Assessing GFRP for sustainable concrete reinforcement in high-rise buildings

This study explores the use of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) as a sustainable reinforcement alternative to counteract ramifications caused by steel corrosion in coastal high-rise Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings subjected to both static and dynamic loads. The paper focuses on the vertical load bearing elements, particularly highlighting the performance of GFRP bars in columns, spanning structural, environmental, and economic extents. Two models of a 12-story reinforced concrete residential building were created for traditional steel and GFRP, respectively. The structural performance of the two models was assessed under static and dynamic conditions using ETABS software. Wind loads were calculated in accordance with the ASCE standards, the equivalent static seismic loads were calculated in accordance with the UBC code, and ACI code was used for load combinations. Structural design was then performed on columns for each type of reinforcement while ensuring complete adherence to ACI standards for reinforced concrete buildings. This was followed by cradle-to-gate emissions and cost analysis. ETABS was found to be limited in its ability to design GFRP-RC elements. To address this gap, manual calculations were performed using ACI code to supplement the software limitations. The findings of this research indicate that GFRP bars resulted in a 5% reduction in the overall weight of the multistory residential building, concurrently inducing a 33.7% reduction in $C{O}_2$ emissions and 8.25% cost savings in columns. The study provided promising results regarding the use of GFRP bars in multistory reinforced concrete buildings from a sustainability perspective. Further research and standardization are required to achieve a wider adoption of GFRP in building construction.

1 Introduction

Concrete and steel reinforcement—two materials bonded together to act in resisting forces. When subjected to tensile stresses, concrete experiences cracking and failure due to its brittle nature (de Alba, 2023). Though steel reinforcement improves its deficient tensile strength, the high susceptibility of steel to corrosion when exposed to chlorides raises major structural, environmental, and economic concerns. With the upsurge in the chemical and manufacturing industries, more sustainable reinforcement alternatives were discovered, such as Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) (George and Parappattu, 2017). GFRP is a composite material consisting of glass fibers bound together in a uniaxial direction using resin. Glass fibers were initially used in the United States (US) during the late-1930s for glass thermal insulations, resulting in higher production and accessibility of glass fibers in the industry (Nemessanyi, 2023). Its potential in construction was recognized in the mid-1950s when Disneyland’s “House of the Future,” made entirely of fiberglass, resisted breaking during its attempted demolition (Hebei Yongchang Composite Material Technology Co., Ltd., 2023). Thereafter, progressive advancements have been made regarding the use of GFRP in construction, particularly to address issues caused by corrosion.

Aging infrastructure is a significant global challenge caused by the corrosion of structural steel. It induces additional costs, overexploitation of materials and premature redundancy in structures (Little, 2012). In 2010, monetary losses attributable to corrosion were estimated to be 2.2 trillion US dollars, which is equivalent to 3% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Sheikh and Kharal, 2017). Furthermore, the higher manufacturing requirements of steel causes material depletion and excess waste during implementation (Faruki and Putranto, 2023). On the contrary, incorporating GFRP bars can significantly lower the environmental footprint due to its reduced material weight and long service life. Research on GFRP bars in residential buildings will substantiate their positive impact and encourage their adoption across the construction sector (Sbahieh and Al-Ghamdi, 2022).

Though research on GFRP RC yielded its own standardized code, ACI 440.11–22, there remains challenges in its employment in structural applications (American Concrete Institute, 2022). Several infrastructural projects in the Middle East utilized GFRP as the reinforcement material, such as the Jizan Flood Mitigation Channel project in Saudi Arabia (Mateenbar, 2024a). However, its adoption in residential projects remains minimal, resulting in insufficient knowledge about its performance across several structural components. Compounding the challenge is the limited specialized methods aimed to improve GFRP’s functional requirements, exemplified by the lack of GFRP-designated fireproofing methods, unlike steel which could be fireproofed with intumescent coating (Yazici et al., 2022). This is a notable concern as strength loss in GFRP is initiated at a much lower temperature ( ${324}^{°}C$ ) compared to steel ( ${500}^{°}C$ ) (Sadkovyi et al., 2022; Hajiloo et al., 2018). Since high temperatures most often weaken materials and trigger chain reactions, fire resistance in reinforcement materials hence demands serious consideration (Popescu and Pfriem, 2020).

The low demand for GFRP bars in the Middle Eastern market due to its limited employment in construction projects creates high initial expenses. However, discrepancies in current research do not address its exact cost of implementation in residential buildings. Lack of research on the intricacies of GFRP bars in building construction and the evident resistance to change in the industry hence substantiate the hesitation surrounding the employment of GFRP in structural applications.

Though the mechanical properties of GFRP are explained articulately in literature, the holistic behavior of the static and dynamic response, as well as environmental and cost implications of GFRP in residential applications is hardly explored. The objective of this study is to investigate GFRP as a sustainable alternative to steel in high-rise buildings, particularly in corrosion-exposed zones. The structural performance, environmental impact, and economic efficiency of employing GFRP in coastal building construction are assessed. The study emphasizes the structural performance of vertical structural elements, particularly highlighting the replacement of steel by GFRP in columns. Two models of a 12-story residential building are created for GFRP and traditional steel on ETABS, facilitating structural analysis. The obtained internal load results are used for structural design of the RC elements. The design is first conducted using software on the steel column and manual design is then conducted on the GFRP column in accordance with ACI 440.11–22 RC design procedures. The design is followed by $C{O}_2$ emissions study to evaluate the carbon footprint associated with different structural materials used in RC multistorey buildings. Finally, a cost analysis study will showcase the economic feasibility of employing GFRP bars compared to steel bars in RC columns.

2 Literature review

2.1 Mechanical and durability properties of GFRP and steel

The mechanical properties of construction materials significantly influence their structural performance (George and Parappattu, 2017). In the study by Adeleke and Odusote (2013), it was noted that all examined steel rebars in several reported cases of structural collapses possessed high tensile strength but relatively low ductility. This not only emphasizes the interrelation between mechanical and structural performance but also underscores that mechanical properties must be considered in conjunction.

Steel is one reinforcement material that is noted for its precedent mechanical properties relative to other construction materials by numerous studies. Its thoroughly researched nature hence solidified its position as the dominant reinforcement material in building construction (Bader et al., 2023). However, as the construction industry continues to reinforce sustainable practices, alternative materials such as GFRP are gaining traction for their non-corrosive properties. In 2016, Hurricane Matthew was the driving force behind the reconstruction of a durable seawall protecting the length of State Highway A1A (SR-A1A) from future hurricanes (ASMA, 2020). GFRP was selected as an alternative to steel due to its higher tensile strength and the anisotropic nature, enabling the transference of loads along its resin-connected fibers. The resultant is an increased bond strength that greatly reduces the cracking of concrete when subjected to creep (Steputat et al., 2019).

Nevertheless, there remains discrepancies on quantified mechanical properties of GFRP and its applicability in several structural components. This literature review therefore examines divergences in the former and recent research on the mechanical properties of steel and GFRP bars. It also highlights three important parameters that govern the behavior of columns under high loads: tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and ultimate strain. Table 1 summarizes the mechanical properties of GFRP, and steel as reported in literature, providing a basis for comparison between the two materials.

Table 1

Table 1. Mechanical properties of GFRP and steel according to different studies.

As shown in Table 1, the mechanical properties of GFRP and steel, such as tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and ultimate strain, vary significantly across different sources in literature. These inconsistencies highlight the absence of standardized values for GFRP and emphasize the need for further experimental investigation to better characterize its mechanical behavior under different conditions.

