Page 1 of 71 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

2025.docx
Turnitin

Document Details

Submission ID

trn:oid:::13000:91894974 64 Pages

Submission Date 12,161 Words

Apr 19, 2025, 11:31 AM GMT+5

70,815 Characters

Download Date

Apr 19, 2025, 11:34 AM GMT+5

File Name

2025.docx

File Size

2.5 MB

Page 1 of 71 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Page 2 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

60% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.

Match Groups Top Sources

61 Not Cited or Quoted 59% 11% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
10% Publications
7 Missing Quotations 0% 59% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

1 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

1 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Integrity Flags
1 Integrity Flag for Review
Our system's algorithms look deeply at a document for any inconsistencies that
Replaced Characters would set it apart from a normal submission. If we notice something strange, we flag
it for you to review.
26 suspect characters on 11 pages
Letters are swapped with similar characters from another alphabet. A Flag is not necessarily an indicator of a problem. However, we'd recommend you
focus your attention there for further review.

Page 2 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Page 3 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Match Groups Top Sources

61 Not Cited or Quoted 59% 11% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
10% Publications
7 Missing Quotations 0% 59% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

1 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

1 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Top Sources
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be displayed.

1 Submitted works

Brunel University on 2024-11-22 55%

2 Internet

ceenve.calpoly.edu <1%

3 Internet

www.coursehero.com <1%

4 Internet

www.iifc.org <1%

5 Internet

www.civilworx.com <1%

6 Submitted works

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on 2025-03-21 <1%

7 Internet

alientechnologies.ru <1%

8 Submitted works

University of Edinburgh on 2024-08-29 <1%

9 Internet

etheses.whiterose.ac.uk <1%

10 Internet

eoxs.com <1%

Page 3 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Page 4 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

11 Submitted works

Beirut Arab University on 2018-05-23 <1%

12 Submitted works

Cranfield University on 2008-08-29 <1%

13 Internet

lnu.diva-portal.org <1%

14 Submitted works

Unizin, LLC on 2024-12-09 <1%

15 Internet

gupea.ub.gu.se <1%

16 Internet

rke.abertay.ac.uk <1%

17 Publication

Hota V.S. GangaRao, Narendra Taly, P. V. Vijay. "Reinforced Concrete Design with … <1%

18 Submitted works

University of Witwatersrand on 2015-10-25 <1%

19 Internet

wiredspace.wits.ac.za <1%

20 Internet

hdl.handle.net <1%

21 Internet

studentsrepo.um.edu.my <1%

22 Submitted works

Brunel University on 2024-09-19 <1%

23 Submitted works

Napier University on 2018-08-17 <1%

24 Submitted works

Brigham Young University on 2021-07-09 <1%

Page 4 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Page 5 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

25 Publication

Lijuan Li, Junkun Lu, Shu Fang, Feng Liu, Shuwang Li. "Flexural study of concrete … <1%

26 Submitted works

University of Bradford on 2025-04-04 <1%

27 Submitted works

University of Salford on 2021-04-12 <1%

28 Internet

core.ac.uk <1%

29 Internet

open.library.ubc.ca <1%

30 Internet

p.pdfhall.com <1%

31 Publication

Agnieszka Wiater, Tomasz Siwowski. "Serviceability and ultimate behaviour of GF… <1%

32 Submitted works

Coventry University on 2023-08-11 <1%

33 Submitted works

Glasgow Caledonian University on 2024-11-19 <1%

34 Publication

Michaël Guérin, Hamdy M. Mohamed, Brahim Benmokrane, Carol K. Shield, Anto… <1%

35 Submitted works

Nottingham Trent University on 2009-02-02 <1%

36 Submitted works

RMIT University on 2024-05-31 <1%

37 Submitted works

University of Adelaide on 2012-11-26 <1%

38 Submitted works

University of Balamand on 2017-05-11 <1%

Page 5 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Page 6 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

39 Submitted works

University of Northumbria at Newcastle on 2024-08-22 <1%

40 Publication

ZhiWei Wei, TongShuai Wang, HongJie Li, TangChun Dong, Zhihua Li, Xuan Guo. "… <1%

41 Submitted works

hogeschoolrotterdam on 2019-12-16 <1%

42 Internet

link.springer.com <1%

43 Internet

www.scielo.br <1%

44 Publication

L. Taerwe. "Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures - Proceedin… <1%

45 Submitted works

Napier University on 2017-09-01 <1%

46 Submitted works

Swinburne University of Technology on 2017-06-09 <1%

47 Submitted works

University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia on 2017-10-29 <1%

48 Submitted works

University of Portsmouth on 2024-05-02 <1%

49 Submitted works

University of Wollongong on 2019-10-31 <1%

50 Publication

Arvydas Rimkus. "Effects of Bar Reinforcement Arrangement on Deformations an… <1%

51 Publication

Md Abul Hasan, Kekui Yan, Sopokhem Lim, Mitsuyoshi Akiyama, Dan M. Frangop… <1%

52 Submitted works

Universiti Sains Malaysia on 2023-02-20 <1%

Page 6 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Page 7 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

53 Submitted works

University of Sydney on 2024-11-08 <1%

54 Internet

bura.brunel.ac.uk <1%

Page 7 of 71 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Page 8 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

1
CE3618 & CE3630 - Individual Project
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Brunel University London
DRAFT
2024 - 2025
‫ـ‬
Project Title: Bridge Design Project Report
Student Name: Fatemah Alajmi
Student ID: 2250046
Project Supervisor: Rabee Shamass

1
Page 8 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 9 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Copyright Statement

I hereby affirm that this thesis is entirely my own and that the work that I am submitting is my
own work. I permit the dissertation to be available for consultation and copying for private
purposes. All uses other than provided above should conform to the copyright standards,
including the stipulation to fully acknowledge the source when the contents of this dissertation
are cited.

Signed:
Date: 21/November/2024

2
Page 9 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 10 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Abstract
This research covers the structural performance, cost efficiency, and sustainability of RC bridge
designs using steel and FRP reinforcements. Emphasizing a 30-meter bridge across the River
Thames, the research investigates these traditional steel and FRP reinforcement materials with
the intention of finding a solution to the usual problems brought about by the susceptibility of
steel to corrosion and FRP to high initial costs and design challenges.
It performs comparative assessment on the bending and shear capacities, deflection behavior,
crack width control, and durability by integrating structural calculations, life-cycle analysis, and
comparative assessments of design codes such as ACI 440.1R-06.
A hybrid method was employed, including numerical modeling of experimental data and design
simulations. Results accentuate the fact that FRPs show higher corrosion resistance, lower
maintenance cost through their service life, but exhibit brittle behavior and a lower elastic
modulus, thus requiring more prudent design to mitigate deflection and sudden failure modes.
On the other hand, steel has ductility and lower initial costs but has disadvantages of higher
lifecycle maintenance. The inference of this project is to identify the shortcomings of the present
design standard and indicate the direction of new methodologies to be developed for optimum
applications of FRP in bridge engineering. Some of the key recommendations are the refining of
code provisions in bending, shear, and serviceability considerations with a view to achieve
sustainability in the balance between performance and cost with enhanced durability.

Keywords: bridge design, FRP, steel reinforcement, structural performance, sustainability

3
Page 10 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 11 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Background and Relevance of the Study .......................................................................................... 9
1.2 Problem Statement and Research Gap ........................................................................................... 10
1.3 Project Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Dissertation Structure ..................................................................................................................... 12
1.6 Conclusion of the Introduction ....................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 The Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete ................................................................ 13
2.2 The Mechanical Behaviour of Steel and FRP Reinforcement ................................................................... 14
2.3 Manufacturing of FRP Reinforcement ...................................................................................................... 16
2.4 The Applications of FRP in Concrete Structures ....................................................................................... 17
2.5 The Durability of FRP Reinforcements ..................................................................................................... 18
2.6 Experimental Investigations of FRP Reinforced Concrete ........................................................................ 19
2.7 Design Considerations and Standards of FRP RC Structures.................................................................... 22
2.8 The Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability of FRP .................................................................................. 25
2.9 Gap in Research on Design Considerations for FRP RC Structure ........................................................... 26
3 Chapter 3: Methodology........................................................................................................................... 28
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................................................ 28
3.3 Bridge Design Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Design Standards and Codes ..................................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Modeling and Analysis Process ................................................................................................................. 29
3.6 Design Calculations ................................................................................................................................... 34
3.7 Quantity Estimation ................................................................................................................................... 39
3.8 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ................................................................................................................... 42
16 Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................................................... 44
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 44
4.2 Structural Performance Comparison ......................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Quantity and Weight Estimation ................................................................................................................ 44

4
Page 11 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 12 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

4.4 Life Cycle Assessment (Environmental Performance) .............................................................................. 45

15 Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 46
Chapter 6: Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 47
Reference list ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................. 51
Appendix A Bridge Design Project Report ..................................................................................................... 51
Appendix B: Supporting Figures and Tables ................................................................................................... 53

5
Page 12 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 13 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

1 List Of Figures
Figure 1 Span of the bridge on River Thames from Google Earth ................................................................ 9
Figure 2 The precise location of the bridge from Google Earth.................................................................. 10
Figure 3 Corrosion process on the surface of steel (adapted from Bentur et al., 1998) .................................. 14
Figure 4 Structural Behaviour Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Using the Fibre-Reinforced Polymer
Strengthening Method.................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5 Production of Basalt Rebar (Shamas et al. 2023)......................................................................... 16
Figure 6 Load-to-midspan deflection relationships for FRP-reinforced beams, showing the impact of
reinforcement stiffness (EfAf) and reinforcement ratio (ρf) ............................................................... 20
Figure 7 Experimental vs. predicted shear strength without stirrups. .......................................................... 21
Figure 8 Experimental vs. predicted shear strength with stirrups................................................................ 22
Figure 9 3D model of one vent of the bridge ........................................................................................... 29
Figure 10 Full 3D model of the 3-vent bridge .......................................................................................... 29
Figure 11 Plan view highlighting the beam spacing of 2 meters used for load distribution from slab to beams.
.................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 12 Cover load application on slab model ...................................................................................... 31
Figure 13 Live load application (UDL system) on slab ............................................................................. 31
Figure 14 Self-weight and slab load transferred to beam ........................................................................... 32
Figure 15 Cover load application on beams: distributed load of 6.0 kN/m converted from area to line load on
each span. ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 16 Live load application on beam model ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 17 Moment diagram (My) for RC slab strip (B R100x20) under ULS load combinations................... 33
Figure 18 Shear force diagram (Fz) for RC slab strip (B R100x20) under ULS combinations. ...................... 33
Figure 19 Moment diagram (My) after applying pinned-pinned releases to the RC beam (B R20x85) ........... 33
Figure 20 Shear force diagram (Fz) after applying member releases to simulate simply supported RC beams. 33
Figure 21 Rebar detailing generated from Autodesk Robot showing longitudinal and transversal reinforcement
for Beam7 (30x110 cm section). ..................................................................................................... 34
Figure 22 Revit-based reinforcement drawing showing beam elevation and section with 3T25 and 2T19
longitudinal reinforcement bars and stirrups at 100 mm spacing. ........................................................ 35
Figure 23 Beam reinforcement detailing, and sectional views for a typical bridge beam. Scale: 1:25 / 1:10. .. 38
Figure 24 Floor slab reinforcement detailing illustrating the spacing and layout of main bottom and top
reinforcement, including support columns and stirrup arrangements. Scale: 1:20. ................................ 39
Figure 25 Steel bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Frame Reinforcement, including stirrups, bottom, top,
and shrinkage reinforcements (Part 1 of 3). ...................................................................................... 39

