Oct-2017

State-of-the-Practice of Global Manufacturing of FRP Rebar

and Specifications
Alvaro Ruiz Emparanza, Raphael Kampmann, Francisco De Caso y Basalo

ABSTRACT
One of the main reasons for the degradation of our infrastructure is steel corrosion in reinforced concrete. To com-
bat that issue, alternative non-corrosive materials, such as fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rebars, were developed and
implemented as internal reinforcement for concrete structures. Because of significant physio-mechanical advantages
(magnetic transparency, high strength, corrosion resistance, etc.), the adoption of FRP rebars increased rapidly through-
out the last decades. Due to an increased material demand, the number of FRP rebar manufacturers grew, but each
manufacturer started to develop proprietary products, with wide ranging properties — the industry is in need for guid-
ance and unification. Therefore, this study aims to centralize the relevant information by (i) summarizing the globally
available regulations, (ii) providing background data for the present production status, and (iii) listing the currently
produced FRP rebars in an effort to compare their physio-mechanical properties. Analysis of the market showed that
27 manufacturers produce FRP rebars in 14 countries with diverse output quantities and different distribution logis-
tics. The various production approaches lead to different rebar types with dissimilar surface properties and significant
strength differences.

KEY WORDS
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rebars; design codes; global market; production capabilities; physio-mechanical prop-
erties; manufacturer; pultrusion

1
ACI student member Alvaro Ruiz Emparanza is a PhD Student in the Department of Civil, Architectural and Envi-
ronmental Engineering at University of Miami, Miami, Fl. He received his Bachelor in Civil Engineering from the
University of the Basque Country (San Sebastian, Spain) and completed his Masters in Civil Engineering at the Fach-
hochschule Münster (Münster, Germany). His research is focused on the material characterization of Fiber Reinforced
Polymer rebars and their applications for civil structures.

ACI member Raphael Kampmann is an Assistant Professor at the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering, in Talla-
hassee, Florida. His research projects focus on cementitious and concrete materials, as well as on related emerging
technologies. Dr. Kampmann specializes in experimental testing and analysis of construction materials to evaluate
their failure behavior in an effort to target material improvements.

ACI member Francisco De Caso, LEED AP, Ph.D. received his Ph.D. from the University of Miami, where he is
currently an Associate Scientist, and associate director of the Center for Integration of Composites into Infrastructure
(CICI), an NSF Industry/University cooperative research center. His civil and structural engineering research is focused
on resilient material systems, encompassing challenges related to mechanical behavior, durability, and design. De Caso
is actively engaged in sponsored research from federal, state agencies, and private industry.

INTRODUCTION
Steel corrosion is one of the main deteriorating mechanisms that reduces the lifespan of our reinforced concrete infras-
tructure. In the United States, 54007 bridges (9.1 % of all bridges in the nation) were considered structurally deficient
in 2016, which is expected to cost tax payers approximately $128 billion in repairs and reconstruction (Ceroni et al.,
2006).
Efforts to reduce these costs in the future are on the way, and studies have been carried out (Gooranorimi et al.,
2016; Robert and Benmokrane, 2013) that focus on material specifics, structural design, and implementation of FRP
rebars in substitution for steel. Because corrosion is specifically problematic in aggressive environments (e.g.; in
saltwater splash zones), Departments of Transportation (DOTs) in costal states are progressively implementing these
new concepts, for example in North Carolina (Rochelle et al., 2004) and New York (Alampalli et al., 2000). The
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) currently funnels many efforts into the implementation of FRP rebars in
structural applications to enhance the sustainability and durability of the state infrastructure (Robert and Benmokrane,
2013; Micelli and Nanni, 2004; Chen et al., 2007).
FRP rebars are pultruded composites made from fibers that are longitudinally bundled (along the bar axis), and
embedded in a resin matrix. Glass and Basalt are the most common fibers for FRP rods (GFRP and BFRP), but other
fiber types (carbon, aramid, etc.) exist, too. FRP rods provide a high tensile strength (2 to 3 times higher than steel —
for equivalent bar diameters), they are lightweight (1/4 of the weight of steel), and they are magnetic transparent (Ben-
mokrane and Mohamed, 2016). The main advantage of these composites, however, is the high corrosion resistance,
even when exposed to harsh environments like sea water (Khatibmasjedi et al., 2016). Therefore, the proper imple-
mentation of this more durable technology extends the service life of reinforced concrete (RC) elements (Nanni et al.,
2014). As a result of these benefits, FRP in construction has gained popularity around the world, and consequently,
numerous FRP rebar manufacturers have emerged in various countries throughout the past decade. Each manufacturer
has specific capacities and production goals, and based on such factors different fabrication techniques and produc-
tion philosophies are currently followed. For example, material sources, availability of raw materials, and production
equipment (type, size, capability, etc.) drive the pultrusion process and the form, shape, and dimensions of the final
products. The pultruded FRP rebars, therefore, vary widely in material characteristics. Moreover, based on the utilized
production equipment and the characteristics of the raw materials, production rates also differs from one manufacturer
to another. Accordingly, each company handles marketing and the distribution of their outputs differently, depending
on the individual constrains; some factories produce FRP rebars on demand, while others stock materials in differ-
ent quantities. All of these aspects contribute to a dispersed and fragmented market with high variability throughout
the different material characteristics of the globally available FRP rods. Hence, designers face additional challenges
when implementing this technology in an effort to extend the life expectancy of internally RC elements. However,
engineers, government agencies, and policy makers around the world aspire to reduce life cycle costs and to improve

2
the aspects that lead to this common goal. While it might be challenging to change the current state-of-the-market,
standardized FRP products and a holistic integration in building codes are expected to promote and simplify the use of
this technology, which ultimately will lead to an increased life span for many structures (Nanni et al., 2014).