In the evaluation of ASTM A706 bars, literature results revealed the suitability of using Grade 60 bars in seismic applications. A study (Sokoli and Ghannoum, 2016) assesses the seismic performance of high-strength steel RC columns under shear and axial loads. Prior to assessing column behavior, a coupon tension test was conducted on ASTM A706 bars of differing grades and diameters. The 16 mm ASTM A706 Grade 60 bar was found to have a tensile strength of 660 MPa, modulus of 213.1 GPa and fracture elongation of 14.4%. Another study (Ghannoum and Slavin, 2016) compares the low-cycle fatigue behavior of High Strength Reinforcing Bars (HSRB) with regular-strength ASTM A706 Grade 60 (420 MPa) bars. A monotonic tension test was conducted on four different grades of steel from two different manufacturers, two of which were Grade 60 and 80 (420 and 550 MPa) satisfying ASTM A706 standards. The quantified mechanical properties were converted from US customary to SI units, and the tensile strength was found as 689.8 MPa, which is similar to that in (Sokoli and Ghannoum, 2016). In (Levings and Sritharan, 2012), however, the tensile strength was slightly higher (744.6 MPa), potentially as a result of the increased load-bearing capacity provided by larger diameters.

In terms of the elasticity modulus, literature values ranged between 203 and 220 GPa. The ultimate strain of the ASTM A706 steel bars ranged from 10 to 14%. Though the specimens in the two studies (Sokoli and Ghannoum, 2016; Ghannoum and Slavin, 2016) had the same diameter, the difference in ultimate strain was approximately 4%. This may be attributable to the difference in carbon content, as carbon increases steel’s brittleness (Wight and Macgregor, 2012). However, this conclusion is difficult to ascertain due to the unspecified carbon content in (Sokoli and Ghannoum, 2016).

Despite the established reputation of steel as being a high-strength material, newer studies indicate that FRP materials, such as GFRP, have even greater tensile strengths (Pavlina and Van Tyne, 2008). This is explained by the anisotropic nature of GFRP that allows the load to be transferred along the direction of its fibers, increasing its tensile strength (Jabbar and Farid, 2018).

To augment insufficient preceding data about the use of FRP bars in concrete, a study (Chatterjee et al., 1976), conducted in 1976, performs a tension test on GFRP bars using a hydraulically operated universal testing machine. According to (Chatterjee et al., 1976), the average tensile strength of 9.5 mm GFRP bars with 70% glass content was 506.9 MPa. The study concludes that bars possessing a higher glass content and larger diameter have greater ultimate tensile strengths. The is reflected in (Liu et al., 2024), which deduces that a bar of a similar diameter (10 mm) containing a higher glass content (78%) has a tensile strength of 814.2 MPa. However, discrepancies arise in (Wiater and Siwowski, 2020), in which a bar of the same diameter and glass content had a much higher tensile strength (1260.6 MPa).

The stress–strain relationship of a material is one of the most important aspects that determine its strength, ductility, and elasticity under various loads (Zhou et al., 2014). Unlike the ductile steel, GFRP’s brittle nature eliminates its ability to yield, resulting in a low elasticity modulus. In (Wiater and Siwowski, 2020), it is deduced that the elastic modulus of GFRP bars is strongly correlated with their glass content. The Type C series (83% glass content) had the higher average modulus of elasticity of 65.57 MPa due to its high glass content, while Type B series had the lowest average modulus of elasticity (52.40 MPa) due to its lowest glass content (75%). Literature values in Table 1 abide by this pattern, where the modulus of the GFRP specimen in (Chatterjee et al., 1976) is found as 45 GPa and increases to 50–57.5 GPa as the glass content is increased in the other studies.

In (Chatterjee et al., 1976; Liu et al., 2024), the ultimate strain of GFRP specimens was around only 1%. The ultimate strain in (Wiater and Siwowski, 2020) is twice this value but still remains significantly low in comparison to the aforementioned steel specimens. The discrepancies in the values shown in Table 1 may have been caused by the slight variations in the glass content, surface treatment, and product description of each sample. Nevertheless, the study (Wiater and Siwowski, 2020) reiterates that the lack of standardized tests assessing the tensile properties of GFRP induces uncertainty about the true value of its tensile strength and ultimate strain. Due to the varying values reported in literature, it is essential to verify the quantified mechanical properties of GFRP against steel through experimental testing.

2.2 ACI Code RC design comparison and limitations

As a globally adopted reference, ACI standards act as a comprehensive guide for RC structures, covering design, analysis, and construction methods. ACI standards for traditionally reinforced concrete (ACI 318–19) remain the most extensively adopted standard. Despite that, persisting research and development on GFRP-RC yielded its own formalized code, ACI 440.11–22, which builds upon principles of ACI 318–19 (Sheikh and Kharal, 2017).

Unlike ACI 318–19, however, ACI 440.11–22 does not cover the resistance of GFRP-RC members in seismic design categories B, C, D, E, and F, as per section 4.4.6.1. This could be explained by the low ductility of GFRP, which causes a sudden rupture of the rebar when subjected to overloading (Minimum, 2023). Ductility is a property that flexural members must possess in seismic-resistant buildings because it permits the redistribution of energy during earthquakes rather than its accumulation in one location (Gunes et al., 2013). This imposes a restriction on the applicability of GFRP in seismic-resistant structures, specifically in flexural members. Because of this, the margin for GFRP’s strength reduction factor ( $\varphi$ ) is significantly narrow, spanning from $0.55-0.65$ only, as compared to the margin for steel, which spans from $0.45-0.90$ . Lack of adequate support becomes a failure under seismic loads; therefore, it is essential to follow these guidelines.

3 Research methodology

The research will abide by a systematic process that aims to assess the performance of different reinforcement materials in residential buildings, as illustrated in Figure 1. It emphasizes material testing to ensure compliance with code requirements and suitability of materials for employment in the multistory building. The initial steps focus on identifying the goals of this research and code-specific requirements for each material. This will be followed by a literature review, which will serve as the theoretical foundation explaining the mechanical characteristics of each material under load. The gaps in former and recent research will be identified and utilized to assist this study. The subsequent steps are explained below.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Flowchart of project methodology.

3.1 Material testing

The mechanical properties of GFRP and steel will be evaluated by performing tensile testing on the two materials using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM). A uniaxial tensile force will be exerted on the sample specimen until it fractures. Material testing results will yield material property metrics, which will be utilized as inputs for software applications and for manual structural design. The four main parameters are: tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, ultimate strain, and stress–strain behavior.

ASTM standards encompass a substantial number of commonly used materials in construction. ASTM A706, for instance, is a standard specification for low alloy deformed and plain steel rebars. Commonly used as structural steel for the enhancement of earthquake-resistant structures, ASTM A706 steel bars serve as the ideal specimen for the purposes of this research (Levings and Sritharan, 2012). The tensile strength of ASTM A706 steel bars largely depends on their ASTM grade, with higher grades having higher tensile strengths (ACI, 2019). However, Grade 60 bars are typically preferred in seismic zones as they maintain a balance between tensile strength and ductility. Therefore, the UTM test was conducted on $10\mathrm{mm}$ low-carbon ASTM A706 Grade 60 specimens.

ASTM D7205, on the other hand, offers tailored guidelines for GFRP bars sample preparation and testing procedures. For instance, a specialized grip system is used for GFRP in the UTM test due to the evident difference in its surface texture compared to steel. This testing method was used to deduce the mechanical properties of $10\mathrm{mm}$ diameter GFRP bars. The deduced experimental values of both tests will be compared to ACI, ASTM and literature values.

Many studies (Chatterjee et al., 1976; Wiater and Siwowski, 2020; Ahmadi et al., 2009) showed that the mechanical properties of GFRP bars vary significantly depending on factors such as fiber type, resin formulation, fiber alignment, and manufacturing process. This variability is a known characteristic of composite materials and differs from the standardized behavior observed in steel. The tensile properties reported in this study are specific to the tested GFRP bars provided by suppliers in the GCC and may not represent the wider range of specimens from different manufacturers. Accordingly, broader experimental studies across multiple suppliers will be considered in our future work.

