Next Article in Journal
Characterization of Material Extrusion-Printed Amorphous Poly(Ether Ketone Ketone) (PEKK) Parts
Previous Article in Journal
A Hybrid Artificial Neural Network Approach for Modeling the Behavior of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Under Conditions Applicable to Stretch Blow Molding
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Polyol Types on Underwater Curing Properties of Polyurethane
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/polym17081068
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Study on the Structural Performance of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars: A Sustainable Alternative to Steel in Challenging Environments

by
Fang Xie
1,2,*,
Wanming Tian
1,
Shaofan Li
2,
Pedro Diez
3,
Sergio Zlotnik
3 and
Alberto Garcia Gonzalez
3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing 312000, China
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, USA
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya BarcelonaTech, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2025, 17(8), 1068; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17081068
Submission received: 8 March 2025 / Revised: 31 March 2025 / Accepted: 11 April 2025 / Published: 15 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Processing and Application of Polymers and Their Composites III)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The inherent brittleness of glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars limits their structural applicability despite their corrosion resistance and lightweight properties. This study addresses the critical challenge of enhancing the ductility and crack resistance of GFRP-reinforced systems while maintaining their environmental resilience. Through experimental evaluation, GFRC slabs reinforced with GFRP bars are systematically compared to steel-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs under bending loads. Eight slabs were subjected to four-edge-supported loading following standardized procedures based on prior strength assessments. The results demonstrate that GFRP-reinforced GFRC slabs achieve an ultimate load capacity of 83.7 kN, comparable to their steel-reinforced counterparts (96.3 kN), while exhibiting progressive crack propagation and 17% higher energy absorption than non-fiber-reinforced systems. The load capacity similarities between GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and steel-reinforced slabs are 69% for crack loading and 86% for ultimate capacity. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that the reduction factor in flexural strength design of the novel slab should be comprehensively considered, incorporating the recommended value of 0.5. The findings confirm that GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs meet key structural performance criteria, including enhanced bending capacity, energy absorption, crack resistance, and ductility. This study underscores the potential of GFRP as an effective alternative to steel reinforcement, contributing to the development of resilient and durable concrete structures in demanding environments.

