CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT AND GLASS FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMER

Abstract
The corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete
reduces the life of stnlctures, causes high repair
costs and can endanger the structural integrity of
the structure itself. Glass fibre rein forced polymer
(GFRP) offers a number of advantages over steel
especially when used in marine and other salt laden
environments. GF RP reinforcing bars are gradually
finding w ider acceptance as a replacement for
conventional steel reinforcement as it otTers a number
of advantages.
Technical studies on a number of concrete structures,
from five to e ight years old and constructed with GFRP
reinforcement, have shown that there is no degradation
of the GFRP from the alkaline environment.

Introduction
Michael Kemp
BEng Civil - General Manager Wagners CFT

Re inforced concrete is a common building material

for construction of facilities and structures. While
concrete has high compressive strength, it has limited
tensile strength. To overcome these tensile limitations,
reinforcing bars (rebar) are used in the tension side of
concrete structures.
Steel rebar has historica lly been use.d as an effective
and cost efficient concrete reinforcement. W hen not
subjected to chloride ion attack, steel reinforcement
can last for decades without exhibiting any visible
signs of deterioration.

David Blowes
Sales Engineer - Wagners CFT

40

H owever, steel rebar is very susceptible to oxidation

(rust) when exposed to chlorides. E xamples of such
exposure incl ude coastal areas, salt contaminated
aggregates used in the concrete mixture and sites
where aggressive chem icals and ground conditions
exist. In cold climates, treating snow with salt is
another cause of accelerated deteri oration of concrete
bridge decks. When corrosion of steel rebar occurs,
the resulting corrosion products have a volume 2 to 5
times larger than the original steel reinforcement. As
the concrete cannot physically sustain the high internal
tensile stresses developed from this volume increase,
it eventually may crack and spall causing further
deterioration of the steel (Figure 1). The combination
of ongoing deterioration and loss of rei nforcement
properties ultimately requires potentially significant
and high cost repairs and possibly the endangerment of
the structure itself.

QUEENS LAND ROA DS Edition No II September 201 1,

Figure 1. Concrete spalling of a bridge soffit in a

corrosive env-ironment

GFRP bars are a competitive reinforcing option in

reinforced concrete members subjected to flexure and
shear. GFRP has compelling physical and mechanical
properties, corrosion resistance and electromagnetic
transparency. The lise of GFRP reinforcement is
particularly attractive for structures that operate in
aggressive environments, such as in coastal regions,
or for buildings that host magnetic resonance
imaging (MRT) units or other equipment sensitive to
electromagnetic fields.

Brief history
Fibre reinforced polymers (FRP) have been used [or
decades in the aeronautical, aerospace, automotive and
other fields. (FRP is the generic name and its primary
difference from GFRP is that it can be composed of
a range of materials whereas the GFRP is reinforced
with glass fibres.) Their use in civil engineering
works dates back to the 1950s when GFRP bars were
first investigated for structural use. However, it was
not until the 1970s that FRP was finally considered
for structural engineering applications and its
superior performance over epoxy coated steel was
recognised. The first applications of glass fibre FRP
were not successful due to its poor performance within
thermosetting resins cured at high molding pressures
(I). Since their early introduction, many new FRP
materials have been developed with a range of
different forms such as bars, fabric, 20 grids, 3D grids
or standard structural shapes (Figure 2). The fibre
materials include aramid (Kevlar), polyvinyl, carbon
and improved glass fibres .

Figure 2. Available shapes of FRP products

Manufacturing of FRP
A manufacturing process called Pultrusion is the
most common technique used for manufacturing
continuous lengths of FRP bars that are of constant
or nearly constant in profile. Figure 3 below shows
this manufacturing technique. Continuous strands of
reinforcing material are drawn from roving bobbins .
A veil is introduced and they pass through a resin
tank, where they are saturated with resin followed by
a number of wiper rings to remove excess resin. The
strands are then led to a pre-former and then formed
to their final shape and cured by the heated die. The
speed of pulling through the die is predetermined by
the curing time needed. To ensure a good bond with
concrete, the surface of the bars is usually coated with
sand and then cut to length (Figure 4). The application
of the sand coating is an additional process, a layer of
resin is applied (but not under heated conditions) and
then the bar is coated with a thin layer of sand.

QUE ENSLAND ROADS Edition No II September 2011

41

Figure 3. Pultrusion process for forming FRP bars

Figure 4. FRP bars with sand coated finish

SI

Nominal
diameter (mm)

Tensile modulus of
1
elasticity (GPa)

Guaranteed tensile
strength (MPa)

~6

6.35

46.1

788

~10

9.53

46.2

765

~13

12.70

46.4

710

~16

15.88

48.2

683

~19

19.05

47.6

656

<I> 25

25.40

51.0

611

I
I

Figure 5. FRP bar properties

1 For reference. the elasti c modulus for steel is 200 GPa

42

QU EENSLAND ROADS Editi on No 11 September 20 11

Similar to steel reinforcement, FRP bars are produced

in different diameters, depending on the manufacturing
process. The surface of the rods can be spiral, straight,
sanded-straight, sanded-braided and deformed. The
bar to concrete bond is equal to or better than the bond
with steel reinforcing bars.
The mechanical properties of FRP reinforcing bars are
given in Figure 5.

