Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

A model specification for fiber reinforced non-participating permanent

formwork panels for concrete bridge deck construction
Lawrence C. Bank a,*, Ajaya P. Malla a, Michael G. Oliva a, Jeffrey S. Russell a, Arnon Bentur b, Aviad Shapira b
a
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Engineering Dr, Madison, WI 53706-1691, USA
b
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper discusses the development of a model design and construction specification for thin [less than
Received 22 August 2008 38 mm (1.5 in.)] non-participating permanent formwork panels (also known as, stay-in-place forms and
Received in revised form 7 January 2009 lost forms) made of FRP or FRC materials with or without non-metallic reinforcements for use in the con-
Accepted 8 January 2009
struction of concrete slabs, in particular, highway bridge decks. The use of such forms is motivated by the
Available online 26 February 2009
narrow gaps [less than 1 m (39.4 in.)] that are often found between the flanges of wide flange ‘‘bulb-T”
prestressed girders that are becoming commonplace in the US highway construction industry. Bridge
Keywords:
contractors have expressed an interest in using non-participating permanent forms to reduce the time
Bridge deck formwork
Model specification
and cost required in forming and stripping the plywood forms for such narrow gaps. A model specifica-
Permanent formwork tion that was developed to enable engineers to design and specify such forms is provided in the appendix
Fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) to this paper. To develop the specification, different permanent formwork panels were fabricated and
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) tested. These included (1) flat cementitious panels reinforced with short glass or polypropylene fibers,
Impact tests (2) flat cementitious panels reinforced with bi-directional FRP thin grids, (3) flat cementitious panels
reinforced with unidirectional FRP reinforcing bars, and (4) off-the-shelf, commercially manufactured
pultruded FRP thin-walled, ribbed planks. The specification provides guidance for the width of gaps per-
missible for each Class of system and details of prescriptive and performance tests that must be per-
formed to qualify the products for use in construction.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The use of short fiber and continuously reinforced cementi-
tious panels as permanent panels for formwork has been exam-
ined by a number of researchers and organizations over the
years [1]. Such panels may form part of the final structural load
carrying system (participating) or may only be used to carry the
construction loads and the weight of the wet concrete (non-par-
ticipating). Thin, cementitious panels reinforced exclusively with
short fibers of glass (GFRC), steel (SFRC), and synthetic polymers
(SNFRC) have been studied for many years [2–4]. Both flat and
corrugated panels have been produced for use in the construction
industry and are reported to be used in a number of European
countries. Very thin panels less than less than 15 mm (0.6 in.),
whether corrugated or flat must be produced using an automated
spray-up process and are relatively expensive. Somewhat thicker
flat panels ranging from 25 to 45 mm (1–13=4 in.) can be produced
in regular concrete molds using conventional concrete mixes
[typically with aggregate less than 12 mm (½ in.)]. These flat pan-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 608 262 1604; fax: +1 608 262 5199.
E-mail address: bank@engr.wisc.edu (L.C. Bank).
els are less expensive to produce than the spray-up panels and
are hence preferred by the construction industry. These panels
are typically very brittle and have poor impact resistance. An
example of an unreinforced FRC panel placed on foam haunches
during construction of a new bridge is shown in Fig. 1. In order
to improve the impact resistance and ductility, these panels can
be reinforced with a separate continuous reinforcement system
such as reinforcing bars, grids or textiles [5–7]. To prevent corro-
sion in these thin cementitious panels, non-metallic bars and
grids are preferable.
In addition to molded cementitious panels, pultruded FRP thin
profiles in the form of ribbed planks or proprietary thin ‘‘cement-
board” panels can also be used as permanent formwork panels.
Such products are commercially available with pultruded planks
being much lighter than the cementitious panels. A commercially
available pultruded decking product has recently been used as
formwork in the construction of a new bridge deck in Black River
Falls, Wisconsin, USA (Fig. 2).
In bridge construction where the formwork is often placed at
high elevations with no scaffolding below, guaranteeing the
safety of the construction workers is of paramount concern.
Prior to the placement of deck reinforcement, the formwork

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.01.004
 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677
Fig. 1. 0.8  1.2 m (32  48 in.) fiber reinforced cementitious (FRC) panel on foam
haunches between prestressed girders.
panels are subject to impact loads caused by the workers walk-
ing on the panels, construction equipment and materials being
placed on the panels, and impact during the casting operations
from workers and concrete falling from a pump or bucket (as
seen in Figs. 2 and 3). Therefore, in additional to the static
strength of the panel, the impact strength must also be taken
into consideration when specifying these panels for construction
applications.
In order to enable the use of FRP/FRC non-participating form-
work panels, the model specification presented in the Appendix
to this paper was developed for use by engineers and contractors
for inclusion into building codes or into contract documents, in-
whole or in-part. This paper is similar in format to one which pro-
vided a model specification for composite materials for use in civil
engineering applications that has been referenced in standards and
contact documents [8]. This paper discusses the materials evalu-
ated, the testing conducted, and presents the rationale for key
clauses that appear in the model specification to enable the reader
to appreciate how the clauses in the specification where
developed.
Fig. 2. Use of SAfPlank as formwork on a reinforcement-free deck (B-27-150 on
U.S.H. 12) over Coffee Creek at Black River Falls.
2665
Fig. 3. Equipment placed on FRC panels during construction.
2. Formwork panels – materials evaluated
The following material systems were considered during the
testing phase of the research: (1) flat cementitious panels rein-
forced with short glass or polypropylene fibers, (2) flat cementi-
tious panels reinforced with bi-directional FRP thin grids, (3) flat
cementitious panels reinforced with unidirectional FRP reinforcing
bars and (4) off-the-shelf, commercially manufactured pultruded
FRP thin-walled, ribbed planks.
Table 1 provides a list of all the different panels tested with de-
tails of the various reinforcements used. A number of off-the-shelf
‘‘cement-board” construction products were also tested. For short
gaps, it was felt that these products could provide a very econom-
ical solution. All the cast-in-place cementitious panels were 38 mm
(1.5 in.) thick, and were cast with a maximum aggregate size of
10 mm (3/8 in.) and had a nominal concrete strength of 27–
35 MPa (3.9–5.1 ksi). For the flexible mesh reinforcements, a
13 mm (0.5 in.) layer of concrete was poured prior to placement
of the mesh (Fig. 4) to provide the necessary cover. The pultruded
planks tested were commercially available products as shown in
Fig. 5. In addition, short steel fiber, steel mesh, and plain cementi-
tious panels were tested for comparison purposes. Extensive de-
tails of the materials tested and the test results from the authors
are provided in [9,10].
3. Formwork panels – testing and results
The formwork panels were tested using two types of tests – a
static test to determine the cracking strength, rcr, and the residual
strength after cracking, rr, of the cementitious panels or the ulti-
mate strength, rult of the pultruded panels; and a drop-weight im-
pact test to determine the impact resistance of both the
cementitious and the pultruded panels. For the cementitious pan-
els, the static test was conducted based on the standard test meth-
od for fiber reinforced concrete, ASTM C1609-06 [11]. For the
pultruded panels, a full section three-point bend test was con-
ducted as shown in Fig. 5. Results of the tests on the cementitious
panels with reinforcement as a function of the ratio rr/rcr are pre-
sented in Fig. 6. Results for the polypropylene reinforced FRC pan-
els where rr/rcr  1 are not shown. For the panels shown in Table
1, the cracking stress was typically 1.0–1.5 times thep theoretically
ffiffiffi0
determined cracking stress calculated from, rcr ¼ 7:5 f c , where fc0
is the concrete compressive strength (in psi units). The ultimate
2666 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677