1. Introduction

As climate impacts intensify, the demands placed on structural materials by human-engineered environments are becoming increasingly significant [1,2,3]. Extreme weather events, including severe storms, flooding, high humidity, and fluctuating temperatures, are exerting new stresses on buildings, bridges, and infrastructure worldwide. In coastal and humid regions, for instance, materials face accelerated corrosion and degradation, while areas with fluctuating temperatures experience increased risks of cracking due to freeze–thaw cycles.
The early exploration of GFRP in structural applications worldwide began around the 1980s. GFRP, in the 1980s, as a high-performance material, was adopted relatively early in the United States for the reinforcement of highway structures, with research primarily focusing on the application of fiber-reinforced composite bridge decks [4,5,6,7,8]. Around the same period, Miyun, Beijing, China, witnessed the first case of applying fiber-reinforced composites to a highway bridge in 1982 [9]. The bridge had a span of 20.7 m and a width of 9.2 m, constructed with box girders made of honeycomb-structured GFRP. After one year of use, instability in the honeycomb structure and local buckling led to localized depressions in the bridge. In 1987, the GFRP bridge was modified into a GFRP–concrete composite girder, which has since remained in good service [10,11,12,13,14].
While FRP composites were still considered an emerging material in some countries, the British Standard BS 5400-10:1980 [15], published in January 1980, was among the pioneering comprehensive standards. It provided standard load spectra for both highway and railway bridges and recommended methods for assessing the fatigue performance of bridge components subjected to repeated stress fluctuations. In 1992, the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC, CAN/CSA-S6) incorporated theoretical design methodologies for FRP composites [16]. Subsequently, GFRP underwent rapid development in standardized research, gaining global recognition [17,18,19,20,21]. Researchers worldwide have also made significant contributions to fundamental studies on the use of glass fiber reinforcement to enhance the structural performance of hybrid components in the early stages of development [22,23,24,25,26].
Researchers worldwide are currently focusing on GFRP as a structural material and exploring its various shapes and types [27,28,29,30,31] in engineering composites. Its unique combination of properties makes it ideal for structures subjected to harsh conditions [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40], particularly in challenging environments requiring superior corrosion resistance, insulation, and lightweight materials [41,42,43,44,45,46], supporting the idea that GFRP offers a compelling alternative to traditional steel reinforcement.
As previous studies have shown [47,48], unlike steel reinforcement, which offers a well-defined yield plateau and ductility that enable gradual failure with visible deformation as a warning before collapse, GFRP bars tend to fail abruptly under extreme loads due to their brittle behavior. As [47] shows, as illustrated in Figure 1a,b, while typical GFRP bars have much higher strength than common steel, their tensile failure mode is characterized by explosive brittle fracture. Moreover, unlike steel reinforcement, the tensile stress–strain curve of GFRP bars exhibits a linear distribution without a yield plateau. The lack of ductility of GFRP bars can restrict their use in safety-critical structural applications, particularly in scenarios requiring gradual deformation. Thus, GFRP bars present notable challenges when they are employed without unconfined concrete [48].
Fortunately, when working with GFRP tube-confined concrete, the difference in contributions between GFRP bars and steel bars to the overall hybrid GFRP composite is relatively minor [47,48]. Additionally, a previous study shows that the tensile elastic modulus and ultimate strain of typical GFRP bars are closer to those of conventional concrete compared to steel, as illustrated in Figure 1c,d [47]; this similarity facilitates coordinated deformation between GFRP bars and concrete under loading conditions, forming a robust foundation for the collaborative performance of GFRP-reinforced concrete composite members.
GFRP bars, when integrated with concrete, can exhibit significantly enhanced ductility and crack resistance. As [48] shows, GFRP bars, particularly those with an optimized ribbed surface, an ideal diameter, and paired with a suitable base concrete, can undergo the full bond-slip phase and demonstrate a pronounced yield plateau with visible ductility [48]. This characteristic highlights the potential for exploring GFRP’s structural performance, particularly in hybrid concrete systems under varying conditions, to evaluate its practical applicability in concrete reinforcement.
When combined with appropriate structural configurations, GFRP–concrete beam and column composite elements have gained widespread recognition [49,50,51,52,53,54]. However, research on GFRP integration within composite slab systems remains relatively limited.
This study aims to develop a GFRP-reinforced GFRC slab system, in response to the practical engineering demands for small-sized slabs in civil construction, and assess the compatibility and coordinated performance of all materials within the structural component.
This study aims to evaluate the fundamental structural performance of glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) slabs reinforced with GFRP bars, in comparison to those reinforced with traditional steel bars, which are known for their ductility and crack resistance. Key parameters such as the stress–strain response of the reinforcement bars, load-bearing capacity, crack formation and propagation, and structural ductility are analyzed to assess the feasibility of GFRP bars as a viable alternative to steel in structural applications.
Furthermore, this research provides critical insights into the comparative performance of GFRP and steel reinforcements in GFRC slabs, offering professionals and researchers a clear understanding of their strengths, limitations, and optimal applications. By examining the resilience, brittleness, and crack resistance of GFRC slabs reinforced with GFRP bars, the study contributes to the advancement of hybrid composite materials in civil engineering. Ultimately, it supports evidence-based material selection and structural design strategies for durable, cost-effective, and resilient concrete structures, addressing the growing demand for innovative solutions in challenging environments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The materials utilized in this study included GFRP reinforcement bars, sourced from Shandong Safety Industries Co., Ltd., Antai City, China and steel reinforcement bars, supplied by Shanghai Zhongxiang Industrial Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China. The design parameters for both reinforcement bar types, along with their tensile properties measured in accordance with ACI 440.3R-04 [55] and ASTM A370 [56], are summarized in Table 1.
For the comparison of fiber-reinforced concretes, chopped glass fibers and hooked-end steel fibers, commonly employed in engineering applications, were selected. These fibers were provided by Chunfang Mineral Products Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang City, China and Chang’an Rubber Products Co., Ltd., Hengshui City, China, respectively. Their geometrical shapes and mechanical properties are detailed in Table 2. The fiber volume fractions (FVF) ranged from 1% to 3% for glass fibers and from 0.75% to 3.0% for steel fibers in the GFRC and SFRC strength tests.
The concrete matrix utilized P·O 42.5-grade ordinary Portland cement, produced in accordance with the General Portland Cement standard GB 175 [57]. The fine aggregate consisted of river sand with a fineness modulus of 2.57, while the coarse aggregate comprised crushed stone with a maximum diameter of 12 mm. Table 3 provides the compressive strength and mix proportions for the 36 MPa grade base concrete.
Strength tests for GFRC and SFRC prior to this study were conducted following the Standard for Test Methods of Mechanical Properties on Ordinary Concrete [58]. The fundamental properties of glass-fiber-reinforced (GFRC) and steel-fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) are presented in Table 4.

2.2. Test Design

The study compares GFRC slabs with a glass fiber volume fraction (FVF) of 3% reinforced with GFRP bars, GFRC slabs with the same FVF reinforced with steel bars, and SFRC slabs with a steel FVF of 3% without reinforcement bars. These slabs, designated as the target slabs shown in columns A to E of Table 5, will be the primary focus of the measurements of the reverent slabs, as shown in columns F to H of Table 5. The FVF parameter selected for the target slabs is based on the mechanical properties of GFRC and SFRC. For GFRC, with FVFs ranging from 1% to 3%, the basic mechanical properties increased consistently with higher FVF. In contrast, for SFRC, with FVFs ranging from 0.75% to 3.0%, the basic mechanical properties showed fluctuations as the FVF increased.
All slabs were tested using a 50-ton reaction frame system. Figure 2a illustrates the bending test setup, while Figure 2b shows the sample arrangement. Each slab is square, with a side length of 600 mm, a thickness of 100 mm, and an effective span of 500 mm. The reinforcement bars in the GFRC slabs, as shown in Figure 2c, are spaced 140 mm apart. Strain gauges, each 50 mm in length, were placed on the slab surfaces to measure concrete strain, while 3 mm gauges measured strain in the reinforcements (either GFRP or steel bars) located near the bottom of the slabs, as shown in Figure 2d and Figure 3e. A dial gauge with a 50 mm range was positioned at the center of the bottom of each slab. The loading procedure followed the guidelines in the Standard for Testing Methods of Concrete Structures [59].