Resins
A very important issue in the manufacture of
composites is the selection of the optimum matrix
because the physical and thermal properties of the
matrix significantly affect the final mechanical
properties as well as the manufacturing process. In
order to be able to exploit the full strength of the fibres,
the matrix should be able to develop a higher ultimate
strain than the fibres (2).
The matrix not only coats the fibres and protects them
from mechanical abrasion and chemical attack, but
also transfers stresses bet'Neen the fibres . Other very
important roles of the matrix are the transfer of inter
laminar and in-plane shear within the composite, and
the provision or laterall support to the fibres against
buckling when subjected to compressive loads (3).

There are two types of polymeric matrices commonly

used for FRP composites - thermosetting and
thermoplastic. Thermosetting polymers are used more
often than thermoplastic. They are low molecular
weight liquids with very low viscosity (3) and with
their molecules joined together by chemical cross
links. Hence, they form a rigid three dimensional
structure that, once set, cannot be reshaped by
applying heat or pressure. Thermosetting polymers are
processed in a liquid state to obtain good wet-out of
fibres. Some commonly used thermosetting polymers
are polyesters, vinyl esters and epoxies. These
materials have good thermal stability and chemical
resistance and undergo low creep and stress relaxation .
The vinyl ester resin predominately cures during the
pultrusion manufacturing process as the bar is drawn
through the heated die. By the time the bar reaches
room temperature it is considered to be fully cured.
Thermosetting polymers have relatively low strain
to failure, resulting in low impact strength. Two
major disadvantages are their short shelf life and long
manufacturing time. Mechanical properties of some
thermosetting resins are provided in Figure 6.

Resin

Specific gravity

Tensile strength
(MPa)

Tensile
modulus (GPa)

Cure shrinkage

Epoxy

1.20-1 .30

55.0 - 130.0

2.75-4 .10

1.0 - 5.0

Polyester

1.10 - 1.40

34.5 - 103.5

2.10-3.45

5.0 - 12.0

Vinyl ester

1.12 - 1.32

73.0 - 81.00

3.00 - 3.35

5.4 - 10.3

(%)

Figure 6. Typical properties of thermosetting resins

QU EENSLAND ROADS Edition No II September 20 II

43

Design standards for GF RP

The design of reinforced concrete using FRP
reinforcing bars is not currently codified by any
Australian standard, however there is a Canadian
code (14) and a pub,lication by the American Concrete
Institute (4). Both of these documents use the limit
state approach in their design.

The rm al insulation - GFRP rebar does not create

a thermal bridge within structures
Lightweight - GFRP rebar is a quarter the
weight of steel rebar of equivalent strength. It
offers significant savings in transportation and
installation.

A design manual (\5) has been published by thc

ISIS Canada Research Network 2 which describes the
design process in line with the Canadian code. It is
patiicularly helpful as it describes the differences in
design and behaviour between steel reinforced and
FRP reinforced structures.
The two main differences in designing reinforced
concrete structures using FRP reinforcement are:
FRP does not yield in a similar way as steel
FRP bars have a lower modulus of elasticity than
steel. Furthermore, both codes do not allow for
the use of FRP reinforcement as longitudinal
reinforcement in columns (due to insufficient
research in that area).

Benefits of GFRP
The benefits ofGFRP rebar are as follows:
Corrosion resistance - when bonded in concrete
it does not react to salt, chemical products or the
alkali in concrete. As GFRP is not manufactured
from steel, it does not rust
Superior tensile strength - GFRP rebar produced
by the pultrusion process offers a tensile strength
up to twice that of normal structural steel (based
on area)
Thermal expansion - GFRP rebar offers a level of
thermal expansion comparable to that of concrete
due to its 80% silica content
Electric and magnetic neutrality - as GFRP
rebar does not contain any metals, it will not
cause interference with strong magnetic fields or
when operating sensitive electronic equipment or
instruments

Figure 7. Light weight bundles of FRP are easily

moved on site

Utilising these inherent benefits, GFRP rebar has a cost

effective application as a concrete reinforcing bar in
the following markets when analysed on a life-cycle
cost basis:
Rein forced concrete exposed to corrosive
environments - car parking structures,
bridge decks, parapets, curbs, retaining walls,
foundations, roads and slabs
Structures b uilt in or close proximity to sea
water (Figures 8,9) - quays, retaining wall,
piers, jetties, boat ramps, caissons, decks, piles,
bulkheads, floating structures, canals, roads and
buildings, offshore platforms, swimming pools and
aquanums
Applications subjected to other corrosive agents
- wastewater treatment plants, petrochemical
plants, pulp/paper mills, liquid gas plants,
pipelines/tanks for fossil fuel, cooling towers,
chimneys, mining operations of various types,
nuclear power plants

2 ISIS Canada Research Network (Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures) was established in 1995 to provide civil engineers with smarter
ways to build, repair and monitor structures using high-strength, rlon-corroding, fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) and fibre optic sensors (FOSs).