3.2 Investigation of a numerical model for an RC multi-story building

In this section, ETABS software is utilized to create a numerical model of the multistory residential building near a water body. Results highlight the influence of material properties on the structural performance of the building. Two models of the building were created on ETABS: one for steel bars and the other for GFRP bars. This study focuses on columns as the primary element of interest due to the software’s inability to compute GFRP properties for all structural elements, and its higher tensile strength limit for columns compared to other structural elements (1,050 and 420 $\mathrm{MPa}$ respectively). Columns of dimensions 250 × 600 mm, 250 × 650 mm, and 250 $\times$700 mm are utilized as initial assumptions but are potentially adjusted according to design checks for optimization. Section properties for other components are also defined. Then, material properties are defined according to material testing results. This is followed by geometry creation and load addition in accordance with ASCE, UBC 97, and ACI. A diaphragm is created for all floors, allowing the slab to act as a single unit. The analysis is then run and inconsistencies in the model are detected and resolved.

The mass source is checked once the model is verified. Then, the cumulative modal mass participation ratio is checked against seismic design standards. The number of modes are adjusted so that there is $\ge$90% mass participation in each principal direction (UX, UY, and RX). This ensures that the dynamic behavior and mass participation under seismic loading is captured accurately. Modal analysis is then performed, showcasing the building’s deformed shapes and its expected behavior under different natural frequencies. Drift limits and story displacements under dynamic load are checked at each story against code-specific limits to ensure structural stability. Calibration is conducted for response spectrums ( $\text{Specx}$ and $\text{Specy}$ ) and equivalent static loads ( $\mathrm{Ex}$ and $\mathrm{Ey}$ ) to ensure that they are equal. Finally, design checks are performed on each model along with iterative optimization for achieving efficiency in each system. Ultimately, ETABS design checks yield axial forces, moments, and shear forces acting on each column type. Manual RC design computations in accordance with ACI 318–19 and ACI 440.11–22 are subsequently conducted to validate software results and reveal discrepancies. Due to the lack of ductility in GFRP bars compared to steel, the linear-elastic behavior up to failure was considered in the design and manual design checks were performed to ensure safe performance within acceptable strength and deformation limits.

3.3 Cradle-to-gate emissions analysis

The Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) by IKK Mateenbar is utilized as a reference to determine the carbon emissions of GFRP rebars through stages A1-A3 (Mateenbar, 2020). An EPD refers to a document that outlines the environmental impact of a material throughout its life cycle. It provides information on resource use, waste generation, and material emissions to perform sustainable design decisions and aids in obtaining green building certificates, such as LEED (AISC, 2025). For steel, carbon emissions over cradle-to-gate stages will be assessed using the EPD published by the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) (CRSI, 2022). The ${\mathrm{CO}}_2$ emissions generated in the steel RC column and the GFRP RC column are quantified by utilizing the Global Warming Potential (GWP) factor as an environmental performance indicator. The GWP factor is the recommended measure of the amount of energy that one ton of gas absorbs over a set period relative to one ton of ${\mathrm{CO}}_2$ (Minimum, 2025). It combines emissions into a single metric to efficiently compare climate impacts produced by construction materials (Minimum, 2025; IPCC, 2023).

To quantify the emissions, the quantities of reinforcement required for each element are obtained from the BOQ based on the structural design results. The total weight of reinforcement for each element was determined and then multiplied by the GWP factor of each material. The study will specifically focus on cradle-to-gate emissions (stages A1-A3), which include raw material extraction, manufacturing, production, and transportation emissions, as all mentioned contributors collectively generate the highest emissions of a product’s lifecycle (Almulhim, 2024). It is therefore the most critical stage related to the environmental impact of GFRP.

3.4 Cost analysis

A cost analysis will be conducted to compare the economic feasibility of utilizing GFRP and steel RC columns. The cost analysis will include a detailed review of concrete costs, framework costs, and reinforcement costs per vertical element by creating a BOQ. Firstly, the required concrete volume for each design, the steel-to-concrete ratio and the GFRP-to-concrete ratio are calculated to find the quantity of steel and GFRP column reinforcement in each model. Secondly, the area for the formwork per vertical element are found. Then, the material rates required for the BOQ calculation are retrieved from contractors. Present market rates are used in the BOQ to ensure that time adjustments are taken into consideration, ultimately deducing the total cost.

4 Material testing

The quality of materials and their ability to withstand various forces in their lifecycle, such as torsional, bending, tensile, shear, and compression forces, significantly impacts the durability of structures (Ana Evangelista, 2022). While all forces have a distinct influence on structural integrity, the ability of rebars to resist tensile forces in the concrete dictates their efficiency in structures. Consequently, the study conducts a UTM test on steel and GFRP specimens to deduce their tensile strengths, modulus of elasticity, and ultimate strain. The results of the test are discussed below.

4.1 Tensile test on steel

The ductility of steel was evident during the UTM test, where the steel specimen initially exhibited linear-elastic behavior with a simultaneous increase in both stress and strain, until it reaches its yield point at around 510 MPa. At this point is when plastic deformation begins, which refers to the permanent irreversible change in a material’s dimensions (Beer et al., 2018). Along with that, strain hardening occurred, a mechanism by which the material becomes stronger due to a change in the density and orientation of dislocations accumulating in the plastic deformation stage (Gardner et al., 2011).

Upon reaching its ultimate tensile strength at around 670 MPa, dislocations in the specimen develop and the specimen continues to experience progressive strain. This is followed by a reduction in area at the midsection of its length, referred to as necking (Roylance, 2001). Once necking commences, the stress is concentrated at that point and the specimen experiences non-uniform strain, causing the sudden segmentation at $11\%$ strain shown in Figure 2 (Tian et al., 2013). Table 2 summarizes the experimental results.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Necking of steel specimen after fracture.

Table 2

Table 2. ASTM A706 grade 420(60) steel experimental test run.

Generally, the tensile strength values of ASTM A706 Grade 60 bars in literature fall within 600–750 MPa. Of the three studies, bar specifications in (Ghannoum and Slavin, 2016) was the most similar to those of the experimental specimen. With a diameter of 16 mm and carbon content of around 0.25%, the tensile strength value of the literature specimen (689.8 MPa) was in proximity to that of the experimental specimen (670.2 MPa).

The yield strength in Table 2 conforms to ASTM A706 rebar specifications, which state that the minimum yield strength of Grade 60 steel bars is 420 MPa (Pavlina and Van Tyne, 2008). Furthermore, the elastic modulus ( $E_s)$ for non-prestressed steel bars and wires is 200,900 MPa according to ACI 318–19, rendering both literature and experimental results acceptable (ACI, 2019). The ultimate strain requirement for seismic resistant bars, particularly conforming to ASTM A706 specifications, is 12% or greater (Agustiar et al., 2019). The ultimate strain of the experimental specimen is slightly below this value, along with specimens in (Ghannoum and Slavin, 2016; Levings and Sritharan, 2012). Nevertheless, their ductility is not compromised. Variations in manufacturing processes between experimental and literature specimens could have contributed to slight divergencies in strain values (Kutz, 2006).

The mechanical properties reported in Table 3 represent average values obtained from tensile tests performed on multiple ASTM A706 Grade 60 steel specimens in accordance with ASTM A370. To quantify data variability, standard deviations were calculated for each parameter. As shown in Table 3, the tensile strength exhibited a standard deviation of ±8.5 MPa, while yield strength showed a variation of ±6.2 MPa. The modulus of elasticity and ultimate strain also demonstrated consistent values across tests, with standard deviations of ±3.4 GPa and ±0.6%, respectively. These results confirm the repeatability of the measurements and validate the consistency of the tested material within the expected performance range for ASTM A706 steel.