3. Results

3.1. Load-Strain Behavior

Strain measurements were conducted on the concrete and reinforcement bars of the fiber-reinforced slabs under bending load, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3a–d illustrate the strain developments in GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs, where the development of concrete strains in GFRC slabs is relatively similar, particularly in terms of their ultimate values. It can be observed that the strains in the top concrete of SFRC slabs are significantly smaller than those in GFRC slabs, as shown in Figure 3e–h. This is mainly because glass-fiber-reinforced employs a lower elastic modulus than steel-fiber-reinforced concrete.
Meanwhile, the strain in GFRP reinforcement is significantly greater than that in steel reinforcement, as illustrated in Figure 3. This is mostly attributed to the mechanical properties of GFRP bars, which are characterized by high strength and low elastic modulus. However, GFRP bars typically do not reach their ultimate tensile strength during flexural loading, and it is difficult to achieve their limited strains because the deformation of the hybrid system in cooperation with the concrete is restricted. In contrast, steel reinforcements generally reach their yield strains (approximately 0.002 at the mid-span for steel bar HRB 400), where they sufficiently contribute their flexural load capacity. Therefore, the design of GFRP reinforcements in glass-fiber-reinforced slabs typically differs from that of steel-reinforced slabs. The structural performance of flexural components should be comprehensively considered to prevent potential excessive strain and subsequent safety risks.

3.2. Load-Deflection Behavior

While defining the crack load and ultimate load of SFRC-3-N slab as F*cr and F*u, respectively, the values of Fcr/F*cr and Fu/F*u for each slab type were obtained, as shown in Table 6. The values of Fcr/F*cr and Fu/F*u in GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs were found to be significantly lower than those in steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs. The differences in load capacity under bending conditions among different types, GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs, steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs, and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs are limited to a certain range, as demonstrated by the ratio ranges of 0.5–1 for Fcr/F*cr and 0.6–1 for Fu/F*u.
Notably, when comparing the ratio of crack load to ultimate load capacity (Fcr/Fu) among these three types of slabs, as shown in Table 6, the ratio values for each slab type are relatively close. The Fcr/Fu value of GFRC-3-G is 0.44, which is closer to that of GFRC-0-G (0.42) than to SFRC-3-N (0.51). Similarly, the Fcr/Fu value of GFRC-3-S (0.54) is slightly closer to that of GFRC-0-S (0.52) than to SFRC-3-N (0.51). This observation highlights the slight differences when comparing the ratio of the crack load to the ultimate load capacity (Fcr/Fu) under bending among GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs (0.44), steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs (0.54), and non-bar-reinforced SFRC (0.51) with the same fiber volume fraction (FVF).
Interestingly, the ratio of mid-span deflection at the crack load to that at the ultimate load (δcr/δu) is also quite similar across the same slab type. The δcr/δu value of GFRC-3-G is 0.14, which is much closer to that of GFRC-0-G (0.11) than to SFRC-3-N (0.12). Similarly, the δcr/δu value of GFRC-3-S (0.32) is much closer to that of GFRC-0-S (0.31) than to SFRC-3-N (0.12). Notably, the ratios of mid-span deflections at crack load and ultimate load, the value δcr/δu, in GFRP-reinforced GFRC slabs are much closer to those in SFRC slabs than to steel-reinforced GFRC slabs. It shows relative differences in deflection behavior between GFRP-bar-reinforced and steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to SFRC with a 3% FVF, as shown in Table 6.

4. Discussion

4.1. Crack Propagation and Fiber Contribution

The bending test results of fiber-reinforced slabs highlight the contributions of the fibers. Both GFRC and SFRC slabs demonstrate significant enhancements in crack load capacity and ultimate load capacity when compared to non-fiber-reinforced concrete. These improvements are evident from the data presented in Table 6. Specifically, in GFRC slabs reinforced with glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars and incorporating a 3% fiber volume fraction (FVF), the crack load and ultimate load capacity increased by 21% and 17%, respectively, relative to GFRP-reinforced slabs without fiber reinforcement. Similarly, in GFRC slabs reinforced with steel reinforcement and a 3% FVF, the crack load and ultimate load capacity exhibited increases of 15% and 10%, respectively, compared to steel-reinforced slabs without fiber reinforcement.
Figure 4 illustrates the crack propagation in reverent slabs of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs, steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs, and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs. It demonstrates that glass fibers help distribute stress by delaying and preventing the formation of larger cracks. Both GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs, compared to SFRC slabs with a 3% FVF, exhibit relatively gradual load-deflection response and predictable crack propagation, with a certain difference in load capacity, as demonstrated in Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 4a,b,f. Notably, SFRC slabs exhibit fluctuations in bending capacity as the FVF increases, aligning with the typical performance of SFRCs, whereas GFRCs demonstrate consistent and monotonic improvements with increasing FVF.