PROBLEM STATEMENT
While the FRP market grew significantly throughout the past years and various products have already been imple-
mented in construction projects, the lack of established standards, specifications, and design codes resulted in a diverse
market, in which manufacturers developed FRP rebar products with varying characteristics (Claure, 2015). Therefore,
industry stakeholders currently face three main difficulties, which hinders the probability to implement FRP rebars for
projects in RC structures: (i) lack of established standard specifications, thus difficulty to spec FRP rebar in a project;
(ii) lack of recognized design guidelines, thus difficultly for engineer to design due to increased liability and risk; (iii)
the FRP rebar ambiguous value chain (with product and production diversity) adds complexity in the design and deci-
sion process, due to the lack of specs and assurance of construction schedule . In contrast to steel rebars, “off-the-shelf”
FRP rebars are not readily available from each manufacturer or for every available product.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
A summary of the currently existing guidelines that govern FRP in RC structures is presented to provide guidance for all
stakeholders in the design process. Production specific details were collected from major FRP rebar manufacturers to
analyze the current state-of-the-market and to support construction managers with applicable background information.
Additionally, this study aimed to centralize the geometric and mechanical characteristics of the currently available
rebar products and their most commonly produced sizes, to build a design tool that will assist engineers to effortlessly
differentiate the available products and to efficiently target individual project needs.

METHODOLOGY
To provide a general overview of the legislative FRP rebar situation around the world, the globally available codes,
guidelines, or specifications were gathered via online information technology and through the assistance of local and
global experts in the field. The gathered guidelines are listed and described below. In addition, the existing major
FRP rebar manufacturers around the world were identified, primarily via online searches and professional networking.
After the main manufacturers were located, email and phone communications were initiated, followed by online sur-
veys and/or skype interviews with those manufacturers that showed specific interest. It should be noted that the term
‘manufacturer’ in this study refers to manufacturers of composite rebars as well as main distributors or suppliers. Glob-
ally, a total of 27 FRP rebar manufacturers, in 14 different countries, were identified and contacted, so far. The base
information from each of these 27 different manufacturers was obtained through a survey with 16 questions that were
designed to study the general production approach and the material specifications. The first nine questions targeted
the basic production philosophy of the known/available pultrusion manufacturers, such as the country of production,
first year of manufacturing, production rate, storage capacity, produced diameters and cross sectional shapes, or the
applied surface enhancement methods. The last 7 questions, however, focused on the mechanical characteristics of
the produced rebars: measured diameter/area, tensile load capacity, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, maximum
elongation under tensile stress, and unit weight. Some manufacturers were more reluctant than others to share the
requested data, seemingly because they preferred to protect what they considered proprietary information. However,
other manufacturers that saw additional benefits for the overall state-of-the-FRP-market through this project (by further
streamlining the technology), provided exceptional help, and to this point, a total of 12 manufacturers submitted full
data sets. Some surveys are currently still pending, and the project continues with the goal to complete the data set
through the help of any/all FRP rebar manufacturers. This paper summarizes the global literature search for existing
codes, guidelines or specifications on FRP rebars, and the preliminary results of the survey in the form of a database.

3
 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
To offer a concise overview of the prevailing legislative documents that guide the characterization of FRP rods and
the design process of FRP reinforced concrete structures, the currently available guidelines and/or specifications that
govern the design and implementation of FRP rebar technology for structural purposes are listed. Afterwards, the
current results of the ongoing survey, that provide information from the world wide operating FRP rebar manufactures
and the major characteristics of their products, are summarized.

Guides and Specifications for FRP Rebars

The use of FRP as internal reinforcement for RC structures began over two-decades ago for special purpose applica-
tions, such as the construction of MRI rooms in hospitals or the soft-eye in tunnel construction, however, throughout
recent years, the technology has been implemented successfully in numerous projects, and a significant increase of
FRP RC structures can be noted, such as the FRP fully reinforced bridge decks in Morristown (Vermont, USA) and
Cookshire-Eaton (Quebec, Canada), or the Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Fish Weir in Walla Walla (Washington, USA) (De
Luca and Nanni, 2012). Though FRP can be considered an established technology, currently, no holistic design code
exists that targets the design of FRP RC structures. Likewise, the manufacturing and the material specifics for FRP
rebars are not standardized. However, due to the growing demand, different local organizations around the world have
started to develop and publish guidelines and specifications; a first step in the direction of a standardized technology.
Tables 1 and 2 list the currently existing references documents that govern the design and use of FRP rebars in structural
concrete, according to North American policies and international codes, respectively. The guidelines developed by or-
ganizations in North America — such as the American Concrete Institute (ACI), the Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and the International Code Council
(ICC) — are presented in Table 1. The list includes design guidelines that address the structural design of concrete