Table 3

Table 3. Average and standard deviation of mechanical properties for ASTM A706 Grade 420(60) steel.

4.2 Tensile test on GFRP

As a composite material consisting of glass fibers securely attached by resin, GFRP has been increasingly recognized in the construction industry due to its high tensile strength, corrosion resistance, and lightweight properties (Zhang et al., 2014). To perform a UTM test on GFRP bars, we obtained specimens from an ISO certified international supplier, IKK Mateenbar. The company ensures reliable and consistent quality by rigorously adhering to international standards such as ASTM. Mateenbar 46 (ASTM D7957, ACI 440.6) bars serve as the selected specimens for this study as they are representative of GFRP bars typically utilized in structural applications. Mateenbar 46 bars typically consist of 80% glass content, which is sufficiently larger than ASTM D7957/D7957M-17 requirements (ASTM International, 2019; Mateenbar, 2024b). These bars are ribbed to improve their bond with concrete, creating a stronger composite material. The test was conducted on several diameters and yielded similar results. However, a 10 mm diameter bar was chosen for accurate comparison with literature data. Therefore, the UTM test was conducted on five $10\mathit{mm}$ Mateenbar 46 bars having 80% glass content. Unlike steel, GFRP does not experience yielding and fails abruptly instead. Figure 3 illustrates the post-brittle failure condition of GFRP bars after the tensile test, where it experiences sudden rupture. Due to its lower modulus of elasticity, it does not experience plastic deformation and hence no necking was observed in specimens. The individual glass fibers that appear from the polymer matrix suggest fiber-matrix debonding which is a typical failure mode found in fiber-reinforced polymers. All GFRP samples followed a similar pattern of a linear increase of stress with strain, demonstrating the elastic behavior of the material until fracture.

Figure 3

Figure 3. GFRP fibers post failure.

Table 4 shows test results on 10 mm Mateenbar GFRP bars. The average ultimate tensile strength of specimens was 1134.35 MPa. On the other hand, the average modulus of elasticity was found to be 52,614.0 MPa (or 52.61 GPa), while the average ultimate tensile strain was around $2.2\%$ , both of which surpass the minimum ASTM D7205 requirement of 44,800 MPa and $1.1\%$ respectively (ASTM International, 2019).

Table 4

Table 4. Mechanical properties of GFRP experimental results.

ASTM D7205 specifies a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 567.3 MPa, which the values reported by Mateenbar, Liu et al. (2024), and Wiater and Siwowski (2020) all surpassed (ASTM International, 2019). However, the value reported by Chatterjee et al. (1976) is slightly lower, which could be explained by its lower glass content. Since GFRP consists of glass fibers embedded in a polymer matrix, making it an anisotropic composite material, its tensile strength therefore mainly depends on fiber orientation, with longitudinally aligned fibers exhibiting maximum tensile strength (Zhang et al., 2014). Results also attest the impact of glass content on strain capacity, demonstrated by the high ultimate strain of specimens with lower glass content and the low ultimate strain of specimens with higher glass content (Wight and Macgregor, 2012).

The mechanical properties shown in Table 4 are based on multiple tensile tests of 10 mm Mateenbar GFRP specimens, following ASTM D7205 standards. To capture experimental variability, standard deviations were calculated for the key parameters. As shown in Table 5, the ultimate tensile strength exhibited a standard deviation of ±22.7 MPa, while the modulus of elasticity and ultimate strain showed standard deviations of ±1.4 GPa and ±0.08%, respectively. These values reflect consistent performance across specimens and confirm the reliability of the results. All tested properties exceeded the minimum ASTM D7205 requirements, indicating high-quality GFRP material behavior.

Table 5

Table 5. Average and standard deviation of mechanical properties for GFRP bars.

4.3 Comparison of results: steel vs. GFRP

Pronounced disparities between mechanical properties of GFRP and steel are observed when examining the experimental results of each material concurrently. Identifying these differences aids in understanding the response of each material under various loads and conditions. Such a response predominantly arises from varying intrinsic material compositions, enabling them to function adequately only under certain stresses. ACI 440.11–22 infers that GFRP exhibits a linear elastic behavior until fracture due to its brittle nature, which explains its significantly low ultimate strain (American Concrete Institute, 2022). ACI 318-19 and ACI 440.11-22 each characterize and discuss the unique mechanical nature of each material. According to ACI 318-19, the tensile strength of steel largely depends on its ASTM classifications and grades, with higher grades having higher tensile strengths (ACI, 2019). On the other hand, the higher tensile strength of GFRP is attributed to its orthotropic nature. This means that when the fibers are oriented along the tensile force, an even stress distribution is achieved, and higher loads can be endured (Zhang et al., 2014). As illustrated by experimental results, GFRP has a strain percentage of $1-2\%$ , whereas steel specimens can reach up to $11\%$strain. Though the high tensile strength of GFRP enhances the overall strength of structures by withstanding heavy tensile loads and subsequently preventing cracks in the concrete’s surface, yielding would be necessary in GFRP-RC flexural members as it allows them to offer warning signs prior to fracture, such as visible cracking (Wight and Macgregor, 2012). Subsequently, the high elastic modulus of steel offers it another advantage of requiring less longitudinal reinforcement in structural components than GFRP. As stated by ACI R25.7.2.1, more reinforcement may hence be required at regular intervals in GFRP-RC components to prevent buckling (American Concrete Institute, 2022).

5 Case study: structural modeling and analysis

The association between material properties and structural performance poses a large array of design challenges for engineers, emphasizing the need for advanced tools that aid in structural analysis and design (De Jong et al., 2021). ETABS is a tool that has revolutionized the construction industry by allowing engineers to visualize and assess the dynamic behavior of buildings subjected to various loads, such as wind and seismic loads (ETABS, 2025). In this section, ETABS will be utilized to perform structural analysis and design of the multistory residential building. It will highlight the influence on the mechanical properties of each material on their structural behavior as well as column RC design procedures. While this paper presents one detailed case study, the chosen building configuration represents one of several modeling scenarios that were explored during the analysis phase. The results across these configurations showed a consistent pattern in the advantages of GFRP over traditional steel reinforcement. Therefore, although a single case study is shown in detail, the findings can be considered reflective of a broader trend, supporting the generalizability of the conclusions within comparable design contexts.

5.1 Model setup

ETABS uses advanced 3D modeling with dynamic analysis to visualize the structure’s behavior when subjected to different loading conditions. It uses the finite element method to break complex systems into smaller, more manageable elements, simulates the impact of vibration-inducing dynamic loads on structures and aids in identifying potential issues prior to construction. Building upon this approach, this section will detail the methods employed to conduct the structural analysis of the multistory residential building.

Firstly, material properties were defined according to material testing results, sections properties were assigned, and geometry creation was performed. The material properties are shown below in Tables 6–8.

Table 6

Table 6. Concrete material properties.

Table 7

Table 7. Steel Material Properties.

Table 8

Table 8. GFRP material properties.

In structural components such as shear walls, the maximum input for tensile strength was limited to 689.48 MPa. Though this exceeds the minimum specified tensile strength value of GFRP is 567.3 MPa according to ASTM D7205, it does not represent the true behavior of the material (ASTM International, 2019). In columns, however, it was possible to input a tensile strength of 1050 MPa, which allowed for the commencement of structural design on the software.