4.2. Design of Flexural Strength

The design flexural strength at a section of a GFRP-bar-reinforced slab must exceed the factored moment to comply with ACI provisions [20]. The design flexural strength is defined as the nominal flexural strength of the member multiplied by the strength reduction factor, as shown in Equation (1).
M u ≤ Φ M n
Further calculations can be performed using Equations (2) and (3), as shown below, to determine the nominal flexural strength.
M n = ρ f ⋅ f f ( 1 − 0.59 ρ f ⋅ f f f c ′ ) b d 2
f f = ( E f ε c u ) 2 4 + 0.85 β 1 f c ′ ρ f E f ε c u − 0.5 E f ε c u
Meanwhile, the strength reduction factor can be determined [20] using Equation (4) as a function of the reinforcement ratio, which can be obtained using Equations (5) and (6).
Φ = 0.55 , ρ f ≤ ρ f b 0.3 + ρ f 4 ρ f b , ρ f b < ρ f < 1.4 ρ f b 0.65 , ρ f ≥ 1.4 ρ f b
ρ f = A f / b d
ρ f b = 0.85 β 1 f c ′ f f u ⋅ E f ε c u E f ε c u + f f u
By applying the aforementioned equations and conducting a comparative analysis with the JSCE 1997 [21] recommendation, the design flexural strength and strength reduction factor for GFRP-bar-reinforced slabs, steel-bar-reinforced slabs, and SFRC slabs are determined, as summarized in Table 7.
It can been observed in Table 7, the nominal flexural strength of GFRP-bar-reinforced slabs (0.59 for 3% FVF) is observed to be slightly lower than that predicted by the ACI provision (0.65). Meanwhile, the nominal flexural strength of steel-bar-reinforced slabs (1.04 for 3% FVF) is slightly higher than the corresponding value (0.9) specified by the ACI provision.
Therefore, the flexural strength of our novel system can be analyzed in accordance with the provisions of the ACI standard. However, the design flexural strength must be comprehensively evaluated by considering the critical strength reduction factor, which is hereby recommended to be 0.50 for GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slab system.
Notably, it can be observed that the fiber-reinforced contribution in both GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs can be quantified by calculating the design flexural strength at 3% FVF, which results in increases of 16.96% and 6.47%, respectively, compared to non-fiber-reinforced slabs. These improvements suggest that the hybrid system may provide additional benefits due to the synergistic effect of multiple reinforcement materials, thereby enhancing the overall flexural capacity and ductility of the component, which in turn contributes to improved structural performance in practical applications.

4.3. Hybrid Engineering Performance

The engineering performance of hybrid components is influenced by multiple parameters, leading to complex interactions that directly affect key structural properties such as bearing capacity, ductility, and energy absorption. These interactions ultimately contribute to a more ductile, resilient, and predictable structural failure behavior.
The structural performance of hybrid slabs, including bearing capacity, ductility, and energy absorption, can be evaluated through analytical formulations. Specifically, the bearing capacity can be determined based on the transfer of flexural strength, as expressed in Equations (1)–(6) in Section 4.2.
Ductility for flexural members is quantified as the ratio of deflections at the ultimate load to those at the crack load, as shown in Equation (7). Meanwhile, toughness, which represents a slab’s ability to absorb energy and resist fracture during crack propagation before bending failure, is typically assessed by integrating the critical load-deflection curve, as experimentally derived, shown in (8).
μ = δ u / δ y
T = ∫ 0 δ u P ( δ ) d δ
A comprehensive performance in typical hybrid GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs is obtained, comprising predictive indicators for engineering, as shown in Table 8. The results demonstrate that GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs meet several critical structural performance criteria, including bending capacity, energy absorption, crack resistance, structural ductility, and safety warning, in comparison to steel-reinforced slabs. Moreover, these slabs present significant advantages such as corrosion resistance, cost-effectiveness, ease of processing, insulation properties, and water resistance—factors that are crucial for enhancing the engineering resilience of structures exposed to diverse climatic conditions.