Table 1—North American guidelines for FRP reinforcement bars

Design Guidelines Title Main Focus

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

GFRP-1 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide Specifications for GFRP- Rein- Structural
forced Concrete Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
DEV932 Nonmetallic Accessory Materials for Concrete Pavement and Concrete Material
Structures
American Concrete Institute (ACI)
440.1R-15 Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Rein- Structural
forced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars
440.3R-12 Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for Rein- Material
forcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures
440.5-08 Specification for Construction with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Rein- Structural
forcing Bars
440.6-08 Specification for Carbon and Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bar Ma- Material
terials for Concrete Reinforcement
440.9R-15 Guide to Accelerated Conditioning Protocols for Durability Assessment Material
of Internal and External Fiber-Reinforcement
Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
CAN/CSA-S06-15 Fiber Reinforced Structures, Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code Structural
(Pages 693-728)
CAN/CSA-CSA-S806-12 Design and Construction of Building Components with Fiber- Structural
Reinforced Polymers
CAN/CSA-S807-10 Specification for Fiber-Reinforced Polymers Material
Design Manual No. 3 Reinforcing Concrete Structures with Fiber Reinforced Polymers Structural
Design Manual No. 4 FRP Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Structures Structural
Design Manual No. 5 Prestressing Concrete Structures with FRPs Structural

4
members (beams, slabs, columns, etc.), but also contains specifications for FRP rebar testing as well as for material
requirements. Currently, the listed specification are not back referenced in any building code, so that designers may
be limited in certain applications. Table 2 presents other regulations that were developed outside of North America, in
countries like China, Italy, Ukraine, Egypt, etc. Due to a quickly growing economy, China is currently pushing FRP

Table 2—International guidelines for FRP reinforcement bars

Design Guidelines Title Main Focus Applicability

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

14484:2013 ED1 Performance guidelines for design of concrete structures using fiber re- Structural International
inforced polymer(FRP) materials
25762 Guidance on the assessment of the fire characteristics and fire perfor- Structural International
mance of fibre-reinforced polymer composites
10406-1 Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcement of concrete - Test meth- Material International
ods - Part 1: FRP bars and grids
International Code Council (ICC)
AC454 International Code Council, Evaluation Service, Acceptance Criteria for Material International
Fiber Reinforced Polymner (FRP) bars for Internal Reinforcmenet of
concrete members, June 2016
International Federation for Structural Concrete (FIB — Fédération Internationale du Béton )
Bulletin #10, Sec-7 Bond of reinforcement in concrete; Bond of non-metallic reinforcement Structural Europe
Bulletin #40 FRP reinforcement in RC structures Structural Europe
Institute of Structural Engineers (ISE)
Interim Guidance on the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures Us- Structural United Kingdom
ing Fiber Composite Reinforcement
The Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the Norwegian Institute of Technology (SINTEF)
22-A 98741 Eurocrete Modifications to NS3473 When Using FRP Reinforcement Structural Norway
National Research Council (CNR — Consiglio Nazionalle delle Ricerche)
DT 203/2006 Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Rein- Structural Italy
forced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars
Ukrainian State Standards (DSTU)
NBV 2.6-185-2012 Guidelines for the design and manufacture of concrete structures with Structural Ukraine
non-metallic composite reinforcement on the basis of basalt and glass
fiber rovings
Standards of the Republic of Belarus (STB)
1103-98 Glass-fiber plastic reinforcement. Technical requirements Structural Republic of Belarus
Egyptian Code of Practice (ECP)
208-2005 Egyptian code of practice for the use of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) Structural Arab Republic of Egypt
in the construction fields Egyptian standing code committee for the use
of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) in the construction fields, 2005
Standardization Administration of China (SAC)
GB/T 1446-2005 Fiber-reinforced plastics composites-The generals for determination of Material China
properties
GB/T 1447-2005 Fiber-reinforced plastics composites-Determination of tensile properties Material China
GB/T 50608-2010 Technical code for infrastructure application of FRP composites Structural China
GB/T 26743-2011 Fiber reinforced composite bars for civil engineering Material China
GB/T 29552-2013 Fiber reinforced plastics composites bridge decks Structural China
50367-2013 Code for design of strengthening concrete structures Structural China
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
NO. 30 Recommendation for design and construction of concrete structures us- Structural Japan & China
ing continuous fiber reinforcing materials (Design)

technologies and the GB/T guidelines are the most important reference documents; these are complemented by the
JSCE recommendations. In Europe, FIB Bulletins are the most extensively used design guidelines. In addition, some
European countries have developed individual documents, to provide local specifications for particular nations. Fur-
thermore, many FRP markets around the world, including most of the U.S. communities, have chosen the International
Codes (I-Codes® ) — published by the International Code Council (ICC) — to provide minimum comprehensive de-
sign safeguards for their building infrastructure. ASTM International sub-committee on composites in civil structures
(ASTM D30.10) is specially recognized here, because it has successfully developed numerous standard test methods,
guidelines, practices, and specifications for the use of FRP rebars in civil structures, throughout recent years. Though

5
no unified and holistic specification have been published yet, the committee is developing a working specification doc-
ument (WK43339), and is expected to approve a new specification for solid round glass fiber reinforced polymer bars
for concrete reinforcement in the near future. Once it is released, it will be the only holistic reference that addresses
material specifications for FRP rebars. Because of non-standardized products, it is current practice to work with indi-
vidual FRP manufacturers to obtain the governing values for the structural design process. Hence, an effort was made
to identify the FRP manufacturers that currently produce rebars for concrete elements, to provide an engineering tool
that allows designer to quickly capture the status of the FRP market and to locate FRP rebar manufacturers.