Table 1
FRC/FRP formwork panels evaluated.

System Type Reinforcement type Reinforcement details

1 a Glass (grace fibers) 1.8 kg/m3 (1.8 oz/ft3)
b Polypropylene (Propex Novomesh 950) 5.9 kg/m3 (5.9 oz/ft3)
c Polypropylene (Propex Novomesh 950) 3.0 kg/m3 (3.0 oz/ft3)
d ARG Glass (nippon electric glass (NEG)) 3.0 kg/m3 (3.0 oz/ft3)
e Steel (Propex Novocon 1050) 0.5% by volume 39 kg/m3 (39.0 oz/ft3)
f Durock panel (US Gypsum) 12 mm (0.5 in.) Proprietary panel
g Fortacrete panel (US Gypsum) 19 mm (0.75 in.) Proprietary panel
2 a TD 5  5 glass mesh (NEG) 5  5 mm (0.2  0.2 in.) grid
b TD 10  10 glass mesh (NEG) 10  10 mm (0.4  0.4 in.) grid
c LW110 glass mesh (NEG) 25  25 mm (1  1 in.) grid
d SRG-45 coated glass mesh (St. Gobain) 25  25 mm (1  1 in.) grid
e G2800 glass FRP grid (TechFab) 25  25 mm (1  1 in.) grid
f C2750- BX1 carbon FRP grid (TechFab) 50  50 mm (2  2 in.) grid
g C3000- AX1 carbon FRP grid (TechFab) 25  25 mm (1  1 in.) grid
h C5500- AX1 carbon FRP grid (TechFab) 45  40 mm (1.8  1.6 in.) grid
3 a Aslan #2 GFRP rebar (Hughes Bros.) 100 mm (4 in.) spacing (one way)
b Aslan #2 GFRP rebar (Hughes Bros.) 150 mm (6 in.) spacing (one way)
c Steel WW D2.1 two-way mesh Smooth bars at 150 mm (6 in.) spacing (two-way)
4 a SafPlank (strongwell) Glass FRP pultruded profile section

stress at buckling failure in the pultruded panels (see Fig. 5) was
about 137 MPa (20 ksi).
The load–deflection responses of the cementitious panels are
shown schematically in Fig. A2. The FRC and the light mesh rein-
forced panels, generally failed abruptly with little ductility and
post-peak capacity, rr/rcr  1 (and are classified as CLASS A-1 in
what follows). The panels reinforced with the light carbon grids
showed limited ductility and post-peak capacity, 0.5 < rr/rcr < 1.0
(and are classified as CLASS A-2 in what follows). The panels rein-
forced with the heavier carbon grids and the FRP bars showed an
increased post-peak capacity with significant ductility, rr/rcr P 1
(and are classified as CLASS A-3 in what follows). An exception to
this behavior were the proprietary cement board panels which
generally did not show a defined cracking load and had a ductile
non-linear response to failure, and the pultruded planks that
showed a linear elastic response to failure due to buckling of the
top flanges of the ribs.
Impact tests were conducted using a 22.7 kg (50 lb) rigid mass
that was dropped on a 0.8  1.2 m (32  48 in.) panel from
increasingly greater drop heights to a maximum of 2.1 m
(84 in.) until the specimen failed as shown in Fig. 7. The total en-
ergy absorbed at first cracking and at ultimate failure (if it oc-
curred) are shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that only a few of
the panels achieved total energy absorption at failure greater than
338 N m (250 ft lbf) and that a number of panels did not fail when
the panels were subjected to the maximum impact energy of
475 N m (350 ft lbf).