44

QUEENSLAND ROADS Edition No II September lOll

Applications rcquiring low electric cond uctivity

or electromagnetic neutrality - aluminium and
copper smelting plants, manholes for electrical and
telephone communication equipment, bases for
transmission/telecommunication towers, airport
control towers, MRI in hospitals, railroad crossing
sites, and specialised military structures

Mining/tunneling/boring applications
temporary concrete structures, mining walls,
underground rapid transit structures, rock anchors
and wash down areas

Weight sensitive structures - concrete

construction in areas of poor load bearing soil
conditions, remote geographical locations,
sensitive environmental areas, or active seismic
sites posing special issues that necessitate the use
of lightweight reinforcement

Thermall y sensitive applications - apartment

patio decks, thermally insulated concrete housing
and basements, thermally heated floors and
conditioning rooms.

Figu re 8. GFRP used on the Anthon Jetty,

Wyndham, Western Australia

Figure 9. Precast deck slab and GFRP rebar for

the Anthon Jetty

Technical case study composite rods J

durability of GFRP

One of the most pressing durab ility concerns of our

time is the rap id corrosion of reinforcing steel that
occurs in concrete structures subjected to chloride
rich environments. It's often argued that if the steel
reinforcement in such structures could be replaced
by chemically inert reinforcement such as fibre
reinforced polymers, the problem of cOITosion could
be eliminated. Of the various options, the most
economical choice is GFRP, but it has been reported
to be highly vulnerable to the alkaline environment of
concrete.
A report (6), summarising the results of several
published studies on the alkali resistance of GFRP,
categorically concluded that GFRP should not
be used in direct contact with concrete. Similar
conclusions were drawn by other researchers (7,8,9).
Unfortunately, all of these studies were conducted by
subjecting GFRP to an idealised, simul'ated, high pH
fluid environment often involving high temperatures.
Such environments are unduly harsh as they provide
an unlimited supply of hydroxyl ions - a condition
not present in rea l concrete. Also, they provide
full saturation, which is also rarely the case. Field
conditions should therefore be expected to be different
from these idealised laboratory conditions.

3 The bulk of this section comes from a technical report as indicated under reference (5)

QUEENSLA ND ROADS Edition No II September 20 11

45

Name of structure

Age
years

Concrete strength
MPa

Seasonal temperature range

C

Type of chloride
exposure

Hall Harbor Wharf

45

-35 to 35

Marine

Joffre Bridge

45

-35 to 35

Deicing salts

Chatham Bridge

35

-24 to 30

Deicing salts

Crowchild Trail Bridge

35

-15t023

Deicing salts

Waterloo Creek Bridge

35

oto 23

Deicing salts

Figure 10. Samples were taken from these five structures

In 2004, a major study by ISIS Canada was launched

to obtain field data with respect to the durability of
GFRP in concrete exposed to natural environments.
Concrete cores containing GFRP were removed
from five exposed structures which were five to
eight years old (Figure 10). The GFRP was analysed
for its physical and chemical composition at the
microscopic level. Direct comparisons were carried
out with control samples - GFRP rods preserved under
controlled laboratory conditions.
At least ten 75ml11 diameter core samples containing
GFRP were taken from each of the five structures.
Three concrete cores from each of five structures
were sent for analysis to three teams of material
scientists working independently at various Canadian
universities. The removal ofGFRP samples along
with sUlTounding concrete and the polishing of the
samples required special care given that GFRP and
concrete have different hardness values.
After sample preparation, the GFRP reinforcement
and surrounding concrete were analysed using several
analytical methods. The entire surface of each sample
was examined and photographs were taken at various
locations.