Global FRP Rebar Manufacturers

All identified manufacturers were contacted and surveyed. The preliminary results indicate that 27 manufacturers can
be found around the globe. North America (USA and Canada) leads the global FRP rebar market (thus far), because
12 manufacturing companies produce a volume of 67.500 md (221.550 ftd ). Asia and Europe follow North America,
with six and seven FRP rebar manufacturers and a production of 40.000 md (131.200 ftd ) and 31.000 md (101.700 ftd ),
respectively. The two remaining manufacturers can be found in Oceania, with a production of 10.000 md (32.800 ftd ).
The American production companies are divided between USA (nine) and Canada (three). In Europe, two are located
in Germany, two in Italy, one in Switzerland, one in the Czech Republic, and one in the Ukraine. Additionally, on the
Asian continent, two manufacturers produce in India, one in Thailand, one in Russia, one in China, and one in Saudi
Arabia. Finally, there are two manufacturers in Oceania; one in South Australia and another one in New Zealand.
Table 3 lists all 27 manufacturers ordered by continent of their headquarter location: America (1–12), Europe (13–19),
Oceania (20–21), and Asia (22–27). Based on the survey these are the principle FRP rebar manufacturers that are

Table 3—Location of FRP rebar manufacturers

Manufacturer Location of the Headquarters

No. ID Name Country State City

1 AFR American Fiberglass Rebar USA Nevada Henderson

2 CRT Composite Rebar Technologies, Inc. USA Wisconsin Madison
3 ASL Aslan, Hughes Brothers, Inc. USA Nebraska Seward
4 KOD Kodiak Fiberglass Rebar USA Texas Huston
5 MAR Marshall Composite Technologies, LLC USA Oregon Salem
6 RAW Raw Energy Materials Corporation USA Florida Pompano Beach
7 NEU Neuvokas USA Michigan Ahmeek
8 SUD Sudaglass Fiber Technology, Inc. USA Texas Houston
9 SMS Smarter Building Systems USA Rhode Island Newport
10 PAL Pultrall, Inc. Canada Quebec Thetford Mines
11 BBM B&B FRP Manufacturing Inc. Canada Ontario Toronto
12 BPC BP Composites, Ltd. Canada Alberta Edmonton
13 ATP ATP srl Italy Salerno Angri
14 SIR Sireg Geotech Srl Italy Milan Arcore
15 FIX Fibrolux GmbH Germany Hesse Hofheim
16 SCH Schoeck Bauteile Germany Baden-Wurtemberg Baden-Baden
17 FIR Firep Inc. Switzerland St. Gallen Rapperswil
18 ARM Armastek Czech Republic Prague Prague
19 TEC Technobasalt-Invest Ukraine Kiev Kiev
20 ARO Applied Research of Australia (AROA) Australia South Australia Edinburgh North
21 PUN Pultron Composites New Zealand Gisborne Gisborne
22 ARC ARC Insulations & Insulators (P) LTD. India West Bengal Bishnupur
23 CSK CSK Technologies India Telangana Hyderabad
24 DXT Dextra Group Thailand Bangkok Bangkok
25 CHK Composite Group Chelyabinsk Russia Chelyabinsk Region Chelyabinsk
26 AFJ Al-Afraj Group Saudi Arabia Eastern Province Al-Khobar
27 GBF Zhejiang GBF Basalt Fiber Co. China Zhejiang Hangzhou

currently in business. As seen in the table, three-letter-acronyms were generated for each manufacturer; these short

6
names are used throughout the following tables to reference specific manufacturers. Due to the afore mentioned lack
of standardization, the FRP rebars surveyed under production, differ in the characteristics. Such differences are mostly
likely due to a combination of various factors, including but not limited to: available production materials (fiber, sizing,
resins, additives, fillers, etc.), industrial resources (equipment, gauges, heaters, etc.), implementation of manufacturers
proprietary methods and processes of pultrusion (rate, temperature, fiber arrangement, etc.) and adoption of best
practices (quality control and quality assurance). Table 4 provides an overview of the different products that are
available from the FRP rebar manufacturers; the fiber type, the main geometric characteristics (i.e. cross-sectional
shape), the surface enhancement features (to provide bond with concrete), and the pultruded rebar sizes are listed.
Either glass or basalt fibers are used to pultrude the most common FRP rebars, but glass is the most used fiber type.

Table 4—FRP rebars products as produced by different manufacturers

Manufacturer Fiber Type of Surface Range of

Type Cross Section Enhancement Rebar Sizes

AFR Glass # 2 – # 10
CRT Glass N/A
ASL Glass # 2 – # 13
KOD Glass/Basalt #2–#9
MAR Glass #3–#6
RAW Glass # 2 – # 10
NEU Basalt #3
SUD Basalt #3–#8
SMS Basalt #2–#8
PAL Glass Y # 2 – # 18
BBM Glass # 2 – # 10
BPC Glass #3–#8
ATP Glass # 3 – # 11
SIR Glass Y # 1 – # 12
FIX Glass N/A
SCH Glass # 3 – # 10
FIR Glass N/A
ARM Glass N/A
TEC Basalt N/A
ARO Glass N/A
PUN Glass # 2 – # 13
ARC Glass N/A N/A
CSK Glass N/A N/A
DXT Glass # 2 – # 16
CHK Glass # 2 – # 18
AFJ Glass N/A N/A
GBF Basalt N/A #2–#8