5. Conclusions

This study systematically evaluates the structural performance of glass-fiber-reinforced (GFRC) slabs reinforced with GFRP bars, comparing them to steel-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced steel-fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) slabs under bending loads. The results demonstrate that the GFRP-reinforced GFRC slab system maintains the compatibility and coordinated performance of all materials within the structural component. The findings confirm that GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs satisfy key structural performance criteria, including improved bending capacity, energy absorption, crack resistance, and ductility. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1)
The enhancement of concrete performance through the incorporation of fibers is particularly evident. GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs with 3% FVF, similar to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and SFRC slabs, exhibit a gradual load-deflection response and predictable crack propagation.
(2)
The differences in load capacity under bending conditions between GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and steel-reinforced slabs are limited to a specific range. The similarities in load capacities are indicated by ratio values of 70% for crack load capacity and 86% for ultimate load capacity, respectively.
(3)
GFRCs exhibit consistent and monotonic improvements in flexural strength with increasing FVF. The flexural strength can be analyzed according to the provisions of the ACI standard, taking into account the strength-reduction factor, which is recommended to be 0.5.
(4)
When analyzed using current provisions, the hybrid system may offer additional benefits due to the synergistic effect of multiple reinforcement materials, enhancing the overall flexural capacity and ductility of the component, thereby improving structural performance in practical applications.
(5)
As demonstrated, the novel system significantly enhances bending capacity, crack resistance, energy absorption, structural ductility, and safety indicators compared to traditional steel-reinforced slabs. These enhancements are crucial for increasing the structural resilience of buildings exposed to diverse climatic conditions and will support the follow-up study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.X. and P.D.; Investigation, F.X. and W.T.; Methodology, F.X.; Data curation, F.X. and W.T., Formal analysis, F.X., W.T., S.L., P.D., S.Z. and A.G.G.; Software, F.X. and W.T.; Visualization, F.X. and W.T.; Funding acquisition, F.X. and P.D.; Project administration, F.X. and P.D.; Resources, F.X. and P.D.; Original draft, F.X. and W.T.; Validation, F.X., W.T., S.L., S.Z. and A.G.G.; Review and editing, F.X., W.T., S.L., P.D., S.Z. and A.G.G. Supervision, S.L., P.D., S.Z. and A.G.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation (grant number LQ17E080010) and a grant from an international cooperative program supported by Zhejiang Qinye Construction Industry Group Co., Ltd., Zhejiang 312000, China (ID: USX-UPC-2021330001000082).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to Haiwen Qiu, Guixiang Wang, and Liang Xv, who serve as the Deputy General Manager, Technical Chief Engineer, and Director of Technology at Zhejiang Qinye Construction Industry Group Co., Ltd., as well as to Ju Chen and Yong Chen from Zhejiang University, for their invaluable expertise and assistance throughout all aspects of our study. We also sincerely appreciate everyone who contributed to our research but is not specifically mentioned here.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, T.; Wu, Y.; Shi, L.; Hu, X.; Chen, M.; Wu, L. A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cabeza, L.F.; Chàfer, M. Technological options and strategies towards zero energy buildings contributing to climate change mitigation: A systematic review. Energy Build. 2020, 219, 110009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mishra, V.; Sadhu, A. Towards the effect of climate change in structural loads of urban infrastructure: A review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 89, 104352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bakeri, P.A. Analysis and Design of Polymer Composite Bridge Decks. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  5. Grace, N.F.; Abdel-Sayed, G. Double tee and CFRP/GFRP bridge system. Concr. Int. 1996, 18, 39–44. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shield, C.K.; French, C.W.; Hanus, J.P. Bond of glass fiber reinforced plastic reinforcing bar for consideration in bridge decks. Spec. Publ. 1999, 188, 393–406. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fardis, M.N.; Khalili, H.H. FRP-encased concrete as a structural material. Mag. Concr. Res. 1982, 34, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kumar, S.V.; GangaRao, H.V.S. Fatigue response of concrete decks reinforced with FRP rebars. J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 124, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yao, S.Z. A shallow view of the development of FRP bridges. Bridge Constr. 1990, 3, 27–33. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  10. He, J.; Liu, Y.; Chen, A.; Dai, L. Experimental investigation of movable hybrid GFRP and concrete bridge deck. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xin, H.; Mosallam, A.; Correia, J.A.F.O.; Liu, Y.; He, J.; Sun, Y. Material-structure integrated design optimization of GFRP bridge deck on steel girder. Structures 2020, 27, 1222–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, J.; Cheng, B.; Yan, X.; Zhang, K.; Zhou, Z. Structural analysis and optimization of an advanced all-GFRP highway bridge. Structures 2021, 34, 3155–3171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Al-Rousan, R.Z. Impact of elevated temperature on the behavior of full-scale concrete bridge deck slabs reinforced with GFRP bars. Structures 2022, 43, 621–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gao, C.; Fam, A. Rolling load fatigue experiment on a bridge deck reinforced with a new design of GFRP stay-in-place form. J. Compos. Constr. 2025, 29, 04024090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. BS 5400:1980; Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges: Code of Practice for Fatigue, 1st ed. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 1980.