6
Page 13 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 14 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 26 Steel bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Slab Reinforcement, including main bottom, top, and
secondary reinforcements (Part 1 of 3). ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 27 GFRP bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Frame Reinforcement, including stirrups, bottom,
top, and shrinkage reinforcements (Part 1 of 3). ................................................................................ 40
Figure 28 GFRP bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Slab Reinforcement, including main bottom, top, and
secondary reinforcements (Part 1 of 3). ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 29 Summary of concrete volume and area for the bridge floor slab elements (Type S20), covering
376.49 m² and consuming 75.30 m³ of concrete. ............................................................................... 41
Figure 30 Summary of concrete volume and dimensions for all bridge frame beams (Type B1, 300×1100 mm),
totaling 21 units and 71.33 m³ of concrete. ....................................................................................... 41

7
Page 14 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 15 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

1 List Of Tables
Table 1 Mechanical properties of steel, CFRP, and GFRP ........................................................................ 15
Table 2 The advantages of using FRP in various structural elements .......................................................... 18
Table 3 material properties and geometric dimensions.............................................................................. 30
Table 4 Key design parameters for the GFRP-reinforced beam including section dimensions ...................... 35
31 Table 5 Calculation of reinforcement ratio (ρf) and balanced reinforcement ratio (ρfb) for GFRP................. 36
45 Table 6 Calculation of modulus of elasticity of concrete (Ec), modular ratio (nf), and reinforcement ratio (ρf)
for GFRP-reinforced beam section .................................................................................................. 36
Table 7 Flexural design parameters for one-way slab reinforced with GFRP. ............................................. 37
Table 8 Weight Calculation for GFRP Bars ............................................................................................. 41
Table 9 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of carbon emissions for different bridge reinforcement systems,
showing the emissions from concrete and reinforcement materials for Steel RC, GFRP RC, and BFRP RC
bridges. ........................................................................................................................................ 42
Table 10 Beam Design Results (Steel vs. GFRP Reinforcement) ............................................................... 44
Table 11 Slab Design (GFRP Reinforced) ............................................................................................... 44
Table 12 Comparison of material quantities and total structural weight for Steel RC and GFRP RC bridge
systems. ....................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 13 CO₂ emissions and emission reduction percentages for different reinforcement systems................. 45
Table 14 Comparison of Total CO₂ Emissions and Emission Reductions for Steel RC, GFRP RC, and BFRP
RC Systems. ................................................................................................................................. 46

8
Page 15 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 16 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Relevance of the Study
The bridges are the essential elements of the modern infrastructure, enabling the transport to
overcome natural obstacles such as rivers, valleys, and urban zones. The selection of materials
for reinforcement is also a fundamental issue that will help the construction assure the safety
and durability of the facilities along with cost-effectiveness in the long run. Basically, steel is an
element used as the primary reinforcement material in modern concrete bridges. However, with
increased demands for structure resilience in view of environmental degradation and
operational stresses, alternative materials in the form of FRP have proven viable. FRP is a
material of high strength, corrosion resistance that boasts diminished maintenance needs;
hence an ideal candidate for sustainable bridge design (Samir Dirar et al., 2024).
Comparative Study on Reinforced Concrete Bridge Design Using Steel and FRP (Fibre Reinforced
Polymer) Reinforcement This project will look at the structural performance and cost efficiency of
a bridge design using either steel or FRP reinforcement. For this case, a case was conducted on a
bridge spanning 30 meters across the River Thames, represented by figures 1 and 2, which are
typical environmental and operational conditions. Furthermore, this study designates the
importance of this research in relation to recent calls for sustainability and longevity of
infrastructure that might influence the selection of materials in bridge engineering in the near
future.

Figure 1 Span of the bridge on River Thames from Google Earth

9
Page 16 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 17 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 2 The precise location of the bridge from Google Earth

1.2 Problem Statement and Research Gap

While steel reinforcement has long been chosen in bridge construction for its strength and
ductility, it is rather sensitive to corrosion—just think of structures passing over rivers or the sea.
Thus, corrosion decreases the life span and structural durability of the steel-reinforced bridges,
and frequent maintenance and repair works are usually required, which may have cost
implications in the long term. The corrosion that affects this type of structure reduces its
lifespan and structural durability; frequent maintenance and repair works are usually required,
with possible high costs over a long period (Ito, Obara and Mishima, 2007). FRP reinforcement
has shown a promising alternative owing to its resistance to corrosion and lower life-cycle
maintenance needs. However, FRPs are more expensive, and their relatively recent application in
large-scale infrastructure introduces future performance uncertainty.
Both CFRP and GFRP are lightweight and resistant to corrosion, which can help in reducing
longterm maintenance costs. While steel offers high strength and ductility with a relatively low
initial cost, maintenance in aggressive corrosion conditions becomes imperative. However, such
a comparative study considering life-cycle cost and environmental impact remains sparse
regarding the application of bridges in the UK context. The work contributes to this knowledge

10
Page 17 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 18 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

gap by conducting life cycle and structural performance comparisons for the two materials;
hence, it is a relevant contribution to the ongoing discourse on sustainable material selection in
bridge engineering, as presented by (Cadenazzi et al., 2021).

1.3 Project Aims and Objectives

The primary objective of this work is to evaluate and compare the performances of steel and FRP
reinforcements in a 30-meter-spanning reinforced concrete bridge. The basis of the comparison
should involve structural performance, cost efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Hence, the
following objectives were established to meet the aim:
1. Design an RC bridge with steel and FRP reinforcements to judge each material's compliance
with the relevant design standard and code.
2. Carry out structural calculations based on the bearing performance, durability, and overall
performance parameters for each reinforcement type, according to common parameters.
3. For each material, make an estimation of the probable cost implication considering initial
construction costs and maintenance that may arise.
4. LCA for detailed assessment of the specific environmental performance of each type of
reinforcement, considering various parameters such as production-related emissions, the
carbon footprint from maintenance, and end-of-life disposal.
These objectives are in line with the aims of making engineering sustainable, cost-effective, and
durable bridge infrastructure increasingly important in both urban planning and environmental
policy.
1.4 Research Questions
Key research questions involved in the study were as follows:
1. How does FRP reinforcement compare to steel reinforcement in terms of structural
performance for bridge applications?
2. What are the initial costs related to steel-reinforced versus FRP-reinforced bridges?
3. How does each type of reinforcement impact the environment in conditions of
greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and end-of-life disposal?

11
Page 18 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 19 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

4. From taking into consideration the integrated cost, structural performance, and
sustainability criteria, what material—steel or FRP—provides an efficient solution to
reinforce a bridge of 30 meters across the River Thames?
The practical recommendations on the choice of bridge reinforcement materials in the Thames
and similar environments will be realised when these questions are being answered.
1.5 Dissertation Structure
The present dissertation encompasses six chapters in total, each addressing the above-advanced
objectives and questions methodically.
• Chapter 1 gives an overview of the project's background, states the problem, gives a
rundown of the aims and objectives of the research; and identifies some relevant
research, questions.
• Chapter 2 provides an extensive literature review concerning the material properties of
reinforcement materials—steel, FRP—their initial costs, environmental impacts, and
structural performance.
• Chapter 3 describes in detail the methodology followed for the project, discussing
techniques of design and analysis and various quantity estimations.
• Chapter 4 presents the outcomes pertaining to the analysis of structural performance,
quantity estimation, and environmental impact for both reinforcement materials.
• Chapter 5 considers the findings in perspective with respect to the initial objectives of the
present work and compares the performances of steel and FRP reinforcement, deriving
facts on their suitability for application in bridges.
• Chapter 6 summarises the findings of this study and gives recommendations on the
selection of reinforcement materials for bridges. This chapter will also bring up areas that
require future research.
This structure would allow for a logical flow in the research and would ensure that each chapter
properly flows into the next one and combines together to answer the questions given.
1.6 Conclusion of the Introduction
Therefore, this project will, in general, carry out a comprehensive evaluation of steel against FRP
reinforcements in the design of reinforced concrete bridges from a structural, economic, and

12
Page 19 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 20 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

environmental point of view. The study hereby targets data-based insight into recommendations
that could further advance the state of the art in the selection of sustainable and economical
materials in bridge engineering. As such, the completion of this work will not only compare these
materials directly in a 30-meter bridge span but also provide a practical framework by which
reinforcement materials can be compared in similar structural applications. The findings are
expected to be of particular value to stakeholders and policymakers involved in the development
of urban infrastructure, helping support efforts toward greener, longer-lasting infrastructure
solutions.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This paper presents a review of the literature dealing with current developments concerning FRP
as a replacement for conventional steel reinforcement in RC structures, motivated by interest that
is growing rapidly in the sustainability, durability, and performance of these RC structures.
Section 2.1 refers to the corrosion problems that affect steel and the interest in corrosionresistant
materials such as FRP. Section 2.2 goes into how the mechanical behaviour of both steel and FRP
and how each will be applied to structural design. Section 2.3 refers to manufacturing processes
for FRP and associated sustainability advantages. Section 2.4 covers applications of FRP to bridges,
beams, and slabs, while Section 2.5 is a review of FRP durability under harsh environmental
conditions.
Section 2.6 provides experimental study insights into the flexural and shear behaviours of
FRPreinforced members. Lastly, Section 2.7 gives insight into the review of design considerations
and their limitations in existing codes like ACI 440.1R, thereby identifying research gaps toward
the optimisation of FRP in sustainable infrastructure.
2.1 The Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete
Corrosion of steel in RC is a primary concern because it questions the very structural integrity and
service life of the concrete structure. The reinforcement steel could be susceptible to rust,
especially in aggressive environments such as coastal or industrial areas with high chloride ions
and elevated levels of carbon dioxide, as shown in Figure 3 (BHASKAR, 2013). Corrosion boosts
expansion, leading to cracking, delamination, and spalling of the surrounding concrete, with a loss
13
Page 20 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 21 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

in its load-carrying capacity and durability (Norman, 2024). Maintenance of steel-reinforced

structures normally requires expensive and often labour-intensive interventions, including
cathodic protection and re-alkalisation treatments (Ito, Obara and Mishima, 2007).