Round solid Ribs

Oval solid
Helical wrap
Quadratic solid
Round hollow Sand coat
Oval hollow
Helical wrap + sand coat
Quadratic hollow
Y Y-shape N/A Currently unknown

The most often produced rebar cross sections are round and solid, but rebars with other cross-sectional shapes (Y-shape,
flat section, or oval), as well as round hollow rebars exist. As discerned from Table 4, helical wrapping appears to be
the most prevailing method to enhance the surface of the rebar (for mechanical interlocking with concrete). Often,

7
manufacturers pair helical wraps with sand coats for additional bond enhancements, but ribs (comparable to those
found on traditional steel rebars) also exist. To meet various project needs, a large variety of FRP rebar diameters are
available on the market, they range in sizes from # 2 bars (with a diameter of 6.35 mm or 2/8 in.) to # 18 bars (with a
diameter of 57 mm or 2 14 in.) bars.
While the range of produced rebar types is vast, the material characteristics also differ widely for identical nominal
rebar diameters (made by different manufacturers) due to the type and proportion of fibers (fiber content, %), type of
resin used by different manufacturers and the shear lag effects that occur in composite materials. Shear lag is dependent
on the material combinations and the shape and form of the final product. Accordingly, FRP rebars from different
manufacturers with identical nominal diameters differ significantly in ultimate strengths and changes in elastic modulus
(c.f. Tables 6 through 8); this emphasizes the importance of standard specifications to propel the use of this technology.
Specifically the variability of the different end products (c.f. Tables 6 through 8) poses challenges in the standardization
process for FRP reinforced concrete structures, because general safety factors may be overly conservative in certain
cases, and different products respond differently to various load cases — the anisotropic behavior is not unified across
the different products either.
For proper evaluation of production variance, the market was analyzed for the currently followed production vari-
ables, before the material characteristics of the resulting end products were studied. To provide a concise and com-
parative overview of the current FRP market, the production rates and the production logistics for each manufacturer
were determined and analyzed. The production parameters are listed in Table 5. From the second column of the table,

Table 5—Production Schedule of the FRP rebar Manufacturers

Manufacturer First GFRP bars Production Approach Production Rate

m ft
Year d d

AFR 2013 Stock in large quantities 684 2.244

ASL 1993 Stock in large quantities 12.200 40.000
KOD 1984 N/A N/A N/A
MAR 1995 Stock in large quantities 9.150 30.000
NEU 2014 Production on demand 7.925 26.000
SUD N/A Stock in large quantities N/A N/A
RAW 1988 Production on demand 4.575 15.000
PAL N/A Stock in large quantities 30.000 98.425
BBM 2013 Production on demand 3.000 9.845
BPC 2007 Stock in small quantities N/A N/A
ATP 1985 Production on demand 7.000 22.965
SIR 1992 Production on demand 15.000 49.215
FIX 1980 N/A N/A N/A
FIR 2004 Production on demand 9.000 29.528
ARM 2007 N/A N/A N/A
ARO 1990 N/A N/A N/A
PUN 1985 Production on demand 10.000 32.810
ARC 2003 N/A N/A N/A
CSK 2008 N/A N/A N/A
DXT 1997 N/A N/A N/A
CHK 2012 Stock in large quantities 40.000 131.234
GBF 2003 N/A N/A N/A

it can be seen that the first mass produced FRP rods were fabricated in 1980 (in Germany). Accordingly, by now, the
technology is almost 40 years old, but it only recently gained popularity and the number manufacturers truly spiked
throughout the last decade. Furthermore, from the table it can be inferred that the average production rate is approxi-
mately 12.380 md (41.620 ftd ), since the production rate of most companies ranges from 10.000 md to 15.000 md (32.000 ftd
to 49.000 ftd ). Pultrall, Inc. and Composite Group Chelyabinsk are the exception, producing significantly more than
the average output: 30.000 md (98.425 ftd ) and 40.000 md (131.234 ftd ), respectively. To have a better understanding of
the real capabilities of individual manufacturers, the production rate for each rebar size should be analyzed since the
production speed varies with the diameter (it is lower for bigger rebars). However, the total production rate gives a

8
valuable overview of the capacity of globally existing manufacturers. Another key factor, that determines the avail-
ability of a specific product or its ease of reorder throughout a construction project, is the production logistic; either
production on demand or preproduction to store the material in stock. According to the currently available data, one
half of the FRP manufacturers manufacture rebars on demand, while the other half stocks their produced rebars; just
over 7 % of all manufacturers stock in small quantities (less than 500 m (1640 ft) of each rebar size) and less than 43 %
of the manufacturers stock multiple rebar sizes with a total length of 500 m (1640 ft) or more.
While production philosophies and product availability are important aspects for the industry and help to understand
the present state-of-the-market, engineers and design code developers are currently more interested in the material
characteristics of the final products. The major mechanical properties of FRP rebars, such as measured diameter/area,
tensile load capacity, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, maximum elongation under tensile stress, and unit weight,
were requested and obtained from the different manufacturers that currently fabricate relevant products around the globe
(and participated in this study). To cover a wide, but reasonable, range of rebar characteristics, the three seemingly
most common rebar sizes were surveyed and evaluated for each manufacturer: # 3 (diameter of 10 mm or 3/8 in.), # 5
(diameter of 16 mm or 5/8 in.) and # 8 (diameter of 25 mm or 1 in.). The corresponding data is presented in Tables 6
through 8. The presented data exemplifies an obvious difference between the produced FRP rebars with the same