  16. CAN/CSA-S6-1922; Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code. CSA Group: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1922.
  17. ACI 440R-07; Report on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2007; 100p.
  18. ACI 440.6M-08; Specification for Carbon and Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bar Materials for Concrete. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2008; 6p.
  19. CSA S807; Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers. Canadian Standards Association: Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2010; p. 44.
  20. ACI 440.1R-15; Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2015.
  21. Machida, A.; Uomoto, T. Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials; Japan Society of Civil Engineers: Tokyo, Japan, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  22. Saadatmanesh, H.; Ehsani, M.R. RC beams strengthened with GFRP plates. I: Experimental study. J. Struct. Eng. 1991, 117, 3417–3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mirmiran, A.; Shahawy, M. Behavior of concrete columns confined by fiber composites. J. Struct. Eng. 1997, 123, 583–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mirmiran, A.; Shahawy, M.; Samaan, M. Strength and ductility of hybrid FRP-concrete beam-columns. J. Struct. Eng. 1999, 125, 1085–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Teng, J.G.; Chen, J.F.; Smith, S.T.; Lam, L. FRP: Strengthened RC Structures; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  26. Teng, J.G.; Lam, L. Behavior and modeling of fiber reinforced polymer-confined concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 2004, 130, 1713–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jiang, Z.; Li, S.; Xie, J.; Tan, Y.; Lu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Liu, W.; Zhao, C. Degradation of prestressed GFRP bars embedded in seawater–sea sand geopolymer mortars under hydrothermal seawater aging. J. Compos. Constr. 2024, 28, 04024040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hosseini, S.M.; Mousa, S.; Mohamed, H.; Benmokrane, B. Long-term durability of nonpultruded curvilinear GFRP bars exposed to an alkaline environment: Experimental studies and modeling. J. Compos. Constr. 2024, 28, 04024005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vaculik, J.; Visintin, P.; Lucas, W.; Griffith, M.C. Durability of near-surface-mounted FRP-to-clay brick masonry retrofits under environmental exposure. J. Compos. Constr. 2020, 24, 04019058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. AlHamaydeh, M.; Awera, Y.; Elkafrawy, M. Axial compressive behavior of slender circular columns made of green concrete and double layers of steel and GFRP reinforcement. J. Compos. Constr. 2023, 27, 04023050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mehany, S.; Mohamed, H.M.; Benmokrane, B. Flexural strength and serviceability of GFRP-reinforced lightweight self-consolidating concrete beams. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Teng, J.C.; Yin, Z.Y.; Song, D.B.; Jin, Y.F.; Chen, W.B.; Dai, J.G. Utilization of sand-filled FRP tubular pile retaining wall with sand back fill adjacent to strip footing: Model study. Acta Geotech. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yang, Z.M.; Chen, J. Seismic Performance of hollow section concrete-filled GFRP tubular columns under monotonic loads and cyclic loads. Thin-Walled Struct. 2025, 206, 112705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ayoub, M.; Hasan, H.A.; Neaz Sheikh, M.; Hadi, M.N. Experimental behavior of GFRP bar–reinforced CFRP strip tie–confined normal-strength concrete columns under different loading conditions. J. Compos. Constr. 2023, 27, 04023018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhou, C.; Wang, W.; Zheng, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Wu, Z. Crashworthiness design of GFRP bar reinforced concrete bridge pier subjected to truck collision. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e02205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tefera, G.; Adali, S.; Bright, G. Mechanical behavior of GFRP laminates exposed to thermal and moist environmental conditions: Experimental and model assessment. Polymers 2022, 14, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Iqbal, M.; Zhang, D.; Jalal, F.E. Durability evaluation of GFRP rebars in harsh alkaline environment using optimized tree-based random forest model. J. Ocean. Eng. Sci. 2022, 7, 596–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mirdarsoltany, M.; Abed, F.; Homayoonmehr, R.; Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad, S.V. A comprehensive review of the effects of different simulated environmental conditions and hybridization processes on the mechanical behavior of different FRP bars. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gonilha, J.A.; Correia, J.R.; Santos, M.S.; Ferreira, J.G.; Branco, F.A.; Gomes, R.C. GFRP composite culverts for hydraulic and agricultural underpasses: Structural behavior, design, and application. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hassanli, R.; Youssf, O.; Manalo, A.; Najafgholipour, M.A.; Elchalakani, M.; del Rey Castillo, E.; Lutze, D. An experimental study of the behavior of GFRP-reinforced precast concrete culverts. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wootton, N.; Fam, A.; Green, M.; Jawdhari, A.; Sarhat, S. Field testing and dynamic response of full-scale GFRP-reinforced concrete guideway under monorail train. J. Bridge Eng. 2021, 26, 04021061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, Y.; Xu, J.Y.; Xie, F.; Feng, B.; Wang, H.; Shen, G. Flexural bearing capacity of T-shaped joints in GFRP transmission towers. Acta Mater. Compos. Sin. 2024, 41, 2609–2622. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Xie, F.; Chen, J.; Dong, X.; Feng, B. Flexural behavior of GFRP tubes filled with magnetically driven concrete. Materials 2018, 11, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xie, F.; Chen, J.; Yu, Q.Q.; Dong, X. Behavior of cross arms inserted in concrete-filled circular GFRP tubular columns. Materials 2019, 12, 2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zou, Y.; Yu, K.; Heng, J.; Zhang, Z.; Peng, H.; Wu, C.; Wang, X. Feasibility study of new GFRP grid web-Concrete composite beam. Compos. Struct. 