The building adopts a shear wall system as it is very effective in seismic-prone regions. Shear walls were added to the middlemost of the building, where elevators and staircase opening are located, as well towards the corners of its perimeter to minimize the structure’s deformation in seismic events. Initially, columns of dimensions 250 $\times$600 mm, 250 $\times$650 mm, 250 $\times$700 mm, and 250 $\times$800 mm were utilized depending on structural and stability requirements, with larger columns placed at bottom floors and towards shear walls, and smaller columns placed at upper floors and towards the perimeter of the building. The supports at the bottom of the building were ensured to be fixed supports with 6DOF considered as fixed, which prevent rotation and displacement in all directions (Hibbeler, 2020). Fixed supports model the connection type between the RC vertical elements and the raft foundation. As a result, the maximum ultimate forces and moments for the column design will be calculated at the base level. Figure 4a shows the typical floor plan, and Figure 4b shows the basement floor plan. Figure 5 shows the complete 3D model of the building.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (a) Typical floor plan on ETABS. (b) Basement floor plan on ETABS.

Figure 5

Figure 5. ETABS 3D model of multistory residential building.

Seismic, wind, and structural loads were added to the model while abiding by ACI, ASCE, and UBC principles. The two models encompass representative parameters of wind and seismic loads in the region, ensuring that all possible earthquake and wind effects are captured. Linear elastic $W_{x+},W_{x-},W_{y+},W_{y-}$ as well as $E_{x+},E_{x-},E_{y+},E_{y-}$were added as load cases. A diaphragm was then created for all floors, allowing the slab to act as a single unit. The wind exposure type was set to type D, open terrain with few obstructions, and the wind speed was adjusted to $100.66\mathit{mph}$ . For the seismic load patterns, the soil profile was assumed to be SB with seismic zone factor 0.2 with a $C_t=0.02$and overstrength factor of 5.5. According to UBC 97, this overstrength factor indicates that shear walls bear the horizontal loads (UBC, 1994). The story range for seismic loads for the multistory residential building was assumed to be basement to story 12. On the other hand, wind loads were considered from story 1 to 12, as the basement does not experience wind forces.

Once the model was built and verified, the mass source was reviewed. It defines how mass is distributed throughout the structure, incorporating both self-weight and non-structural elements. It is essential to have proper mass source as it has an influence on the dynamic behavior of the structure. The weight-to-mass conversion factor was also implemented in compliance with the seismic load guidelines of UBC 97. While structural weight is sufficient for static analysis, dynamic analysis requires mass to accurately capture the building’s response. Therefore, applying the weight-to-mass conversion is essential.

After running the analysis on ETABS, the cumulative modal mass participation ratio Rx was found to be less than the required value according to seismic design standards. Therefore, the initially selected number of modes was insufficient to capture the dynamic behavior and mass participation of the model under seismic loading. To resolve this issue, the number of modes was increased to 50 to improve accuracy by considering complex behavior under seismic loading. As shown in Tables 9, 10, $\ge$90% mass participation in each principal direction (UX, UY, and RX) was reached at Mode 30.

Table 9

Table 9. Modal participating mass ratios steel model.

Table 10

Table 10. Modal participating mass ratios GFRP model.

5.2 ACI design computations

In this section, ACI 440.11–22 RC design procedures will serve as a guide in performing effective manual column design on the GFRP RC system. Since ETABS does not contain the ACI 440.11–22 Code, the manual design results of the GFRP column were compared with the software-generated steel column design results to determine the feasibility of replacing steel bars with GFRP bars in vertical elements.

The initial dimensions of the GFRP column were taken from the ETABS model (250 $\times$650 mm) and material properties were computed based on Tables 6, 8. Column design will be based on ACI 440.11–22 using Equation 5.1 for design axial load ( $\varphi {\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{n}})$ and design moment ( $\varphi M_{\mathrm{n}}$ ):

$\begin{array}{ll}\varphi {\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{n}}=\varphi {\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{n},max}=0.65\left(\right(0.8\left)\right[0.85{\mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{c}}^{\prime }\left({\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{g}}\right)\left]\right)& (51)\end{array}$

$\varphi P_{\mathrm{n}}\ge {\mathrm{P}}_{\mathrm{u}}\text{accepted}$

$\varphi M_{\mathrm{n}}=\sum _{\mathrm{i}=0}^{\mathrm{n}}\left({\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{fi}}{\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{f}}{ϵ}_{\mathrm{fi}}\right)({\mathrm{d}}_{\mathrm{i}}-\frac{{\beta }_1{\mathrm{c}}_{\mathrm{bal}}}{2})$

If $\varphi M_{\mathrm{n}}\ge {\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{u}},\text{accepted}$

6 Results and discussion

6.1 Structural analysis

In this section, the stability of the structure when subjected to various loadings and conditions will be analyzed. A significant aspect of this analysis will involve the determination of the structure’s natural frequency under different modes of vibration, which are referred to as ‘modal cases’ (Hibbeler, 2020). Each mode showcases the behavior of the building at a particular natural frequency. It is important that the structure’s frequency does not coincide with frequencies of external forces to avoid excessive vibrations and structural failure. Conducting modal analysis aids in identifying these natural frequencies and their corresponding vibration modes.

The building was visualized under various modes. When the first mode was applied, it was noted that the building shifted towards the X axis. In the second mode, the building shifted towards the Y axis. In extreme cases of vibration effects, non-uniform mass distribution caused by vibration leads to torsion, meaning that the structure twists around itself (Boston University, 2025). Figures 6a,b illustrate the resultant response of the two models under mode 9, which was deemed a torsional mode.

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) Deformed shape of steel building—mode 9. (b) Deformed shape of GFRP building—mode 9.

Tables 11 and 12 show the modal periods and frequencies from ETABS analysis. Mode 1 in the steel model has a natural frequency of 1.498 cyc/s, which corresponds to 0.667 s. On the other hand, the frequency of Mode 1 in the GFRP model is slightly lower (1.42 cyc/s corresponding to 0.704 s). The lower frequency and larger period in the GFRP model suggests that GFRP induces higher flexibility in the structure since the natural frequency is directly proportional to stiffness (Qin et al., 2023).

Table 11

Table 11. Modal periods and frequencies—steel model.

Table 12

Table 12. Modal periods and frequencies—GFRP model.

The story drift in ETABS refers to the displacement of one level relative to the level above or below due to lateral loads. The maximum story drift profile of the steel and GFRP models under lateral loading in both principal directions are shown in Figures 7a,b, 8a,b respectively. The unitless drift ratio is depicted on the X-axis, while the lateral displacement between the story levels is shown on the Y-axis. In both models, greater drifts occur in the X direction under load case Ex, indicated by the blue curve, and in the Y direction under load case Ey, indicated by the red curve. This is because the largest load occurs in the same direction as the load case.

Figure 7

Figure 7. (a) Max story drift under seismic loads in the X direction (Ex+)—steel. (b) Max story drift under seismic loads in the Y direction (Ey+)—steel.

Figure 8

Figure 8. (a) Max story drift under seismic loads in the X direction (Ex+)—GFRP. (b) Max story drift under seismic loads in the Y direction (Ey+)—GFRP.

Under load case Ex, the GFRP model shows a larger drift across all stories in the two principal directions (X and Y) than the steel model. This pattern is also evident under case Ey. In the two models, the drift gradually rises to a maximum before decreasing again. The gradual transition is attributed to shear walls, which prevent sudden jumps in drift from occurring. The maximum drift in the steel model occurs at story 9 under case Ey in the Y direction, while the maximum drift in the GFRP model occurs at story 8 under case Ey in the Y direction. In both cases, the maximum values are less than the code limitation in UBC-97 seismic drift standards (UBC, 1994).

To maintain the consistency between the response spectrums ( $\text{Specx}$ and $\text{Specy}$ ) and equivalent static load ( $\mathrm{Ex}$ and $\mathrm{Ey}$ ) values, a scaling factor was applied to the dynamic base shear. The factor was calculated by dividing the smaller base shear with the larger one, and the result was used as a multiplier to scale the response spectrum case.