4. Key elements of the specification

The specification developed includes a static test to determine

the residual strength for cementitious panels (CLASS A) or the ulti-
mate strength for pultruded panels and other proprietary panels

Fig. 4. Fabrication of cementitious formwork panel with G2800 glass FRP grid. Fig. 5. Pultruded FRP plank during flexural testing (showing buckling of the rib).
 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677 2667

3.00

Bar
Fiber Reinforcements Grid Reinforcements Reinforcements
2.50
2.18
2.03
2.00
1.70
σr 1 50
1.50 1.34
σ cr 1.23

1.00 0.84 0.89

0.81

0.48 0.52
0.50
0.33
0.16

0.00
(1e) (1f) (1g) (2c) (2d) (2e) (2a) (2f) (2g) (2h) (3a) (3c)
Formwork Panel Types
Fig. 6. Ratio of peak residual strength to cracking strength of cementitious panels.

that do not have a definitive cracking strength (CLASS B), a perfor-
mance-based drop-weight impact test, and a design method for the
cementitious panels. Cementitious panels are sub-classified as
CLASSES A-1, A-2 or A-3 panels based on their rr/rcr ratios as
shown in Fig. A2.
The residual strength, rr, is determined from ASTM 1399-07
[12] and the cracking strength determined analytically from
rcr ¼ 7:5 surd fc0 (units in psi). The width of gap permitted for dif-
ferent cementitious panels is restricted as follows: CLASS A-
1 < 200 mm (8 in.); CLASS A-2 < 450 mm (18 in.); CLASS A-3 – not
limited. In addition, the panels must satisfy the following ductility
ratios (Fig. A5) based on their static test data: CLASS A-2 > 10,
CLASS A-3 > 25, and CLASS B-1 and CLASS B-2 > 5 as shown in Table
A5. For CLASS B panels the ductility ratio is calculated as the deflec-
tion at ultimate stress over the deflection at service load stress
since these panels do not have a well defined cracking load. The
ductility ratio is specified to ensure that the panel will fail in a duc-
tile manner under static load and provide sufficient warning of
impending collapse by undergoing large deformations, hence
ensuring life-safety for those panels where a person can conceiv-
ably fit through the narrow gap [>200 mm (8 in.)]. Since CLASS
A-1 panels are limited to a gap width that does not allow a person
to fall through, no ductility limit needs to be met (i.e., it is assumed
a-priori that these panels have very little ductility and that their
residual strength cannot be counted upon for any load carrying
capacity).
The drop-weight impact test has a performance acceptance cri-
terion and is performed on the full-sized manufactured panel. The
panel must survive three consecutive impacts of 340 N m
(250 ft lbf) using a drop-weight of 11.4–34.1 kg (25–75 lb) of size
specified in ASTM E695-03 [13]. No drop-weight testing is required
for very brittle, CLASS A-1 panels.
The design requirements specify the design loads, the deflection
limits, and the design basis for the panels. The static design loads
were obtained from ACI 347-04 [14] and ASCE 37-02 [15]. Dead
load consists of the weight of the formwork plus the weight of
the reinforcement and the freshly placed concrete; Live load is
specified as a 2.4 kPa (50 lb/ft2) distributed load or a 1112 N
(250 lbf) concentrated load. Under the service loads (unfactored
dead and live loads) the maximum deflection is limited to L/240
per recommendations provided in ASCE 37-02 [15]. The panels
reinforced with FRP bars and grids, are designed using a strength
design method according to ACI 440.1R [16] with load factors of
1.2 and 1.6 for dead and live loads, respectively. The panels rein-
forced with short fibers or meshes are designed using an allowable
stress design basis with a safety factor of 2.5 for flexural design ap-
plied to rcr for CLASS A-1 panels and applied to rr for CLASS A-2 or
CLASS A-3 panels (as appropriate). Pultruded and proprietary pan-
els are designed using an allowable stress design basis with a
safety factor of 3.0 applied to the ultimate flexural strength (deter-
mined from material rupture or local buckling failure) for the de-
sign span.

5. Conclusions

Based on the results of this study it was concluded that FRP/FRC

Fig. 7. Drop-weight impact test set-up (showing specimen after failure). panels can be used as permanent formwork for bridge deck con-
2668 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677

400 500
Fiber Reinforcements Grid Reinfo rcements Bar Reinforcements FRP
Plank
450
350
Cracking Failure
400
300
350
(50 lbf x 5ft )
250
300
Energy (ft-lb)

(222N x 2.1m)

Energy (N-m)
200 250

200
150

150
100
100

50
50

0 0
(1a) (1c) (1e) (1g) (2a) (2d) (2e) (2f) (2g) (3a) (3b) (3c) (4a)

Formwork Panel Type

Fig. 8. Results of drop-weight tests on panels.

struction provided they are used in accordance with the model
specification developed. Most importantly, as stated in the model
specification, the gap widths that can be spanned are limited by
the Class of reinforcement. Typical FRC panels that are reinforced
with synthetic short fibers typically used for crack control pur-
poses are limited to gap widths of not more than 200 mm (8 in.)
to protect the construction workers. For more ductile panels rein-
forced with meshes, FRP grids or bars, larger gap widths can be
spanned. However, a drop-weight impact test must be used to
qualify the panels used in these cases. For linear elastic pultruded
panels with high ultimate strengths but low moduli, full section
testing is required to determine the load carrying capacity and
deflection at the failure load.
A.1.4
Formwork specified herein is only to be used to resist the tem-
porary construction loads and is left in-place for the life of the
structure. All formwork referred to in this specification is assumed
to be structurally ‘‘non-participating”. i.e., while the formwork may
or may not act compositely with the deck slab, it is not considered
as providing any strength or stiffness enhancement to the deck
slab.
A.1.5
All test results shall be reported in accordance with ASTM E575-
05. A minimum of three tests shall be carried for each of the tests
described in this specification.

Appendix A. Model specification for the design and A.1.6

performance of non-participating fiber reinforced permanent
formwork for deck slabs in highway bridges
A.1. Introduction
A.1.1
Permanent (stay-in-place) formwork covered in this specifica-
tion is intended for the construction of highway bridge deck slabs,
typically involving wide-flange girders (Fig. A1).
A.1.2
Fiber reinforced permanent formwork described in this specifi-
cation refers to thin formwork that is less than 38 mm (1.5 in.)
thick (tf) made from fiber reinforced cementitious, or fiber rein-
forced polymer (FRP) based materials, or a combination of the two.
A.1.3
The successful approval and application of formwork panels in
bridge decks is based on prescriptive requirements and is verified
by performance testing and analysis as detailed in this
specification.
This specification shall be applied in either SI or Imperial units
depending on units used in the project. The specification is based
on hard conversions between unit systems and consequently pre-
scriptive sections may not be identical to each other in different
unit systems (e.g., 1 m or 3 ft).
A.2. Referenced documents
A.2.1
AC 318, Acceptance criteria for structural cementitious floor
sheathing panels, ICC Evaluation Service, Inc. (2005).
A.2.2
ACI 318R-05, Building code requirements for structural con-
crete and commentary, American Concrete Institute (2005), Farm-
ington Hills, Mich.
A.2.3
ACI 347R, Guide to formwork for concrete, American Concrete
Institute (2004).
 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677 2669

Fig. A1. Typical SIP formwork section.