Figure 3 Corrosion process on the surface of steel (adapted from Bentur et al., 1998)

In bridge structures, in particular, the use of de-icing salts hastens the corrosion in steel and hence
brings down the service life considerably, whereas studies indicate that the lifecycle costs required
for the maintenance of steel-reinforced structures generally surpass the initial investment in them
(Keoleian et al., 2005). These are some of the reasons why a search for other suitable materials is
going on, and FRP is one among them. Research has pointed out that FRP materials are non-
corrosive, resulting in reduced maintenance requirements and increasing longevity, representing
a sustainable alternative to the use of steel reinforcement traditionally employed (Samir Dirar et
al., 2024). The transition from steel to FRP for reinforcement in RC structures may thus mark one
more critical evolution in mitigating corrosion-related failures.
2.2 The Mechanical Behaviour of Steel and FRP Reinforcement
The mechanical behaviour of the reinforcement materials is central to the design and
performance of RC structures. Steel, for a long time considered the benchmark for reinforcement,
exhibits high tensile strength, ductility, and is compatible with concrete as well. This corresponds
to an elastic modulus of about 200 GPa, which can carry high loads with very minimal deflection
(Gribniak et al., 2017). The ductility of steel has become especially useful in dynamic events such
as seismic activity where energy is absorbed through large plastic deformation prior to failure, as
shown in the stress-strain curve in Figure 4 (Niu et al., 2024).

14
Page 21 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 22 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 4 Structural Behaviour Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Using the Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Strengthening Method

FRP, however, has a very high strength-to-weight ratio and excellent corrosion resistance and is available
in carbon (CFRP) and glass (GFRP). CFRP has tensile strengths as high as 1600 MPa. The final toughness is
far beyond that of steel; however, the brittleness of the material is a limiting consideration for design
applications (Victoria Jane Worner, 2015). GFRP offers properties of a moderate tensile strength
costeffectively and reasonably. It should be noted, however, that FRP materials have somewhat lower
elastic modulus, in a range from 50 to 150 GPa (much lower compared with steel), as shown in Table 1,
and thus show higher deflection than steel under similar loads (Edan and Wael Shawky Abdulsahib,

2023).
Furthermore, FRP is not as ductile steel, which means it also experiences sudden failure without significant
deformation-a factor that will certainly have to be paid the highest attention at the stage of structural
design (Samir Dirar et al., 2024).
Table 1 Mechanical properties of steel, CFRP, and GFRP

Property Steel CFRP GFRP

Tensile Strength 400–600 MPa 1200–1600 MPa 600–900 MPa

Elastic Modulus 200 GPa 150 GPa 50–70 GPa

Density 7850 kg/m³ 1600 kg/m³ 1850 kg/m³

Rupture Strain 6–12% 1.2–1.8% 2.5–3.5%

Corrosion Resistance Susceptible Highly resistant Highly resistant

15
Page 22 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 23 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

The properties of concrete bonding to steel and FRP are also distinct. Steel assures better chemical
and mechanical bonds, while FRP relies on specific surface treatments-for instance, sand coating-
to enhance the adhesion level (Rabee Shamass, Ikram Abarkan and Piana, 2023). However, due
to the lightness of FRP and its resistance to environmental degradation, FRP is becoming
increasingly popular in those applications where durability and reduction of maintenance are the
principal concerns. The mechanical properties of steel and FRP therefore need to be balanced to
appropriately raise the performance and durability of RC structures.
2.3 Manufacturing of FRP Reinforcement
With the exercise of critical thought, the manufacturing process of FRP reinforcements highly
influences their mechanical and durability properties. FRP basically is a combination of the
highstrength fibre-reinforced polymer matrix, usually made of carbon, glass, or basalt embedded
in epoxy, polyester, or vinyl ester, as shown in Figure 5 (Rabee Shamass, Ikram Abarkan and Piana,
2023). Fibre production starts the process, whereby molten basalt or silica, together with other
materials, undergo drawing into continuous filaments. These fibres are then massed into strands
called rovings that are then impregnated with resin, making a composite material.

Figure 5 Production of Basalt Rebar (Shamas et al. 2023)

Pultrusion, a common manufacturing technique, involves pulling the fibre-resin mixture through
a heated die to create uniform cross-sectional profiles, such as rods or bars. This method is widely
used for FRP reinforcements due to its ability to produce lightweight, corrosion-resistant products
with high strength (Diniță et al., 2024). Additional surface treatments, such as sandcoating or
ribbing, are applied to improve the bond between the FRP and concrete.
Advanced manufacturing techniques have introduced Basalt Fibre Reinforced Polymer, which is a
thermosetting polymer matrix used with reinforcing fibres made from basalt rock-an abundant,
ecologically operational resource. No chemical additives are required to produce BFRP, whereas
carbon fibre production is extremely energy-consuming; thus, BFRP production is ecologically

16
Page 23 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 24 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

friendly compared to carbon fibre production. On the other hand, the high manufacturing cost of
CFRP is still one of the major factors and challenges for the wide application of CFRP in
construction.
The manufacturing process optimisation efforts will focus on cost reduction while keeping the
maintenance of performance principle in consideration. Automated fibre placements and hybrid
composites are some of the leading-edge innovations that are the forerunners of more
economical FRP production. Since FRP is under continuous development, manufacturing
advances are making its applicability and sustainability in construction very key.
2.4 The Applications of FRP in Concrete Structures
FRP reinforcements are increasingly employed in diverse concrete structures due to their superior
performance in durability and load-bearing applications. Bridges, beams, slabs, and columns are
some of the primary beneficiaries of FRP reinforcement, leveraging its lightweight, high-strength,
and corrosion-resistant properties (Niu et al., 2024).
FRP reinforcements are being applied in deck panels, girders, and prestressed tendons to mitigate
the corrosion problems of steel, especially in coastal and marine environments. For example,
CFRP tendons were effectively used in several long-span bridges to minimise dead load while
improving tensile performance (Cadenazzi et al., 2021). On the other hand, GFRP is also widely
used in bridge decks because it is economical and has moderate tensile strength.
Beams and slabs internally reinforced with FRP show resistance to the phenomenon of crack
appearance and, relatedly, a reduction in maintenance needs. Several studies have mentioned
that beams reinforced by CFRP have higher flexural strengths, though because of the brittleness
of FRP, detailed design considerations are absolutely necessary (Al-Sunna et al., 2012). BFRP is
one of the reinforcement types finding broad application in the current state of slab
reinforcements due to its sustainability and chemical attack resistance, like those of de-icing salts
used on pavements (Van et al., 2017).
FRP provides confinement in column applications to enhance ductility and increase axial load
capacity, particularly for seismic zones. Hybrid reinforcement systems combining FRP with steel
are also under investigation to capitalise on the advantages of both materials (Rabee Shamass,
Ikram Abarkan and Piana, 2023).

17
Page 24 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 25 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

From marine platforms and retaining walls to light footbridges, FRP versatility extends into very
specific structures. Such applications underline FRP's ability to provide long-term performance
together with minimal environmental and economic impact because it is a transformational
material for modern construction. Table 2 highlights the advantages of using FRP in various
structural elements, making it an effective material for modern concrete construction.
Table 2 The advantages of using FRP in various structural elements

Application Key Benefits

Bridges Reduced dead load, corrosion resistance, increased service life in coastal
environments.

Beams Improved flexural strength, reduced maintenance, high tensile capacity.

Slabs Crack resistance, sustainability, resistance to de-icing salts.

Columns Enhanced axial load capacity, increased ductility, and improved seismic
performance.

2.5 The Durability of FRP Reinforcements

Durability is one of the key factors determining long-term performance for FRP reinforcements.
Transverse to steel, which corrodes progressively and demands periodic maintenance, FRP
exhibits outstanding resistance against environmental degradations. Therefore, it has been an
excellent material for use in structures that are exposed to aggressive conditions, such as marine
environments and chemically treated areas (Samir Dirar et al., 2024).
CFRP and GFRP rebars show enhanced resistance to chloride ion penetration as well as
alkaliinduced degradation. However, they depend on environmental conditions, such as
temperature, relative humidity, and UV exposure, for durability. According to different reports,
FRP materials resist deformation under moist and saline conditions and barely lose strength with
time (Edan and Wael Shawky Abdulsahib, 2023). High temperatures and alkaline conditions rather
speed up the degradation of FRP bars, while GFRP degrades much more than CFRP due to its
lower resistance (Rabee Shamass, Ikram Abarkan and Piana, 2023).

18
Page 25 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 26 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

On the other side, BFRP is a forthcoming substitute with further improved acid and salt attack
resistances, hence displaying higher durability. The production process of BFRP is simpler; thus, it
is less harmful to the environment. Therefore, in recent years, BFRP is increasingly being used for
bridge decks and marine structures (Van et al., 2017).
FRP performance was also widely tested in freeze-thaw cycles and under conditions of sustained
loads. Among others, these tests revealed that though FRP outperforms other products in
resistance to cracking and delamination, it may weaken bond strength with concrete over time.
The point emphasised by these studies is the requirement for state-of-the-art surface treatments
and hybrid systems so as to optimise FRP durability under extreme conditions.
As FRP material systems continue to evolve, their durability advantages position them as a
sustainable alternative for the base material of steel in infrastructure applications, reflecting both
long-term cost and environmental benefits.
2.6 Experimental Investigations of FRP Reinforced Concrete
FRP-reinforced concrete is a rich source of experimental tests concerning its mechanical
performance, durability, and possible uses in RC structures. The research has been conducted so
as to establish the performance of FRP in bending, shear, and bond behaviour and its durability
in harsh environments. These studies emphasise very favourable properties of FRPs, which are
lightweight, high-strength reinforcements that are resistant to corrosion.
2.6.1 RC Members Under Bending
Indeed, many experimental investigations have been performed on the flexural behaviour of
FRPreinforced RC members to understand their performance due to these different loading
conditions. Because of the lower modulus of elasticity of FRP bars than that of conventional steel
reinforcement, FRP-reinforced RC beams exhibit larger deflection and increased crack width
under the same applied load compared to their steel-reinforced RC beams counterpart. This
section summarises experimental studies dealing with load-deflection behaviour, flexural
capacity, and serviceability of FRP-reinforced beams with the help of figures and tabular data
where clarity is essential.
Experimental studies have consistently shown that the deflection behaviour of FRP-reinforced RC
beams is highly dependent on the reinforcement ratio (ρf) and the axial stiffness (EfAf) of the FRP

19
Page 26 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 27 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

bars. Beams with lower reinforcement ratios tend to exhibit greater deflections due to the lower
stiffness provided by FRP reinforcement. Figure 6 illustrates the bilinear load-deflection
relationships observed in RC beams reinforced with FRP bars. The figure highlights the direct
relationship between the stiffness of the beams and the parameters ρf and EfAf .For instance,
Series I beams with the lowest ρf values displayed the largest deflections at equivalent loads
compared to Series II and III beams, which were reinforced with higher EfAf values (El-Nemr,
Ahmed and Benmokrane, 2013).