Table 6—Manufacturer specifications for # 3 GFRP rebars

Manufacturer Unit Weight Area Load Capacity Max. Stress Elastic Modulus Strain
† kg
ID Type m
lbs.
ft mm2 in.2 kN kip MPa ksi GPa 106 psi %

AFR 0.149 0.100 72.3 0.112 59.0 13.25 821.0 119.1 46.0 6.67 1.81
ASL 0.174 0.117 71.0 0.110 58.7 13.20 827.4 120.0 44.8 6.50 1.79
ATP 0.190 0.128 71.0 0.110 91.0 20.46 958.0 139.0 47.0 6.82 2.03
BBM 0.150 0.101 71.0 0.110 71.0 15.96 1000.0 145.0 72.0 10.44 1.50
BPC TUF 40GPa 0.149 0.100 71.0 0.111 69.8 15.70 983.8 142.7 49.1 7.12 2.30
BPC TUF 60GPa 0.193 0.130 93.0 0.144 86.1 19.36 1370.5 198.8 63.7 9.24 2.20
KOD 0.159 0.107 86.0 0.121 800.0 116.0 40.8 5.92
MAR 0.149 0.100 80.0 0.124 95.0 21.36 855.6 124.1 52.0 7.54 1.78
PAL Sandard 0.182 0.122 81.3 0.126 1100.0 159.0 52.5 7.61 2.10
PAL Low Modulus 0.135 0.091 47.1 0.073 880.0 128.0 42.5 6.16 2.07
PAL High Modulus 0.243 0.163 105.8 0.164 1372.0 199.0 65.1 9.44 2.11
PUN 0.233 0.157 95.0 0.147 103.0 23.16 1085.0 157.4 63.2 9.17 1.86
SIR 0.150 0.101 71.0 0.110 75.0 16.86 1000.0 145.0 46.0 6.67 2.00

†
Manufacturer ID according to Table 3

nominal diameter, as a result of (i) significant variances in mechanical properties, and (ii) the methods followed to
determine such properties. As shown in Table 6, the unit weight of the globally produced # 3 rebars varies significantly
from 0.135 kg kg lbs. lbs. 2
m to 0.243 m (0.091 ft to 0.163 ft ), while the areas range between 71.0 mm and 95.0 mm (0.110 in.
2 2
2
and 0.147 in. ), representing a difference of 80 % and 34 % based on the lowest value, respectively. The different
areas heterodyned with the varying load capacities from 59.0 kN to 103.0 kN or 13.25 kip to 23.16 kip (difference of
92 % based on the lowest value) lead to deviating tensile strengths between 821.0 MPa and 1372.0 MPa or 119.2 ksi
and 199.0 ksi (difference of 72 %). Moreover, neither the elastic moduli nor the strains are constant throughout all the
products, because they fluctuate between 40.8 GPa to 72.0 GPa or 5.92 ksi to 10.44 ksi (76 % difference) and 1.50 %
to 2.30 % (53 % difference), respectively. In table 7 it can be seen that similar variances also exist for the mechanical
properties of # 5 rebars. In this case, the unit weight ranges from 0.379 kg kg lbs. lbs.
m to 0.558 m (0.255 ft to 0.375 ft ) and
2 2 2 2
the areas vary between 197.9 mm and 211.2 mm (0.307 in. and 0.327 in. ); a difference of 47 % and 7 % based on
the lowest value. Accordingly, load capacities also differ between manufacturers (113.0 kN to 218.9 kN (25.40 kip
to 49.21 kip) wich is a difference of 136 %) based on the lowest value) and so do the maximum tensile stresses with
values from 689.5 MPa to 1287.3 MPa (100.0 ksi to 186.7 ksi), a difference of 87 %). The values for the elastic moduli,
however, range between 40.8 GPa and 70.0 GPa or from 5.92 ksi to 10.15 ksi (71 % difference), while the strains vary

9
 Table 7—Manufacturer specifications for # 5 GFRP rebars

Manufacturer Unit Weight Area Load Capacity Max. Stress Elastic Modulus Strain
† kg lbs. 2 2 6
ID Type m ft mm in. kN kip MPa ksi GPa 10 psi %

AFR 0.432 0.290 200.6 0.311 158.4 35.60 715.0 103.7 46.0 6.67 1.63
ASL 0.446 0.300 198.1 0.307 142.3 32.00 689.5 100.0 44.8 6.50 1.57
ATP 0.440 0.296 200.0 0.310 206.0 46.31 932.0 135.2 47.0 6.82 2.01
BBM 0.500 0.336 200.0 0.310 200.0 44.96 1000.0 145.0 70.0 10.15 1.60
BPC TUF 40GPa 0.432 0.290 203.0 0.315 183.3 41.21 921.0 133.6 48.8 7.08 2.10
BPC TUF 60GPa 0.521 0.350 252.0 0.390 223.9 50.33 1287.3 186.7 62.6 9.08 2.10
KOD 0.421 0.283 211.0 0.327 717.0 104.0 40.8 5.92
MAR 0.417 0.280 205.8 0.319 113.0 25.40 695.7 100.9 49.2 7.14 1.60
PAL Sandard 0.488 0.328 234.1 0.363 1130.0 163.9 52.5 7.61 2.15
PAL Low Modulus 0.379 0.255 197.1 0.306 940.0 136.3 42.5 6.16 2.21
PAL High Modulus 0.558 0.375 242.2 0.375 1184.0 171.7 62.6 9.07 1.89
PUN 0.492 0.331 226.0 0.327 218.9 49.21 1036.0 150.3 60.6 8.79 1.71
SIR 0.390 0.262 198.0 0.307 190.0 42.71 1000.0 145.0 46.0 6.67 2.00

†
Manufacturer ID according to Table 3

from 1.57 % to 2.21 % (41 % difference). Finally, analyzing Table 8 and taking into account the results for # 3 and # 5
rebars, it can be confirmed that a clear diversity exists throughout all rebar sizes.