A.2.4 A.2.11
ACI 440.1R-06, Guide for the design and construction of struc- ASTM C1399-07, Standard test method for obtaining average
tural concrete reinforced with frp bars, American Concrete Insti- residual-strength of fiber reinforced concrete. 04.02. ASTM Inter-
tute Committee 440 (2006). national (2007).

A.2.5 A.2.12
American association of state highway and transportation offi- ASTM C1609-06, Standard test method for flexural performance
cials. (2004). AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 4th ed., of fiber reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading),
Washington, DC. ASTM International (2005).

A.2.13
A.2.6
ASTM D3917, Standard specification of dimensional tolerance of
ASCE 7-05, Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
thermosetting glass-reinforced plastic pultruded shapes, ASTM
tures, American Society of Civil Engineers (2005).
International (2002).

A.2.7
ASTM C33-07, Standard specification for concrete aggregates.
04.02., ASTM International (2007).
A.2.8
ASTM C39/C 39 M-05, Standard test method for compressive
strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, ASTM International
(2005).
A.2.9
ASTM C330-05, Standard specification for lightweight aggre-
gates for structural concrete. 04.02., ASTM International (2005).
A.2.10
ASTM C1116-03, Standard specification for fiber reinforced con-
crete and shortcrete. 04.01., ASTM International (2003).
A.2.14
ASTM E575-05, Reporting data from structural tests of building
constructions, elements, connections, and assemblies, 04.02., ASTM
International (2005).
A.2.15
ASTM E695, Method for measuring relative resistance of wall,
floor, and roof construction to impact loading, 04.11, ASTM Inter-
national. (2003).
A.3. Notation
A.3.1
Unless specified otherwise, the corresponding SI/imperial units
provided in the definition of the notations are to be used directly in
the equations referenced in the specification.
2670 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677

PEP pre-engineered panel

Af Area of profiled or thin-walled panels per unit width
Sealants materials applied between adjacent panels to
(mm2/m, in.2/ft)
prevent water and concrete grout seepage
ds Depth of concrete deck slab above the formwork panel
during the casting of the bridge deck
(mm, in.)
Service load total unfactored load (dead load and live load)
df Overall depth of concrete formwork panel (mm, in.)
on formwork panel
DL Total dead load (kN/m, lb/ft) per unit width (m, ft)
SFRC steel fiber reinforced concrete
(DL)f Self weight of the formwork panel (kN/m, lb/ft) per unit
SNFRC synthetic fiber reinforced concrete
width (m, ft)
TRC textile reinforced concrete
(DL)s Self-weight of the deck slab (kN/m, lb/ft) per unit width
Thermoplastic resin that is capable of being repeatedly
(m, ft)
resin softened or melted by increases in temperature
Ec Secant modulus of elasticity (GPa, ksi)
followed by subsequent solidification on
fc0 Concrete compressive strength (MPa, psi)
cooling
dcr Deflection at cracking strength (mm, in.)
Thermosetting resin manufactured by a thermosetting reaction
dr Deflection at the peak residual strength (mm, in.)
resin that cures to a resin stronger form and cannot
ds, dult Deflection at service load and ultimate load for the
usually be melted or reshaped after being cured.
formwork (mm, in.)
Ultimate load combination of factored dead and live load
I Moment of inertia of the cross-section per unit width
specified according to ASCE 7 (2005)
(mm4/m, in.4/ft)
L Total length of formwork panel perpendicular to the
girder (m, ft)
Lc Formwork clear girder span (m, ft) A.5. Formwork classification
Leff Formwork effective span length (m, ft)
(LL)udl Uniform live load on the formwork panel per unit width A.5.1
(kPa/m, psf/ft) All formwork systems covered in this specification shall be lim-
(LL)pt Point live load on the formwork panel (kN, kips) ited to a maximum thickness of 40 mm (1.5 in.) (tf 6 40 mm., see
ms, mult Service moment (kN m, ft lbs) per unit width (m, ft), Fig. A1).
ultimate moment (kN m, ft lbs) per unit width (m, ft)
qs Unit weight of slab (kN/m3, pcf) A.5.2
qf Unit weight of formwork panel (kN/m3, pcf) Formwork systems are classified as either ‘‘Custom designed
rcr, rr Cracking strength (MPa, psi), Peak residual strength panels (CDP)” – CLASS A or ‘‘Pre-engineered panels (PEP)” – CLASS B.
(MPa, psi)
rs Required stress (MPa, psi) A.5.3
rall Allowable flexural tensile strength (MPa, psi) CDP refers to cementitious formwork that is designed by the
rult Ultimate strength (MPa, psi) Contractor or the Engineer of Record for a specific job and is man-
tf Thickness of thin-walled permanent formwork ufactured off-site at a precast yard or on-site at the construction
(mm, in.) location.
ss, sall Service shear stress, Allowable shear strength (MPa,
psi) A.5.4
vser, Vult Service shear and ultimate shear (kN, kips) per unit PEP refers to formwork that is commercially available in large
panel width (m, ft) sheet form or plank form that can be cut to suit the contractor’s
w Formwork total width (m, ft), dimension parallel to specific job requirements (e.g. SafPlank from Strongwell or Forta-
girder support crete from US Gypsum).
y Distance from the neutral axis of the cross section to
the extreme fiber (mm, in.) A.5.5
Formwork systems are further classified based on their load–
deflection response or the material used to form the panel. Sections
A.6 and A.7 describes the method used to classify a formwork sys-
A.4. Abbreviations and definitions tem. Subsequently, design or performance testing is stipulated
based on the specific class of the formwork.