Figure 6 Load-to-midspan deflection relationships for FRP-reinforced beams, showing the impact of reinforcement stiffness (EfAf)
and reinforcement ratio (ρf)

It has also been commented that the use of HSC with FRP reinforcement tends to influence
deflection behavior. Beams made of HSC show a smaller deflection when the same applied load
is used, as the higher tensile cracking resistance of the HSC contributes to better stiffness.
However, this can be given the load-deflection curves, suggesting that beams with higherstrength
concrete preserve anything in terms of stiffness during the loading process (El-Nemr, Ahmed and
Benmokrane, 2013).
Tests of flexural performance indicate that the ultimate strength of the beams reinforced with
CFRP is higher than that of steel-reinforced beams, mainly due to the high tensile strength of CFRP.
For example, (Qureshi, n.d) demonstrated that CFRP-reinforced beams reached an ultimate
capacity at an increase of about 30–40% compared to equivalently sized steel-reinforced beams.
However, because CFRP is a brittle material, great caution has to be taken during structural design
20
Page 27 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 28 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

to avoid sudden failure. Unlike steel, which exhibits ductility and yields before failure, the FRP
reinforcement does not exhibit plastic deformation. It therefore fails suddenly once its ultimate
tensile strength has been reached.
Other experimental tests have also concentrated on the bond strength between FRP and
concrete-the major factor that generally affects the flexural performance. Among the treatments
of bonding, indeed, such as sand-coating and ribbing, have improved the interfacial bond,
allowing better load transfer and hindering the reinforcement from premature delamination.
Modifications to use FRP's tensile capacity result in better flexural behaviour.
2.6.2 RC Members Under Shear Loading
Shear behaviour is an important characteristic in reinforced concrete structures because of the
critical role played by shear in controlling diagonal cracking and possible structural failure. In the
case of fibre-reinforced polymers, their unique properties-a low modulus of elasticity combined
with a brittle failure-necessitate careful evaluation under shear loads. The results of the
experiment outline that FRP stirrup reinforcements, though having excellent corrosion resistance,
have a lower shear stiffness compared to steel; this generally gives wider shear cracks. However,
FRP-reinforced beams can realise comparable or even higher shear capacities than those of steel-
reinforced beams when the appropriate reinforcement ratios and spacing are presented. Figures
7 and 8, for instance, are the predicted versus experimental shear strength of the predicted vs.
experimental shear strength exhibiting strong conservatism in the ACI 440.1R06 predictions that
tend to underestimate the shear capacity of FRP beams without and with stirrup configurations.

Figure 7 Experimental vs. predicted shear strength without stirrups.

21
Page 28 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 29 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 8 Experimental vs. predicted shear strength with stirrups.

In this regard, (Rabee Shamass, Ikram Abarkan and Piana, 2023) also confirm the experimental
results of the diagonal tension crack and sudden rupture of FRP stirrups as being the common
modes of failure in FRP-reinforced beams, which can be significantly improved only by proper
fibre orientation within the stirrups and optimisation of design parameters related to concrete
strength and reinforcement ratio.
These experimental studies on the bending and shear behaviour of FRP-reinforced RC members
developed the promise of FRP as a durable and high-strength reinforcement material to steel. On
the other hand, FRP exhibits higher tensile strength and superior resistance to corrosion, whereas
in design consideration it has brittle behaviour and a lower modulus of elasticity that demands
cautious design treatment. These studies will determine an optimal design for FRP-reinforced
concrete and ensure it leads to a new generation of sustainable and durable infrastructure.
2.7 Design Considerations and Standards of FRP RC Structures
FRP-reinforced concrete has to be handled delicately in design because FRP materials possess very
particular properties, such as anisotropy, high tensile strength, and brittleness. The FRP material
never yields in comparison with steel; hence, brittle modes of failure prevail, and strong design
frameworks are necessitated by it. Some of the major aspects of design studies deal with their
bending capacity, shear capacity, deflections, crack width, creep, and fatigue performance.
Standards such as the (ACI Committee 440, American Concrete Institute and American, 2003).

22
Page 29 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 30 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

2.7.1 Bending Capacity

Bending capacity in FRP RC members appears to be predominately governed by the reinforcement
ratio and the failure mode-concrete crushing or FRP rupture. ACI 440.1R-06 gives guidance on
how to compute the balanced reinforcement ratio (ρb) and the ultimate moment capacity as a
function of FRP properties (Mult). For instance, the balanced reinforcement ratio is computed by:
0.85 ∗ 𝛃1 ∗ f𝑐 ∗ 𝛆𝑐𝑢
𝛒𝑏 =
(𝛆𝑐𝑢 + 𝛆𝑓𝑢) ∗ f𝑓𝑢
mature where β1 is a coefficient depending on concrete strength, fc is the compressive strength
of concrete, εcu is the ultimate concrete strain, and εfu is the ultimate FRP strain. If the
reinforcement ratio is greater than ρb, then concrete will govern due to crushing; otherwise, FRP
rupture will control. The FRP RC beams developed high moment capacities, as demonstrated in
experimental studies, sometimes higher than steel RC beams but with larger deflections due to
the lower modulus of elasticity of FRP. (Rabee Shamass, Ikram Abarkan and Piana, 2023)
2.7.2 Shear Capacity
One of the critical issues is the shear capacity, mainly due to the anisotropic FRP behavior. Shear
strength can be contributed by the concrete (Vc) and FRP stirrups (Vf), expressed as:
𝑉 = 𝑉𝑐 + 𝑉𝑓
ACI 440.1R-06 gives conservative predictions of shear capacity because FRP stirrups contribution
is always underestimated due to their brittle rupture. In the case of beams provided with stirrups,
the limiting stress in FRP stirrups is:

𝑓𝑓𝑣 = 0.0045 ∗ 𝐸𝑓𝑣

where Efv is the modulus of elasticity of the stirrup material. Experimental data suggest that the
shear span-to-depth ratio, a/d, plays an important factor in the shear capacity of the beam since
shear strength is higher for lower a/d ratios (ACI Committee 440, American Concrete Institute and
American, 2003).

23
Page 30 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 31 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

2.7.3 Deflection and Crack Width

Deflection control is a critical task to ensure serviceability. ACI 440.1R-06 revises Branson's
equation with respect to effective moment of inertia (Ie) in FRP RC beams, considering the linear
elastic behaviour up to failure of the material:

𝐼𝑒 = (𝑀 𝑐𝑟)3 ∗ 𝛃𝑑 ∗ 𝐼𝑔 𝑀 𝐼𝑐𝑟
𝑀𝑎 𝑀𝑎
Here, βd considers the reduced stiffness of FRP, Ig is the gross moment of inertia, and Icr is the
cracked moment of inertia. In the case of crack width, the lack of ductility in FRP means that
reinforcement spacing has to be carefully controlled in order to minimise the propagation of
cracks (ACI Committee 440, American Concrete Institute and American, 2003).
2.7.4 Creep and Fatigue
FRP has a high resistance to creep and is therefore, suitable for sustained loads. The lack of
ductility and the possibility of sudden failure, in addition, make fatigue design challenging.
Reduced stress levels and hybrid reinforcement strategies have been forwarded by standards such
as ACI 440.1R-06 as mitigating the fatigue concerns.
FRP-reinforced concrete structure design must still consider the very distinct mechanical and
durability properties that set FRP materials apart. Unlike steel, FRP material itself is anisotropic
and does not exhibit ductility; therefore, special consideration must be given in design.
International standards, like ACI 440.1R and CSA S806, guide the inclusion of FRP in RC structures
by defining such things as material properties, load calculations, and failure modes (Younis, Ebead
and Judd, 2018).
Utilities are particularly concerned about the lesser elastic modulus of FRP than steel due to the
fact that they have higher deflections. Some code recommendations include limiting stress levels
and using hybrid reinforcement systems for an appropriate balance between stiffness and
strength (Samir Dirar et al., 2024). Besides, the brittle failure of FRP requires the use of higher
safety factors when designing for dynamic loads such as traffic or seismic activity (Rabee Shamass,
Ikram Abarkan and Piana, 2023).
The other challenge a designer faces is the bonding between FRP and concrete. It has been
underlined in the standards that surface treatments and anchorage details are crucial to assure

24
Page 31 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 32 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

effectiveness in load transfer and to avoid debonding problems(Askar, Hassan and Al-Kamaki,
2022). Besides, the thermal expansion properties of FRP should be compatible with concrete in
order not to accumulate stresses due to variation in temperature (Niu et al., 2024).
Various analytical models and numerical simulations have been developed to determine the
optimum FRP RC design. Unique FRP characteristics, such as high tensile strength-to-weight ratio,
among others, and reduced creep, are included in these models. LCCA take advantage of
sustainability considerations for FRP RC design and hence are within the purview of modern
infrastructure systems (Keoleian et al., 2005).
As more and more FRP applications are being developed, there is an increasing need for
refinement in design standards and the development of region-specific guidelines with a view to
full exploitation of FRP potential in RC structures.
2.8 The Life Cycle Analysis and Sustainability of FRP
LCA also suggests that in the long run, FRP is way more sustainable than steel in reinforced
concrete. Producing FRP is extremely energy-intensive. However, since FRP is much stronger in
terms of durability and tends to have less maintenance, the emission could be considerably lower
throughout the life cycle. (Stoiber, Hammerl and Kromoser, 2020) estimate the embodied carbon
of CFRP to be 40–60% lower than steel when maintenance and longevity are factored in a study
by (Samir Dirar et al., 2024).
.
LCA studies have also reportedly shown that FRP does not corrode and, as such, reduces repair
frequency-necessitated material wastes and their associated C emissions. For instance, BFRP is
produced from basalt rock; it has a carbon footprint 76% lower than that of conventional steel.
Such findings tend to support (Stoiber, Hammerl and Kromoser, 2020) pointing toward global
sustainability goals about greenhouse gas emissions. The lightweight properties of FRP further
reduce emissions during transport and dead loads within structures, improving environmental
performance (Rabee Shamass, Ikram Abarkan and Piana, 2023).
FRP has limited recyclability because of their composite nature, and their recycling and disposal
remain challenges. Current efforts are toward developing thermal and mechanical recycling of
FRP wastes for their repurposing. These technologies remain at their infancy stage at present

25
Page 32 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 33 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

(Cadenazzi et al., 2021). Therefore, in spite of the challenges, FRP materials balance the initial
environmental impact with their extended service life, thus having a good sustainability profile
compared to steel.
Apart from those, economic analyses also highlight the life-cycle cost-effectiveness of FRP. While
FRP materials are more expensive, their longer service life and minor maintenance needs create
a significant economy, especially in hostile environments such as marine or seaside areas.
According to (Keoleian et al., 2005), in addition, with sustainability being one of the key issues in
infrastructure development these days, FRP's environmental and economic benefits make this
material a milestone for reaching long-term durability and lowering carbon emissions.
2.9 Gap in Research on Design Considerations for FRP RC Structure
Although considerable advances have been attained in research and technology regarding
FRPreinforced concrete structures, several important aspects related to design considerations on
bending capacity, shear capacity, and deflection behaviour still remain far from receiving
significant attention. These areas remain poorly addressed due to the anisotropic and brittle
nature of FRP, which necessitates unique design approaches compared to conventional steel
reinforcement. Most of the existing design codes, like ACI 440.1R and CSA S806, tend to make
conservative predictions; overestimation in shear strength and deflection leads to
underutilisation of the high tensile strength of FRP. For instance, in FRP-reinforced beams under
bending, the elastic modulus of this material is way lower compared with internal steel
reinforcement, which forms a remarkable effect on beam deflection behaviour-a greater
deflection and wider crack width compared with steel-reinforced beams. However, detailed
analytical models that incorporate FRP-specific properties into the design of both bending and
serviceability limit states are still in their developmental stages.
Current standards grossly underestimate the FRP stirrup contribution to the shear design
provisions due to their inability to consider the brittle rupture of FRP and its
orientationdependent shear performance. Experimental studies suggest that refined equations
should consider parameters such as fibre orientation, reinforcement spacing, and the shear span-
todepth ratio.

