer skin ts2 4.80 0.20 -3.9 -3.5

Top grout tg 2.16 1.00 -1.6 -0.8

Top Inner skin ts1 4.80 0.20 -1.8 -1.5

Top narrow laminate tn 4.80 0.20 -3.9 -3.5

Webs tw 4.80 0.20 -0.2 0.2

Bottom inner skin ts1 4.80 0.20 1.5 1.8

Bottom grout tg 2.16 1.00 0.8 1.6

Bottom outer skin ts2 4.80 0.20 3.5 3.9

Bottom narrow laminate 

tn 4.80 0.20 3.5 3.9

Y-neutral axis (in) 2.25 EI (lb-in^2) 1.53E+08

Maximum Bending Moment (simple supports, 80 psi WITH FACTORS) 

Bending moment from 2.1 is multiplied by factors of 1.77 and 1.33, to get a total bending 

moment of: 93400 in-lb. 

Section Elements, Bending stiffness (EI), Neutral Axis position, Bending Stress 

The maximum laminate stresses are: +/- 6.6 ksi; compared to +88.6 ksi and -60.0 ksi strength 

properties. Not a concern. 

The maximum grout stresses are: +/- 2.7 ksi; compared to +2.4 ksi and -14.5 ksi strength results. 

No problem in compression, but tension is a concern. A more refined analysis is needed to 

determine if this is really a problem. Details are below. 
44 

Table 16. Deck beam analysis summary – with factors.

Deck thickness "h" (in) 4.5

Bending Moment (inlb)

Web angle (deg) 68 9.34E+04

Grout width avg. "Wg" (in) 5.5

Rep. width "wr" (in) 9.5

Input Thickness & Modulus Stress (ksi)

Deck Region

E 

(msi) t (in) Top Bottom

Top outer skin ts2 4.80 0.20 -6.6 -6.0

Top grout tg 2.16 1.00 -2.7 -1.4

Top Inner skin ts1 4.80 0.20 -3.1 -2.5

Top narrow laminate tn 4.80 0.20 -6.6 -6.0

Webs tw 4.80 0.20 -0.3 0.3

Bottom inner skin ts1 4.80 0.20 2.5 3.1

Bottom grout tg 2.16 1.00 1.4 2.7

Bottom outer skin ts2 4.80 0.20 6.0 6.6

Bottom narrow laminate tn 4.80 0.20 6.0 6.6

Y-neutral axis (in) 2.25

EI (lbin^2) 1.53E+08

Bending Deflection

The bending stiffness “(EI)” is used to determine the deflection of the simply supported beam 

with the 80 psi loading. Two cases are considered: 1) simply supported uniform load, and 2) 

simply supported center load (as though the total load was concentrated at the center). 

Table 17. Deflection. 

Condition Center Deflection (in)

Uniform Load 0.021

Center Load 0.034

Web Analysis 

Web Shear Stress

The maximum shear load on the beam with a uniform 80 psi applied to a 20” wide by 9.5” wide 

section, where the 20” direction is just up against a girder (for maximum shear load), 8867 

pounds, with a corresponding web shear stress of 6823 psi. 
45 

Using load factors of 1.77 and 1.33, the maximum shear load is 20873 pounds, with a 

corresponding web shear stress of 16062 psi. 

Considering a shear strength of 13500 psi, the calculated shear stress is a cause for concern, and 

a more refined analysis is in order.

Web Compressive Stress

Using a tire width of 20” and a girder width of 6”, the web compressive stress under the 80 psi 

over the 20” by 9.5” area is 6831 psi. 

Applying factors of 1.77 and 1.33 the web compressive stress is 16800 psi. 

Considering a compressive strength of 35800 psi, the web compressive stress is not cause for 

concern.

Web Stability (Buckling)

A critical web stress of 39145 psi is calculated using: 

( )

( )

2

1 1

22

90

2

2223

sin

sgs

wF

Critical ttth

tE

−−− = π θ

σ

Comparing this to a maximum web compressive stress of 16800 psi, stability does not seem to be 

a problem.