ASD allowable stress design A.6. Custom designed panels (CLASS-A)

AR glass fiber fibers made from alkali resistant (AR) glass with
a minimum zirconia content of at least 16% A.6.1
CDP custom designed panel Aggregate used for this class of formwork panels shall be lim-
FRC fiber reinforced concrete, concrete containing ited to a maximum size of 10 mm (3/8 in.).
dispersed, discrete, and randomly oriented
short fibers A.6.2
FRP fiber reinforced polymer, containing continuous This class of formwork panel is subdivided into three sub-clas-
reinforcing fibers of indefinite length ses; CLASSES A-1, A-2 and A-3. Typical examples of reinforcement
GFRC/GRC glass fiber reinforced concrete systems for each of the classes are indicated in Table A1 and typical
LRFD load and resistance factor design load–deflection curves as shown in Fig. A2.
MOR modulus of rupture (flexural)
Panel entire piece of permanent formwork A.6.3
Partial volume fiber volume expressed as a percentage of the The sub-classification of the different classes is based on the
fraction total fiber volume load–deflection characteristics (Table A2). Upon classification,
 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677 2671

Table A1
Examples of typical reinforcements for CDP systems.

CLASS Materials in this class will typically consist of fiber reinforced concrete (FRC). Fibers used typically
A-1 consist of glass or synthetic (polypropylene) short fibers, glass fiber scrim cloths and light glass and
carbon fiber reinforced polymer meshes in a concrete matrix
CLASS Materials in the class will typically consist of light glass and carbon fiber reinforced polymer meshes and
A-2 FRP rebars in a concrete matrix
CLASS Materials in the class will typically consist of heavy carbon fiber reinforced polymer meshes and FRP
A-3 rebars in a concrete matrix

qffiffiffiffi
formwork design and approval shall follow the specific require- rcr ¼ 0:623 fc0 ½SI units ðA1aÞ
ments stipulated in Sections A.10–A.15 for the following qffiffiffiffi
parameters: rcr ¼ 7:5 fc0 ½Imperial units ðA1bÞ

 Span limit,
 Design strength requirements, A.6.6
 Impact performance requirements, For CLASS A-1 panels with fiber dosage of less than 0.5% (by vol-
 Ductility ratio limits, ume), the average residual stress is to be ignored in the sub-classi-
 Serviceability requirements. fication described in Section A.6.8.

A.6.4
Any formwork panels with only fibers used as the reinforce-
ment system shall be limited to CLASS A-1 or A-2.
A.6.5
The cracking strength, rcr shall be calculated based on third
point beam tests (ASTM C-1609), or per the equation for tensile
rupture stress [Eq. (A1)] given in ACI 318-05. Concrete compressive
strength shall be verified through a minimum of three cylinder
tests carried out according to ASTM C39.
A.6.7
An average residual stress, rr shall be determined for CLASSES
A-2 and A-3 formwork systems per ASTM C1399 (see Fig. A3).
A.6.8
From the test results, strength ratios are calculated for deter-
mining the appropriate class of the permanent formwork system
(refer to Table A2).
A.6.9
All formwork is to be limited to a maximum span, Lc, as shown
in Table A2 for the appropriate sub-class defined above.

A.6.10
CLASS A-1 formwork panels are intended to be uncracked for
the design service loads. CLASSES A-2 and A-3 formwork panels
are intended to be cracked for the design service loads.

Load
A.7. Pre-engineered panels (CLASS-B)
(N)
Pr A.7.1
Pcr PEPs are sub-classified based on the material used in the panel
as either CLASS B-1 or CLASS B-2.
δr CLASS A-3
A.7.2
CLASS B-1 covers pre-manufactured fiber reinforced polymer
Pr (FRP) composite plates panels, planks or built-up sections, of flat,
ribbed, folded, or corrugated cross-sections. CLASS B-2 covers all
other proprietary pre-manufactured panels and can include panels
δr CLASS A-2 made from any materials provided the requirements of this speci-
fication are met. Typical examples of materials for CLASS-B panels
CLASS A-1 are indicated in Table A3.

δcr
Net Deflection (mm) A.7.3
The thickness of CLASS B-1 panels shall be limited to 6 mm
Fig. A2. Typical load–deflection plot for CLASS-A SIP formwork. (0.25 in.) (tf 6 6 mm).

Table A2
Sub-classification system for custom designed panel (CDP).

Strength Ratio CDP formwork Class Max Span, Lc

rr
rcr 6 0:5 CLASS-A1: Brittle softening fiber reinforced concrete panels 200 mm (8 in.)
0:5 < rrcrr 6 1:0 CLASS-A2: Ductile softening fiber reinforced concrete panels 450 mm (18 in.)
rr
rcr > 1:0 CLASS-A3: Ductile hardening fiber reinforced concrete panels None
2672 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677

A.8.5
The service moment in the panel (ms) per meter width of the
σcr formwork shall be calculated as follows:
Initial Loading Curve
(Stop at deflection of 0.02in) ½ðDLÞ þ ðLLÞudl   L2eff
mudl ¼
8
   
ðDLÞLeff nðLLÞpt Leff ðA5Þ
Load Re-loading curve mpt ¼ þ 
2 w 4
(N) (Pre-cracked beam)
ms ¼ Maxfmudl ; mpt g
σr where n is a unit-less number that is a function of the width of the
panel parallel to the girder defined as follows:
δr For w < 1mð3 ftÞ; n ¼ 1
For 1mð3 ftÞ < w < 2mð6 ftÞ; n¼2
For 2mð6 ftÞ < w < 3mð9 ftÞ; n¼3
δr 0.01 0.02 0.03 0. 04 0.05
Net Deflection (mm) A.8.6
Fig. A3. Typical loading curves (including re-loading) – ASTM C1399-07. The ultimate moment in the panel (Mult) per unit width of the
formwork shall be calculated per ASCE 7 (2005) load combination
factors as follows.