26
Page 33 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 34 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Considerations about creep, fatigue, and crack width due to long-term loading are not adequately
taken care of, especially in changing environmental conditions. Lack of region-specific guidelines
further complicates practical implementation of FRP RC structures, particularly in environments
with high thermal or moisture variations. This points to the research gap that exists in the need
for current design methodologies and code refinements to make better use of FRP's unique
properties, in consideration of its limitations. The advancement of standards in design for FRP will
allow more accurate modelling for bending, shear, deflection, and serviceability, enabling
optimum usage in sustainable infrastructure solutions.

27
Page 34 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 35 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

13
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
50 This chapter outlines the methodological approach adopted for the comparative evaluation of
1 steel and Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) reinforcement in a 30-meter span reinforced concrete
bridge across the River Thames. The methodology integrates hand calculations, numerical
simulations, quantity estimations, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), referencing design standards
27 such as Eurocode 2 and ACI 440.1R-06.
3.2 Research Design
A comparative design-based research strategy was used. The project involves:
 Designing two versions of the same bridge (steel RC and FRP RC)
 Structural modeling using Autodesk Robot
 Manual validation using Eurocode and ACI 440
 Material quantity takeoffs
 Environmental impact analysis via LCA
3.3 Bridge Design Parameters
The structural parameters used for both bridge designs are held constant to ensure consistency
in comparison. Key features include:
 Span Length: 30 meters
 Structural System: Simply supported reinforced concrete bridge
 Loading: Dead loads, live loads, and two-lane truck loads in accordance with relevant
codes
 Materials Considered:
 Traditional Steel
 FRP: GFRP, and BFRP types
 Environmental Exposure Class: Moderate to severe (due to River Thames proximity)

28
Page 35 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 36 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

3.4 Design Standards and Codes

Design procedures are guided by internationally recognized standards to ensure accuracy and
compliance:
4  ACI 440.1R-06: Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars
5  BS EN 1991 (Eurocode 1): Actions on Structures – For load combinations
 BS EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2): Design of Concrete Structures – General Rules and Rules for
51 Buildings – for structural design of concrete with steel reinforcement, particularly
applicable to UK practice.
3.5 Modeling and Analysis Process
The structural modeling and analysis for the reinforced concrete bridge was conducted using
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis and Revit. The process involved detailed definition of the bridge
geometry, material properties, structural elements (slabs and beams), and loading scenarios
according to Eurocode standards.
A. Statical System and Layout
The bridge is divided into three spans (vents), each with a length of 10.3 meters, resulting in a
total bridge length of approximately 31 meters. The superstructure consists of longitudinal RC
beams spaced at 2-meter intervals, supporting a one-way slab system. Expansion joints are
placed at appropriate positions as shown at figure 9 ,10, and 11 allowing the beams to act as
simply supported elements. A one-meter strip of the slab was used for simplified analysis in
Robot. The overall layout of the structural system is illustrated in Appendix B figures B1 and
B2.

Figure 9 3D model of one vent of the bridge Figure 10 Full 3D model of the 3-vent bridge

29
Page 36 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 37 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 11 Plan view highlighting the beam spacing of 2 meters used for load distribution from slab to beams.

B. Modeling Data and Materials

All material properties and geometric dimensions were assigned based on Eurocode 2 and ACI
44 standards as shown in table 1:
Table 3 material properties and geometric dimensions

Beam span (L): 10.3 m Beam cross-section 200 mm × 850 mm

Slab thickness: 200 mm GFRP Tensile strength (ffu ): 1000 MPa
11 Concrete strength (f’c): 30 MPa Steel yield strength (fy): 500 MPa
Concrete unit weight: 25 kN/m³ Beam spacing: 2.0 m
C. Load Calculations
 Dead Load
𝐾𝑁
Seilf wight of the slab: 𝑊𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑏 = 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 ∗ 𝑡 = 25 ∗ 0.2 = 5.0
𝑚2
𝐾𝑁
Distributed to the beam (beam spacing = 2 m): 𝑊𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑏,𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 = 5 ∗ 2 = 10
𝑚
𝐾𝑁
Seilf wight of the beam 𝑊𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 = 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 ∗ 𝑏 ∗ 𝑡 = 25 ∗ 0.2 ∗ 0.85 = 4.25
𝑚
𝐾𝑁
Total dead load = 𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 = 𝑊𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑏 + 𝑊𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 = 10 + 4.25 = 14.25
𝑚

Note that self-wight of slab and beam can be directly calculated by Autodesk Robot Structure.
 Cover Load
 Cover assumed: 3 kN/m² so that it Distributed to beam: 3 × 2 = 6 kN/m

30
Page 37 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 38 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

 Live Load – UDL System (from Eurocode)

Lane 1: 9 kN/m² so that it Distributed to beam: 9 × 2 = 18 kN/m
 Live Load – Tandem System :Load values per lane from EN 1991-2:2003, The applied
traffic loads followed Eurocode Load Model 1 specifications, illustrated in Appendix B
(Figures B.3–B.5).”
D. Assigning Loads in Robot
 Slab Loads : Slab modeled as a 1-meter wide The slab section was modeled in Robot as
a 1000×200 mm rectangular beam element (Appendix B, Figure B.6), with support
spacing aligned to the RC beam layout (Figure B.7):
 Self-weight of slab: Automatically generated by software
 Cover load: 3 kN/m² as shown in figure 12.

Figure 12 Cover load application on slab model

 Live load (UDL): 9 kN/m² as shown in figure 13.

Figure 13 Live load application (UDL system) on slab

 Beam Loads
The longitudinal RC beams were modeled using a 200×850 mm section in Robot, as
shown in Appendix B (Figure B.8)
 Seilf wight of slab: translated to Beam as shown above = 5KN/m2x2meter spacing=10
kN/m as shown in figure 14.

31
Page 38 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 39 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 14 Self-weight and slab load transferred to beam

 Cover Load: translated to Beam as shown above = 3KN/m2 x 2meter spacing = 6KN/m as
12 shown in figure 15.

Figure 15 Cover load application on beams: distributed load of 6.0 kN/m converted from area to line load on each span.

12  Live Load: translated to Beam as shown above = 9Kn/m2 x 2meter spacing = 18Kn/m as
shown in figure 16.

Figure 16 Live load application on beam model

 Load Combinations:
Load combinations were defined according to Eurocode recommendations:
 Ultimate: 1.35 DL + 1.5 LL
 Serviceability combinations also defined for crack and deflection checks.
Load combinations were automatically generated in Robot as per EN 1990:2002/AC using
the settings shown in Appendix B (Figures B.9 to B.11).
E. Diagrams:
 Slab: Showing Diagrams for Combination 1.35DL + 1.5 LL as shown in figures 17, and 18.

32
Page 39 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 40 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 17 Moment diagram (My) for RC slab strip (B R100x20) under ULS load combinations.

Figure 18 Shear force diagram (Fz) for RC slab strip (B R100x20) under ULS combinations.

 Beam
37 Bending moment and shear force diagrams under ULS loading are presented in Appendix
B (Figures B.12–B.13), with beam supports defined as pinned-pinned (Figure B.14)
We have already added joints so Frames Can be simply supported so we can release
moment and the final moment as shown in figures 19 and 20.

Figure 19 Moment diagram (My) after applying pinned-pinned releases to the RC beam (B R20x85)

Figure 20 Shear force diagram (Fz) after applying member releases to simulate simply supported RC beams.

Since joints were added between spans, all frames are treated as simply supported.
Moment releases were applied at both ends of beams to simulate realistic support
behavior.

33
Page 40 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 41 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

3.6 Design Calculations

The author used Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis to design bridge slabs, and beams depending
34 on Eurocode. Hand calculations were conducted for FRP-reinforced concrete members in
accordance ACI 440 guidelines. The following sections present the detailed design process for beams
and slabs using both manual methods and Robot design modules. Flexural failure and serviceability
issues were identified for the initial 200×850 mm section (Appendix B, Figure B.19), leading to
section adjustment as shown in Figure B.20.
A. Robot Design Using Eurocode for Concrete Reinforced with Steel
Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis provides an integrated design module for RC members
according to Eurocode 2. The reinforcement for both slabs and beams shown in figure 21 and
figure 22.

Figure 21 Rebar detailing generated from Autodesk Robot showing longitudinal and transversal reinforcement for Beam7
(30x110 cm section).

34
Page 41 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 42 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 22 Revit-based reinforcement drawing showing beam elevation and section with 3T25 and 2T19 longitudinal
reinforcement bars and stirrups at 100 mm spacing.

B. Manual Design Using ACI 440 (FRP Reinforcement)

40 As per ACI 440.1R-15, the tensile strength for GFRP bars was assumed as 1000 MPa, falling
within the standard range listed in Table 3.3 (Appendix B, Figure B.21). A reduction factor of
0.70 was applied based on exposure class (Figure B.22). Design parameters for the GFRP-
reinforced beam shown in table 2.
Table 4 Key design parameters for the GFRP-reinforced beam including section dimensions

Beam Design (GFRP Bars) Span: 10.3 m Section: 300 mm × 1100 mm

Mu: 716.35 kN·m, Vu: 278.19 kN FRP Type: GFRP (Glass f'c: 30 MPa, f*f: 1000 MPa, Ef:
Fiber Reinforced Polymer) 50 GPa, ϕ: 0.50
Design tensile strength 𝑓𝑓𝑢 = 𝐶𝐸 ∗ 𝑓𝑓∗ = 0.70 ∗ 1000 = 700 𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝜋∗𝑑 2 𝜋∗252
trial with6 GFRP bars (25 mm diameter): 𝐴𝑓 = 𝑛 ∗ =6∗ = 2945.24 𝑚𝑚2
4 4

𝑏𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 25
𝑑 = ℎ − (𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 + ) = 1100 − (40 + ) = 1047.5𝑚𝑚
2 2
23 Calculation of reinforcement ratio (ρf) and balanced reinforcement ratio (ρfb) for GFRP
shown in table 3 below.

