Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Behavior of FRP rods under uniaxial tensile strength with multiple

materials as an alternative to steel rebar
Mohamed M. Attia a, *, Osama Ahmed b, Osama Kobesy c, Abdel Salam Malek b
a
Civil & Architectural Constructions Department, Faculty of Technology & Education, Suez University, Egypt
b
Textile Department, Faculty of Technology & Education, Suez University, Egypt
c
Textile Department, Faculty of Applied Arts Helwan University, Egypt

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Steel corrosion raises maintenance costs and reduces the durability of steel-reinforced concrete
Fiber volume fraction (Vf) structures. Therefore, societies must create their own sustainable model based on finding new
FRP technologies that enable them to benefit from the available resources thus reducing their con­
Tensile strength
struction cost and maintenance burdens. Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) introduces an innova­
Natural fibers
tive and alternative approach to replace traditional steel bars and strands. So, this paper
Synthetic fibers
Microstructure investigates the behavior of synthetic and natural FRP of different fiber volume fractions (Vf)
Hand lay-up technique of FRP under uniaxial tensile load. To carry out this, four types of fiber are made by hand lay-up tech­
Concrete structures maintenance nique. Three of them are synthetic fibers which include glass fibers, nylon fibers, and poly­
propylene fibers, whereas jute is used as natural fibers. The results show hand lay-up technique of
FRP gives resembles the results of the Pultrusion process. The tensile strength and the elasticity
modulus increased by increasing the Vf, regardless of the type of fiber. The samples GFRP-3,
PFRP-P2, NFRP-N2, and JFRP-J3 showed the highest tensile strength of 971.89 MPa, 130.74
MPa, 262.54 MPa, and 178.42 MPa respectively, that improve by 26.68 %, 19.57 %, 15.44 %,
26.55 %, while the modulus of elasticity showed improvement by 20.13 %, 42 %, 14 %, and
32.93 % compared with a reference sample of the same group respectively. Furthermore, Mi­
croscope images indicated good fiber distribution and resin-fiber impregnation across the FRP
bars.

1. Introduction

Because of the elevated tensile and compressive strength supplied by the mixture of steel rebar and concrete, one of the most widely
utilized building materials in the world is steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) [1–4]. Nevertheless, the durability of SRC is compromised
due to steel corrosion and the increased costs of examination, preservation, and the necessary reconquest of corroded steel re­
inforcements [5–8]. Therefore, each country must be on track to achieve sustainable development and bridge the gap between a poor
past and a well-identified future. To address such a vital task, each country must optimize the leverage of the existing resources.
Fabrication and construction are of utmost priority providing more direct and reliable paths to development. Thus, both are economic
activities crossing over all three economic sectors: a primary sector concerned with the extraction of natural resources; a secondary
sector concerned with the transformation of the material into final products; and a consultancy sector that involves the provision of the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mohammed.mahmoudattia@suezuni.edu.eg (M.M. Attia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01241
Received 12 April 2022; Received in revised form 6 June 2022; Accepted 10 June 2022
Available online 13 June 2022
2214-5095/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