Table 8—Manufacturer specifications for # 8 GFRP rebars

Manufacturer Unit Weight Area Load Capacity Max. Stress Elastic Modulus Strain
† kg lbs. 2 2 6
ID Type m ft mm in. kN kip MPa ksi GPa 10 psi %

AFR 1.012 0.680 512.9 0.795 310.0 69.69 643.0 93.3 46.0 6.67 1.36
ASL 1.116 0.750 506.5 0.785 314.3 70.65 620.0 89.9 44.8 6.50 1.34
ATP 1.060 0.712 509.7 0.790 426.0 95.77 802.0 116.3 48.0 6.96 1.66
BBM 1.300 0.874 510.0 0.791 490.0 110.16 960.0 139.2 69.0 10.01 1.40
BPC TUF 40GPa 1.101 0.740 529.7 0.821 417.5 93.86 818.6 118.7 52.0 7.54 1.80
BPC TUF 60GPa 1.310 0.880 631.6 0.979 510.7 114.81 1201.0 174.2 61.7 8.95 1.90
KOD 1.060 0.712 521.9 0.809 552.0 80.1 40.8 5.92
PAL Sandard 1.132 0.761 545.0 0.846 800.0 116.0 1.52
PAL Low Modulus 0.926 0.622 460.0 0.713 960.0 139.2 2.26
PAL High Modulus 1.524 1.024 674.0 1.045 1000.0 145.0 1.51
PUN 1.146 0.770 547.4 0.848 543.7 122.23 993.0 144.0 61.5 8.92 1.60
SIR 0.950 0.638 507.0 0.786 400.0 89.92 830.0 120.4 46.0 6.67 1.90

†
Manufacturer ID according to Table 3

For # 8 rebars the unit weight varies from 0.950 kg kg lbs. lbs.
m to 1.524 m (0.638 ft to 1.024 ft ) and the areas range from
2 2 2 2
506.5 mm to 547.4 mm (0.785 in. and 0.848 in. ), resulting in a 65 % and 8 % difference based on the lowest value,
respectively. The load capacities diverge from 310.0 kN to 543.7 kN or from 69.69 kip to 122.23 kip (75 % difference)
and the tensile strengths from 552.0 MPa to 1201.0 MPa or from 80.1 ksi to 174.2 ksi (118 % difference). The elastic
moduli fluctuate comparable to the values observed for # 3 and # 5 rebars, with values between 40.8 GPa and 69.0 GPa
or between 5.92 ksi and 10.01 ksi (difference of 69 %), and the strains vary from 1.34 % to 2.26 % (69 % difference).
From this analysis, it was observed that the lowest or highest rebar load capacity did not necessary correspond to

10
the lowest or highest maximum stress and/or modulus. Moreover, the provided value for area appears to be in some
cases the nominal, and not the experimentally measured one, based on the significant differences in the unit weight
of the bars (80 %,47 %, and 65 % for # 3, # 5, and # 8 rebars, respectively). Taking into account that it is generally
accepted that the resin content by weight cannot exceed 30 %, and that the fiber density is comparatively similar, the
changes of FRP rebar unit weight must be due in part to changes in the size (area) of the pultruded FRP rebar, diverging
form the nominal size. Further analysis showed that the highest unit weight rebars had the significantly higher modulus
values. Additionally, it can be inferred from the collected data that a limited number of manufacturers produce different
variants for the same nominal diameter rebar, and compute the reported stress and modulus using the nominal rebar
area (rather than the experimentally (or “actual”) measured values). Therefore, a rebar that is significantly larger in
diameter than its designated nominal size yields a significantly higher “nominal” modulus when using the nominal
area. This practice may appear to be misleading and impact the design process, as it relates to the detailing of the rebar
placement.
While some rebars appear to be the same at sight, or while some products seem comparable, it must be noted that
the currently produced FRP rebars are significantly different products, due to the nature of the pultrusion process. The
presented data quantifies these differences and it clearly reflects a potential weakness or an important fact about the
FRP rebar industry. To improve and streamline the implementation of FRP rebars in construction projects, consistency
and standardization is needed to normalize the industry for a more profitable use of the technology.