6.2 Structural design

This section utilized analysis results to determine configurations, dimensions, area of reinforcement and section detailing to ensure that the vertical components can adequately bear loads (Hibbeler, 2020). ETABS incorporates design checks, which were utilized to countercheck column dimensions and detect instability. After iterative optimization, an enumeration of suitable column dimensions across all floors was found. To achieve the acceptable rebar percentage range of 1–3%, the steel model required columns of dimensions 250  $\times$  700 mm and 250  $\times$  800 mm in floors 1 to 5, and dimensions 250  $\times$  600 mm and 250  $\times$  700 mm in floors 6 to 11, while the GFRP model required columns of dimensions 250  $\times$  650 mm and 250  $\times$  700 mm in floors 1 to 6, and dimensions of 250  $\times$  600 mm and 250  $\times$  650 mm in floors 7 to 11. Table 13 shows the ideal column dimensions and placement in each model.

Table 13

Table 13. Column placement in steel and GFRP models.

Through ETABS structural analysis, the design axial load and design moments were found for each type of column, which were used an initial assumption for the commencement of structural design. Structural design was conducted on one internal column in story 7 (250  $\times$  700 mm steel column and 250  $\times$  650 mm GFRP column) as it is the column subjected to the highest load.

Since the software does not decipher ACI 440.11–22 guidelines, software design was conducted on the steel column only while manual structural design was conducted on the GFRP column. The reinforcement ratio for the GFRP column was initially set as ${\rho }_{\mathrm{g}}=0.01,$ as is the case in the software-generated results. Using the equation ${\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{st}}={\rho }_{\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{g}}$ , the reinforcement area was found as 1810 mm² (12 Φ 14, or 4 Φ 24 bars), as shown in Figure 9 can be used to avoid bar congestion. Software-generated results revealed that the 250  $\times$  700 mm steel column required a larger reinforcement area than the 250  $\times$  650 mm GFRP column. Since the percentage reinforcement of the two columns was maintained (1%), the enhanced structural performance of the GFRP column under the same loading conditions is mainly attributable to its reduced size. Columns are typically subjected to both axial load and moments in practice. However, as shown in Table 14, the moments, ${\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{u}2}$ and ${\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{u}3}$ , were very minimal in both cases, hence why they are disregarded in this comparison. The safety margin for columns is determined the design axial load to the ultimate axial load ratio, with $\varphi P_n\ge P_u$ . Steel and GFRP columns both comply with these criteria. The safety margin of GFRP columns is almost twice that of steel columns (2.3 and 1 respectively). Though the lower ultimate axial load value for GFRP columns indicates that they are more susceptible to buckling, their higher safety margin may explain their lower design axial load.

Table 14

Table 14. Comparison of software-generated steel and manual GFRP column design results.

ETABS design utilized the minimum allowable rebar percentage (1%). However, a higher percentage is often used in real-world applications, specifically in vertical members, as it ensures crack control and reduces the risk of buckling. An iterative dimension optimization was performed to detect a smaller height h that could yield a higher reinforcement ratio to achieve reduced concrete quantities and, in turn, reduce costs while maintaining structural performance.

Figure 9

Figure 9. GFRP C25 × 65 column cross section.

As shown in Figure 10, the reinforcement ratio decreases as the height increases. For the particular column shown in Figure 11, 400 mm strikes as the optimal height as it yields a reinforcement ratio of 1.8%, which balances between cost and quantity. The graph discloses that reducing column sections beyond conventional software outputs is structurally viable.

Figure 10

Figure 10. Height of column vs. reinforcement ratio.

Figure 11

Figure 11. Steel C25 × 70 column cross section.

After conducting design checks on all components of each model, it was revealed that the weight of the structure was decreased by a percentage of $4.87595\%$ in the GFRP model. Considering rebars constitute a minor percentage of buildings, this marks as a substantial reduction in overall weight caused by GFRP.

6.3 Cradle-to-gate emission analysis

According to the UNEP (UNEP, 2023), the construction industry acts as the largest emitter of $C{O}_2$ gases, with a detrimental contribution equating to $37\%$ of global emissions. It is estimated that one ton of steel produces approximately 1.89 tons of $C{O}_2$ (World Steel Association, 2025.). As the demand for construction accelerates and stricter environmental laws are codified, the construction industry seeks alternative ways to perform its standard procedures by incorporating materials with lower embodied carbon than conventional steel.

The GWP factor was utilized to deduce and compare the total emissions produced by steel and GFRP columns. The total carbon emissions released from columns during the A1-A3 stages are 12,912.48 $\mathit{Kg}\mathit{CO}2-\mathit{eq}$ for 15,120 $\mathit{Kg}$ of steel and 8,565.629 $\mathit{Kg}\mathit{CO}2-\mathit{eq}$ for 3660.525 $\mathit{Kg}$ of GFRP, as shown in Table 15. Although GFRP has a higher GWP factor compared to steel, results show that GFRP generally results in lower carbon emissions than steel due to its lightweight nature, reducing total emissions by around 33.7%. Nevertheless, carbon emissions for the two materials had a marginal difference, as the lower weight of GFRP was balanced by its higher GWP factor.

Table 15

Table 15. Carbon emissions results summary.

The results of this study stand in strong agreement with literature regarding the environmental benefits of GFRP in comparison to steel reinforcement, notably when evaluated through cradle-to-gate LCA. Several papers on GFRPs environmental advantages, such as (AL Omar and Abdelhadi, 2024; Lee and Lee, 2023), emphasized that GFRP’s lightweight properties yielded an overall reduction of $75\%$ in carbon emissions across several structural elements during the production and transportation phases. This is reflected in the results of this study, where GFRP achieved a reduction of column weight by $76\%$ and emissions by $33.7\%.$

The data of this study confirm that even with a higher GWP for GFRP, the total emissions are reduced when utilizing the material in columns. By incorporating GFRP in construction projects, an extended life cycle and reduced maintenance needs while achieving durability due to its non-corrosive property. This complements the LEED goal of environmental responsibility. LEED Is the most widely used system for green building rating, expanding the use of sustainable practices and products in buildings (U.S. Green Building Council, 2025). Selecting materials that provide full transparency is appreciated and rewarded in such systems. Thus, incorporating GFRP can support the purpose of building LEED systems with lasting environmental performance.

6.4 Cost analysis

The global cost of corrosion was estimated to be $2.5 trillion in 2013. This is equivalent to approximately 3.4% of the global GDP. In the US, 180,000 out of 580,000 bridges structurally deteriorated and required immediate repair due to defects augmented by corrosion (Won et al., 2007). Considering that in-place costs for reinforcing steel constitute approximately 20% of the completed structure, this marks a significant loss in the construction sector (CRSI, 2025).

The cost of construction materials is perpetually variable depending on aspects such as the economy, political situation, as well as supply and demand (Gmk.center, 2023). In Russia, the cost of steel bars spiked during the high demand period where GFRP bars became a better financial option by using equivalent diameters instead of steel bars. On the other hand, equipment expenses were reduced when utilizing GFRP bars in foundation and slabs because installation required no crane support (Kakusha et al., 2018).

A BOQ was created for traditional steel rebars as well as GFRP rebars to assess their economic feasibility in the multistory residential building. A contingency was added to the base price of each material. The estimate contingency for steel is as high as 60% due to its heavy nature, requiring heavy machinery for transportation and necessitating higher labor input during installation. On the other hand, only 15% was added to the base price of GFRP as it is a lightweight material, facilitating easier transportation and installation.