35
Page 42 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 43 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

25 Table 5 Calculation of reinforcement ratio (ρf) and balanced reinforcement ratio (ρfb) for GFRP

𝑨𝒇 2945.24 𝒇′𝒄 ∗ 𝑬𝒇 ∗ 𝜺𝒄𝒖

ρ𝒇 = = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟗 ⍴𝒇𝒃 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟓 ∗ 𝜷𝟏 ∗
𝒃∗𝒅 300 ∗ 1047 𝒇𝒇𝒖 ∗ 𝑬𝒇 ∗ 𝜺𝒄𝒖 + 𝒇𝒇𝒖
30 − 28 𝟎. 𝟖𝟓 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟖𝟒 ∗ 𝟑𝟎 ∗ 𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟑
ß1 = 0.85 − 0.05 ∗ = 0.84 ρ𝒇𝒃 = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑𝟎𝟒
7 𝟕𝟎𝟎 ∗ 𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟑 + 𝟕𝟎𝟎
For calculating nominal moment capacity with FRP reinforcement, the ACI 440.1R guidelines
use a ϕ factor based on reinforcement ratio (Appendix B, Figure B.24), while the β₁ factor
follows traditional ACI 318 provisions (Figure B.23)
 Flexural Design for beam
In FRP beam design (like ACI 440.1R-15), we use an equivalent rectangular stress block
to simplify concrete behavior in compression.
𝐴𝑓 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑢 2945.24 ∗ 700
𝑎= ′
= = 269.5 𝑚
0.85 ∗ 𝑓𝑐 ∗ 𝑏 0.85 ∗ 30 ∗ 300
𝑎 269.5
𝑀𝑛 = 𝐴𝑓 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑢 ∗ (𝑑 − ) = 2945.24 ∗ 700 ∗ (1047 − ) ∗ 10−6 = 1880.76 𝑘𝑁. 𝑚
2 2
𝑎
ϕ𝑀𝑛 = 0.50 ∗ 𝐴𝑓 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑢 ∗ (𝑑 − ) = 0.50 ∗ 1880.76 = 940.38 𝑘𝑁. 𝑚
2
> 716.35 𝑘𝑁. 𝑚 𝑠𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑟𝑒
 Shear Design for beam
17 Calculation of modulus of elasticity of concrete (Ec), modular ratio (nf), and reinforcement
46 ratio (ρf) for GFRP-reinforced beam section shown in table 4 below.
17 Table 6 Calculation of modulus of elasticity of concrete (Ec), modular ratio (nf), and reinforcement ratio (ρf) for GFRP-
reinforced beam section

𝐸𝑐 = 4750 ∗ √𝑓𝑐 = 4750 ∗ √30 = 26016.82 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑛 = 𝐸𝑓 = 50000 = 1.9

𝑓
𝐸𝑐 26016.82
𝐴𝑓 3927
𝜌𝑓 = = = 0.0119
𝑏 ∗ 𝑑 300 ∗ 1047
Calculate Crack width Factor K

28 𝑘 = √2 ∗ 𝜌𝑓 ∗ 𝑛𝑓 + (𝜌𝑓 ∗ 𝑛𝑓 )2 − 𝜌𝑓 ∗ 𝑛𝑓

= √2 ∗ 0.0119 ∗ 1.92 + (0.0119 ∗ 1.92)2 − 0.0119 ∗ 1.92 = 0.192

𝑐 = 𝑘 ∗ 𝑑 = 0.192 ∗ 1047 = 201.17 𝑚𝑚
2 2
𝑉𝑐 = ∗ √𝑓𝑐′ ∗ 𝑏𝑤 ∗ 𝑐 = ∗ √30 ∗ 300 ∗ 201.17 ∗ 10−3 = 132.22 𝑘𝑁
5 5

36
Page 43 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 44 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

𝑉𝑐 < 𝑉𝑢
2 FRP shear reinforcement will be required. The FRP shear reinforcement will be assumed to be
No. 3 closed stirrups oriented vertically. To determine the amount of FRP shear reinforcement
required, the effective stress level in the FRP shear reinforcement must be determined. This
stress level may be governed by the allowable stress in the stirrup at the location of a bend,
which is computed as follows:
𝑟𝑏
𝑓𝑓𝑏 = (0.05 ∗ + 0.3) 𝑓𝑓𝑢 assume db=10 mm then 𝑟𝑏 = 3 ∗ 𝑑𝑏 = 3 ∗ 10 = 30 𝑚𝑚
𝑑𝑏

30
𝑓𝑓𝑏 = (0.05 ∗ + 0.3) 700 = 315 𝑀𝑃𝑎
10
21 The design stress of FRP stirrup is limited to:
𝑓𝑓𝑣 = 0.004 ∗ 𝐸𝑓 ≤ 𝑓𝑓𝑏
𝑓𝑓𝑣 = 0.004 ∗ 50000 = 200𝑀𝑃𝑎 ≤ 315𝑀𝑃𝑎
2 The required spacing of the FRP stirrups can be computed by rearranging Eq. (9-4):
Ø ∗ 𝐴𝑓𝑣 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑣 ∗ 𝑑
𝑆=
(𝑉𝑢 − Ø ∗ 𝑉𝑐 )
0.75 ∗ 2 ∗ 71 ∗ 200 ∗ 1047
𝑆= = 124.57 𝑚𝑚
(278.19 ∗ 1000 − 0.75 ∗ 132.22 ∗ 1000)
7 Check maximum spacing limit = d/2 or 24 in.
800
𝑆 = 124.57𝑚𝑚 < = 400𝑚𝑚
2
𝐴𝑓𝑣 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑣 2 ∗ 71 ∗ 200
𝑆 = 124.57 ≤ = = 270.48 𝑚𝑚
0.35 ∗ 𝑏𝑤 0.35 ∗ 300
7 Use No. 10 stirrups spaced at 120 mm on center.
 Flexure design for slab
Flexural design parameters for one-way slab reinforced with GFRP, including moment
capacity and effective depth calculation shown in table 5 below.
Table 7 Flexural design parameters for one-way slab reinforced with GFRP.

Slab Type: One-way slab Clear span: 1.7 m Slab thickness: 200 mm
26 Center-to-center span: 2.0 m Width of design strip: 1.0 m Concrete strength f'c: 30 MPa

Ultimate negative Moment Mu Mn = Mu / φ = 81.9 / 0.50 = d = 200 - 40 (cover) - 8 (bar

38 = 81.9 kN·m 163.8 kN·m radius) = 152 mm
Trial with 10 bars of 16 mm GFRP …… Af = 10 × (π × 16² / 4) = 2010.62 mm²
37
Page 44 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
Page 45 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

𝐴𝑓 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑢 2010.62 ∗ 700

𝑎= = = 55.2 𝑚
0.85 ∗ 𝑓𝑐′ ∗ 𝑏 0.85 ∗ 30 ∗ 1000
Mn = Af × ffu × (d - a/2) = 2010.62 × 700 × (152 - 55.2/2) × 10⁻⁶ = 175.08 kN·m
φMn = 0.50 × 175.08 = 87.54 kN·m > 81.9 Safe for flexure
Ultimate positive Moment Mu = 74.44 kN·m
Required Nominal Moment ….. Mn = Mu / φ = 74.44 / 0.50 = 148.88 kN·m
Try 9 bars of 16 mm ….. Af = 9 × 201 = 1809 mm²
𝐴𝑓 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑢 1809 ∗ 700
𝑎= ′
= = 49.66 𝑚
0.85 ∗ 𝑓𝑐 ∗ 𝑏 0.85 ∗ 30 ∗ 1000
- Mn = 1809 × 700 × (152 - 49.66/2) × 10⁻⁶ = 161.04 kN·m
- φMn = 0.50 × 161.04 = 80.52 kN·m > 74.44 Safe for flexure
Final beam reinforcement detailing showing top and bottom longitudinal bars, stirrup
distribution, and sectional views for a typical bridge beam shown in figure 23, and floor
slab reinforcement detailing illustrating the spacing and layout of main bottom and top
reinforcement, including support columns and stirrup arrangements as shown in
figure24.

Figure 23 Beam reinforcement detailing, and sectional views for a typical bridge beam. Scale: 1:25 / 1:10.

38
Page 45 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 46 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 24 Floor slab reinforcement detailing illustrating the spacing and layout of main bottom and top reinforcement, including
support columns and stirrup arrangements. Scale: 1:20.

3.7 Quantity Estimation

Material quantities for each reinforcement type are calculated based on design dimensions and
reinforcement ratios. Results are used in cost and sustainability calculations.
A. Steel Quantity
The figures below represent the detailed GFRP Bar Bending Schedules (BBS) for both the
bridge frame and the slab elements. These schedules include quantities, bar types, lengths,
and corresponding weights required for accurate reinforcement estimation and fabrication
planning. Steel Quantity estimated by Revit as shown in figures 25 and 26.

Figure 25 Steel bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Frame Reinforcement, including stirrups, bottom, top, and shrinkage
reinforcements (Part 1 of 3).

39
Page 46 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 47 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure 26 Steel bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Slab Reinforcement, including main bottom, top, and secondary
reinforcements (Part 1 of 3).

The listed rebar lengths, volumes, and weights correspond to one-third of the bridge structure
only. Therefore, to obtain the total quantities for the entire bridge, the calculated values
should be multiplied by 3. Total mass of GFRP = (4521+5499.7)*3 = 30062.1 Kg
B. GFRP Quantity
The figures below represent the detailed GFRP Bar Bending Schedules (BBS) for both the
bridge frame and the slab elements. These schedules include quantities, bar types, lengths,
and corresponding weights required for accurate reinforcement estimation and fabrication
planning. GFRP Quantity estimated by Revit as shown in figures 27 and 28.

Figure 27 GFRP bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Frame Reinforcement, including stirrups, bottom, top, and shrinkage
reinforcements (Part 1 of 3).

Figure 28 GFRP bar Bending Schedule (BBS) for Bridge Slab Reinforcement, including main bottom, top, and secondary
reinforcements (Part 1 of 3).

40
Page 47 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 48 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

47 To calculate the weight of GFRP bars as shown in table 6, we use the following formula:
𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 ∗ 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 . But since we have lengths and diameters, we can use:
𝜋𝐷2
24 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = ∗ 𝐿 ∗ 𝜌, Where: D = diameter in meters, L = length in meters, ρ = density of
4

GFRP ≈ 2000 kg/m³

Table 8 Weight Calculation for GFRP Bars

Bar Diameter Total

(mm) Location Length (m) Volume (m³) Weight (kg)
10 Beam - Stirrups 1655.5 0.130022666 260.0453319
25 Beam - Main BOT (1) 235.2 0.11545353 230.90706
25 Beam - Main BOT (2) 189 0.092775158 185.5503161
18 Beam - TOP 252 0.064126189 128.2523785
18 Beam - Shrinkage 430.2 0.109472566 218.9451319
25 Beam - BOT Spacing 12.25 0.006013205 12.02640938
16 Slab - Main BOT RFT 1316 0.2645975 529.1949993
16 Slab - Main TOP RFT (1) 1248 0.250925288 501.8505769
16 Slab - Main TOP RFT (2) 624 0.125462644 250.9252884
12 Slab - SEC BOT & TOP RFT 1476 0.166931667 333.8633345
Mass 2651.560827

The listed rebar lengths, volumes, and weights correspond to one-third of the bridge
structure only. Therefore, to obtain the total quantities for the entire bridge, the calculated
values should be multiplied by 3. Total mass of GFRP = 2651.56*3 = 7954.68 Kg
C. Concrete Quantity
Concrete Quantity estimated by Revit as shown in figures 27 and 28.

Figure 30 Summary of concrete volume and dimensions for Figure 29 Summary of concrete volume and area
all bridge frame beams (Type B1, 300×1100 mm), totaling for the bridge floor slab elements (Type S20),
21 units and 71.33 m³ of concrete. covering 376.49 m² and consuming 75.30 m³ of
concrete.