46

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was lIsed for a

detailed examination of the glass fibre/matrix interface
and individual glass fibres. The specimens used in
SEM analyses were also analysed by energy dispersive
x-ray (EDX) to detect potential chemical changes in
the matrix and glass fibres due to the ingress of alkali
from the concrete pore solution. Chemical changes
in the polymeric matrix of GFRP were characterised
by Fourier transfonn infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).
Finally, changes in the glass transition temperature Tg
of the matrix due to exposure to severe environmental
conditions were determined using differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC).
Findings - The results obtained by the three research
teams were very similar. A complete account of their
findings is available in their respective individual
reports (10, I 1,12). The results found that there was
no degradation of the GFRP in the samples provided.
The results from this scientific study, based on
samples from actual engineering structures, was not in
agreement with the results obtained in some simulated
laboratory studies.
The results from SEM and EDX analyses confirmed
that there is no degradation of the GFRP in the
concrete structures. The EDX analyses also indicated
no alkali ingress in the GFRP from the concrete

Q UEENS LAND ROADS Edition No II Septelilber 2011

References
pore solution. The matrix in all GFRPs was intact
and unaltered from its original state. The results
from the FTIR and DSC analyses supported the
results from the SEM examinations. The FTIR and
DSC results indicated that neither hydrolysis nor
significant changes in the glass transition temperature
of the matrix. After exposure, for 5 to 8 years, to the
combined effects of the alkaline environment in the
concrete and the external natural environment, no
detrimental effects were found.
The results of this study were used as the basis for
changes to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code (13) allowing the use of GFRP both as primary
reinforcement and prestressing tendons in concrete
components. The proviso was made that the stress
level for the serviceability limit state does not exceed
25% of its ultimate tensile strength. Other refenmces
to the use ofGFRP can be found in (14,16,17).

I. Parklyn B. Glass Reinforced Plastics, Iliffe,

London. 1970

2. Phillips LN. Design with Advanced Composite

Materials , Springer~Verlag. 1989
3. ACI Committee 440. State-olthe-Art Report on
Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute,
92-S61. Nov 1995 www.concrete.org

4. ACI Committee 440. Guidefor the Design and

Construction ofStructural Concrete Reinforced
with FRP bars, American Concrete Institute, ACI
440.1 R-06, 440 I 03 . April 2006 www.concrete.
org

5. Mufti A, Banthia N, Benmokr B, Boulfizaane M,

Newhook J. Durability ofGFRP Composite Rods,
Concrete international, Vol 29, Issue 2. February
2007

Summary and Conclusion

GFRP has a very important role to playas
reinforcement in concrete structures that will be
exposed to harsh environmental conditions where
traditional steel reinforcement could corrode. It is
the unique physical properties of GF RP that makes
it suitable for applications where conventional steel
would be unsuitable. Detailed laboratory studies of
samples taken from reinforced concrete structures,
aged from five to eight years old, have confim1ed that
GFRP has performed extremely well when exposed to
harsh field conditions.

6. Malvar J. Durability ofComposites in Reinforced

Concrete, Durability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Composite for Construction, Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Durability of
Composites, B. Benmokrane and . Rahman, eds.,
Sherbrooke, QB, Canada. 1998

7. Uomoto r Durability ofFRP as Reinforcement

for Concrete Structures, Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Advanced Composite
Materials in Bridges and Structures, J. B umar and
AG. Razaqpur, eds., Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering, Ottawa, ON Canada. 2000

8. Sen Research, Marsical D, Issa M, Shahawy M.

Durahili(v and Ductility ofAdvanced Composites,
Structural Engineering in Natural Hazards
Mitigation, V. 2, AB.-S.Ang and R. Villaverde,
eds., Structures Congress, ASCE, Irvine, CA
1993

QUEENSLAND ROADS Edition No II September 20 11

47

9. Sen Research , Mullins G, Salem T. Durability

ofE-Glassl Vinylester Reinforcement in Alkaline
Solution, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No.3.
May-June 2002

10. Benmokrane B, Cousin P. University of

Sherbrooke GFRP D1Irability Study Report, ISIS
Canada, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB,
Canada. 2005
11. Boulfiza M, Banthia N. University of
Saskatchewan & University of British Columbia
Durability Study Report, ISIS Canada, University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 2005
12. Onofrei M. Durability ofGFRP Reinforced
Concrete from Field Demonstration Structures,
ISIS Canada, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
MB, Canada. 2005
13. CAN/CSA-S6-06, Canadian Highway Bridge
Code. December 2008 http ://www.ShopCSA.ca
14. CAN/CSA-S806-02, Constmction ofBuilding
Components }vith Fibre-Reinforced Polymers,
Product Number 2012972. 2007 http: //www.
ShopCSA.ca
15. Rizkalla S, Mufti A. Manual No.3 - Reinforcing
Concrete Structures with Fibre Reinforced
Poly mers (FRPs), ISIS Canada Research Network.
http://isiscanada.com
16. Various American Concrete Institute Committee
440 reports
http: //www.concrete.org/
COMMITTEES/committeehome.asp?committee_
code=0000440-00
17. AASHTO LRFD, Bridge Design Guide
Specifications for GFRP-Reinjorced Concrete
Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings, GFRP-l ,
ISBN 1-56051-458-9. 2009 https: /lbookstore.
transportation.org/ltem _details.aspx?id= 1545

48

QUEENSLAND ROADS Edition No II September 2011