CONCLUSIONS
In an effort to advance the integration and deployment within the construction industry of FRP bars for concrete re-
inforcement, this study established a database of global FRP rebar manufactures, recognizing manufactures and rebar
properties. Additionally, an extensive literature search was presented on the existing world wide available guideline
and specification efforts for FRP rebar, with the overarching objective of providing a useful resource for all stake-
holders involved in the construction industry. The 27 main FRP rebar manufacturers around the world were identified
and contacted to evaluate the current state-of-the-practice of the manufacturing process. To develop a tool for the
construction industry (seeking to use FRP rebar), the FRP rebar manufacturing production capacity and logistics were
analyzed, first. Then, the geometric and the physio-mechanical characteristics of the currently available FRP products
were aggregated, concisely tabulated, and compared for nominal # 3, # 5 and # 8 FRP rebars, initiating a database that
contains FRP rebar products from manufactures around the globe, to provide an additional design tool that simplifies
the engineering process for FRP reinforced concrete structures. Based on the gathered information and the presented
results, the following conclusions were drawn:
• The FRP rebar market appears dispersed, neither a holistic design code nor standardized material specifications
for FRP rebar as internal concrete reinforcement exist.
• Different agencies in numerous countries have develop their own documentation and guidelines for the use of
FRP as concrete reinforcement.
• In total, 27 primary global FRP rebar manufacturers are established in 14 different countries. North America
leads the production capacity with 67.500 md (221.550 ftd ) due to the highest density of manufacturers, followed
by Asia and Europe with 40.000 md (131.200 ftd ) and 31.000 md (101.700 ftd ), respectively.
• FRP rebar production rates vary greatly among the different manufactures, where the majority of manufacturers
(more than 50 %) can generate at least 10.000 md to 15.000 md (32.000 ftd to 49.000 ftd ).
• The production logistics amongst the different manufacturers is balanced, with half of the manufactures produc-
ing rebars on demand while the other half holds rebar in storage (stock).
• The most commonly produced FRP rebar type appears to be the solid round bar, whereas the most prevailing
method to improve the bond to concrete is helical wrapping (sometimes in combination with sand coating).
• The differences between load carrying capacity, ultimate stress, and modulus of elasticity for equivalent FRP
rebars amongst the manufactured FRP rebars varies greatly from 71 % to 136 % (based on the lowest value).

11
 • For the same nominal rebar size, the unit density based on the lowest value, varys by 80 %, 47 %, and 65 %, for
the # 3, # 5, and # 8 rebars, respectively. This data strongly suggests that FRP rebars with identical nominal size
are produced with different “actual” areas.
• The highest load carrying capacity rebar did not necessary provide the highest maximum strength and/or modulus
of elasticity, due to the different methods used to determine the FRP rebar properties; while some manufacturers
seemingly use the nominal areas, others may experimentally measure the “actual” area.
• The presented data shows that a general need for a recognized FRP rebar specification exists, to assure equiva-
lence and consistency throughout the industry. Improved standardization is expected to enhance the implemen-
tation of FRP rebars for concrete structures, because it has the potential to streamline the technology through the
reduction of variance in material characteristics.
• Distinction between an FRP rebar producer and supplier/distributor is an important parameter. In this study the
actual distinction was not made and they were both defined as ‘manufacturers’ since FRP rebar producers were
not always accessible and only their representative supplier/distributor was. However, it is ensured that all the
products presented on this study are unique and that no overlapping exists.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authors would like to acknowledge the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for a progressive approach
to the implementation of emerging technologies in our infrastructure. The idea for this paper was born out of a FDOT
funded research project and the authors are grateful for the support. Specifically Chase C. Knight, Ph.D. and Steven
Nolan, P.E. provided exceptional guidance throughout the related efforts.

REFERENCES
Alampalli, S., O’Connor, J., and Yannotti, A. P. (2000). “Design, fabrication, construction, and testing of an FRP
superstructure.” Report, 134(December 2000).
Benmokrane, B. and Mohamed, H. M. (2016). “Building Durable Concrete Infrastructure Using Fibre-Reinforced
Polymer ( FRP ) Bars.” Number October.
Ceroni, F., Cosenza, E., Gaetano, M., and Pecce, M. (2006). “Durability issues of FRP rebars in reinforced concrete
members.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 28(10), 857–868.
Chen, Y., Davalos, J. F., Ray, I., and Kim, H. Y. (2007). “Accelerated aging tests for evaluations of durability perfor-
mance of FRP reinforcing bars for concrete structures.” Composite Structures, 78(1), 101–111.
Claure, G. G. (2015). “Non-Traditional shape GFRP Rebars for Concrete Reinforcement. Dissertation, University of
Miami.
De Luca, A. and Nanni, A. (2012). “FRP-Reinforced Concrete Structures.” Wiley Encyclopedia of Composites, (July
2012).
Gooranorimi, O., Bradberry, T., Dauer, E., Myers, J., and Nanni, A. (2016). “FRP Reinforcement for Concrete: Perfor-
mance Assessment and New Construction.” techreport 1, RE-CAST - University of Miami, 1251 Memorial Drive,
Room 325, Coral Gables, FL 33146-0630.
Khatibmasjedi, S., De Caso y Basalo, F. J., and Nanni, A. (2016). “SEACON: Redefining Sustainable Concrete.” Fourth
International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Las Vegas. Fourth International
Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies.
Micelli, F. and Nanni, A. (2004). “Durability of frp rods for concrete structures.” Construction and Building Materials,
18(7), 491–503.

12
 Nanni, A., Luca, A. D., and Zadeh, H. J. (2014). “Reinforced Concrete with FRP Bars: Mechanics and Design.”
978-0-415-77882-4, CRC Press, chapter Materials, 23–33.
Robert, M. and Benmokrane, B. (2013). “Combined effects of saline solution and moist concrete on long-term dura-
bility of GFRP reinforcing bars.” Construction and Building Materials, 38.

Rochelle, R. D., Muchane, G., Rizkalla, S. H., and Gergely, J. (2004). “North Carolina DOT’s Experience with Fiber
Reinforced Polymers.” Polymer Composites III.

13

View publication stats