41
Page 48 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 49 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Total Concrete volume = 71.33+75.3 = 146.63 m3

Total Concrete weight = 146.63*2400 = 351912 Kg
10
3.8 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) evaluates the environmental impact of each bridge design from
42 cradle to grave, covering all stages from material extraction and production to transport, use,
maintenance, and disposal. It focuses on key metrics such as embodied carbon (kg CO₂e), emissions
from maintenance, and energy consumption. Emission factors are derived from the ICE v3.0
database and academic literature to ensure accurate and reliable assessments.
A. Emission Factors Used
48 The emission factors used in the Life Cycle Assessment are based on values from the ICE v3.0
6 database and academic literature, with concrete having an emission factor of 0.138 kg
6 CO₂e/kg, steel at 1.99 kg CO₂e/kg, GFRP at 5.0 kg CO₂e/kg, and BFRP at 2.6 kg CO₂e/kg.
Assuming BFRP is used in the same quantity as GFRP, this allows for a direct comparison of
33 their environmental impacts, particularly in terms of embodied carbon emissions.
B. Emission Calculations (Mass × Emission Factor)
The table below highlights the significant reduction in embodied carbon when using FRP
reinforcements. While all systems use the same concrete volume, substituting steel with GFRP
reduces total emissions by 18.5%, and BFRP achieves an even greater reduction of 36%, making
14 it the most sustainable option in terms of greenhouse gas emissions as shown in table 7.
14 Table 9 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of carbon emissions for different bridge reinforcement systems, showing the emissions
from concrete and reinforcement materials for Steel RC, GFRP RC, and BFRP RC bridges.

22 System Type Material Mass (kg) Emission Factor (kg CO₂e/kg) Emissions (kg CO₂e)
Steel RC Concrete 351,912 0.138 48,563.86
Steel 30,062.1 1.99 59,823.58
Total — — 108,387.44
GFRP RC Concrete 351,912 0.138 48,563.86
GFRP 7,954.68 5.0 39,773.40
Total — — 88,337.26
BFRP RC Concrete 351,912 0.138 48,563.86
BFRP 7,954.68 2.6 20,682.17
Total — — 69,246.03

42
Page 49 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
Page 50 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

The LCA results clearly demonstrate the environmental advantages of using FRP materials
over traditional steel reinforcement. Notably, BFRP offers the lowest carbon footprint,
achieving a 36% reduction in emissions compared to steel, while GFRP achieves an 18.5%
reduction. These findings highlight the significant role material selection plays in sustainable
bridge design, reinforcing the importance of considering life cycle impacts alongside
structural performance and cost.

43
Page 50 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 51 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

19
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the outcomes of the design, quantity estimation, and environmental analysis
for the bridge using different reinforcement types. It highlights the structural performance, material
quantities, and carbon footprint of Steel RC, GFRP RC, and BFRP RC systems.

4.2 Structural Performance Comparison

The following tables 8 and 9 summarize the structural performance results for the designed beams
and slabs using both steel and FRP reinforcements.

Table 10 Beam Design Results (Steel vs. GFRP Reinforcement)

Parameter Steel RC (Eurocode) GFRP RC (ACI 440)

Beam Section (mm) 300 × 1100 300 × 1100
Ultimate Moment (Mu) 716.35 kN·m 716.35 kN·m
Main Reinforcement 6φ25 6φ25
Stirrups Φ12 @200mm Φ10 @120 mm or Φ12 @170 mm
Nominal Moment (φMn) 860.5 kN·m 940.38 kN·m

Table 11 Slab Design (GFRP Reinforced)

Parameter Steel RC (Eurocode) GFRP RC (ACI 440)

SLab Section (mm) 200 mm 200 mm
52 Ultimate Negative Moment (Mu) 81.9 kN·m 81.9 kN·m
41 Ultimate Positive Moment (Mu) 74.44 kN·m 74.44 kN·m
Top Reinforcement mesh Φ16 @125 mm Φ16 @100 mm
Bottom Reinforcement mesh Φ16 @125 mm Φ16 @111 mm

4.3 Quantity and Weight Estimation

Quantities of concrete and reinforcement materials were estimated using Autodesk Revit and
manual calculations. Table 10 shows total quantities for the full bridge:

Table 12 Comparison of material quantities and total structural weight for Steel RC and GFRP RC bridge systems.

Component Concrete Volume Concrete Weight Reinforcement Mass Total

(m³) Kg (kg) Weight

44
Page 51 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 52 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Steel RC Bridge 146.63 351,912 30,062.1 381,974.1

GFRP RC Bridge 146.63 351,912 7,954.68 359,866.68
Note: FRP’s significantly lower weight (~73.5% less than steel) reduces dead loads and
transportation effort.

36 4.4 Life Cycle Assessment (Environmental Performance)

The environmental benefits of FRP systems over traditional steel reinforcement are illustrated at
table 11. GFRP reduces CO₂ emissions by 18.5%, while BFRP achieves a 36.11% reduction, making it
8 the most sustainable option. These results underscore the critical role of material selection in
reducing the carbon footprint of infrastructure projects.

Table 13 CO₂ emissions and emission reduction percentages for different reinforcement systems.

System Type Total Mass (kg) CO₂ Emissions (kg CO₂e) Emission Reduction (%)
Steel RC 381,974.1 108,387.44 —
GFRP RC 359,866.68 88,337.26 18.5%
BFRP RC 359,866.68 69,246.03 36.11%
Both FRP reinforcement options contribute significantly to reducing carbon emissions compared to
traditional steel. Among them, BFRP stands out with the most favorable environmental
performance, achieving a reduction of 39,141.41 kg CO₂e, making it the optimal choice for
minimizing environmental impact.

45
Page 52 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 53 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Chapter 5: Discussion
The comparative analysis of Steel RC, GFRP RC, and BFRP RC bridge designs reveals several important
insights. Structurally, all three systems met the required performance criteria, with beams and slabs
demonstrating sufficient capacity under ultimate and serviceability load combinations. This confirms
that FRP reinforcements, despite being relatively newer materials, can serve as reliable alternatives
to traditional steel in bridge construction.
In terms of material quantities, FRP systems resulted in reduced overall weight compared to steel-
reinforced concrete, which may contribute to lower foundation demands and transportation costs.
While steel reinforcement required approximately 30,062 kg for the entire bridge, the GFRP
alternative required just under 8,000 kg, showcasing a significant material reduction.
From an environmental standpoint, the Life Cycle Assessment results emphasize the sustainability
advantage of FRP. BFRP in particular demonstrated the lowest embodied carbon, with a 36%
reduction in emissions compared to the steel RC system. GFRP also presented a substantial
8 improvement with an 18.5% emission reduction as shown in table 12. This highlights the critical role
of material choice in lowering the carbon footprint of infrastructure projects.
Table 14 Comparison of Total CO₂ Emissions and Emission Reductions for Steel RC, GFRP RC, and BFRP RC Systems.

System Total CO₂ Emissions (kg) Emission Reduction (%)

Steel RC 108,387.44 —
GFRP RC 88,337.26 18.5%
BFRP RC 69,246.03 36.11%
However, it is important to recognize that FRP materials come with trade-offs. Their initial costs are
typically higher, and their long-term performance in certain environmental conditions still warrants
ongoing research. Nevertheless, their corrosion resistance, light weight, and environmental benefits
9 make them highly attractive, especially in aggressive exposure conditions such as near rivers or
marine environments.
Overall, the results affirm that FRP reinforcements—especially BFRP—offer a structurally sound and
environmentally superior alternative to traditional steel reinforcement, supporting the transition
toward more sustainable bridge engineering practices.

46
Page 53 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 54 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Chapter 6: Conclusion
4 This study set out to compare the use of traditional steel and Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
1 reinforcement—specifically GFRP and BFRP—in the design of a 30-meter span reinforced concrete
bridge across the River Thames. The research employed detailed structural modeling, quantity
29 estimation, and life cycle environmental assessments to evaluate the performance, sustainability,
and efficiency of each material system.
The findings confirmed that all reinforcement types—steel, GFRP, and BFRP—can deliver adequate
structural performance for bridge design, with beams and slabs meeting ultimate and serviceability
limit states. However, FRP-reinforced bridges exhibited significant advantages in terms of reduced
structural weight, which can decrease transportation demands and potentially reduce foundation
costs.
Most notably, the Life Cycle Assessment demonstrated the strong environmental potential of FRP.
GFRP showed an 18.5% reduction in carbon emissions compared to steel, while BFRP achieved a
reduction of over 36%. This positions BFRP as the most sustainable option among the
39 reinforcements considered, offering a balance between structural efficiency and environmental
responsibility.
While the initial cost of FRP remains higher, its long-term benefits in terms of corrosion resistance,
maintenance reduction, and sustainability suggest a compelling case for wider adoption in future
infrastructure projects, particularly in aggressive environmental conditions.
This research provides an informed foundation for engineers and policymakers in evaluating material
43 choices for bridge construction. Future work should further explore the long-term durability of FRP
in varied climates, and refine design codes to better account for the unique behaviors of FRP
materials.
In conclusion, FRP—especially BFRP—presents a highly promising, sustainable, and structurally
54 effective alternative to traditional steel reinforcement, supporting the broader transition toward
more resilient and environmentally conscious civil engineering practices.

47
Page 54 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 55 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

1 Reference list
1. ACI Committee 440, American Concrete Institute and American (2003). Guide for the
Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI
Committee 440.
2. Al-Sunna, R., Pilakoutas, K., Hajirasouliha, I. and Guadagnini, M. (2012). Deflection
behaviour of FRP reinforced concrete beams and slabs: An experimental investigation.
Composites Part B: Engineering, 43(5), pp.2125–2134.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.03.007.
3. Askar, M.K., Hassan, A.F. and Al-Kamaki, Y.S.S. (2022). Flexural and shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams using FRP composites: A state of the art. Case Studies in
Construction Materials, 1, p.e01189. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01189.
4. BHASKAR, S. (2013). STUDY OF CHLORIDE INDUCED CORROSION OF REINFORCEMENT
STEEL IN CRACKED CONCRETE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BUILDING TECHNOLOGY AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING INDIAN
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS CHENNAI 600 036. [online] Available at:
https://civil.iitm.ac.in/admin/civilcont/Bhaskar%20Sangoju.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov. 2024].
5. Cadenazzi, T., Lee, H., Suraneni, P., Nolan, S. and Nanni, A. (2021). Evaluation of
probabilistic and deterministic life-cycle cost analyses for concrete bridges exposed to
chlorides. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 4(100247), p.100247.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100247.
6. Diniță, A., Ripeanu, R.G., Ilincă, C.N., Cursaru, D., Matei, D., Naim, R.I., Tănase, M. and
Portoacă, A.I. (2024). Advancements in Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites: A
Comprehensive Analysis. Polymers, [online] 16(1), p.2.
doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16010002.
7. Edan, A.S. and Wael Shawky Abdulsahib (2023). Ability of Replacing the Steel Strands by
CFRP in Pre-stressed Concrete Girders: Art Review. [online] 5(7), pp.59–98.
doi:https://doi.org/10.70080/2790-7732.1036.