other services.
New technologies lead to the creation of new products. They also reduce the cost and services which decreases the already existing
burdens [9]. Steel is expensive, so there is a requirement to obtain a low-cost alternate solution that can be replaced entirely or
partially [10,11]. As a result of such advantageous performance parameters as high stiffness, high strength to weight ratio, high
resistance to corrosion, and magnetic neutrality, Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) is progressively attracting the interest of engineers
worldwide [12,13]. Furthermore, it provides distinct advantages for solving a wide range of engineering issues in areas where
traditional materials fail to deliver satisfactory results. FRP, unlike steel, is not impacted by electrochemical deterioration and can
withstand the destructive impact of acids, alkalies, salts, and other aggressive materials [14–16]. As a result, FRP bars have been
initiated as reinforcement for a variety of configurations exposed to aggressive environments, including marine structures, chemical,
and wastewater treatment plants, and bridge decks, particularly in climates in which chloride-based deicing agents exist [17–20].
Tunnel boring operations, magnetic resonance imaging facilities, chemical plants, electrical substations, aircraft station compass
calibration pads, and highway barriers have all used FRP reinforcing bars [21,22]. FRP materials are composite materials that are
made up of a matrix (resin) and reinforcing textile fibers. The fibers are more powerful than the matrix. The matrix serves two pur­
poses: it allows the load to be transferred between fibers and it protects the fibers from environmental impacts [23]. Fibers serve as
loadbearing constituents in composite materials. They provide high tensile strength and rigidity to the composite along its longitudinal
direction [24]. FRP materials exhibit anisotropic high tensile strength with no yield point only in the direction of the reinforcing fibers
[25]. For use in FRP composites, several types of fibers have been established. Carbon, glass, and aramid fibers are the most frequent
types of fibers [26,27]. Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers (GFRP) bars exhibit linear stress-strain behavior under tension up to failure,
but they lack the elasticity and ductility of steel bars [28–31].
Polypropylene Fibers Reinforced Polymers (PFRP) can be used as fibers or as bars. Polypropylene (PP) is a thermoplastic "addition
polymer" made by combining propylene monomers. This type of material is extensively growing in use all over the world. In addition,
it has characteristics as a tough and an insulating material, because of its accessibility, high thermal expansion coefficient, and good
fatigue resistance, it is inexpensive [32]. Nylons are polyamides, which are described as polymers with amide groups in the main chain.
The outstanding characteristics of the polymers and an affordable raw material base have contributed to nylon’s commercial success.
Nylon fiber is commercially available in a single-filament form of various lengths [33,34], which is usually used to produce nylon fiber
reinforced polymers (NFRP).
Natural fiber-reinforced composite materials are a new class of engineering materials [35]. Natural fibers such as kenaf, leaf, coir,
flax, jute, hemp, sisal, and others are excellent substitutes for FRP. Most research studies revealed that green fibers were immensely
popular in this industry due to its cost effectiveness and recyclable nature [36]. Among these materials, jute fiber reinforced polymers
(JFRP), the world’s second most common natural cellulosic fiber, are gaining popularity owing to its excellent characteristics [37].
Jute as a natural fiber in polymer composites would be appropriate for primary structural applications such as indoor components in
housing or a temporary outdoor application such as low-cost housing [38–41].
In general, several factors influence the tensile strength of FRP bars [42]. The most important factors are fiber type and different
fiber volume fractions (Vf), which is calculated as the proportion of fiber volume to total bar volume over the unit length. In fact, most
research work usually neglects the effect of volume fraction on tensile properties of FRP [43], whereas in this study it is considered as
one of the most important parameters. Tensile strength is also affected by the manufacturing process, quality control, and the per­
centage of thermoset resin curing [44]. In any case, FRP rebars are still used sparingly on the construction sites, because of its low
modulus of elasticity, brittle failure type, and high cost compared to traditional reinforcing steel.
Therefore, the aims of this research work are; firstly, implement hand lay-up technique to produce FRP bars with various Vf using
some of the available synthetic and natural textile fibers in the Egyptian local market. The hand lay-up technique is simple, available,
and low cost, despite being the oldest open molding method, However, it is easy to master to produce FRP bars. Secondly, show the
findings of the experimental study of locally produced FRP bars in uniaxial tensile load as an alternative to replacing steel rein­
forcement fully or partially.
In this study, a total number of 10-rod specimens were prepared with different fiber types and Vf which were classified into; six
samples of glass and jute fibers besides four samples of polypropylene and polyamide. The FRP rods had a circular cross-section with a
diameter of 12 mm. As a resin material for FRP, unsaturated polyester was used. A steel pipe filled with epoxy resin was used to secure

Fig. 1. Fiber shape and its microstructure.

2
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

the bars. Tensile strength, stress-strain correlation, and elastic modulus were evaluated as fundamental and important mechanical
properties. Finally, the microstructure of samples was investigated.

2. Experimental work

2.1. Material properties

Different available types of fibers and resin in the Egyptian local market were considered to manufacture the various rebars. Fig. 1
shows the fiber shape and fibers’ microstructure used. The used materials are as follows; E-glass fibers "Joshi Egypt for fiberglass – Suez
– Egypt", Polypropylene fibers, polyamide, and jute fibers "Elhegaz company – Giza – Egypt". The used resin is polyester ES 1319
having high self-extinguishing resin with medium viscosity "Amr Chemicals Company 10th of Ramadan city – Egypt". Table 1 lists the
most outstanding features of the fibers and resin used in this study.