2023, 305, 116527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bajwa, M.S.; Dymond, B.Z.; Al-Hammoud, R. Performance of postinstalled GFRP bars in structural connections. J. Compos. Constr. 2021, 26, 04022001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xie, F.; Yang, H.M.; Liang, M.; Wang, G.; Qiu, H. Experimental study on the tensile and shear properties of GFRP bars with different surface types. J. Shaoxing Univ. Nat. Sci. 2021, 41, 1–8. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  48. Xie, F.; Tian, W.; Diez, P.; Zlotnik, S.; Gonzalez, A.G. Bonding performance of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars under the influence of deformation characteristics. Polymers 2023, 15, 2604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hadi, M.N.; Youssef, J. Experimental investigation of GFRP-reinforced and GFRP-encased square concrete specimens under axial and eccentric load, and four-point bending test. J. Compos. Constr. 2016, 20, 04016020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ayoub, M.; Sheikh, M.N.; Hadi, M.N. Investigation of the effectiveness of CFRP strip ties as transverse reinforcement for GFRP bar–reinforced concrete columns. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Al-Salloum, Y.; Alaoud, L.; Elsanadedy, H.; Albidah, A.; Almusallam, T.; Abbas, H. Bond performance of GFRP bar-splicing in reinforced concrete beams. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rather, A.I.; Banerjee, S.; Laskar, A. Effect of bar surface geometry on bond behavior in GFRP-reinforced concrete beams: Experiments and design implications. J. Compos. Constr. 2024, 28, 04024072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gouda, O.; Hassanein, A.; Galal, K. Proposed development length equations for GFRP bars in flexural reinforced concrete members. J. Compos. Constr. 2023, 27, 04022092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shakiba, M.; Bazli, M.; Esfahani, M.; Ghobeishavi, M.A.; Ebrahimzadeh, M. Innovative connection systems for sand-coated and helically wrapped glass fiber–reinforced polymer bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2023, 27, 04023052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. ACI 440.3R-04; Guide Test Methods for fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2004.
  56. ASTM A370; Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2024.
  57. GB 175-2007; General Purpose Portland Cement. The National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2008.
  58. GB/T 50081-2002; Standard for Test Methods of Mechanical Properties of Ordinary Concrete. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2002.
  59. GB/T 50152-2012; Standard for Test Methods of Concrete Structures. National Standard of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2012.
Polymers 17 01068 g001
Figure 1. Tensile properties of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars. Reprinted from Ref. [47]. (a) Tensile strength of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars (b) Tensile stress–strain curve of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars (c) Tensile elastic modulus of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars and (d) Tensile ultimate strain of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars.
Figure 1. Tensile properties of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars. Reprinted from Ref. [47]. (a) Tensile strength of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars (b) Tensile stress–strain curve of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars (c) Tensile elastic modulus of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars and (d) Tensile ultimate strain of typical GFRP bars compared with steel bars.
Polymers 17 01068 g001
Polymers 17 01068 g002aPolymers 17 01068 g002b
Figure 2. Bending test setup and sample layout. (a) Test setup photograph (b) Technical diagram of sample arrangement (c) Layout of two-way GFRC slab with reinforced bars (d) Gauges placed on the slab surfaces to measure concrete strain and (e) Gauges located near the bottom of the slabs to measure the reinforced bars strain.
Figure 2. Bending test setup and sample layout. (a) Test setup photograph (b) Technical diagram of sample arrangement (c) Layout of two-way GFRC slab with reinforced bars (d) Gauges placed on the slab surfaces to measure concrete strain and (e) Gauges located near the bottom of the slabs to measure the reinforced bars strain.
Polymers 17 01068 g002aPolymers 17 01068 g002b
Polymers 17 01068 g003aPolymers 17 01068 g003b
Figure 3. Load vs. strain behavior of concrete and bars in GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs with 3% FVF. (a) GFRC-0-G (b) GFRC-3-G (c) GFRC-0-S (d) GFRC-3-S (e) SFRC-0-0 (f) SFRC-1-0 (g) SFRC-2-0 and (h) SFRC-3-0.
Figure 3. Load vs. strain behavior of concrete and bars in GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs with 3% FVF. (a) GFRC-0-G (b) GFRC-3-G (c) GFRC-0-S (d) GFRC-3-S (e) SFRC-0-0 (f) SFRC-1-0 (g) SFRC-2-0 and (h) SFRC-3-0.
Polymers 17 01068 g003aPolymers 17 01068 g003b
Polymers 17 01068 g004aPolymers 17 01068 g004b
Figure 4. Crack propagation of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs. (a) GFRC with FVF 3% and GFRP bar reinforcement (GFRC-3%-G) (b) GFRC with FVF 3% and steel bar reinforcement (GFRC-3%-S) (c) SFRC with FVF 0.75% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-0-N) (d) SFRC with FVF 1.5% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-1-N) (e) SFRC with FVF 2% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-2-N) and (f) SFRC with FVF 3% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-3-N).
Figure 4. Crack propagation of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs. (a) GFRC with FVF 3% and GFRP bar reinforcement (GFRC-3%-G) (b) GFRC with FVF 3% and steel bar reinforcement (GFRC-3%-S) (c) SFRC with FVF 0.75% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-0-N) (d) SFRC with FVF 1.5% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-1-N) (e) SFRC with FVF 2% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-2-N) and (f) SFRC with FVF 3% and no bar reinforcement (SFRC-3-N).
Polymers 17 01068 g004aPolymers 17 01068 g004b
Table 1. Geometrical shapes and tensile properties of GFRP and steel reinforcement bars.
Table 1. Geometrical shapes and tensile properties of GFRP and steel reinforcement bars.
Bar TypePhotographGeometryLength
(mm)		Diameter