½1:2ðDLÞ þ 1:6ðLLÞudl   L2eff

A.7.4 M udl ¼
Fiber reinforcements used for CLASS B-1 shall be limited to con- 8
   
tinuous fibers, woven fabrics, or continuous fiber mats. 1:2ðDLÞLeff 1:6nðLLÞpt Leff ðA6Þ
M pt ¼ þ 
2 w 4
A.8. Calculation of design loads and stresses M ult ¼ MaxfM udl ; M pt g

A.8.1
A.8.7
All formwork panels (both CLASS A and CLASS B) shall be de-
The service and ultimate shear force on the panel (vser, Vult) shall
signed for a combination of dead load (DL) and live load (LL) per
be calculated as follows where n is defined similarly per Section
the AASHTO LRFD Specification (2004).
A.8.5.
A.8.2
½ðDLÞ þ ðLLÞudl  ð1mÞ  Leff
DL shall comprise of self weight of the panel, (DL)f and the v udl ¼
weight of the wet concrete for the deck slab (DL)s per unit width 2
 
of the formwork panel. 1 nðLLÞpt ðA7Þ
v pt ¼ ðDLÞLeff þ
2 w
DL ¼ ðDLÞf þ ðDLÞs ðA2Þ
v ser ¼ Maxfv udl ; v pt g
where
ðDLÞf ¼ qf  df ðA3Þ ½1:2ðDLÞ þ 1:6ðLLÞudl  ð1mÞ  leff
V udl ¼
ðDLÞs ¼ qs  ds ðA4Þ 2
 
1 1:6nðLLÞpt  ð1mÞ ðA8Þ
V pt ¼ 1:2ðDLÞLeff þ
2 w
A.8.3 V ult ¼ MaxfV udl ; V pt g
For proprietary formwork panels the self weight of the form
(DL)f shall be obtained directly from the manufacturer and verified
by weighing. A.8.8
For forms with a rectangular cross-section, the flexural stress at
A.8.4 service loads in the extreme fiber (rs) is to be calculated per Eq.
Two different live loads (LL) on the panel shall be considered for (A9). For non-rectangular and profiled sections, extreme fiber flex-
design. The live load that results in maximum peak moment of the ural stress shall be calculated using Eq. (A10).
two cases is to be used for design. Flexural service stress:
6  ms
(LL)udl – 2.4 kPa distributed live load or rs ¼ 2
ðA9Þ
(LL)pt – 1.1 kN concentrated load applied at the center of the df
m  y
panel for every 1 m parallel to girder. rs ¼
s
ðA10Þ
I

Table A3
Sub-classification system for pre-engineered panel (PEP).

CLASS B1 Thin-walled fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) panels

CLASS B2 Any other proprietary panels that do not fit to the above classification. This may include cement board panels, plywood panels, or paperboard formwork panels
 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677 2673

A.8.9 The material specification of the fiber and the details of the fiber
The average service shear stress due to service loads in the manufacturer shall be included as part of the submittal for
formwork panel (ss) is to be calculated as follows: approval.
Shear service stress (CLASS A formwork panels):
vs A.9.4. Polymer
ss ¼ ðA11Þ Thermosetting vinylester or epoxy resins shall be permitted in
df
FRP rebars grids or FRP panels. Thermosetting polyester, phenolic
Shear service stress (CLASS B-1 formwork panels): and polyeurethane resins are not permitted. Styrene may be added
vs to the polymer resin during processing and shall be limited to a
ss ¼ ðA12Þ maximum of 10% by weight of the resin (pph resin). Thermoplastic
Af
resins are permitted as fiber coatings in non-composite scrims
such as SRG-45 from Saint Gobain.
A.8.10
The maximum shear strength for cementitious panels (CLASS A.9.5. FRP pultruded or molded sections
A), smax, is calculated using the simple method provided in ACI Reinforcement in FRP pultruded sections shall consist of layers
318 (2005) shown in Eq. (A13). of continuous E-glass rovings and E-glass continuous filament mats
qffiffiffiffi (CFMs) or fabrics. The FRP material shall have a minimum total fi-
smax ¼ 2k fc0 ½Imperial units ðA13aÞ ber volume fraction of 40% or greater with a minimum partial lon-
qffiffiffiffi
gitudinal fiber volume (relative to the total fiber volume) of greater
smax ¼ 0:166k fc0 ½SI units ðA13bÞ
than 75%. Manufactured panels shall conform to dimensional toler-
where ance per ASTM D3917.

k = 1.0 (normal weight concrete) A.10. Specific strength requirements

k = 0.75 (all other cementitious panels)
A.10.1
CLASSES A-1 and A-2 formwork systems are to be designed
based on an allowable strength design basis (ASD) with a factor
A.8.11
The maximum flexural strength for cementitious panels, rmax, of safety of 2.5 (see Table A4).
CLASS A-1 – Flexural strength design based on peak cracking
shall be either the cracking strength defined in Section A.6.5, rcr,
or the residual strength, rr, depending on the class of the formwork stress
 rcr 
panel (see Fig. A3).
rs < rall ¼ ðA14Þ
2:5
A.9. Material requirements CLASS A-2 – Flexural strength design based on residual stress
 rr 
A.9.1. Concrete rs < rall ¼ ðA15Þ
Portland cement concrete materials in CLASSES A-1, A-2 and A- 2:5
3 materials shall have a minimum 6% air entrainment and a mini- CLASSES A-1 and A-2 – Shear strength design shall be based on
mum compressive strength of 27 MPa. allowable shear stress defined in Section A.8.10.
Fiber reinforced concrete that fall into CLASSES A-1, A-2, or B-2  smax 
shall conform to ASTM C 116. ss < sall ¼ ðA16Þ
2:5

A.9.2. Aggregate where, rr is obtained from the load–deflection plot corresponding

Aggregate shall be limited to a maximum of 10 mm (3/8 in.) and to ASTM C1399-07 as follows (see Fig. A3):
8 9
shall conform to ASTM C33 or C 330; consistent with the class of
< peak postcracking stress >
> =
concrete required. rr ¼ min or ðA17Þ
>
: >
L ;
stress at deflection of 60
A.9.3. Fibers
Glass fibers (short-fibers or scrim cloths) used shall be alkali-
resistant (AR) Glass. Commercial grade synthetic polymer fibers A.10.2
typically used in FRC products for crack control shall be permitted. CLASS A-3 formwork systems shall be designed using a Load
Commercial grade E-glass or carbon fibers permitted in FRP and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) basis, following the ACI
rebars, grids, or FRP panels shall be continuous fibers of indefinite 440.1R-06 design procedures to determine the flexural and shear
length. capacities.

Table A4
Strength, serviceability and performance requirements for formwork panels.

Classification Flexure design Shear design Ductility Impact test Serviceability

limit limit
l
CLASS-A1 rrcrr 6 0:5 Allowable stress design Allowable stress design None None eff
ds < 240
r

rs < rall ¼ 2:5

cr
ss < sall ¼ s2:5
ult

CLASS-A2 Allowable stress design Allowable stress design dr dcr P 10 Survives 3 consecutive Impacts of 340 N m (250
rr

0:5 < rrcrr 6 1:0 rs < rall ¼ 2:5 ss < sall ¼ s2:5
ult
ft lbf)
CLASS-A3 rrcrr > 1:0 LRFD design approach Mu 6 /Mn LRFD design approach V u 6 /V n dr dcr P 25
dult
CLASSES-B1 and B-2 Allowable stress design Allowable stress design ds P 5

ult

rs < rall ¼ r3:0

ult
ss < sall ¼ s3:0
2674 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677

M u 6 /Mn ðA18Þ A.11.4

V u 6 /V n ðA19Þ The service deflection for CLASSES A-2 and A-3 formwork shall
be determined from tests carried out according to ASTM flexure
where test (ASTM C1399).

Mu and Vu are the factored moment and shear based on the A.11.5
design loads, The deflection under service loads, ds, for CLASS B-1 panels shall
Mn and Vn are the nominal moment capacities of the section in be based the secant modulus of the panel calculated from the load–
one way bending, deflection plot up to the ultimate strength, rult. For CLASS B-2 pan-
/ is the resistance factor for flexural or shear failure according els, the modulus of elasticity obtained from the manufacturer of
to ACI 440.1R-06. the panel shall be used to compute the deflection under service
loads. Where this is not available, tests on the full-sized panels
shall be carried out (Section A.10.5).
A.10.3
For CLASS B panels the allowable strengths rall and sall shall be A.12. Construction safety – impact performance
determined using a factor of safety of 3; where rult and sult shall be
determined based on Sections A.10.4 and A.10.5. A.12.1
 r  Impact performance tests are to be carried for all classes of the
rs < rall ¼ ult ðA20Þ permanent formwork except CLASS A-1 where the requirements
3:0
 s  are waived.
ss < sall ¼ ult ðA21Þ
3:0
A.12.2
A drop-weight impact test shall be performed on three iden-
A.10.4
tical as-produced specimens in accordance with ASTM E695
For CLASS B-1 panels, the ultimate strength shall be determined
where the mass of the impact bag is adjusted to suit. Require-
using a full section three-point bend test of the as-received prod-
ments for deflection measurements specified in ASTM E695 shall
uct, on the intended design span. Tests shall determine the stresses
be waived.
at failure, i.e., the flexural stress at failure (due to material rupture
or local buckling of the profile) rult, the shear stress at failure, sult,
A.12.3
and deflection at failure, dult
Each panel is required to resist three successive impacts of
340 N m (250 ft-lbf) (see Table A4). The specimen can have multi-
A.10.5
ple cracks and excessive deformations but shall still be intact and
For CLASS B-2 panels, the allowable stress shall be based on
shall not collapse completely after the third impact drop.
manufacturer reported values that incorporate a factor of safety
of at least 3.0. Where manufacturer reported strength and proper-
A.12.4
ties are not available, a full section test of the as-received product,
The drop-weight shall not exceed 350 N (75 lbf) nor be less than
for the intended design span shall be conducted, similar to CLASS
100 N (25 lbf). An acceptable impact performance test set-up is
B-1 panels (Section A.10.4).
shown in Fig. A4.
A.11. Serviceability limits
A.12.5
The dimension of the impact weight in the direction of the span
A.11.1
shall not be greater than 150 mm (6 in.) and shall not exceed one
The service load maximum deflection, ds is to be calculated from
quarter of the clear span length.
unfactored design loads (service loads) defined in Sections A.8.2
and A.8.3. lc
W6 ðA26Þ
4
A.11.2
The service load deflection shall be limited to: where Lc is the clear span between the girder flanges (see Fig. A1).

Leff A.12.6
ds < ðA22Þ
240 The impact test shall be conducted with an identical support
condition that is proposed for the final field installation of the per-
A.11.3 manent form. e.g. Polystyrene foam, grout bed, neoprene pad, or
For CLASS A-1 panels where the formwork is expected to be un- direct bearing on the precast girder flange.
cracked in its service state, the service deflection, ds shall be calcu-
lated using the secant modulus of elasticity of concrete, Ec, as spec- A.13. Ductility requirements
ified in ACI 318-05.
ds shall be calculated according to the following equations (n is A.13.1
defined in Section A.8.5): Post-cracking ductility requirements are imposed on each class
4 of formwork system (except CLASS A-1) depending on the ex-
5leff ½ðDLÞ þ ðLLÞudl 
dudl ¼ 3
ðA23Þ pected performance and the risk involved (see Table A4). The fol-
32Ec wdf lowing ductility ratios (Fig. A5) are required to be met,
3  
l 5ðDLÞleff nðLLÞpt Ductility ratio P 10 ðCLASS-A2Þ
dpt ¼ eff 3 þ ðA24Þ
4Ewdf 8 w Ductility ratio P 25 ðCLASS-A3Þ
ds ¼ Maxfdudl ; dpt g ðA25Þ Ductility ratio P 5 ðCLASS-BÞ
 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677 2675

Pulley Mechanism with manual

release or equivalent

Drop Weight
Incremental Min 110 N (25 lbf)
Drop Height

12.7 mm (½ inch)
Neoprene pad
Test Specimen

Support bedding to
Support block match field proposal

Specimen Span

Fig. A4. Alternative impact test loading configuration.

Class A2 & A3 Class B

σcr Load
δ ult
Ductility Ratio =
δs
Load σult

δr σs
Ductility Ratio =
δcr

δcr δr δs δult
Net Deflection Net Deflection
Fig. A5. Ductility ratios or CLASS-A and CLASS-B formwork panels.

A.13.2 A.13.3
Ductility ratio for CLASSES A-2 and A-3 panels are calculated as: The deflection at cracking, dcr, shall be calculated from the se-
cant modulus of elasticity of the concrete, Ec, specified in ACI
dr
Ductility ratio ¼ ðA27Þ 318-05 up to the cracking strength, rcr.
dcr
2676 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677
SIP Formwork
(Individual Panel)
1.0 kN (250 lbf) patch
load on 0.3m x 0.3m
(12 in. x 12 in.) area
Girder Top Flange
Fig. A6. Patch loading for ends of panel for stability test.
A.13.4
The deflection at peak residual strength, dr, shall be determined
from static flexure tests carried out according to ASTM C1399.
A.13.5
Ductility ratio of the CLASS B formwork panels is defined as:
dult
Ductility ratio ¼
ds
A.14. Durability requirements
A.14.1
If the formwork material includes cellulose or gypsum based
materials that are susceptible to moisture, additional freeze-thaw
tests are to be carried out per ICC Acceptance Criterion 318.
A.15. Other requirements
A.15.1
The permanent formwork system shall be installed with tie-
down systems, if required, in order to stabilize the panels against
wind gusts or horizontal movement prior to concrete placement.
The engineer of record shall approve the method for securing the
forms in position. A minimum bearing width of 50 mm (2 in.) shall
be provided on each side of the panel.
A.15.2
The formwork shall be checked for stability during construction
by applying a 1.0 kN (250 lbf) load at the edge of the panel and
ensuring that there is no damage or instability in the permanent
formwork. A minimum of two tests shall be carried out for every
type of support condition expected in the final application of the
formwork. A patch loading on a 300 mm  300 m (12 in.  12 in.)
area shall be applied per Fig. A6. Where it is not possible to test
SIP Formwork
(Connected Dual Panel)
Interlocking
mechanism or
sealant
the formwork using the actual bridge girder support, it may be
tested off-site by emulating the actual supports expected in the fi-
nal application.
A.15.3
All CLASS A formwork panels shall be provided with a broom-
roughened surface finish.
ðA28Þ
A.15.4
A proprietary edge locking system or sealant that prevents leak-
age of the wet concrete during casting shall be provided and ap-
proved by the engineer of record.
References
[1] Wrigley RG. Permanent formwork in construction. London, UK: Construction
Industry Research and Information Association; 2001.
[2] True GF. Glass fibre reinforced cement permanent formwork. Concrete
1985;19:31–3.
[3] PCI. Recommended practice for glass fiber reinforced concrete panels, 4th ed.,
Committee on glass fiber reinforced concrete panels, Chicago (IL), USA:
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute; 2001.
[4] Bentur A, Mindess S. Fibre reinforced cementitious composites. 2nd ed. NY,
USA: Taylor & Francis; 2007.
[5] Reinhardt HW. Integral formwork panels made of GFRC in high performance
fiber-reinforced thin-sheet products, ACI SP-190. Farmington Hills (MI),
USA: American Concrete Institute; 2000. p. 77–95.
[6] Brameshuber W, Koster M, Hegger J, Voss S, Gries T, Barle M, et al. ‘‘Integrated
formwork elements made of textile reinforced concrete”, ACI SP-
224. Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete Institute; 2002. p. 45–54.
[7] Brameshuber W. Textile reinforced concrete – state-of-the-art report, RILEM
TC 201-TRC, Bagneux, France: RILEM Publications SARL; 2006.
[8] Bank LC, Gentry TR, Thompson BP, Russell JS. A model specification for FRP
composites for civil engineering structures. Constr Build Mater
2003;17:405–37.
[9] Bank LC, Malla AP, Oliva MG, Russell JS, Bentur A, Shapira A. Specification and
design of fiber reinforced bridge deck forms for use on wide flange T-girders,
Wisconsin Highway Research Program Report WHRP 07-10; 2007. <http://
www.whrp.org/Research/Structures/struct_0092-06-07/index.htm>.
[10] Malla AP. Development of a specification for thin stay-in-place forms for
bridge deck construction. MS thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2007.
 L.C. Bank et al. / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2664–2677
[11] ASTM C1609-06. Standard test method for flexural performance of fiber-
reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading). West
Conshohocken (PA, USA): ASTM International; 2006.
[12] ASTM C1399-07. Standard test method for obtaining average residual-strength
of fiber-reinforced concrete. West Conshohocken (PA, USA): ASTM
International; 2007.
[13] ASTM E695-03. Method for measuring relative resistance of wall, floor, and
roof construction to impact loading. West Conshohocken (PA, USA): ASTM
International; 2003.
2677
[14] ACI 347-04. Guide to formwork for concrete, Farmington Hills (MI, USA):
American Concrete Institute; 2004.
[15] American Society of Civil Engineers. Design loads on structures during
construction. Reston (VA, USA): ASCE 37-02, ASCE; 2002.
[16] ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of structural concrete
reinforced with FRP bars. Farmington Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete
Institute; 2006.