2.2. Specimen preparation for the tensile test

The tensile test and samples fabrication were carried out in accordance with ASTM D7205/D7205-06 [45]. Seven synthetic and
three natural specimens were tested. Table 1 indicates the designs of both synthetic and natural specimens. All the FRP bars were
fabricated on the rope manufacturing equipment or prototype using hand lay-up technique as shown in Fig. 2.
The sequence of fabrication processes could be summarized as follows:
The equipment is firstly filled with an appropriate number of yarns or fibers to obtain the required diameter according to the
determined Vf of each bar as shown in Table 2. Secondly, the matrix is prepared by mixing the resin with 1 % hardener. Then, the laid-
up textile material is immersed in the matrix basin. When the specimen is completely saturated with the matrix, it is pulled out through
a metal ring of 12 mm inner diameter. Such step has a vital importance to ensure the diameter consistency within and between all
specimens and to get rid of the excess matrix as shown Fig. 3. Finally, as shown in Fig. 4, surface treatments are employed to enhance
the bond strength of the bars and guarantee that pure tensile failure can be accomplished.
An illustrative drawing of a detailed specimen design is shown in Fig. 5. The length of all produced FRP bars is 1200 mm. The gauge
length is 40 times the nominal diameter of the bar, as per ASTM D7205-06 [45]. As a result, the FRP bars’ gauge length was set to
480 mm. Steel anchors were installed on both sides of the samples in the meantime. The steel anchor length should be higher than
254 mm, according to standard test methods. As a result, the length of FRP bars is 350 mm. Steel anchors have an outer diameter of
42.4 mm and a wall thickness of 4 mm. Sikadur®-31 CF epoxy resin is from "Sika company, Suez, Egypt" was used to fill the gap
between the steel anchor and the sample bar. A vibrator was used to eliminate voids and confirm that the epoxy resin was evenly
distributed throughout the steel anchor.
To ensure that the bars were fixed in the center, wooden stoppers were positioned at both ends of the steel anchors, as seen in
Fig. 6a. Fig. 6b shows the prepared specimens for tensile test.

2.3. Instrumentation and specimen testing

In Egypt’s National Center for Housing and Building Research’s concrete laboratory, all samples were tested using an experimental
setup. The tests are performed on a hydraulic tensile test machine with a load capability of 2500 kN as seen in Fig. 7a. Strains in the
tension zone were monitored using electrical strain gauges installed on FRP bars, as indicated in Fig. 7b. Fig. 7c illustrates the setup of
the tested samples fixed at both ends on the tensile machine and subjected to uniaxial tensile load gradually increased until failure. The
load was gradually continued to the rate of 10 kN/s. The assessments were carried out at room temperature, which was 25 ± 3 ◦ C.
Finally, the data were recorded using a data acquisition system and “lab view” software. A camera was used to photograph and record
key characteristics, such as the greatest failure mechanisms of samples.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Calculations

The tensile strength, elastic modulus, and weight of the samples are estimated using the documented data and sample variables. As
per CSA standards, the tensile strength of each rebar is determined by Eq. (1) [46]:

Table 1
Mechanical and physical properties of the materials.
No. Materials Description Function Tensile strength MPa Elastic modulus GPa Elongation % Density g/cm3

1 E–Glass fiber Continuous fibers Reinforcement 3500 70 3.4 2.55

2 Polypropylene 575 4.35 21 0.9
3 Polyamide 920 5.17 16.2 1.14
4 Jute fiber 432 17.85 1.9 1.52
5 Polyester Liquid Matrix 55 3 5.5 1.2

3
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

Fig. 2. The schematic of rope manufacturing equipment.

Table 2
Specimen design for tensile test.
No. Groups Type of fibers Samples ID Fiber-matrix Vf % Pitch space of rib (mm) Effective length (mm) Diameter (mm)

1 A Glass fibers GFRP- G1 46.70 10 480 12

2 GFRP- G2 50.88 10 480 12
3 GFRP- G3 66.60 10 480 12
4 B Polypropylene fibers PFRP- P1 54.29 10 480 12
5 PFRP-P2 59.72 10 480 12
6 C (Nylon) Polyamide fibers NFRP- N1 45.16 10 480 12
7 NFRP-N2 48.13 10 480 12
8 D Jute fibers JFRP- J1 29.47 10 480 12
9 JFRP-J2 37.14 10 480 12
10 JFRP-J3 41.26 10 480 12

Fig. 3. Matrix basin.

Fig. 4. Surface treatments.

4
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

Fig. 5. Design of FRP bars.

Fig. 6. Wooden stopper placement and prepared specimens for tensile test.

Fig. 7. a) A hydraulic machine, b) strain gauge and c) test setup.

P
fu = (1)
A

where fu is the tensile strength, P is the maximum tensile load, and A is the cross-sectional area of the bar. Again, and according to the
same standards [46], the elastic modulus is calculated using Eq. (2) as follows:
(P1 − P2 )
E= (2)
(ε, − ε2 )A

where E is the rebar’s elastic modulus, P1 and P2 are the implemented loads at 50 % and 25 % of the ultimate load, respectively. €1,
and €2 are the strains at 50 % and 25 % of the ultimate load, respectively, and A is the cross-sectional area of the sample. The ultimate
elongation is calculated as a percentage by dividing the displacement (mm) corresponding to the highest measured load by the length
of the specimen between grips (mm) and multiplying by 100.

5
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

3.2. Results and discussion of tensile tests

3.2.1. Density of FRP bars

Table 3 illustrates the average results of FRP bars density. In general, the density of FRP bars depends on the type of textile fibers
used in their production. Thus, changing the Vf of the fibers may lead to an increase or decrease in the density of the FRP bars. In group
A, which contains three samples of GFRP, and group C, which contains two samples of NFRP, the sample GFRP- G3 and the sample
NFRP-N2 show both highest and lowest values bar density (1850.36 kg/m3 and 1206.75 kg/m3 respectively) when compared to all
other samples. On the other hand, in group A, when comparing samples GFRP-G2 and GFRP-G3 with sample GFRP-G1, it can be
noticed that the density of FRP bars increases by 5.14 % and 7.47 % percent with the increase of Vf from 46.7 % to 50.88 % and from
46.7 % to 66.6 %, respectively. While in group C, comparing samples NFRP-N1 with sample NFRP-N2, the density of FRP bars de­
creases by 11.76 % with the increase of Vf from 45.16 % to 48.13 %. This is similar to reported results by [48], which found, as the
percentage of fiber increases, the density of the FRP bars increases or decreases according to the type of used fiber.

3.2.2. Mechanical properties of FRP bars

Fig. 8a–d show tensile strength vs strain of GFRP, PFRP, NFRP and JFRP bars respectively. Table 3 shows the short-term testing of
the elastic modulus, average tensile strength, and ultimate elongation calculated values from tensile tests. The FRP of all samples
exhibited a linear stress-strain curve except the PFRP samples [25]. The fiber volume fractions have the greatest impact on the me­
chanical characteristics of FRP bars for the same fiber type.
Group A, which contains three samples of GFRP rebar, shows sudden brittle failures with abruptly ruptured fibers throughout the
assessments. This is detected in the stress-strain curves presented in Fig. 8a. The tensile strength and elasticity modulus of control
sample GFRP-G1, that represents 47 % Vf, are 767.18 MPa and 37.6 GPa, which resembles the results reported by [47]. Sample GFRP–
G3 demonstrates the tensile strength highest value of 971.89 MPa, elastic modulus of 45.180 GPa and ultimate elongation of
12.71 mm. Such results are consistent with reference [30]. That proves 26.68 % and 20.13 % as significant enhancements in both
tensile strength and elastic modulus respectively when compared to the other samples of same group. The improvement could be due to
the excellent bonding between the matrix and the textile fibers besides the increase in fibers volume fraction, which consequently
makes it brittle as shown in the Table 3 [48].
Fig. 8b shows the stress-strain curve for group B, which contains two samples of PFRP rebars. It is found that; sample PFRP– P2 has
an increased tensile strength and elasticity modulus when compared with the other samples inside the same group. This is because of
the increased volume fraction [5,6], as shown also in Table 3. In group C, which contains two samples of NFRP rebars, a similar
behavior of failure as groups A and B was discovered throughout the assessments that were proved by the stress-strain curves illus­
trated in Fig. 8c. Moreover, sample NFRP– N2 shows the highest tensile strength, elastic modulus, and ultimate elongation of values
262.54 MPa, 9.94 GPa, and 15.17 mm respectively. This indicates an improvement of 15.44 %, 13.99 %, and 1.94 % when compared
to the other samples of this group.
Group D, which contains three samples of JFRP rebar, shows again an observed similar failure conduct as all pervious groups during
the tests. This is confirmed by the stress-strain curves presented in Fig. 8d. The tensile strength, elastic modulus, and ultimate elon­
gation of the reference sample (JFRP – J1) were 141.01, 9.14, and 5.41 MPa, respectively, similar to [48]. They increased 10.07 %,
14.98 %, and 50.83 % of the sample JFRP – J2, while it is found that sample JFRP – J3 of the highest Vf of fibers, shows an increase in
tensile strength by 26.53 %, the elastic modulus of 32.93 %, and ultimate elongation of 73.94 % respectively. In addition, this group
has the lowest tensile strength value with respect to all other groups. This could be due to the hygroscopic characteristic of natural
fibers (susceptibility to water) which is resulted in water sensitivity and poor bonding/adhesion to most water-resistant polymeric
resins [49–51].
On the other hand, the elongation values range from the lowest to the highest. JFRP bars were the lowest elongation values, due to
the high brittleness of jute fiber as shown in Table 3, while the bars that belong to the poly family (NFRP and PFRP bars) give the
highest values of strain as shown in Fig. 8a–d despite the lower values of tensile strength and elasticity modulus for them.

Table 3
The Results of the tensile tests all Samples.
No. Groups Samples ID UTS (MPa) Imp. (%) EM (GPa) Imp. (%) EL (mm) Imp. (%) ɣ kg/m3

1 A GFRP- G1 767.18 – 37.612 – 10.99 – 1721.64

2 GFRP- G2 880.42 14.76 39.740 5.66 12.52 13.92 1810.14
3 GFRP- G3 971.89 26.68 45.180 20.13 12.71 15.65 1850.36
4 B PFRP- P1 109.34 – 3.62 – 16.9 – 1448.11
5 PFRP-P2 130.74 19.57 5.14 42 17.33 2.55 1311.34
6 C NFRP-N1 227.42 – 8.72 – 14.88 1367.65
7 NFRP-N2 262.54 15.44 9.94 14 15.17 1.95 1206.75
8 D JFRP- J1 141.01 – 9.14 – 5.41 – 1230.89
9 JFRP-J2 155.22 10.09 10.51 14.99 8.16 50.83 1303.29
10 JFRP-J3 178.42 26.55 12.15 32.93 9.41 74 1407.88

UTS: Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa), EM: Elastic Modulus (GPa), EL: Elongation (mm), ɣ: Bar Density (kg/m3), imp.: Improvement of samples results
compared with same group (%).

6
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

Fig. 8. a: – Tensile strength vs strain of GFRP. b: – Tensile strength vs strain of PFRP. c: – Tensile strength vs strain of NFRP. d: – Tensile strength vs
strain of JFRP.

3.2.3. Failure mode of FRP bars

Fig. 9a–d demonstrate the failures of the samples during tensile tests. Three GFRP, four NFRP, PFRP and three JFRP bars were
tested. Generally, all samples failed at the middle third of FRP rebar, but some of them presents ruptures near the steel anchor. Ac­
cording to the literatures, this might be caused by a number of factors such as misdistribution of stress, damage, misplacement of fibers
during manufacture, specimen size, and gripping method [3,5]. For instance, Malvar and Bish [52] conducted testing on several grips,
as the ASTM D3916 grip adapter. The tensile loading exceeded the tensile strength of the tests performed bars, causing fiber rupturing
in the majority of the samples.

3.2.4. Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM) of FRP bars

This test was carried out at various magnification levels on the longitudinal and cross-section directions to supply documentation of
the FRP microstructure and prove its contribution to the durability of FRP bars by noticing fiber distribution, defects, and voids.
Samples preparation for the microscopic examination at different magnification levels using the Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM)
is summarized as follows: A 12 mm thickness sample from each fiber type was selected and cut in cross-sectional and longitudinal
directions as shown in Table 4. Then, samples surfaces were sanded utilizing various grit levels (i.e., 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200) of
sandpaper and employing dedicated grinding and polishing equipment. Finally, the produced moisture during polishing was removed
by a heat gun.
Figs. 10–13a and b show various enlarged and miniature images of the longitudinal and cross-section directions of GFRP, PFRP,
NFRP and JFRP specimens respectively, at magnification levels of 500x and 1000x. These specimens present a homogeneity distri­
bution of fibers in both sections and a good fiber impregnation. The cross-section shape of GFRP, PFRP and NFRP is a circular shape.
The interfacial zone between fibers and epoxy measures approximately 5.23, 6.878 and 4 µm for GFRP, PFRP and NFRP respectively.
In GFRP and NFRP samples the longitudinal and cross-sectional images did not show voids, defects, and cracks. Fibers were properly
impregnated in the resin. This leads to improved mechanical properties, including tensile strength. Fig. 11a and b, show small observed
voids in the PFRP sample that indicates a lack of good bonding between the fibers and the resin and thus leads to a decrease in tensile
strength.
Fig. 13a and b show JFRP sample. Despite the homogeneity distribution of fibers in both sections, it appears many cracks appears in
the interfacial zone between the fiber and the resin. Such scale of 3.63:6.64 µm is due to the lack of good bonding between the natural
fibers and polymers, which leads to poor mechanical properties.

7
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

Fig. 9. a–d: – Failure mode of specimens.

Table 4
Prepared Samples Microscopic examination.
Types Group Prepared Samples Diameter of fibers (µm)

GFRP A 12.28

PFRP B 32.39

NFRP C 43.63

JFRP D 27.65

4. Conclusion

Steel-reinforced concrete maintenance and inspection can be costly. In addition repairs may need a large degree of technical
expertize. As a result, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the behavior of synthetic and natural fiber-reinforced polymer bars to
provide a practical and feasible technique for concrete in corrosive environments where the total material cost can be considerably
reduced. Steel is expensive, so there is a need to explore a low-cost alternative to fully or partially replacing steel. Ropes, both synthetic
and natural, may be useful in accomplishing this task. The following conclusions may be drawn from this exploratory study: -

• All FRP rod samples showed results that qualify them to be used as a total/partial substitute of steel bars in bearing and nonbearing
structures, especially in harsh environments to provide a good solution to the corrosion problem.
• Simply and cheaply hand-layup technique achieved values of tensile strength in samples of glass fiber rods more than in commercial
samples by pultrusion technique despite using more than one value of Vf.

8
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

Fig. 10. a: – The cross-section of GFRP. b: – The longitudinal section of GFRP.

Fig. 11. a: – The cross-section of PFRP. b: – The longitudinal section of PFR.

• Generally, all samples failed at the middle third of FRP rebar, but some of them presents ruptures near the steel anchor. Moreover,
the tensile loading surpassed the tensile strength of the tests performed bars, causing fiber rupturing in the majority of the samples.
• The increase or decrease in the density of the FRP bars is due to the Vf and the type of fibers. The sample GFRP- G3 Glass fiber
reinforced polymer which contains Vf 47 % and the sample NFRP-N2 nylon fiber reinforced polymer which contains Vf 48 % show
both highest and lowest values bar density (1850.36 kg/m3 and 1206.75 kg/m3 respectively).
• All FRP rod samples, whether synthetic or natural, showed a height in the tensile strength and modulus of elasticity with an increase
in the Vf, the sample GFRP– G3, Glass fiber reinforced polymer that contain Vf 47 %, demonstrates the highest tensile strength
value of 971.89 MPa, elastic modulus of 45.180 GPa and ultimate elongation of 12.71 mm.
• The samples GFRP-3, PFRP-P2, NFRP-N2, and JFRP-J3 showed the highest tensile strength of 971.89 MPa, 130.74 MPa,
262.54 MPa, and 178.42 MPa respectively, that represents an improvement of 26.68 %, 19.57 %, 15.44 %, 26.55 %, while the
modulus of elasticity has been improved by 20.13 %, 42 %, 14 %, and 32.93 % when compared with a reference sample of the same
group respectively.
• Microscopic images indicated adequate fiber distribution and resin-fiber impregnation throughout the FRP bars. In GFRP, Glass
fiber reinforced polymer, and NFRP samples the longitudinal and cross-sectional images did not show voids, defects, and cracks,
while the sample JFRP, Jute fiber reinforced polymer, did not achieve the homogeneity distribution of fibers in both sections, and it
revealed many cracks in the interfacial zone between the fiber and the resin.

9
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

Fig. 12. a: – The cross-section of NFRP. b: – The longitudinal section of NFRP.

Fig. 13. a: – The cross-section of JFRP. b: – The longitudinal section of JFRP.

Declaration of Competing Interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-
financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

[1] D. Benghida, Concrete as a sustainable construction material, Key Eng. Mater. 744 744 KE (2017) 196–200, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/
KEM.744.196.
[2] A.H.H. Khalil, A.M.A. Heniegal, M.M. Attia, Nonlinear finite element analysis of steel fibers reinforced post-tensioned lightweight concrete beams, n.d.
[3] C.R. Gagg, Cement and concrete as an engineering material: an historic appraisal and case study analysis, Eng. Fail. Anal. 40 (2014) 114–140, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.02.004.

10
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

[4] Q. Hussain, A. Ruangrassamee, S. Tangtermsirikul, P. Joyklad, Behavior of concrete confined with epoxy bonded fiber ropes under axial load, Constr. Build.
Mater. 263 (2020), 120093.
[5] S.M.H. Rahman, K. Mahmoud, E. El-Salakawy, Moment redistribution in glass fiber reinforced polymer-reinforced concrete continuous beams subjected to
unsymmetrical loading, Eng. Struct. 150 (2017) 562–572, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.066.
[6] G.B. Maranan, A.C. Manalo, B. Benmokrane, W. Karunasena, P. Mendis, T.Q. Nguyen, Shear behaviour of geopolymer-concrete beams transversely reinforced
with continuous rectangular GFRP composite spirals, Compos. Struct. 187 (2018) 454–465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.12.080.
[7] I.S. Abbood, S.S. Weli, F.L. Hamid, Cement-based materials for self-sensing and structural damage advance warning alert by electrical resistivity, Mater. Today
Proc. 46 (2021) 615–620, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.381.
[8] H.F. Isleem, Finite element (FE) and artificial neural network (ANN) modeling of FRP-RC columns under axial compression loading author, Front. Mater. Proof
(2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2022.888909.
[9] Q. Hussain, A. Ruangrassamee, S. Tangtermsirikul, P. Joyklad, A.C. Wijeyewickrema, Low-cost fiber rope reinforced polymer (FRRP) confinement of square
columns with different corner radii, Buildings 11 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11080355.
[10] M.Z. Afifi, H.M. Mohamed, B. Benmokrane, Axial capacity of circular concrete columns reinforced with GFRP bars and spirals, J. Compos. Constr. 18 (2014),
04013017, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0000438.
[11] S. Rizkalla, T. Hassan, N. Hassan, Design recommendations for the use of FRP for reinforcement and strengthening of concrete structures, Prog. Struct. Eng.
Mater. 5 (2003) 16–28, https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.139.
[12] M.A. Adam, M. Said, A.A. Mahmoud, A.S. Shanour, Analytical and experimental flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced
polymers bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 354–366, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.057.
[13] N.M. Ali, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Integrated performance of FRP tendons with fiber hybridization, J. Compos. Constr. 18 (2014) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)
cc.1943-5614.0000427.
[14] G. Ma, Y. Huang, F. Aslani, T. Kim, Tensile and bonding behaviours of hybridized BFRP–steel bars as concrete reinforcement, Constr. Build. Mater. 201 (2019)
62–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.196.
[15] B. Benmokrane, E. El-Salakawy, A. El-Ragaby, S. El-Gamal, Performance evaluation of innovative concrete bridge deck slabs reinforced with fibre-reinforced-
polymer bars, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34 (2007) 298–310, https://doi.org/10.1139/L06-173.
[16] E. Toumpanaki, M. Ramage, Cyclic loading of glued-in FRP rods in timber: experimental and analytical study, J. Compos. Constr. 26 (2022), 4021075.
[17] E. El-salakawy, B. Benmokrane, G. Desgagné, Fibre-reinforced polymer composite bars for the concrete deck slab of wotton bridge, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 870 (2003)
861–870, https://doi.org/10.1139/L03-055.
[18] I.S. Abbood, S.A. Odaa, K.F. Hasan, M.A. Jasim, Properties evaluation of fiber reinforced polymers and their constituent materials used in structures – a review,
Mater. Today Proc. 43 (2021) 1003–1008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.07.636.
[19] W. Li, F. Wen, M. Zhou, F. Liu, Y. Jiao, Q. Wu, H. Liu, Assessment and prediction model of GFRP bars’ durability performance in seawater environment,
Buildings 12 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12020127.
[20] H.F. Isleem, B.A. Tayeh, W.S. Alaloul, M.A. Musarat, A. Raza, Artificial neural network (Ann) and finite element (fem) models for gfrp-reinforced concrete
columns under axial compression, Materials 14 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237172.
[21] Y.J. You, Y.H. Park, H.Y. Kim, J.S. Park, Hybrid effect on tensile properties of FRP rods with various material compositions, Compos. Struct. 80 (2007) 117–122,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.065.
[22] C.E. Bakis, L.C. Bank, V.L. Brown, E. Cosenza, J.F. Davalos, J.J. Lesko, A. Machida, S.H. Rizkalla, T.C. Triantafillou, Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for
construction – state-of-the-art review, in: Proceedings of the Perspect. Civ. Eng. Commem. 150th Anniv. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., vol. 6, 2003, pp. 369–83. 〈https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73)〉.
[23] L.C. Hollaway, A review of the present and future utilisation of FRP composites in the civil infrastructure with reference to their important in-service properties,
Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 2419–2445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.04.062.
[24] L.C. Hollaway, The evolution of and the way forward for advanced polymer composites in the civil infrastructure, Constr. Build. Mater. 17 (2003) 365–378,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(03)00038-2.
[25] J. Won, C. Park, C. Jang, Tensile fracture and bond properties of ductile hybrid FRP 2007, Polym. Polym. Compos. 15 (2007) 9–16.
[26] Y.J. You, K.T. Park, D.W. Seo, J.H. Hwang, Tensile strength of GFRP reinforcing bars with hollow section, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015 (2015), https://doi.org/
10.1155/2015/621546.
[27] H.F. Isleem, F. Peng, B.A. Tayeh, Confinement model for LRS FRP-confined concrete using conventional regression and artificial neural network techniques,
Compos. Struct. 279 (2022), 114779, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114779.
[28] Malaviya Rahul, et al., Fiber reinforced polymer sheet work in concrete beam, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 6 (2019) (Issue).
[29] O. Gooranorimi, W. Suaris, E. Dauer, A. Nanni, Microstructural investigation of glass fiber reinforced polymer bars, Compos. Part B Eng. 110 (2017) 388–395,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.029.
[30] D. Seo, K. Park, Y. You, J. Hwang, Evaluation for tensile performance of recently developed FRP hybrid bars, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 4 (2014)
631–637.
[31] B. Jarek, A. Kubik, The examination of the glass fiber reinforced polymer composite rods in terms of the application for concrete reinforcement, Procedia Eng.
108 (2015) 394–401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.06.163.
[32] H.S. Muhammed, N.M. Al-abdalay, H.A. Zeini, A.H. Saeed, Use of polypropylene ropes in concrete to minimize steel reinforcement, Period. Eng. Nat. Sci. 7
(2019) 1904–1914.
[33] Y. Chevillotte, Y. Marco, P. Davies, G. Bles, M. Arhant, Fatigue of polyamide mooring ropes for floating wind turbines, MATEC Web Conf. 165 (2018) 1–7,
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201816510002.
[34] R. Fangueiro, C.G. Pereira, M. De Araújo, Applications of polyesters and polyamides in civil engineering, in: Polyesters Polyam., Elsevier, 2008, pp. 542–592.
[35] S.S. Weli, I.S. Abbood, K.F. Hasan, M.A. Jasim, Effect of steel fibers on the concrete strength grade: a review, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 888 (2020), https://
doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/888/1/012043.
[36] Mohammed Mahmoud Mohammed Attia, et al., Banana fiber reinforced concrete: a review, N. Y. Sci. J. 14 (2021) (pp. 48–5).
[37] Rohit Kotla, et al., Experimental assessment of jute yarn and stone quarry duston concrete, Int. J. Mech. Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 10 (2020) 3737–3744, https://doi.
org/10.24247/ijmperdjun2020354.
[38] B. Vijaya Ramnath, S. Junaid Kokan, R. Niranjan Raja, R. Sathyanarayanan, C. Elanchezhian, A. Rajendra Prasad, V.M. Manickavasagam, Evaluation of
mechanical properties of abaca-jute-glass fibre reinforced epoxy composite, Mater. Des. 51 (2013) 357–366, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.03.102.
[39] M. Ramesh, K. Palanikumar, K.H. Reddy, Mechanical property evaluation of sisal-jute-glass fiber reinforced polyester composites, Compos. Part B Eng. 48
(2013) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.12.004.
[40] A. Alam, K. Nouri, Flexural strengthening of reinforced concrete beam using jute rope composite plate, 2015, pp. 8–9.
[41] Shah Muhammad Hassan Sabri, Behavior of jute fiber reinforced concrete having glass fiber reinforced polymer rebars for possible application in bridge pier,
Fac. Eng. Dep. Civ. Eng. Cap. Univ. Sci. Technol. Islam. (2019).
[42] C. Larco, R. Pahonie, I. Edu, The effects of fibre volume fraction on a glass-epoxy composite material, INCAS Bull. 7 (2015) 113–119, https://doi.org/10.13111/
2066-8201.2015.7.3.10.
[43] L.M.B., I.K.L.H.H.K. Xu, C.P. Ostertag, Effects of fibre volume fraction on mechanical properties of SiC-fibre/Si[3]N[4]-matrix composites, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 77
(7) (1994).
[44] M.R.M. Rejab, C.W. Theng, M.M. Rahman, M.M. Noor, A.N.M. Rose, An Investigation into the Effects of Fibre Volume Fraction on GFRP Plate Abstract — This
paper presents the mechanical properties of Glass Fibre Reinforce Plastic, 2008, pp. 136–42.
[45] ASTM D7205/D7205 – 06, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars, ASTM Int. West Conshohocken, PA,
2016.

11
M.M. Attia et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 17 (2022) e01241

[46] CSA, Design and construction of building structures with fibre-reinforced polymers, Can. Stand. Assoc. Can./CSA S8 (2012).
[47] D.W. Seo, K.T. Park, Y.J. You, S.Y. Lee, Experimental investigation for tensile performance of GFRP-steel hybridized rebar, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016 (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9401427.
[48] A.M. Sharkawi, A.M. Mehriz, E.A. Showaib, A. Hassanin, Performance of sustainable natural yarn reinforced polymer bars for construction applications, Constr.
Build. Mater. 158 (2018) 359–368, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.182.
[49] T. Sen, A. Paul, Confining concrete with sisal and jute FRP as alternatives for CFRP and GFRP, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 4 (2015) 248–264, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.04.001.
[50] A.K. Bledzki, S. Reihmane, J. Gassan, Properties and modification methods for vegetable fibers for natural fiber composites, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 59 (1996)
1329–1336, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4628(19960222)59:8<1329::AID-APP17>3.0.CO;2-0.
[51] D. Nabi Saheb, J.P. Jog, Natural fiber polymer composites: a review, Adv. Polym. Technol. 18 (1999) 351–363, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2329
(199924)18:4<351::AID-ADV6>3.0.CO;2-X.
[52] L. Malvar, J. Bish, Grip effects in tensile testing of FRP bars, nonmetallic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete structures, in: Proceedings of the International RILEM
Symposium, Ghent Belgium, 1995, pp. 108–15.

12