48
Page 55 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 56 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

8. El-Nemr, A., Ahmed, E. and Benmokrane, B. (2013). Flexural Behavior and Serviceability
of Normal- and High-Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Bars. ACI Structural Journal, 110(06). doi:https://doi.org/10.14359/51686162.
9. Google Earth (2024). Google Earth. [online] Google Earth. Available at:
https://earth.google.com/web/.
10. Gribniak, V., Tamulenas, V., Ng, P.-L., Arnautov, A.K., Gudonis, E. and Misiunaite, I. (2017).
Mechanical Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams Bonded with External
Carbon Fiber Sheets. Materials, 10(6), p.666. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10060666.
11. Ito, H., Obara, T. and Mishima, T. (2007). A STUDY ON ESTIMATION FOR LIFE CYCLE COST
OF RC BRIDGE PIERS. [online] Available at:
https://ssms.jp/img/files/2019/03/SMS07115_smsri_17_Ito.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov.
2024].
12. Keoleian, G.A., Kendall, A., Dettling, J.E., Smith, V.M., Chandler, R.F., Lepech, M.D. and
Li, V.C. (2005). Life Cycle Modeling of Concrete Bridge Design: Comparison of
Engineered Cementitious Composite Link Slabs and Conventional Steel Expansion Joints.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1), pp.51–60.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1076-0342(2005)11:1(51).
13. Niu, G., Jin, Z., Zhang, W. and Huang, Y. (2024). Investigation of FRP and SFRC
Technologies for Efficient Tunnel Reinforcement Using the Cohesive Zone Model.
Structural durability & health monitoring, 18(2), pp.161–179.
doi:https://doi.org/10.32604/sdhm.2023.044580.
14. Norman, R. (2024). Interview: Robert Norman. European Medical Journal, [online] 1.
doi:https://doi.org/10.33590/emj/qfzy7146.
15. Qureshi, J. (n.d.). Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) in Civil Engineering. [online] Available
at:
https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/1c105b4c0c0bbb4eb733fee32a6c5ba7fed9fd042
a90ae3de1296889b39497c5/2083002/Fibre-
Reinforced%20Polymer%20%28FRP%29%20in%20Civil%20Engineering%20by%20Jawed
%20Qureshi%202022.pdf.

49
Page 56 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 57 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

16. Rabee Shamass, Ikram Abarkan and Piana, F. (2023). FRP RC beams by collected test
data: Comparison with design standard, parameter sensitivity, and reliability analyses.
Engineering structures/Engineering structures (Online), 297, pp.116933–116933.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116933.
17. Samir Dirar, Caro, M., Kagan Sogut and Quinn, A. (2024). Experimental behaviour, FE
modelling and design of large-scale reinforced concrete deep beams shear-strengthened
with embedded fibre reinforced polymer bars. Structures, 67, pp.106938–106938.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106938.
18. Stoiber, N., Hammerl, M. and Kromoser, B. (2020). Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of
CFRP reinforcement for concrete structures: calculation basis and exemplary application.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 280(124300), p.124300.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124300.
19. Van, C.W., Meade, B.W., Wells, D., Sudhir Palle and Ii, T.H. (2017). Long-Term Corrosion
Protection of Bridge Elements Reinforcing Materials in Concrete. [online]
doi:https://doi.org/10.13023/ktc.rr.2017.03.
20. Victoria Jane Worner (2015). Use of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) reinforcing
bars for concrete bridge decks. 1. doi:https://doi.org/10.26021/2858.
21. Younis, A., Ebead, U. and Judd, S. (2018). Life cycle cost analysis of structural concrete
using seawater, recycled concrete aggregate, and GFRP reinforcement. Construction and
Building Materials, 175(152-160), pp.152–160.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.183.

50
Page 57 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 58 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Appendix
Appendix A Bridge Design Project Report
Introduction:
This project deals with the design of a 30-meter span bridge with reinforced concrete, using both
steel reinforcement and FRP reinforcements. It will aim at comparing those two species in regard
to structural performance, cost-effectiveness, and viability over the span of life. The solution for
this project will be accomplished with hand calculations supported by REVIT drafting,
incorporating strict life cycle analysis that establishes the environmental and financial
ramifications of each design. The width of the River Thames is varied considerably depending on
its locations: 250 to 300 meters across in Central London and as narrow as 30 to 50 meters in
most countryside regions. In this project, a section of the river is chosen that possesses a width
of approximately 30 meters, as it can provide an ideal span for constructing a bridge.
At my project, I make this table to clarify task names, the time for each task, and the number of
tasks so the table below is very important as it explains the planning of the project.

Task No. Task Name Time

1 Planning 20th October 2024 – 26th October 2024

2 Literature Review & 27th October 2024 – 14th November

Research 2024

3 Preliminary Design (Steel) 15th November 2024 – 30th November

2024

4 Preliminary eesign (FRP) 1st December 2024 – 14th December

2024

5 Hand Calculations (Steel) 15th december 2024 – 31st December

2024

6 Hand Calculations (FRP) 1st January 2025 – 15th january 2025

7 Cost Estimation (Steel) 20th January 2025 – 31st January 2025

51
Page 58 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 59 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

8 Cost Estimation (FRP) 1st February 2025 – 14th Fubruary 2025

9 life Cycle Analysis 15th February 2025 – 14th march 2025

10 Report writing 15th March 2025 – 24th April 2025

11 Project Submission 25th April 2025 – 30th April 2025

Gant chart

The project involves designing and comparing two bridges crossing a 30-meter stretch of the River
Thames, one with traditional steel reinforcement and another with FRP reinforcement. Estimation
of the cost and life cycle analysis will give insight into estimating the most efficient option between
these two for this bridge project. Hopefully, this project should be completed by April 2025,
inclusive of submission of the final report.

52
Page 59 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 60 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Appendix B: Supporting Figures and Tables

Figure B1: General Bridge Layout

Figure B1 Plan view of the bridge showing beam spacing, expansion joints, and slab dimensions. The structure consists of three
10.33 m spans (total ≈31 m) with longitudinal RC beams spaced at 2 m intervals.

53
Page 60 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 61 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B2: 1-Meter Slab Strip for Modeling

Figure B.2 Highlighted 1-meter wide slab strip used for simplified analysis in Autodesk Robot.

Figure B.3: Eurocode Load Model 1 – Characteristic Values

Figure B.3 Table from Eurocode EN 1991-2:2003 showing characteristic tandem axle and UDL loads for each lane.

54
Page 61 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 62 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.4: Eurocode Load Arrangement for Three Lanes

Figure B.4 Axle and UDL arrangement for lanes 1, 2, and 3 as per Load Model 1 in EN 1991-2. Lane width = 3.0 m, with 1.2 m
tandem axle spacing.

Figure B.5: Key for Eurocode Load Distribution

Figure B.5 Description of load intensities per lane used in structural modeling, with tandem axle and UDL values.

55
Page 62 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 63 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.6: Slab Cross-Section in Robot Structural Analysis

Figure B.6 Robot input panel showing slab section dimensions defined as 1000 mm width × 200 mm depth (C30 concrete).

Figure B.7: Slab Strip Support Configuration

Figure B.7 Robot model view of the 1-meter slab strip supported at 2-meter intervals with pinned supports, representing beam
positions.

56
Page 63 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 64 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.8: Beam Section Definition for Longitudinal Girder

Figure B.8 Robot Structural Analysis input showing a rectangular RC beam section labeled B R20x85 with dimensions 200 mm × 850
mm, using C30 concrete

Figure B.9: Load Combinations Menu in Autodesk Robot

Figure B.9 Accessing “Automatic Combinations” from the Loads menu in Autodesk Robot to initiate Eurocode-compliant load
combination generation.

57
Page 64 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 65 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.10: Load Case Code Combinations – Settings

Figure B.10 Robot’s load combination setup window showing the selected Eurocode standard (EN 1990:2002/AC:2) and
configuration for manual combination generation.

Figure B.11: Ultimate Limit State (ULS) Load Combinations

35 Figure B.11 List of generated ULS combinations based on EN 1990:2002/AC:2010. Each case includes specific partial factors applied
to dead and live loads

58
Page 65 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 66 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.12: Bending Moment Diagram (My)

Figure B.12 Moment distribution for the RC beam (section B R20x85) under Ultimate Limit State (ULS) combinations. Max = 458.46
kNm, Min = -573.08 kNm.

18 Figure B.13: Shear Force Diagram (Fz)

18 Figure B.13 Shear force diagram for the RC beam (section B R20x85) under ULS combinations, with max shear = 333.83 kN.

59
Page 66 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 67 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.14: Member Release Settings

Figure B.14 Robot release configuration used to model pinned-pinned end conditions for all beam elements, representing simple
supports.

Figure B.15: Reinforcement Design Panel in Robot

Figure B.15 Autodesk Robot design menu showing the “Provided Reinforcement of RC Elements” option used to calculate
reinforcement for RC members.

60
Page 67 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 68 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.16: Manual ULS Combination Selection for RC Beams

Figure B.16 Selection of Ultimate Limit State (ULS) combinations from manually defined load cases during reinforcement design.

Figure B.17: Reinforcement Area Distribution Along Beam Span

Figure B.17 Visualization of reinforcement demand over a 10-meter span beam using Eurocode-based design in Robot.

61
Page 68 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 69 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.18: Deflection and Cover Settings in RC Calculation Options

Figure B.18 Panel for configuring concrete cover and enabling deflection checks, using ACI 318M-19 settings in Robot.

Figure B.19: Design Error – Insufficient Capacity and Excessive Deflection

Figure B.19 Error window indicating inadequate bending capacity (Safety factor = 0.94) and failure to satisfy deflection limits (Safety
factor = 0.52) for 200×850 mm section.

62
Page 69 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 70 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

Figure B.20: Modified Section Dimensions (30×110 cm)

Figure B.20 Updated beam cross-section dimensions (width = 30 cm, depth = 110 cm) used to improve structural capacity and
serviceability performance.

20 Figure B.21: Usual Tensile Properties of Reinforcing Bars (ACI 440.1R-15, Table 3.3)

32 Figure B.21 Tensile strength, elastic modulus, and rupture strain for steel, GFRP, CFRP, and AFRP reinforcing bars. GFRP bars typically
have tensile strength values ranging from 483 to 1600 MPa. A value of 1000 MPa was used in this study.

63
Page 70 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974
 Page 71 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974

30
53 Figure B.22: Environmental Reduction Factor (CE) for FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-15, Table 7.1)

Figure B.22 Environmental reduction factors for Carbon, Glass, and Aramid fiber types in different exposure conditions. For this
project, a CE factor of 0.70 was applied for GFRP in outdoor environments exposed to weather.

Figure B.23: Stress Block Factor (β₁) for Concrete – ACI 318

Figure B.23 Variation of β₁ factor used in rectangular stress block assumptions, as per ACI 318. The factor decreases linearly from
0.85 to 0.65 as compressive strength increases from 28 MPa to 56 MPa.

Figure B.24: Strength Reduction Factor (ϕ) Based on FRP Reinforcement Ratio

49
9 Figure B.24 ϕ factor adjustment for FRP reinforced members according to ACI 440.1R. The reduction depends on the ratio of
provided reinforcement (ρf) to the balanced ratio (ρfb), with values ranging from 0.5 to 0.7.

64
Page 71 of 71 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::13000:91894974