As shown in Tables 16, 17, the price of GFRP per Kg surpasses traditional steel because it remains scarce across the market, making its adoption by the construction sector has not yet been made feasible. However, the lower reinforcement area in GFRP columns reduces costs to 4,751.36 BD, exhibiting slight savings over steel reinforcement at 5,685.12 BD. On the other hand, the concrete volume and formwork area in both column types have minimal disparities. Consequently, the total cost of columns decreased by 8.25% when employing GFRP reinforcement. Implementing GFRP in columns hence maintains construction expenses while also preserving required architectural dimensions.

Table 16

Table 16. Steel column BOQ.

Table 17

Table 17. GFRP column BOQ.

It is important to note that the BOQ in this study relies primarily on material rates and does not include regional transportation or labor costs due to large variations and potential sources of error. While this approach places emphasis on the fundamental material costs, it does serve as a limitation when assessing the applicability of results in real life projects. Because results are bound by this limitation, the generalizability of the cost analysis must be considered carefully.

7 Conclusion

The study highlights the transformative potential of GFRP in coastal high-rise building construction, yet implementation constraints are inherent in such a material transition. In the structural domain, GFRP columns used smaller dimensions under the same loading conditions, indicating an enhanced structural performance compared to steel columns. In the environmental domain, GFRP enhances the environmental efficiency of columns and reduces carbon emissions significantly. It is also an excellent corrosion-resistant alternative. Since columns comprise a considerable percentage of buildings, GFRP in columns plays a critical role in reducing the overall carbon footprint of the building. In the economic domain, GFRP rebars offered significant cost savings due to reduced dimensions in vertical elements.

Due to the lack of standardization of GFRP in building construction, ETABS is not designed to accommodate GFRP RC structures. The limitations of the modeling approach mainly stems from the software’s inability to permit a tensile strength value above 420 $\mathrm{MPa}$ for rebars in components other than columns. Though the maximum input for tensile strength in shear walls exceeds the minimum ASTM D7205 requirement, it does not represent the true behavior of the material. On the other hand, it was possible to input a reasonably higher tensile strength (1,050 $\mathrm{MPa}$ ) for GFRP in columns, which allowed for a realistic comparison between steel and GFRP columns, but inaccuracies may have been caused by the unrecognized GFRP-specific parameters in the software. The exclusion of structural design for other structural components on ETABS represented a major limitation as the determination of their complete viability necessitated accurate software-generated information. A definitive performance assessment of GFRP in all structural components necessitates accurate software-generated information.

Furthermore, the quantified emissions solely reflected one part of the cycle, omitting critical stages due to minimal research on the performance of GFRP reinforcement in the long term. Subsequent research must broaden the scope of the carbon dioxide emissions produced by GFRP reinforcement over its life cycle. The BOQ does not account for labor and transportation costs. However, due to the large cost variations in the region, the inclusion of these factors would have delineated the actual cost and introduced additional sources of error.

Though GFRP offers significant advantages across structural, environmental, and economic domains, its susceptibility to high temperatures and the current lack of fireproofing methods due to its low applicability in residential buildings causes a significant constraint. Future research should develop effective fireproofing methods to reduce the hesitation regarding its use in residential buildings. Hybrid bars may be presented as a solution, which integrate combined characteristics of steel and GFRP, leading to optimized structural performance and a lower environmental and economic impacts.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Author contributions

LA: Writing – original draft. WJ: Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

ACI (2019). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–19) : American Concrete Institute. 38800 Country Club Drive: Farmington Hills, MI.

Google Scholar

Adeleke, A. A., and Odusote, J. K. (2013). Evaluation of the mechanical properties of reinforcing steel bars from collapsed building sites. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 13, 737–743. doi: 10.1007/s11668-013-9739-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Agustiar, Tavio, Putu Raka, G., and Anggraini, R. (2019). "Evaluation of higher-strength steel reinforcing bar elongation for seismic design according to various standard specifications," Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automotive Innovation Green Energy Vehicle, vol. 2059, no. 020033, pp. 1–9.

Google Scholar

Ahmadi, M. S., Johari, M. S., Sadighi, M., and Esfandeh, M. (2009). An experimental study on mechanical properties of GFRP braid-pultruded composite rods. Express Polym Lett 3, 560–568. doi: 10.3144/expresspolymlett.2009.70

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

AISC (2025). Steel’s environmental footprint. Available online at: https://www.aisc.org/sustainability/leed-v4/#129026 (Accessed October 24, 2025).

Google Scholar

AL Omar, S., and Abdelhadi, A. (2024). Comparative life-cycle assessment of steel and GFRP rebars for procurement sustainability in the construction industry. Sustainability 16:3899. doi: 10.3390/su16103899

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Almulhim, M. (2024). Optimizing concrete grade for a sustainable structural design in Saudi Arabia. Buildings 14, 1–27. doi: 10.3390/buildings14040860

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

American Concrete Institute (2022). Building code requirements for structural concrete reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars - code and commentary.

Google Scholar

Ana Evangelista (2022). “Construction materials trends and testing,” EIT, 17 November 2022. [Online]. Available online at: https://www.eit.edu.au/event/construction-materials-trends-and-testing/ (Accessed March 1, 2025).

Google Scholar

ASTM International (2019). D7957/D7957M-17: standard specification for solid round glass Fiber reinforced polymer bars for concrete reinforcement. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International.

Google Scholar

ASMA (2020). "Florida community protected from future storms," Composites Manufacturing Magazine, 6 May 2020. Available online at: https://compositesmanufacturingmagazine.com/2020/05/florida-community-protected-from-future-storms/ (Accessed December 11, 2024).

Google Scholar

Bader, E. H., Saade, J. M., Rahman, M. K., Salazar Vidal, O. D., Al-Abduljabbar, S. A., Hameed, M. S., et al. (2023). The heart of innovation in SPARK, Saudi Arabia. Concr. Int. 45, 35–41.

Google Scholar

Beer, F. P., Johnston, E. R., DeWolf, J. T., and Mazurek, D. F. (2018). Mechanics of materials. Eigth Edn. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Google Scholar

Boston University (2025). “Mechanics of Materials: Torsion,” Boston University, 26 March 2025. Available online at: https://www.bu.edu/moss/mechanics-of-materials-torsion/. (Accessed October 24, 2025).

Google Scholar

Chatterjee, K., Yin, H. K., Buckley, E. L., and Yin, H. (1976). Development testing of glass Fiber reinforced plastic rods used for reinforcement of Portland cement concrete, University of Texas at Airlington.

Google Scholar

CRSI (2022). Steel reinforcement Bar. West Conshohocken, PA: Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI).

Google Scholar

CRSI (2025). "Economy of construction," concrete reinforcing steel institute. Available online at: https://www.crsi.org/reinforced-concrete-benefits/economy-of-construction/. (Accessed 30 March 2025).

Google Scholar

de Alba, F. D. (2023). “The first patents for reinforced concrete: the origins of the 20th-century construction revolution in Spain” in ed. Mascarenhas-Mateus, J. Changing cultures (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 127–160.

Google Scholar

De Jong, A., Jansen, M., Van Dijk, J., and Meyer, J. (2021). Analysis of innovative practices in advanced materials and. Fusion Multidis. Res. Int. J. 2, 179–188. doi: 10.63995/JWFN9981

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

ETABS (2025). CSI America. Available online at: https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs. (Accessed February 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

Faruki, C. O., and Putranto, L. S. (2023). Factors causing steel bar waste material of apartment project in Jakarta. AIP Conf. Proc. 2680, 1–8. doi: 10.1063/5.0127188

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gardner, L., Wang, F., and Liew, A. (2011). Influence of strain hardening on the behavior and design of steel structures. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 11, 855–875.

Google Scholar

George, V., and Parappattu, N. B. (2017). Comparative study of GFRP rebar and steel rebar used in concrete sections. GRD J. Eng. 2, 36–41.

Google Scholar

Ghannoum, W. M., and Slavin, C. M. (2016). Low-cycle fatigue performance of high-strength steel reinforcing bars. ACI Mater. J. 113, 803–814. doi: 10.14359/51689116

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gmk.center (2023). Global rebar market was marked by fluctuations in prices and demand in October. Available online at: https://gmk.center/en/posts/global-rebar-market-was-marked-by-fluctuations-in-prices-and-demand-in-october/ (Accessed April 2025).

Google Scholar

Gunes, O., Lau, D., Tuakta, C., and Büyüköztürk, O. (2013). Ductility of FRP–concrete systems: investigations at different length scales. Constr. Build. Mater. 49, 915–925. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.10.017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hajiloo, H., Green, M. F., and Gales, J. (2018). Mechanical properties of GFRP reinforcing bars at high temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 162, 142–154. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.025

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hebei Yongchang Composite Material Technology Co., Ltd. (2023). “What is GFRP (FRP)?,” Yongchang FRP, 14 March 2023. Available online at: https://www.yongchangfrp.com/resources/what-is-gfrp-frp.html. (Accessed November 10, 2024).

Google Scholar

Hibbeler, R. C. (2020). Structural analysis (tenth edition in SI units). United Kingdom: Pearson Education, Inc.

Google Scholar

IPCC (2023). Overview: Greenhouse gas metrics in IPCC reports.

Google Scholar

Jabbar, S. A., and Farid, S. B. (2018). Replacement of steel rebars by GFRP rebars in the concrete. Karbala Int. J. Mod. Sci. 4, 216–227. doi: 10.1016/j.kijoms.2018.02.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kakusha, V., Kornev, O., Kovalev, M., Lapshinov, A., and Litvinov, E., (2018). "Gfrp reinforced foundation slab design for 15 storey residential building," American Concrete Institute (ACI), vol. 326.

Google Scholar

Kutz, E. H. M. (2006). “Quantitative methods of materials selection” in ed. Kutz, M Mechanical engineers’ handbook. 3rd ed (NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 466–489.

Google Scholar

Lee, S., and Lee, T. (2023). Carbon emission reductions of GFRP reinforced concrete bridges in replacement of steel rebars. Int. J. Eng. Res. Mech. Civil Eng. 10, 20–23.

Google Scholar

Levings, J., and Sritharan, S. (2012). Effects of cold temperature and strain rate on the stress-strain behavior of ASTM A706 grade 420(60) steel reinforcement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24, 1441–1449. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000523

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Little, R. G. (2012). "Managing the risk of aging Infrastructur," the Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Google Scholar

Liu, H., Ka, T. A., Su, N., Zhu, Y., Guan, S., Long, J., et al. (2024). Experimental study of dimensional effects on tensile strength of GFRP bars. Buildings 14:1205. doi: 10.3390/buildings14051205

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mateenbar (2020). Environmental product declaration.

Google Scholar

Mateenbar, (2024a). "Jizan flood mitigation channel," Mateenbar. [Online]. Available online at: https://mateenbar.com/en-us/2024/12/11/jizan-flood-mitigation-channel/ (Accessed December 21, 2024).

Google Scholar

Mateenbar, (2024b). "Leading the world in durable rebar," Available online at: https://ikkmateenbar.com/assets/Documents/mateenbar-intro-brochure-pages.pdf. (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Minimum (2025). “Global warming potential,” minimum, [Online]. Available online at: https://www.minimum.com/resources/global-warming-potential. (Accessed April 24, 2025).

Google Scholar

Minimum (2023). A critical review on glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars as reinforcement in flexural members. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 104, 501–506. doi: 10.1007/s40030-023-00729-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nemessanyi, C. (2023). Brief history of fiber reinforced polymers as structural material. Period. Polytech. Archit. 54, 193–206. doi: 10.3311/PPar.23291

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pavlina, E. J., and Van Tyne, C. J. (2008). Correlation of yield strength and tensile strength with hardness for steels. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 17, 888–893. doi: 10.1007/s11665-008-9225-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Popescu, C.-M., and Pfriem, A. (2020). Treatments and modification to improve the reaction to fire of of wood and wood based products- an overview. Materials 44, 100–111. doi: 10.1002/fam.2779

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Qin, R., Zhang, Z., Zhiyao, H., Zhengyao, D., Xianwen, X., Guangrui, W., et al. (2023). On-line evaluation and monitoring technology for material surface integrity in laser shock peening – a review. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 313:117851. doi: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2022.117851

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roylance, D. (2001). Stress-Strain Curves. Cambridge, MA: Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Google Scholar

Sadkovyi, V., Andronov, V., Semkiv, O., Rybka, E., Otrosh, Y., Udianskyi, M., et al. (2022). “Fire resistance of reinforced concrete and steel structures” in Fire resistance of reinforced concrete and steel structures, 1–180.

Google Scholar

Sbahieh, M. E. U. R., and Al-Ghamdi, S. (2022). The mechanical and environmental performance of fiber-reinforced polymers in concrete structures: opportunities, challenges and future directions. Buildings 12:1417. doi: 10.3390/buildings12091417

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheikh, S. A., and Kharal, Z. (2017). Replacement of steel with GFRP for sustainable reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.141

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sokoli, D., and Ghannoum, W. M. (2016). High-strength reinforcement in columns under high shear stresses. ACI Struct. J. 113, 605–614. doi: 10.14359/51688203

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Steputat, C. C., Kaminski, P. A., Nolan, S., Nanni, A., and Denty, L. (2019). A seawall constructed with GFRP bars as structural reinforcing. Concr. Int., 26–30.

Google Scholar

Tian, L., Shan, Z. W., and Ma, E. (2013). Ductile necking behavior of nanoscale metallic glasses under uniaxial tension at room temperature. Acta Mater. 61, 4823–4830. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2013.05.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

UBC (1994). Uniform building code volume 1.

Google Scholar

UNEP (2023). “Building materials and the climate: constructing a new future,” United Nations environment programme, 12 September 2023. Available online at: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/building-materials-and-climate-constructing-new-future. (Accessed 24 October 2025).

Google Scholar

U.S. Green Building Council (2025). LEED. Available online at: https://www.usgbc.org/leed. (Accessed October 25, 2025).

Google Scholar

Wiater, A., and Siwowski, T. (2020). Comparison of tensile properties of glass fibre polymer rebars by testing according to various standards. Materials 13, 1–23. doi: 10.3390/ma13184110

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wight, J. K., and Macgregor, J. G. (2012). Reinforced Concrete Mechanics & Design. 6th Edn. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Google Scholar

Won, J.-P., Park, C.-G., and Jang, C.-I. (2007). Tensile fracture and bond properties of ductile hybrid FRP reinforcing bars. Polym. Polym. Compos. 15, 9–16. doi: 10.1177/096739110701500102

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Steel Association (2025). Climate change and the production of iron and steel. Available online at: https://worldsteel.org/climate-action/climate-change-and-the-production-of-iron-and-steel/. (Accessed October 24, 2025).

Google Scholar

Yazici, C., Ozkal, F. M., Orhan, S. N., and Cirpici, B. K. (2022). Reformative effects of intumescent coating on the structural characteristics of cold-formed steel. ACS Omega 7, 42560–42569. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c06017,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, S., Caprani, C., and Heidarpour, A. (2014). Influence of fibre orientation on pultruded GFRP material properties. Compos. Struct. 2018, 368–377. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.07.104

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhou, J., Qian, P., and Chen, X. (2014). Stress-strain behavior of cementitious materials with different sizes. Sci. World J. 2014, 1–11. doi: 10.1155/2014/919154,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar