SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Bridge oriented presentation gfrp rebar(price comparison)

•Download as PPT, PDF•
•
R
ralphesteves

The document provides an introduction to fiberglass rebar technology. It discusses the pultrusion process used to manufacture FRP rebar and the composition of FRP rebar including fibers, resins, and additives. The functions of these different constituents are described. The document then compares the features of FRP rebar to other materials like steel and aluminum in terms of tensile strength, density, fatigue resistance, and other properties. Applications of FRP rebar in bridges, marine structures, and corrosion resistant structures are presented. A case study compares the life cycle costs of different bridge deck designs using various reinforcing materials.

Related slideshows

Composite materials
Composite materialsComposite materials
Composite materials
 
FIBER GLASS
FIBER GLASSFIBER GLASS
FIBER GLASS
 
FIBRE REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) & SYNTHETIC RUBBER
FIBRE REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) & SYNTHETIC RUBBERFIBRE REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) & SYNTHETIC RUBBER
FIBRE REINFORCED PLASTIC (FRP) & SYNTHETIC RUBBER
 
1 of 52
INTRODUCTION TO FIBERGLASS REBAR TECHNOLOGY
OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION TO FRP REBAR • COMPARISON TO OTHER MATERIALS • FEATURES OF FRP REBAR • APPLICATIONS • LIFE CYCLE COST • CASE STUDY
The Pultrusion Process
FRP Rebar Composition Fibres (Reinforcements) Resins (Polymers) Fillers Additives Fibres – Mechanical strength Resins – Chemical resistance
FRP Rebar Composition • Main functions of the Fibres: • Carry load • Provide strength and stiffness 3 2 1
FRP Constituents Functions • Main functions of the Resin: • Transfers stresses between fibers • Provides lateral support against buckling • Protects fibers from mechanical and environmental damage – Thermoset Resins are typically used: • Heat cured vinyl ester • Irreversible process • Cannot be deformed upon curing
BENDING PROCESS
Sand Coating Process
COMPARISON TO OTHER MATERIALS
TENSILE STRENGTH X 103 psi 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Steel Pultrusion 70% roving Aluminum
DENSITY 8 7 6 5 g/cc 4 3 2 1 0 Steel Aluminum Pultrusion 70% Pultrusion 50% roving mat & roving
4000 Carbon FRP Constraint (MPa) 1250 Glass FRP 400 Steel 40 Concrete Displacement
Fatigue Comparison of GFRP, CFRP and STEEL Panels Fatigue under 60 t Load Punching Shear Cycles to Failure Mode Failure 3.5 @ 60 t 3.0 23,162 Crack Width (mm) 2.5 STEEL STEEL 2.0 1.5 GFRP 198,863 1.0 CFRP CFRP 0.5 0.0 420,684 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 GFRP No. of Cycles (Nos.)
Composite Rebars Features
Key features • Corrosion resistance (Na+, Cl-, Alkalis…) • Electromagnetic Neutrality • Low density (2 g/cm3) • Thermal Conductivity (2.0 BTU/ft2/hr/ºF/in)
Key features FRP composites is a great solution to the problems associated with the aging infrastructure of Canada for the following reasons: – Corrosion resistance : • Reduce repair and maintenance cost. • Enhance life duration of a concrete structure. • Help obtain better life cycle cost. – Electromagnetic Neutrality : • Do not bloc radio waves. • Will not interfere with radar waves. • Will ease communications through the structure (mobile phone).
Key features • FRP composites is a great solution to the problems associated with the aging infrastructure of Canada for the following reasons: – Low density : • Saves on transportation costs. • Easier and faster construction with less workers and equipment. – Excellent electrical isolation properties : • Resistance to electrochemical corrosion (no galvanic corrosion). • No lost of current through the structure. – Fabrication versatility of FRP allows the geometry, strength, stiffness, and durability characteristics of the member to be tailored for each particular application.
THE APPLICATIONS
BRIDGES
BRIDGES
BRIDGES
BRIDGES
BRIDGES
BRIDGES
OTHERS
APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • PARKING GARAGE.
APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • Offshore Loading Quay (St. Lawrence Seaway)
APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • Hall’s Harbour (Nova Scotia)
APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • Water Desalination Inlet – Saudi Arabia
APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • MARINES RAMPS.
APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • MARINES RAMPS.
APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • CONRETE HIGHWAY MTL 40 KIRKLAND
LIFE CYCLE COST Engineering and evaluation This portion of the presentation is inspired from the study released by Dr. Gordon Spark ,Ph.D. , P.Ing. (University of Saskatchewan) for ISIS Canada. 33
Four (4) concepts has been studied Reinforcement Concrete Cover CONCEPT SUP BOTTOM EXTERNAL TYPE THICKNESS SURFACE MEMBRANE ASPHALTE 1 EPOXY EPOXY NONE HP 225mm YES 90mm ASPHALTE 2 MMFX-2 MMFX-2 NONE HP 225mm YES 90mm ASPHALTE GFRP EPOXY STRAP HP 225mm YES 3 90mm HIGH DENSITY 4 GFRP GFRP STRAP HP 200mm NO CONCRET E 50mm 34 HP = Haute Performance
COMPARAISON OF THE INITIAL COST GFRP CONCEPT IS APPROXIMATELY 0 to 10 % HIGHER 2005 1400 1360 1350 1315 1300 1258 1250 1216 1200 1150 1100 1. Époxy sur 2. MMFX sur 3. Époxy sur 4. GFRP sur Époxy MMFX piliers/GFRP piliers/GFRP PW Cost ($'000) 35
COMPARAISON OF THE MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION COST GFRP SOLUTION IS 45 TO 60% LOWER IN COST 1200 1169 1193 1000 891 800 600 493 400 200 0 1. Époxy sur 2. MMFX sur 3. Époxy sur 4. GFRP sur Époxy MMFX piliers/GFRP piliers/GFRP PW Cost ($'000) 36
ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE UNCERTAINTY RELATED TO THE USE OF THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS: THE CONCEPT USING GFRP MAKE OWNERS SAVE UP TO 30% COMPARE TO EPOXY. Distribution des coûts de cycle de vie utile 3000 2685 2515 2500 2222 PW Cost ($'000) 2000 1773 1500 1000 500 0 1. Époxy sur 2. MMFX sur 3. Époxy sur 4. GFRP sur Époxy MMFX piliers/GFRP piliers/GFRP 37
CASE STUDY • TITLE : COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT HIGHWAY BRIDGEDECK REINFORCEMENT DESIGNS. • COMPARISON OF INITIAL COST.
CASE STUDY • There is considerable differences in mechanical properties of different FRP rebar mainly in their modulus of elasticity. • Could these differences in the GFRP mechanical properties affect the design of concrete deck slabs? • Could the design of concrete bridge deck slabs using GFRP bars with superior mechanical properties result in reducing the required reinforcement consequently saving the cost. • How these design compare to designs made with other so called corrosive resistant material ; galvanized steel and epoxy coated steel.
CASE STUDY • This study aims to answer these questions by designing a typical slab-on-girder concrete bridge deck using four different types of reinforcement bars with different mechanical properties. • One recently constructed concrete bridge deck reinforced with FRP bars (Melbourne Bridge) is taken as an example in the design. • The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CHBDC (CAN/CSA-S6-00, 2000) and the updated version were used to conduct this design (New Code, CHBDC 2005).
CASE STUDY • The bridge is a girder type consisting of four prestressed concrete girders (Type NETB) continuously supported over three spans with a total length of 89.420 m. • The deck is a 200-mm thickness concrete slab. • The deck has overhangs of 1.52 m on each side. A B C D 14.00 m 2% 2% 200 mm 1.72 m 3.52 m 3.52 m 3.52 m 1.72 m
RESULTS Bar List for Galvanized Steel. Configuration of Quantit Total Price Calculated Total Identification Length (mm) Designation reinforcement y Length (m) ($/m) Price ($) As=833,33 mm2/m 15M D1 11485 15M 864 9923,0 3,64 $ 36 119,87 $ @ 240mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2A 10600 15M 465 4929,0 3,64 $ 17 941,56 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2B 3650 15M 465 1697,3 3,64 $ 6 177,99 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2E 8865 15M 543 4813,7 3,64 $ 17 521,85 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2F 5390 15M 543 2926,8 3,64 $ 10 653,44 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D5 2735 15M 1086 2970,2 3,64 $ 10 811,56 $ @ 160mm 27259,965m 99 226,27 $
RESULTS Bar List for Epoxy coated steel. Configuration of Length Total Length Price Calculated Total Identification Designation Quantity reinforcement (mm) (m) ($/m) Price ($) As=833,33 mm2/m 15M @ D1 11485 15M 864 9923.0 3.48 $ 34 508.84 $ 240mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2A 10600 15M 465 4929.0 3.48 $ 17 141.33 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2B 3650 15M 465 1697.3 3.48 $ 5 902.44 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2E 8865 15M 543 4813.7 3.48 $ 16 740.34 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2F 5390 15M 543 2926.8 3.48 $ 10 178.28 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D5 2735 15M 1086 2970.2 3.48 $ 10 329.34 $ 160mm 27259,965m 94 800.56 $
Bar List for comparatives Configuration of Length Total Length Price Calculated Total Identification Designation Quantity reinforcement (mm) (m) ($/m) Price ($) Afrp=1165 mm2/m No16 @ D1 11485 16 1184 13598,24 2,71 $ 36 851,23 $ 170mm Afrp=1722 mm2/m No16 @ D2A 13655 16 784 10705,52 2,71 $ 29 011,96 $ 115mm Afrp=1722 mm2/m No16 @ D2E 13655 16 784 10705,52 2,71 $ 29 011,96 $ 115mm Afrp=861 mm2/m No16 @ D5 3650 16 784 2861,6 2,71 $ 7 754,94 $ 230mm 37870,88m 102 630,08 $ Bar List for our product. Configuration of Designati Total Length Price Calculated Total Identification Length (mm) Quantity reinforcement on (m) ($/m) Price ($) Afrp=921 mm2/m No16 @ D1 11485 16 928 10658,08 3,23 $ 34 425,60 $ 215mm Afrp=1366 mm2/m No16 @ D2A 13655 16 621 8479,755 3,23 $ 27 389,61 $ 145mm Afrp=1366 mm2/m No16 @ D2E 13655 16 621 8479,755 3,23 $ 27 389,61 $ 145mm Afrp=683 mm2/m No16 @ D5 3650 16 621 2266,65 3,23 $ 7 321,28 $ 290mm 29884,24m 96 526,10 $
INITIAL COST COMPARISON Rebar type Quantity (m) Initial Cost ($) Galvanized steel 27 260 99 226 Epoxy coated steel 27260 94 801 29 884 96 526 Our Product
CASE STUDY • TITLE : COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT DESIGNS SEAWALL SLAB REINFORCEMENT. • COMPARISON OF INITIAL COST.
CASE STUDY • This study aims at comparing design differences for a seawall slab with different types of reinforcement bars. • It uses a slab design we recently worked on as an example. • The ISIS Canada Guidelines as well as the CAN/CSA-S806 Code were used to conduct this design.
RESULTS Bar List of a slab reinforced with Stainless Steel. Total length Price Total per item Configuration ID Length (mm) Designation Qty (m) ($/m) ($) 15M STIRRUPS A 1450 15M 90 130.5 $ 16.89 $ 2 204.15 15M @ 4000mm B 4000 15M 90 360.0 $ 16.89 $ 6 080.40 15M @ 8150mm C 8150 15M 34 277.1 $ 16.89 $ 4 680.22 767.6 m $ 12 964.77 B A C
RESULTS Bar List of a slab reinforced with STANDARD V-ROD. Total length Price Total per item Configuration ID Length (mm) Designation Qty (m) ($/m) ($) $ 2.71 15M STIRRUPS A 1450 16 152 220.4 $ 1 053.36 + bend 15M @ 4000mm B 4000 16 150 600.0 $ 2.71 $ 1 626.00 15M @ 8150mm C 8150 16 76 619.4 $ 2.71 $ 1 678.57 1 439.8m $ 4 357.93 B B C A C A
RESULTS Bar List of a slab reinforced with V-ROD HM. Total length Price Total per item Configuration ID Length (mm) Designation Qty (m) ($/m) ($) $ 2.71 15M STIRRUPS A 1450 16 92 133.4 $ 637.51 + bend 15M @ 4000mm B 4000 16HM 90 360.0 $ 3.23 $ 1 162.80 15M @ 8150mm C 8150 16HM 46 374.9 $ 3.23 $ 1 210.93 868.3m $ 3 011.24 B B C B C A A A C
INITIAL COST COMPARISON Rebar type Quantity (m) Initial Cost ($) Stainless Steel 767.6 12 965 868.3 3 011 V-ROD HM
CONCLUSION CSA CHBDC S806-0 • Codes are available: 2 2000 ISIS ACI 2001 440.1R- • Design guides are available: 01 • Certification of FRP rebar is available (Can & USA). • Competitive solution against corrosion.

More Related Content

Bridge oriented presentation gfrp rebar(price comparison)

  • 1. INTRODUCTION TO FIBERGLASS REBAR TECHNOLOGY
  • 2. OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION TO FRP REBAR • COMPARISON TO OTHER MATERIALS • FEATURES OF FRP REBAR • APPLICATIONS • LIFE CYCLE COST • CASE STUDY
  • 4. FRP Rebar Composition Fibres (Reinforcements) Resins (Polymers) Fillers Additives Fibres – Mechanical strength Resins – Chemical resistance
  • 5. FRP Rebar Composition • Main functions of the Fibres: • Carry load • Provide strength and stiffness 3 2 1
  • 6. FRP Constituents Functions • Main functions of the Resin: • Transfers stresses between fibers • Provides lateral support against buckling • Protects fibers from mechanical and environmental damage – Thermoset Resins are typically used: • Heat cured vinyl ester • Irreversible process • Cannot be deformed upon curing
  • 10. TENSILE STRENGTH X 103 psi 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Steel Pultrusion 70% roving Aluminum
  • 11. DENSITY 8 7 6 5 g/cc 4 3 2 1 0 Steel Aluminum Pultrusion 70% Pultrusion 50% roving mat & roving
  • 12. 4000 Carbon FRP Constraint (MPa) 1250 Glass FRP 400 Steel 40 Concrete Displacement
  • 13. Fatigue Comparison of GFRP, CFRP and STEEL Panels Fatigue under 60 t Load Punching Shear Cycles to Failure Mode Failure 3.5 @ 60 t 3.0 23,162 Crack Width (mm) 2.5 STEEL STEEL 2.0 1.5 GFRP 198,863 1.0 CFRP CFRP 0.5 0.0 420,684 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 GFRP No. of Cycles (Nos.)
  • 14. Composite Rebars Features
  • 15. Key features • Corrosion resistance (Na+, Cl-, Alkalis…) • Electromagnetic Neutrality • Low density (2 g/cm3) • Thermal Conductivity (2.0 BTU/ft2/hr/ºF/in)
  • 16. Key features FRP composites is a great solution to the problems associated with the aging infrastructure of Canada for the following reasons: – Corrosion resistance : • Reduce repair and maintenance cost. • Enhance life duration of a concrete structure. • Help obtain better life cycle cost. – Electromagnetic Neutrality : • Do not bloc radio waves. • Will not interfere with radar waves. • Will ease communications through the structure (mobile phone).
  • 17. Key features • FRP composites is a great solution to the problems associated with the aging infrastructure of Canada for the following reasons: – Low density : • Saves on transportation costs. • Easier and faster construction with less workers and equipment. – Excellent electrical isolation properties : • Resistance to electrochemical corrosion (no galvanic corrosion). • No lost of current through the structure. – Fabrication versatility of FRP allows the geometry, strength, stiffness, and durability characteristics of the member to be tailored for each particular application.
  • 26. APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • PARKING GARAGE.
  • 27. APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • Offshore Loading Quay (St. Lawrence Seaway)
  • 28. APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • Hall’s Harbour (Nova Scotia)
  • 29. APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • Water Desalination Inlet – Saudi Arabia
  • 32. APPLICATIONS - CORROSION • CONRETE HIGHWAY MTL 40 KIRKLAND
  • 33. LIFE CYCLE COST Engineering and evaluation This portion of the presentation is inspired from the study released by Dr. Gordon Spark ,Ph.D. , P.Ing. (University of Saskatchewan) for ISIS Canada. 33
  • 34. Four (4) concepts has been studied Reinforcement Concrete Cover CONCEPT SUP BOTTOM EXTERNAL TYPE THICKNESS SURFACE MEMBRANE ASPHALTE 1 EPOXY EPOXY NONE HP 225mm YES 90mm ASPHALTE 2 MMFX-2 MMFX-2 NONE HP 225mm YES 90mm ASPHALTE GFRP EPOXY STRAP HP 225mm YES 3 90mm HIGH DENSITY 4 GFRP GFRP STRAP HP 200mm NO CONCRET E 50mm 34 HP = Haute Performance
  • 35. COMPARAISON OF THE INITIAL COST GFRP CONCEPT IS APPROXIMATELY 0 to 10 % HIGHER 2005 1400 1360 1350 1315 1300 1258 1250 1216 1200 1150 1100 1. Époxy sur 2. MMFX sur 3. Époxy sur 4. GFRP sur Époxy MMFX piliers/GFRP piliers/GFRP PW Cost ($'000) 35
  • 36. COMPARAISON OF THE MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION COST GFRP SOLUTION IS 45 TO 60% LOWER IN COST 1200 1169 1193 1000 891 800 600 493 400 200 0 1. Époxy sur 2. MMFX sur 3. Époxy sur 4. GFRP sur Époxy MMFX piliers/GFRP piliers/GFRP PW Cost ($'000) 36
  • 37. ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE UNCERTAINTY RELATED TO THE USE OF THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS: THE CONCEPT USING GFRP MAKE OWNERS SAVE UP TO 30% COMPARE TO EPOXY. Distribution des coûts de cycle de vie utile 3000 2685 2515 2500 2222 PW Cost ($'000) 2000 1773 1500 1000 500 0 1. Époxy sur 2. MMFX sur 3. Époxy sur 4. GFRP sur Époxy MMFX piliers/GFRP piliers/GFRP 37
  • 38. CASE STUDY • TITLE : COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT HIGHWAY BRIDGEDECK REINFORCEMENT DESIGNS. • COMPARISON OF INITIAL COST.
  • 39. CASE STUDY • There is considerable differences in mechanical properties of different FRP rebar mainly in their modulus of elasticity. • Could these differences in the GFRP mechanical properties affect the design of concrete deck slabs? • Could the design of concrete bridge deck slabs using GFRP bars with superior mechanical properties result in reducing the required reinforcement consequently saving the cost. • How these design compare to designs made with other so called corrosive resistant material ; galvanized steel and epoxy coated steel.
  • 40. CASE STUDY • This study aims to answer these questions by designing a typical slab-on-girder concrete bridge deck using four different types of reinforcement bars with different mechanical properties. • One recently constructed concrete bridge deck reinforced with FRP bars (Melbourne Bridge) is taken as an example in the design. • The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CHBDC (CAN/CSA-S6-00, 2000) and the updated version were used to conduct this design (New Code, CHBDC 2005).
  • 41. CASE STUDY • The bridge is a girder type consisting of four prestressed concrete girders (Type NETB) continuously supported over three spans with a total length of 89.420 m. • The deck is a 200-mm thickness concrete slab. • The deck has overhangs of 1.52 m on each side. A B C D 14.00 m 2% 2% 200 mm 1.72 m 3.52 m 3.52 m 3.52 m 1.72 m
  • 42. RESULTS Bar List for Galvanized Steel. Configuration of Quantit Total Price Calculated Total Identification Length (mm) Designation reinforcement y Length (m) ($/m) Price ($) As=833,33 mm2/m 15M D1 11485 15M 864 9923,0 3,64 $ 36 119,87 $ @ 240mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2A 10600 15M 465 4929,0 3,64 $ 17 941,56 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2B 3650 15M 465 1697,3 3,64 $ 6 177,99 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2E 8865 15M 543 4813,7 3,64 $ 17 521,85 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D2F 5390 15M 543 2926,8 3,64 $ 10 653,44 $ @ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M D5 2735 15M 1086 2970,2 3,64 $ 10 811,56 $ @ 160mm 27259,965m 99 226,27 $
  • 43. RESULTS Bar List for Epoxy coated steel. Configuration of Length Total Length Price Calculated Total Identification Designation Quantity reinforcement (mm) (m) ($/m) Price ($) As=833,33 mm2/m 15M @ D1 11485 15M 864 9923.0 3.48 $ 34 508.84 $ 240mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2A 10600 15M 465 4929.0 3.48 $ 17 141.33 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2B 3650 15M 465 1697.3 3.48 $ 5 902.44 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2E 8865 15M 543 4813.7 3.48 $ 16 740.34 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D2F 5390 15M 543 2926.8 3.48 $ 10 178.28 $ 160mm As=1250 mm2/m 15M @ D5 2735 15M 1086 2970.2 3.48 $ 10 329.34 $ 160mm 27259,965m 94 800.56 $
  • 44. Bar List for comparatives Configuration of Length Total Length Price Calculated Total Identification Designation Quantity reinforcement (mm) (m) ($/m) Price ($) Afrp=1165 mm2/m No16 @ D1 11485 16 1184 13598,24 2,71 $ 36 851,23 $ 170mm Afrp=1722 mm2/m No16 @ D2A 13655 16 784 10705,52 2,71 $ 29 011,96 $ 115mm Afrp=1722 mm2/m No16 @ D2E 13655 16 784 10705,52 2,71 $ 29 011,96 $ 115mm Afrp=861 mm2/m No16 @ D5 3650 16 784 2861,6 2,71 $ 7 754,94 $ 230mm 37870,88m 102 630,08 $ Bar List for our product. Configuration of Designati Total Length Price Calculated Total Identification Length (mm) Quantity reinforcement on (m) ($/m) Price ($) Afrp=921 mm2/m No16 @ D1 11485 16 928 10658,08 3,23 $ 34 425,60 $ 215mm Afrp=1366 mm2/m No16 @ D2A 13655 16 621 8479,755 3,23 $ 27 389,61 $ 145mm Afrp=1366 mm2/m No16 @ D2E 13655 16 621 8479,755 3,23 $ 27 389,61 $ 145mm Afrp=683 mm2/m No16 @ D5 3650 16 621 2266,65 3,23 $ 7 321,28 $ 290mm 29884,24m 96 526,10 $
  • 45. INITIAL COST COMPARISON Rebar type Quantity (m) Initial Cost ($) Galvanized steel 27 260 99 226 Epoxy coated steel 27260 94 801 29 884 96 526 Our Product
  • 46. CASE STUDY • TITLE : COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT DESIGNS SEAWALL SLAB REINFORCEMENT. • COMPARISON OF INITIAL COST.
  • 47. CASE STUDY • This study aims at comparing design differences for a seawall slab with different types of reinforcement bars. • It uses a slab design we recently worked on as an example. • The ISIS Canada Guidelines as well as the CAN/CSA-S806 Code were used to conduct this design.
  • 48. RESULTS Bar List of a slab reinforced with Stainless Steel. Total length Price Total per item Configuration ID Length (mm) Designation Qty (m) ($/m) ($) 15M STIRRUPS A 1450 15M 90 130.5 $ 16.89 $ 2 204.15 15M @ 4000mm B 4000 15M 90 360.0 $ 16.89 $ 6 080.40 15M @ 8150mm C 8150 15M 34 277.1 $ 16.89 $ 4 680.22 767.6 m $ 12 964.77 B A C
  • 49. RESULTS Bar List of a slab reinforced with STANDARD V-ROD. Total length Price Total per item Configuration ID Length (mm) Designation Qty (m) ($/m) ($) $ 2.71 15M STIRRUPS A 1450 16 152 220.4 $ 1 053.36 + bend 15M @ 4000mm B 4000 16 150 600.0 $ 2.71 $ 1 626.00 15M @ 8150mm C 8150 16 76 619.4 $ 2.71 $ 1 678.57 1 439.8m $ 4 357.93 B B C A C A
  • 50. RESULTS Bar List of a slab reinforced with V-ROD HM. Total length Price Total per item Configuration ID Length (mm) Designation Qty (m) ($/m) ($) $ 2.71 15M STIRRUPS A 1450 16 92 133.4 $ 637.51 + bend 15M @ 4000mm B 4000 16HM 90 360.0 $ 3.23 $ 1 162.80 15M @ 8150mm C 8150 16HM 46 374.9 $ 3.23 $ 1 210.93 868.3m $ 3 011.24 B B C B C A A A C
  • 51. INITIAL COST COMPARISON Rebar type Quantity (m) Initial Cost ($) Stainless Steel 767.6 12 965 868.3 3 011 V-ROD HM
  • 52. CONCLUSION CSA CHBDC S806-0 • Codes are available: 2 2000 ISIS ACI 2001 440.1R- • Design guides are available: 01 • Certification of FRP rebar is available (Can & USA). • Competitive solution against corrosion.