(mm)		Tensile/Yield Strength
(MPa)		Elastic Modulus
(GPa)		Density
(103 kg/m3)
GFRPPolymers 17 01068 i001Threaded56081172 ± 3948 ± 0.952.85
Steel (HRB400)Polymers 17 01068 i002Threaded5608400 ± 13210 ± 5.467.85
Table 2. Geometrical shapes and mechanical properties of glass and steel fibers.
Table 2. Geometrical shapes and mechanical properties of glass and steel fibers.
Fiber TypePhotographLength
(mm)		Diameter
(mm)		Aspect RatioTensile Strength
(MPa)		Elastic Modulus
(GPa)		Density
(103 kg/m3)
Glass FiberPolymers 17 01068 i00318161.125600452.70
Steel FiberPolymers 17 01068 i004350.570.008002007.85
Table 3. Compressive strength and mix proportions of base concrete.
Table 3. Compressive strength and mix proportions of base concrete.
Base ConcreteCompressive Strength (MPa)Fine Aggregate
(kg/m3)		Coarse Aggregate
(kg/m3)		Cement
(kg/m3)		Water
(kg/m3)
C3635.51580.601281.40434.20128.80
Table 4. Fundamental properties of glass-fiber-reinforced (GFRC) and steel-fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC).
Table 4. Fundamental properties of glass-fiber-reinforced (GFRC) and steel-fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC).
IDFiberFVF
(%)		Compressive Strength
(MPa)		Compressive Failure and Crack PropagationTensile Strength
(MPa)		Tensile Failure and Crack Propagation
GFRC-0None035.51 ± 0.78Conventional concrete exhibits fully and abruptly split along the crack without prior warning or visible indications.3.24 ± 0.10Conventional concrete forms sudden and complete splitting along the crack without visible indication.
GFRC-1Glass1.035.84 ± 1.65Glass fiber reinforced with insufficient fiber volume performs, to a large extent, similarly to conventional concrete.
Glass fiber reinforced with sufficient fiber volume develops cracks progressively with gradual crushing, accompanied by reduced spalling.		3.39 ± 0.14Glass fiber reinforced with insufficient fiber volume performs close to conventional concrete.
Glass fiber reinforced with sufficient fiber volume eventually splits through cracks that develop progressively.
GFRC-22.036.65 ± 0.883.44 ± 0.14
GFRC-33.038.76 ± 1.283.67 ± 0.13
SFRC-0Steel0.7540.03 ± 1.08Steel-fiber-reinforced concrete forms cracks more gradually, maintaining structural integrity without shattering.5.16 ± 0.26Steel-fiber-reinforced concrete develops cracks slowly and subtly, ultimately preventing splitting and preserving structural integrity.
SFRC-11.540.60 ± 0.935.82 ± 0.23
SFRC-22.048.60 ± 2.044.12 ± 0.08
SFRC-33.037.98 ± 1.414.16 ± 0.11
Table 5. Design parameters of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs.
Table 5. Design parameters of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs.
Target Slab IDFiberFVF (%)Reinforced BarsRelevant SlabRelevant FRCFiberFVF (%)
GFRC-3-GGlass3.0GFRPGFRC-0-GGFRC-0Glass0
GFRC-3-GGFRC-11
GFRC-3-S3.0SteelGFRC-0-SGFRC-22
GFRC-3-SGFRC-33
SFRC-3-NSteel3.0NoneSFRC-0-NSFRC-0Steel0.75
SFRC-1-NSFRC-11.5
SFRC-2-NSFRC-22.0
SFRC-3-NSFRC-33.0
Table 6. Load-deflection behavior of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs.
Table 6. Load-deflection behavior of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs.
Slab IDFiberFVF/%BarFcr/kNFcr/F*crFu/kNFu/F*uFcr/Fuδcr/mmδcr/δ*crδu/mmδu/δ*uδcr/δu
GFRC-0-GGlass0GFRP30.070.4571.370.550.420.660.995.851.020.11
GFRC-3-G336.520.5483.700.640.440.771.155.490.960.14
GFRC-0-S0Steel45.370.6887.880.670.521.622.425.230.920.31
GFRC-3-S351.990.7896.310.740.541.672.505.240.920.32
SFRC-0-NSteel0.75None64.220.9696.070.740.670.590.882.250.390.26
SFRC-1-N1.579.201.18122.020.930.650.500.753.000.530.17
SFRC-2-N276.861.15120.350.920.640.450.673.760.660.12
SFRC-3-N367.021130.5710.510.6715.7110.12
Table 7. Design flexural strength and the reduction factor of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs.
Table 7. Design flexural strength and the reduction factor of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs.
Slab IDMn
(kN · m)		Mu
(kN · m)		ACI 440.1R [20]JSCE 1997 [21]Φcf (%)
Φtheo1Mutheo1
(kN · m)		Φtheo2Mutheo2
(kN · m)
GFRC-0-G8.6064.4750.655.5940.776.6270.52-
GFRC-3-G8.8715.2340.655.7660.776.8610.5916.96
GFRC-0-S5.7565.6410.95.1800.95.1800.98-
GFRC-3-S5.7756.0060.95.1980.95.1981.046.47
Table 8. Structural performance of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs.
Table 8. Structural performance of GFRP-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs compared to steel-bar-reinforced GFRC slabs and non-bar-reinforced SFRC slabs.
IDBearing Capacity/kNDuctility
/μ		Toughness/kN · mmBending CapacityEnergy AbsorptionCrack ResistanceCorrosion ResistanceStructural DuctilitySafety Warning
CrackUltimate
GFRC-0-G30.0771.372.57310.40
GFRC-3-G36.5283.704.80332.75√√√√√√
GFRC-0-S45.3787.881.44292.80
GFRC-3-S51.9996.313.55330.69√√√ √√
SFRC-0-N64.2296.071.65153.05
SFRC-1-N79.20122.022.50291.56
SFRC-2-N76.86120.353.25344.99
SFRC-3-N67.02130.575.05565.57√√√ √√
Note: Select ‘√’ as best in the same type slab team.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xie, F.; Tian, W.; Li, S.; Diez, P.; Zlotnik, S.; Gonzalez, A.G. Experimental Study on the Structural Performance of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars: A Sustainable Alternative to Steel in Challenging Environments. Polymers 2025, 17, 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17081068

AMA Style

Xie F, Tian W, Li S, Diez P, Zlotnik S, Gonzalez AG. Experimental Study on the Structural Performance of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars: A Sustainable Alternative to Steel in Challenging Environments. Polymers. 2025; 17(8):1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17081068

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xie, Fang, Wanming Tian, Shaofan Li, Pedro Diez, Sergio Zlotnik, and Alberto Garcia Gonzalez. 2025. "Experimental Study on the Structural Performance of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars: A Sustainable Alternative to Steel in Challenging Environments" Polymers 17, no. 8: 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17081068

APA Style

Xie, F., Tian, W., Li, S., Diez, P., Zlotnik, S., & Gonzalez, A. G. (2025). Experimental Study on the Structural Performance of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Bars: A Sustainable Alternative to Steel in Challenging Environments. Polymers, 17(8), 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym17081068

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop