applied

sciences
Review
Making a Case for Hybrid GFRP-Steel Reinforcement System
in Concrete Beams: An Overview
Rajeev Devaraj * , Ayodele Olofinjana and Christophe Gerber

School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Dr,
Sippy Downs, QLD 4556, Australia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Ageing concrete infrastructures are known to be facing deterioration, especially regarding
the corrosion of their reinforcing steel. As a solution, glass fibre-reinforced plastic (GFRP) bars are
now considered a reinforcement alternative to conventional steel, and design codes now exist for
designing GFRP-RC structures. However, there is a need to improve on addressing the limited plastic
yield in GFRPs. Consequently, it is suggested that a hybrid steel–GFRP RC system can enhance
the mechanical performance of flexure beams up to the required standard and, at the same time,
address the durability concerns of steel-only RC beams. This overview presents the studies conducted
to enhance the performance of hybrid GFRP–steel RC beams by reviewing the analytical models
proposed to improve the various aspects of reinforcement design. The models consider mechanical
effects such as ductility, crack width, flexure and shear, and the physical effects such as thermal
stability when exposed to the temperature. Though the evidence reviewed supports the viability of
the hybrid GFRP–steel reinforcing system to address ductility, much is still required in the area of
research, as highlighted in the future outlook.

Keywords: glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP); hybrid GFRP-steel reinforcement; concrete beams;
ductility; flexural design

Citation: Devaraj, R.; Olofinjana, A.;

Gerber, C. Making a Case for Hybrid
GFRP-Steel Reinforcement System in
1. Introduction
Concrete Beams: An Overview. Appl. The durability of a reinforced concrete (RC) structure is associated with many factors [1–4],
Sci. 2023, 13, 1463. https://doi.org/ and most of them are related to the corrosion of steel reinforcement bars. This is a general
10.3390/app13031463 problem that can affect the integrity of assets built to last for extended service life periods.
Academic Editors: Alexey
Studies on the durability of steel embedded in concrete structures now generate a lot of
Beskopylny, Anatoly Lavrentyev,
interest, as exemplified in recent publications [5–10]. Numerous structures have been
Evgenii Shcherban and Sergei examined for their structural integrities, and corrosion is identified as a significant threat
Stel’makh affecting these assets’ durability [11–14].
Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars as an alternative to steel reinforcement in
Received: 21 December 2022 concrete structures have been receiving increased attention over the past two decades [15–19].
Revised: 18 January 2023
Due to its inherent corrosion resistance, GFRP has gained a reputation [20–22] as an alter-
Accepted: 18 January 2023
native to steel in RCs to meet the requirements of durability in aggressive environments.
Published: 22 January 2023
GFRP is known to exhibit high tensile strength, typically about 1100 MPa, compared to
steel, generally considered to be about 400 MPa. However, GFRP is not known to exhibit
the classic plastic yielding known in steel before failing. Concrete structures reinforced
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
with GFRPs may show little evidence of overload–cracking–development and excessive
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. deformation until beyond their ultimate limit state due to the lack of plasticity in the
This article is an open access article reinforcement elements [23–25]. The established design philosophy in RC structures relied
distributed under the terms and on steel reinforcement to provide sufficient ductility to prevent concrete elements from
conditions of the Creative Commons unpredictable failure by leveraging on the elastic deformation and the plasticity of steel. On
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the other hand, the lower elasticity of GFRP allows for larger elastic deformation but offers
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ no protection from brittle failure. The limited intrinsic ductility in GFRP leads to designing
4.0/). flexure beams with over-reinforced character and conservative safety coefficients.

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031463 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 2 of 22

Though the latest design standards, such as ACI-440.11-22 put forward methods to
design GFRP-only reinforced structures, the lack of discernible plasticity in GFRP itself
remains a concern on the suitability of GFRP rebars as a complete replacement for the
steel rebars in concrete. The designers’ reticence to specify over-reinforced structures
still places steel as favourable to GFRP [26–28]. Hybrid reinforcement concepts of GFRP
and steel reinforcement where steel confers ductility and GFRP provide strength is the
concept being proposed [29–31] to address the possibility of brittle failures in RCs with
complete replacement of steel with GFRP. In this arrangement, GFRP takes the primary
reinforcement role and governs the ultimate state whilst the steel reinforcement controls
the failure mode [32–38]. Furthermore, the steel bars are located more interiorly in the RC
element to ensure sufficient concrete cover protection without increasing the total depth of
the beam whilst sufficiently governing the required ductile failure mode.
Although the hybrid GFRP–steel RC beams have many advantages, their reinforce-
ment arrangements must be optimal to leverage strength and ductility. Their structural
behaviour also needs to be understood to achieve a safe and accurate design for construc-
tion. Thus, many investigations [39–43] have considered the various aspects of hybrid
GFRP-steel RC beams and proposed different design models to identify optimal rein-
forcement arrangements. This paper reviews the related analytical models that assess the
behaviour of hybrid beams under various mechanical and physical effects. The review
outlines the challenges and the need for further research for the safe and reliable application
of hybrid GFRP–steel RC beams.

2. Background
2.1. Steel Deterioration in RC Beams
Corrosion of steel reinforcement in concrete structures can lead to reduced structural
integrity and service life. When steel reinforcement corrodes, it expands and can cause
the concrete to crack and spall, leading to a loss of bond between the steel and concrete.
This can result in reduced load-carrying capacity and increased risk of structural failure.
The corrosion process of steel in concrete structures is facilitated by the presence of water
and oxygen, as well as chloride ion contamination, which can come from sources such as
seawater or de-icing salts. As the steel corrodes, the volume expansion accompanying the
chemical products pushes on the surrounding concrete, leading to the formation of cracks
and voids in the concrete cover. This can expose the steel to further corrosion, leading to a
vicious cycle of deterioration.
Concrete, on its own, because of its intrinsic mechanical property, is susceptible to
cracking and is also a permeable material. The combination of intrinsic porosity and cracks
through capillary action provides pathways for electrolytes to reach the embedded steel
reinforcement in a concrete body. In a favourable atmospheric condition, dissolved ions of
chlorides (Cl− ) or carbonates (CO3− ) provide the electrolytic potential for corrosion [44–47].
Concrete carbonation and the infiltration of chloride ions cause changes in the pore solution
of concrete, present within the pores or voids in the material. Such conditions would aid the
galvanic mechanism responsible for the corrosive attack on steel reinforcements, leading to
significant corrosion damage. Additionally, carbonation results in acidification due to the
penetration of atmospheric CO2 , and the presence of chloride ions can cause steel corrosion
through pitting. Figure 1 presents the schematic illustration of the corrodent transport
in RCs [48]. The diffusive travel of corrodents is resisted by the concrete cover, typically
taken to be 30–50 mm. In several studies [49–54], corrosion damage has been reported to
be responsible for the reductions in service life and the ultimate capability of RC structures.
ppl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 3 of 22

1.Schematic
Figure 1.
Figure Schematic illustration of corrosion
illustration attack path attack
of corrosion in RC [48].
pathReproduced with permission
in RC [48]. Reproduced wi
from Elsevier 2023.
from Elsevier 2023.
2.2. Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP) as Alternative Reinforcement in RC Beams
Consequently,
The established corrosionthe construction
protection methods, industry,
such as seeking solutions
epoxy-coating, galvanicto this durabi
coating,
and anodic protection that are currently used in the industry only act as temporary solutions
inand
steel RCs, has been considering methods for the corrosion protection of
sometimes can be expensive and impractical. A more durable approach may be to
ments.
use FibreAnother
Reinforced solution
Polymeris the instead
(FRP) complete replacement
of steel. of steel
The earliest use of FRPbars with corros
composite
alternatives. This is where research on what role fibre-reinforced plastic
materials in the construction industry dates back to the 1970s when they were used to (FRP
rehabilitate a bridge girder in Japan [55]. It was followed by many rehabilitations as well as
can play as a more durable solution becomes pertinent. FRP bars are non-con
projects where FRP bars in RC structures were successfully implemented [56–58]. Several
do not [59–61]
studies corrode, makinginthem
are currently progress suitable
to furtherforthe use in corrosive
development environments
of FRP applications in suc
orRCcoastal structures.
beams. These They
studies focus on also havetheautilisation
advancing higher tensile
of FRP forstrength-to-weight
retrofitting and new rati
build purposes.
making them an attractive option for use in lightweight structures. Additiona
The early use of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) demonstrated its potential
have a lower
and became coefficient
prevalent of thermal
in the retrofitting expansion
industry [62,63]. Thethan steel,
success which
fuelled can help
the demand for to re
of thermally induced cracking in concrete structures.
CFRP, but due to the limited supply, the commercial price of CFRPs increased substantially.
As a result, its use in a large volume was no longer economically feasible. The strength
of carbon fibres and other engineering fibres for FRPs are shown in Figure 2. The high
2.2. FibreofReinforced
strength carbon fibresPolymers
as depicted (FRP)
in Figureas2 made
Alternative Reinforcement
it the material in RC
of choice in FRP Beams
design
for structural applications,corrosion
The established and CFRP isprotection
generally a highly
methods,valuedsuch
engineering composite.
as epoxy-coating, g
However, the relatively high price of carbon fibres (Figure 2) compared to the other types
ing, and anodic
of engineering fibresprotection
for FRP madethat CFRPare too currently usedasina construction
costly to be viable the industry only act a
material.
solutions
Figure 2 showsandthe sometimes
relative costs can be expensive
of engineering fibres and impractical.
and thus indicates that ACFPRs
morecould
durable ap
bebeto
10 use
to 30 Fibre
times more expensive than
Reinforced PolymerGFRPs (FRP)
another instead
lower-priced of fibres
steel.with
The comparative
earliest use of
tensile strength.
site materials
Apart fromin the construction
carbon fibres, alternative industry
FRPs aredates backglass-
made from to the 1970saramid-
(GFRP), when they
rehabilitate
(AFRP), and basalta bridge
(BFRP)girder in Japan
fibres. The composite [55]. It was
property followed
of FRP by many
is inherently rehabilita
dependent
on the intrinsic properties of the reinforcing fibres. The
as projects where FRP bars in RC structures were successfully implemented primary mechanical properties of
strength and modulus versus density are shown in Figures 3 and 4. It is shown that Aramid
eral studies
(Kevlar) fibres[59–61]
have the bestaretensile
currently
strength intoprogress
the densityto further
ratio and show thegooddevelopment
resistance of F
tions
to mostin types
RC beams. These
of chemicals. studiesthey
However, focus on advancing
are sensitive to humiditytheandutilisation of FRP fo
UV light and
and new build purposes.
The early use of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) demonstrat
tial and became prevalent in the retrofitting industry [62,63]. The success fu
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 4 of 22

Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 degrade when exposed to several acids and alkalis [64]. Their highly variable value of 4 of 2
Young’s modulus (Figure 4) made it not suitable for FRP in construction materials. Basalt
fibres, manufactured by melting weathered volcanic lava, are characterised by high strength
and high values of Young’s modulus and have the highest thermal resistance amongst
the engineering ◦
that CFPRs could befibres,
10 towith a melting
30 times temperature
more expensive of 1450
thanC. On theanother
GFRPs other hand, basalt
lower-priced f
fibres are more vulnerable to alkaline effects and are rarely used in practical engineering
bres with comparative tensile strength.
FRPs [65].

Figure 2. Tensile Strength versus Price (Generated by CES EduPack, 2015).

Apart from carbon fibres, alternative FRPs are made from glass- (GFRP), aramid-
(AFRP), and basalt (BFRP) fibres. The composite property of FRP is inherently dependent
on the intrinsic properties of the reinforcing fibres. The primary mechanical properties of
strength and modulus versus density are shown in Figures 3 and 4. It is shown that Ara-
mid (Kevlar) fibres have the best tensile strength to the density ratio and show good re-
sistance to most types of chemicals. However, they are sensitive to humidity and UV light
and degrade when exposed to several acids and alkalis [64]. Their highly variable value
of Young’s modulus (Figure 4) made it not suitable for FRP in construction materials. Bas-
alt fibres, manufactured by melting weathered volcanic lava, are characterised by high
strength and high values of Young’s modulus and have the highest thermal resistance
amongst the engineering fibres, with a melting temperature of 1450 °C. On the other hand,
basalt fibres are more vulnerable to alkaline effects and are rarely used in practical engi-
neering FRPs [65].
Figure Figure 2. Tensile
2. Tensile Strength
Strength versusPrice
versus Price (Generated
(Generated byby
CES EduPack,
CES 2015).2015).
EduPack,

Apart from carbon fibres, alternative FRPs are made from glass- (GFRP), aramid
(AFRP), and basalt (BFRP) fibres. The composite property of FRP is inherently dependen
on the intrinsic properties of the reinforcing fibres. The primary mechanical properties o
strength and modulus versus density are shown in Figures 3 and 4. It is shown that Ara
mid (Kevlar) fibres have the best tensile strength to the density ratio and show good re
sistance to most types of chemicals. However, they are sensitive to humidity and UV ligh
and degrade when exposed to several acids and alkalis [64]. Their highly variable valu
of Young’s modulus (Figure 4) made it not suitable for FRP in construction materials. Bas
alt fibres, manufactured by melting weathered volcanic lava, are characterised by hig
strength and high values of Young’s modulus and have the highest thermal resistanc
amongst the engineering fibres, with a melting temperature of 1450 °C. On the other hand
basalt fibres are more vulnerable to alkaline effects and are rarely used in practical eng
neering FRPs [65].

Figure 3. Tensile strength versus density (Generated by CES EduPack, 2015).

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 5 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 5 of 22

Figure 3. Tensile strength versus density (Generated by CES EduPack, 2015).

Figure 4. Young’s Modulus vs. Density (Generated by CES EduPack, 2015).

FigureGlass
4. Young’s
fibresModulus vs.strength
with high Density (Generated
and modest byYoung’s
CES EduPack, 2015).
modulus are the most commonly
used fibres for commercial construction amongst the FRP family. They can be produced
Glass
cheaply fibres
and are with high strength
applicable and modest
in engineering Young’swhere
applications modulus the are
highthe most commonly
stiffness of carbon
used
fibres is not required [66]. Therefore, applying GFRP bars in constructionbeisproduced
fibres for commercial construction amongst the FRP family. They can the most
cheaply and are
economically applicable
feasible. in engineering
It is now applications
receiving more attentionwhere the high astiffness
as it represents of carbon
viable alternative
fibres
to steelisreinforcement
not required [66]. Therefore,
in order applying
to address GFRP bars durability
corrosion-related in construction
issuesisinthe most eco-
conventional
nomically feasible. It
concrete structures is now receiving more attention as it represents a viable alternative
[67].
to steel reinforcement
Table in order of
1 gives an overview to the
address corrosion-related
market’s performance and durability issues
appraisal in commer-
of the conven-
tional concrete structures [67].
cially available FRPs (GFRP, CFRP and BFRP) variants.
Table
Several 1 gives an overview
studies [68–72] have of the market’s
been performance
conducted to studyand theappraisal
durabilityofof the commer-
GFRP bars
cially
in harshavailable FRPs (GFRP,
conditions. CFRP and
It is generally BFRP) variants.
observed that the durability mechanism of GFRP is
largely based on resin hydrolysis, fibre degradation, and interfacial bonding behaviour
after exposure to hygrothermal conditions and fatigue regimes. This clearly highlight the
importance of materials design for GFRP to using materials that can withstand such envi-
ronmental degradative actions by choice and design of resin mixes. Other works [68–71]
suggested that using nano-composite and E-glasses advantages the durability of GFRP
in harsh environments. Additionally, some studies [72,73] recommended carbon/glass
fibre-reinforced polymer hybrid (HFRP) in critical applications such as oil wells and bridges
to address these durability issues. However, while there may be concerns about the limita-
tions of GFRPs on their long-term durability, there are pieces of evidence presented [74–76]
that has highlighted GFRP advantages over steel rebars in tackling durability concerns in
RC structures.
Though GFRP only shows half the compression strength of steel, it is not a dis-
advantage since reinforcements are meant to take tensile loads, and for that reason, its
functionality as a reinforcing element is enabled by its proven tensile strength [77]. How-
ever, to achieve similar elastic-plastic behaviour of steel RC systems, some studies [78–80]
experimented with combinations of different types of FRP reinforcements. Although such
combinations gave good results in laboratory tests and in computer simulations, the high
initial cost restricts the use of non-GFRP composites in commercial applications [81].
The ratio of post-yield deformation to yield deformation characteristics favours the
steel to govern the ductility in RC structures [82]. A series of investigations have identified
that ductile response of steel can effectively be initiated in concrete beams with hybrid
GFRP–steel reinforcements [83–87], therefore achieving enhanced ductility compared to
GFRP-only RC beams. Current design standards, such as those of the American Concrete
Institute [88] allow hybrid GFRP-steel solutions in large-scale concrete works. Though there
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 6 of 22

is convincing evidence on the workability of hybrid GFRP–steel RCs, the research works
are moderately limited. There is still a need to understand more about their structural
response and how they could be optimised. This paper reviews the literature on hybrid
GFRP–steel reinforcement systems and provides an outlook for future research.

Table 1. Overview of FRP variants.

Tensile Strength Compressive Young’s Modulus

Advantages Disadvantages
(MPa) Strength (MPa) (GPa)
- High tensile strength compared
to steel reinforcement
- Corrosion resistance
-Lower strength
- Can be easily cut and shape
GFRP 600–1100 100–400 45–80 compared to CFRP
- Low cost
and BFRP
- Can be used in wet and dry
conditions
- Non-conductive
-Very high tensile strength
-High strength-to-weight ratio
-Higher cost
CFRP 1500–4000 600–200 120–400 -Corrosion resistant
compared to GFRP
-Good fatigue resistance
-Non-conductive
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 7 of 23
-Lower availability
-High tensile strength
and higher cost
-High strength-to-weight ratio
BFRP 1000–3000 400–1500 70–200 compared to GFRP
-Corrosion resistant
structural response and how they could be optimised. This paper reviews the literature
-Potential for
-Non-conductive
delamination
on hybrid GFRP–steel reinforcement systems and provides an outlook for future research.

3. Analytical Models for Hybrid GFRP-Steel Reinforced Beams

3. Analytical Models for Hybrid GFRP-Steel Reinforced Beams
3.1. Models
3.1. ModelsConsidering
Considering Mechanical
Mechanical Effects
Effects
3.1.1.
3.1.1.Ductility Analysis
Ductility Analysis
Ductility refers
Ductility to to
refers thethe
ability of aofmaterial
ability to endure
a material loads
to endure whilst
loads experiencing
whilst signif-
experiencing signifi-
icant
cantstrain
strainbefore
beforefailure. Figure
failure. Figure5 compares
5 compares thethe
idealised ductile
idealised behaviour
ductile of GFRP
behaviour and and
of GFRP
steel
steelreinforcements
reinforcements [89]. Ductile
[89]. Ductileresponses
responsesareare
a significant aspect
a significant of the
aspect of performance of of
the performance
GFRP-steel
GFRP-steel hybrid
hybridbeams
beams [90,91], where
[90,91], wherethethe
implementation
implementation of hybrid concepts
of hybrid aimsaims
concepts to to
achieve
achieve enhanced
enhanced ductility of of
ductility flexural
flexuralbeams [92,93].
beams [92,93].

Figure 5. Tensile behaviour of steel compared to FRP (A) Steel, (B) Basalt FRP, (C) Basalt FRP,
Figure 5. Tensile behaviour of steel compared to FRP (A) Steel, (B) Basalt FRP, (C) Basalt FRP, (D)
(D) Glass FRP, (E) Basalt FRP [89]. Reproduced with permission from Springer Nature 2023.
Glass FRP, (E) Basalt FRP [89]. Reproduced with permission from Springer Nature 2023.

The objectives of the studies conducted in this area are framed to provide evidence
that the hybrid application of steel and GFRP can significantly improve their ductility
performance compared to the GFRP-only reinforcement [94,95]. Such outcomes led to fur-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 7 of 22

The objectives of the studies conducted in this area are framed to provide evidence
that the hybrid application of steel and GFRP can significantly improve their ductility
performance compared to the GFRP-only reinforcement [94,95]. Such outcomes led to
further investigations on the requirement for ductility models applicable to make the hybrid
reinforcement design safer and more efficient. However, conventional ductility concepts
cannot be suitably applied to hybrid systems without modifications [96]. Traditional
ductility models are described on the foundational concepts of cracking, yielding, and
ultimate points. The current ductility indices are derived from stress–strain information of
steel between yielding and ultimate stress where there is significant plastic deformation. For
GFRP RC, the ductility indices become complex since the stiffness of GFRPs is considerably
lower than that of steel and also because it does not exhibit the characteristic yielding at
ultimate stress that is accompanied by large plasticity as the case in steel.
Conventional ductility indices and concepts are arguably not valid for beams with
GFRP reinforcements [91,97–99]. Though design codes now exist for designing GFRP
RCs, there is a need to develop a more reliable design approach that would consider the
complexity of defining the ductility of hybrid GFRP-Steel RCs [100].
Different parameters related to deformation are generally used to express the ductility
indices, include displacements, curvatures, and rotations. However, such approaches are
unsuitable for GFRPs as they do not incorporate indices related to the primary characteris-
tics and behaviour of GFRPs. New parameters are proposed to quantify the ductility of
concrete beams reinforced with hybrid GFRP-steel bars [99]. Two major approaches are
considered in developing updated equations [101,102]:
deformation-based, which relies on equivalent deformability factor µM , and
energy-based where the factor µen defines the ductility as energy absorbing capacity.
Based on these concepts, these approaches were considered in the development of
analytical models that express the ductility of hybrid GFRP–steel reinforced concrete beams.
Taking the energy approach, Grace et al. [97] propose Equation (1) that expresses
ductility as the ratio of the total energy to the elastic energy at the failure state of a beam.
This approach utilises the elastic energy (Eela ) prior to failure. The total energy (Etot ) is
taken as the area under the moment–curvature or load–deflection curve and Eela as the
elastic energy. The ductility index µen was expressed as [97]:
 
Etot
µen = 0.5 +1 (1)
Eela

A new term “deformability” has been defined in Equation (2) [103]. It is intended
to be used as a replacement of the conventional term ductility in design equations. This
approach proposes an equivalent deformability factor as the ratio of the beam’s equivalent
deformation (∆t ) of the uncracked section to the actual deformation (∆u ) observed at the
ultimate state of the section. This model gives a µ value that is three times larger than the
value given by the conventional ductility index:

∆u
µ= (2)
∆t

A different approach to defining ductility in GFRP-RCs includes the consideration

of strains at curvature. This model, proposed by Mufti et al. [104] was developed based
on the failure of concrete crushing. As shown in Equation (3), it is an expression of the
product of the ratio of curvature at ultimate state to the curvature when a strain of 0.001 is
exhibited at the extreme compression edge of the RC section, i.e., εc = 0.001, and the ratio of
the ultimate moment to that of the corresponding moment at εc = 0.001.
  
ϕu Mu
µm = (3)
ϕ0.001 M0.001
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 8 of 22

where ϕu is the curvature at ultimate state; ϕ0.001 corresponds to the curvature when
εc = 0.001; Mu is the ultimate moment; and M0.001 corresponds to the moment at εc = 0.001.
A comprehensive performance factor J, combining deformability and strength, can
be defined by the ratio of two energy quantities associated with the ultimate limit state
condition and the proportional limit of the extreme compression zone [105] of the RC
section. J must be a minimum of 4.0 for rectangular sections and at least 6.0 for T-sections,
noting these design criteria have been included in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Codes [106]. The J-factor is expressed as [105]:

Mult Ψult
 
J= (4)
Mc Ψ c

where Mult expresses the ultimate moment capacity of the section; Mc is the moment at
εc = 0.001; Ψult is the curvature at Mult and Ψc is the curvature at Mc .
The overall deformability factor Z considers the cracking behaviour in the ductility
model. As expressed in Equation (5) [99], the effect of cracking is accounted for with
the ratios of deflections at ultimate state and cracking initiation and of the ultimate and
cracking moment of the RC section. The equation considers the products of both ratios.

∆u
  
Mu
Z= (5)
∆cr Mcr

where ∆u is the deflection at ultimate; ∆α corresponds to the deflection at cracking initiation;

Mcr corresponds to the cracking moment and Mu is the ultimate moment.
Lau and Pam [83], in experimentation with hybrid GFRP–steel RC, have partially
introduced the conventional term of ductility index. In this approach, they redefined the
term yield point (∆y ), which refers to the nonlinear point of the beam’s load–deflection
curve. Lau and Pam [83] employed a new term µ as a dimensionless parameter given as:

∆u
µ= (6)
∆y

where ∆u and ∆y are the midspan deflection at ultimate state and linear limit respectively.
A meaningful comparison among hybrid RC beams and other GFRP or steel-only rein-
forcements is made possible by Equation (7) developed by Pang et al. [101]. In this concept,
the effective reinforcement area of GFRP will be converted into equivalent steel. The pro-
posed ductility index µh is designed to satisfy the ductility requirements for conventional
steel-reinforced concrete members.
ΨDuh
µh = ≥ [µ D ] (7)
Dyh

UH
Ψ= ≤ 1.0
US
where UH expresses the area under the moment-curvature curve of the beam; Us represents
the area under the moment–curvature of the equivalent steel–RC beam; Duh is the ultimate
deformation of the beam; Dyh is the deformation of the beam at the beginning of steel
yielding; Ψ expresses the ductility reduction factor; and µD is the ductility requirements
based on the conventional indices.
Although the approaches proposed by these studies were able to compute the ductility
of the hybrid RC components, none of them addressed the ductility activation phenomenon.
Such information may be useful for understanding the behaviour of both the GFRP and
steel reinforcements while designing flexural beams. A ductility model that clarifies the
ductility activation phenomenon of the inner steel bar may be helpful information in
developing a comprehensive design model for hybrid GFRP–steel RC systems.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 9 of 22

3.1.2. Crack Width Analysis

The concrete structural elements are expected to develop cracks under service loads
due to the concrete’s inherent low tensile strength. As such, crack width calculation is
one of the serviceability requirements of all structural concrete elements. The crack width
evaluations are developed based on the durability of steel-reinforced concrete structures.
Steel reinforcements embedded in the concrete structure are vulnerable to permeating elec-
trolytes, and the crack networks are potential pathways to breach the barrier for transport-
ing corroding agents [107]. Therefore, these crack limitation considerations are traditionally
developed with a focus on steel-only RC elements.
With GFRP-only reinforced beams, there is no risk of corrosion. The Japan Society
of Civil Engineers [108] therefore proposed disregarding the crack width limitations in
the GFRP reinforced structural elements. On the other hand, building standards such
as ACI [109] advocate guidelines to crack control in GFRP-reinforced structures. Models
that give consideration to crack development may be more suited for hybrid GFRP–steel
reinforcements because of the presence of steel bars that requires protection from corrosion.
In other words, determining the width and development of cracks in hybrid GFRP–steel
RCs is critical to avoiding corrosion damage and ensuring their durability.
The design recommendation by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) [110] gives limitations for crack width (w) as:

2 dc f f s ξ
w= (8)
Cb E f

Equation (8) establishes the crack limit is the product of the bond (reduction factor)
(Cb ) between GFRP reinforcing bars and surrounding concrete, the thickness of the concrete
cover (dc ), the tensile modulus of the GFRP bar (Ef ), the ratio of the distance from the
neutral axis to extreme tensile zone (ξ), and calculated tensile stress in GFRP (ffs ). Other
design standards such as ACI and CSA also give limitations similar to AASHTO, but these
guidelines did not include the crack width limitations for hybrid systems.
The bond coefficient significantly influences and impacts on the accuracy of crack
width predictions put forward by the design standards. Hence, researchers [110,111]
developed predictive models that consider both GFRP and steel bars while designing
hybrid RC elements.
Equation (9) provided by ACI-440.1R-06 [112,113] gives the maximum crack width
limit in GFRP-reinforced concrete beams. Where σ f represents reinforcement stress, E f
represents the modulus of elasticity rebar, dc is the distance from the tension face to the
centre of the closest bar, and is the bar spacing. It also recommends kb as the bond coefficient
that is primarily taken as 1.40 for GFRP-reinforced beams.
r  s 2
σf
w=2 βk b d2c + (9)
Ef 2

Experimental studies by Refai et al. [111] suggested the expression given in Equation (10)
to estimate the bond coefficient, kb, for the hybrid GFRP–steel reinforced beams. It is evident
from the work of Refai et al. [111] that kb depends on the area ratio of GFRP (A f ) to that of
steel (As ) and is given as:
1
Af 5

k b = 1.4α (10)
As
where α accounts for the size effect of GFRP bars on the embedded concrete interface, Af
and As are the areas of GFRP and steel reinforcements, respectively.

3.1.3. Flexure Modelling

Flexural strength is the intensity of force acting perpendicular to its longitudinal axis a
beam can resist without ultimate failure. RC beams experience flexure and encounters dif-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 10 of 22

ferent stress stages with the assumption of tensile-governed failure [114]. Implementation
of GFRP reinforcement exclusively may result in beams exhibiting reduced flexural strength
and brittle failure mode [23]. Hybrid GFRP–steel reinforcement systems are proposed to
overcome these downsides [33]. In such hybrid systems, the characteristic plasticity of the
steel contributes to the ductility of the RC beam, and the high tensile strength of the GFRP
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 11 of 23
defines its ultimate load-bearing capacity [115]. Figure 6 depicts the moment-curvature
(M − ϕ) curves of various flexural members with equivalent reinforcement areas [101].

Figure 6. Moment–curvature for beams with different reinforcement systems [101]. Reproduced with
Figure 6. Moment–curvature for beams with different reinforcement systems [101]. Reproduced
permission from ASCE 2023.
with permission from ASCE 2023.
Experimental studies on the flexure modelling of hybrid GFRP-steel RC beams are
Experimental studies on the flexure modelling of hybrid GFRP-steel RC beams are
summarised in Table 2. It is seen that nearly all the beams tested failed due to steel yielding
summarised in Table 2. It is seen that nearly all the beams tested failed due to steel yield-
and concrete crushing. The investigations presented in Table 2, however, show the progress
ing and concrete crushing. The investigations presented in Table 2, however, show the
in developing the hybrid RC beams concept with under-reinforced beam characteristics.
progress
These in developing
studies the hybrid
have demonstrated theRC
usebeams concept
of hybrid with under-reinforced
GFRP–steel beam char-
reinforcement systems are
acteristics. These studies have demonstrated the use of hybrid GFRP–steel
effective in maintaining the required flexural responses. Furthermore, these studies are reinforcement
systemsbased
mostly are effective in maintaining
on the analytical models therecommended
required flexural responses.
in ACI Furthermore,
standards these
that have been
studies are mostly based on the analytical models recommended in
adjusted for hybrid beam designs. The altered design models are then calibrated andACI standards that
have been adjusted for hybrid
correlated with experimental results. beam designs. The altered design models are then cali-
brated and correlated
In general, withinvestigating
the studies experimentalthe results.
flexural behaviour of hybrid GFRP–steel RC
beams summarised in Table 2 indicate distinct behaviour compared to conventional steel
Table 2. Overview of Tested Beams.
RC beams. The hybrid beam is characterised by a flexure–shear failure mode with narrower
crack
Reinforce- propagation. On the other Ultimate
Reinforcement hand, steelMo-RC beams are normally
Ultimate Load characterised by wider
crack widths
ment??????Content when subjected
Type to similar displacement
ment (kNm) and
(kN)loading conditions. Additionally,
% for hybrid GFRP–steel RCs many of the rupture failure identified [43,85] are attributed to
Analytical
Experimental

Experimental
Combined(ρ)

the shear failure between longitudinal reinforcement and concrete. This debonding lead to
Theoretical

Theoretical

Beam??? Failure
Balanced

Source the formation of horizontal cracks in flexure beams. Model Refer-

Under

Over

???ID Mode
Further analysis of the failure modes in studies is summarised in Table enced2 and is visually
ρeff ρeff.b
represented in Figure 7. It is clear that a significant proportion (78%) of failure modes
observed are from “steel yielding and concrete crushing” as shown in Figure 7. Only 3.1%
is from “GFPR rupture”. Data collection is from experiments conducted that have the beam
B1 1.14 3.23specimen designed with  107.9
additional shear reinforcements 108.9
that restrict shear. ThisSY, CC
limited
B2 0.29 
-the gathering of information 146.3 failure
about the flexure–shear 136.9 CC
characteristics of the hybrid
B3 0.71 3.45GFRP–steel RC beams.  127.6 134.8 SY, CC
B4 0.71 3.73  132.2 145.4 SY, CC
[39] ACI 440
B5 1.08 3.88  121.2 131.3 SY, CC
B6 1.16 3.88  141.9 155.1 SY, CC
B7 0.35 4.08  78.5 83.3 SY, CC
B8 3.49 4.41  211.0 272.8 SY, CC
MD 1.3 1.31 4.71  147.4 127.1 SY, CC
G 0.8 0.83 0.75  158.8 142.2 RUP
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 11 of 22

Table 2. Overview of Tested Beams.

Reinforcement Ultimate Ultimate Load

Reinforcement Type
Content Moment (kNm) (kN)

Analytical

Combined (ρ)

Experimental

Experimental
Beam Failure

Theoretical

Theoretical
Source Model

Balanced
ID Mode

Under

Over
% Referenced

ρeff ρeff.b
B1 1.14 3.23  107.9 108.9 SY, CC
B2 0.29 -  146.3 136.9 CC
B3 0.71 3.45  127.6 134.8 SY, CC
B4 0.71 3.73  132.2 145.4 SY, CC
[39] ACI 440
B5 1.08 3.88  121.2 131.3 SY, CC
B6 1.16 3.88  141.9 155.1 SY, CC
B7 0.35 4.08  78.5 83.3 SY, CC
B8 3.49 4.41  211.0 272.8 SY, CC
MD 1.3 1.31 4.71  147.4 127.1 SY, CC
G 0.8 0.83 0.75  158.8 142.2 RUP
SY, CC,
G 0.3 0.89 0.85  147.0 143.2
[83] BD 2004 RUP
MD 2.1 2.07 5.27  252.7 189.3 SY, CC
G 2.1 2.07 0.69  238.0 222.6 CC, RUP
SY, CC,
G 1.0 1.71 0.81  261.0 216.5
RUP
SY, CC,
G 0.6 1.56 0.92  229.0 228.2
RUP
S1 1.2 0.7  72.5 81.3 CC
S2 2.64 8.56  69.9 80.3 SY, CC
[40] ACI 440
S3 2.64 8.56  74.8 80.3 SY, CC
S4 2.64 8.56  82.0 80.3 SY, CC
B10/8S  63.0 60.8 SY, CC
B10/8  59.6 60.8 SY, CC
B10/6S  61.6 55.4 SY, CC
B10/6  58.8 55.4 SY, CC
[41] n/a BS EN 197-1
B12/8S  71.4 66.1 SY, CC
B12/8  64.0 66.1 SY, CC
B12/6S  65.1 61.8 SY, CC
B12/6  61.4 61.8 SY, CC
SY, CC,
G21S0 0.51 0.49  47.62 47.27
RUP
G22S0 0.55 0.49  53.55 58.43 SY, CC
[111] G22S2 0.67 0.49  58.94 55.72 CSA-S806-12 SY, CC
G62S2 0.85 0.49  68.30 71.41 SY, CC
G62S2 0.96 0.49  64.71 70.92 SY, CC
G62S6 1.13 0.49  83.53 81.39 SY, CC
G1.0T 1.71  248.5 230.50 SY, CC
[42] ACI 440
G0.6T 1.56  218.0 222.55 SY, CC
S2G21 133.0 127.8 CC
S2G22 130.1 112.1 RUP
[43] n/a n/a AFGC/SETRA
S2G3 146.8 136.8 CC
S3G3 161.3 146.0 CC
2S1G 0.84  50.47 42.49 SY, CC
1S2G 0.89  49.70 51.83 SY, CC
3S2Ga 1.46  67.38 67.55 SY, CC
2S3Ga 1.51  65.96 75.35 SY, CC
[84] ATENA
3S2Gb 1.46  66.01 67.55 SY, CC
2S3Gb 1.51  65.94 75.35 SY, CC
4S2G 1.73  76.11 75.64 SY, CC
2S4G 1.83  72.60 90.07 SY, CC
 Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 12 of 22

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 13 of 23

Table 2. Cont.

Reinforcement Ultimate Ultimate Load

G6-S6 2.13 0.69 Reinforcement Type 66.7 55.78 SY, CC
Content Moment (kNm) (kN)
G2S2D 2.27 0.70 53.79 41.61 Analytical SY, CC

Combined (ρ)
Beam

Experimental

Experimental
Failure

Theoretical

Theoretical
Source G6S2D 2.27 0.72 50.56 50.69 Model SY, CC

Balanced
ID Mode

Under

Over
% Referenced
SY—Steel Yielding, CC—Concrete Crushing, RUP—GFRP Rupture.

ρeff ρeff.b
In general, the studies investigating the flexural behaviour of hybrid GFRP–steel RC
beams summarised in Table 2 indicate distinct behaviour compared to conventional steel
CH1  92.00 88.00 SY, CC
CH2 RC beams. The hybrid  beam is characterised
112.0 by a flexure–shear failure mode withSY,
105.0 nar-
CC
[85] CH3 n/arower crack propagation. On the other
125.0 hand, steel RC beams are normally
128.0 characterised
ACI 440 SY, CC
CH4  128.0 143.0 SY, CC
by wider crack widths when subjected to similar displacement and loading conditions.
CH5  160.0 169.0 SY, CC
Additionally, for hybrid GFRP–steel RCs many of the rupture failure identified [43,85] are
GG1S 0.95 0.25  88.6 72.6 SY, CC
G2G2S 1.18 0.25attributed to the shear failure between
88.0 longitudinal
74.8 reinforcement and concrete. SY,This
CC
[86] G3G2S 1.57 0.25debonding lead to the  formation of 96.3
horizontal
82.8cracks in flexure beams. CSA SY, CC
S3G 1.18 0.25 Further analysis  of the failure modes
98.7 in78.9
studies is summarised in Table 2 and is vis-CC
G3S 0.50 2.37  67.2 65.18 SY
ually represented in Figure 7. It is clear that a significant proportion (78%) of failure modes
G2-S2 2.27 0.70 57.5 46.98 SY, CC
G6-S2 2.27 0.72
observed are from “steel yielding and concrete
63.3 56.56
crushing” as shown in Figure 7. Only SY,
3.1%CC
G2-S6 2.13 0.67is from “GFPR rupture”. Data collection
56.37 is from
45.8 experiments conducted that have SY,the
CC
[87] n/a ACI 440
G6-S6 2.13 0.69beam specimen designed with additional 66.7 55.78 reinforcements that restrict shear. SY,
shear CC
This
G2S2D 2.27 0.70 53.79 41.61 SY, CC
G6S2D 2.27 0.72limited the gathering of information about the
50.56 50.69flexure–shear failure characteristics of
SY,the
CC
hybrid GFRP–steel RC beams.
SY—Steel Yielding, CC—Concrete Crushing, RUP—GFRP Rupture.

Figure 7. Distribution of failure modes in hybrid GFRP–steel beams reported in Table 2.

Figure 7. Distribution of failure modes in hybrid GFRP–steel beams reported in Table 2.
3.1.4. Shear Design
3.1.4. Shear Designthe shear resistance of the concrete member can be computed by using
Generally,
VcfGenerally, the shear
+ Vsf approach. resistance
It is of theused
also the most concrete
andmember
preferred can be computed
approach. by using
Vcf and Vcf to
Vsf refer
+ Vthe
sf approach. It is also the most used and preferred approach. V and V refer
shear strengths of the concrete and GFRP stirrups, respectively [116–119]. This method
cf sf to the shear
strengths of the concrete
was developed on theand GFRP
basis stirrups,
of the respectively
strut-and-tie model[116–119].
[120,121],Thiswhere method was de-
the assumption
veloped on theon
was based basis
the of the strut-and-tie
modern truss model model
with[120,121], where the
parallel chords, assumption
vertical stirrup wasand based
constant
on inclination
the modernoftruss450 of the shear
model withcracks [122,123].
parallel chords, vertical stirrup and constant inclination
of 450 ofThe strength
the shear cracks of RC beams is informed by the aggregate interlock, friction
[122,123].
force
Thealong
shear the shearofcrack,
strength residual
RC beams tensile strength,
is informed shear strength
by the aggregate of the
interlock, longitudinal
friction force
reinforcement (dowel action) and the shear strength from the transverse
along the shear crack, residual tensile strength, shear strength of the longitudinal rein- reinforcement
(stirrups)(dowel
forcement [124,125]. It was
action) andidentified
the shearthat the dowel
strength fromcapability of GFRP
the transverse is about 70%
reinforcement lower
(stir-
than
rups) that of steel.
[124,125]. It wasPrevious research
identified hasdowel
that the showncapability
that Vcf isof
also
GFRP influenced
is aboutby70% the lower
stiffness
than that of steel. Previous research has shown that Vcf is also influenced by the stiffness
of the tensile reinforcement [108,126,127]. As such, an overall reduction in Vcf could be
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 13 of 22

of the tensile reinforcement [108,126,127]. As such, an overall reduction in Vcf could be

expected when GFRPs are used for longitudinal reinforcement, as those bars produce a
larger tensile strain [128].
Experimental studies observed a significant reduction in the ultimate capacity of
GFRP bars when used as stirrups, with studies pointing out that the occurrence of failure
initiated at the bends of the stirrups. It has been reported that the current design guidelines
result in prescribing excessive shear reinforcement, making those procedures arguably very
conservative [129–131].
Attempts have been made to fit GFRP characteristics in conventional design equations,
and new rules have been introduced to derive modified versions of existing equations [132].
Table 3 shows the modification to design equations as published in various standards.

Table 3. Modifications to code design equations.

Source Vcf Vsf

A f w · E f w ·ε f wd
q q
A E
[119] 0.2· 4 1d · 3 · f c0 ·bw ·d
p
100· bw fd Esf 3
S ·Z
1/3  1/4  1/3 0.0025E f w · A f w
E

[133] f
0.79· b100
w ·d
· A f · 200f · 400 d · 25cu bw · S
Afw f fwd
0.4 f c0 bw c
p
[116]
s
1/3 0.4 A f w f f w d
V

[134] 0.035 λ f c0 ρ f E f Mff d bw d s
 1/2 Afw f fwd
E
 
[117] 1.3 Esf τRd k 1.2 + 40ρ f bw d s
 q  1/3
A E 0.0025E f w ·z· A f w
[135,136] 0.12 1 + 200 100· bw fd · Esf ·∅ε · f ck bw d
d S

1/3  1/4  1/3 0.0025E f w · A f w

Ef

[135,137] 100 f
0.79 bw ·d · A f · 200 ·∅ε · 400
d · 25cu bw d bw · S
1/3 0.0025E f w · A f w
Ef

[135,138] Vc· ·∅ε
Es S

3.2. Models Considering Physical Effects: Fire Modelling

The fire resistance of an RC structural element is obtained by measuring the strength
of an element as a function of the time required to attain its structural failure [139]. To
ensure the appropriate fire performance of hybrid GFRP–steel RC structures, adequate
information on concrete elements at elevated temperatures is indispensable [140]. Such
information on concrete’s thermo-mechanical properties are derived from data obtainable
from the thermal analysis of cementitious binders.
The effect of temperature on the cementitious binder in concrete is well documented
and generally visually represented with thermo-gravimetery (TG) and differential thermo-
gravimetery (DTG). It is generally agreed that changes in Portland cement binder concrete
observed at temperatures exceedingly ambient can be described in two stages [141] before
the complete breakdown of the binding effect in mortar matrix in concrete. In the first
stage (temperature range 22–120 ◦ C) an increase in partial pressure caused by evaporative
loss of absorbed water can cause some swelling but rarely is related to a significant loss
of strength of the concrete matrix [142]. The second stage is typically at about 350 ◦ C and
is accompanied by a structural breakdown of the hydration reaction for the cement bond.
This stage is typically represented by a sharp mass loss in a TG and a well-defined DTG
peak [141]. Figure 8 shows the typical TG signal for some cementitious concrete binder
phases. The gradual TG mass loss below 200 ◦ C is consistent with evaporative water loss,
and the sharp TG mass loss of about 20–30% between 300–400 ◦ C represents the structural
breakdown of the concrete binder. This sets the limits of maximum tolerable temperature
for an RC load bearing system.
 concrete binder phases. The gradual TG mass loss below 200 °C is consistent with evapo-
rative water loss, and the sharp TG mass loss of about 20–30% between 300–400 °C repre-
sents the structural breakdown of the concrete binder. This sets the limits of maximum
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 14 of 22
tolerable temperature for an RC load bearing system.

Thermogravimetricpattern
Figure8.8.Thermogravimetric
Figure patternof
ofcementitious
cementitiousbinder.
binder.

It generally takes up to 3 h for a fire’s heat to go through a concrete member’s cover

It generally takes up to 3 h for a fire’s heat to go through a concrete member’s cover and
and reach the reinforcement [143–145]. A recent study by Hajiloo et al. [146] have detailed
reach the reinforcement [143–145]. A recent study by Hajiloo et al. [146] have detailed fire ef-
fire effects on temperature gradients and demonstrated that a temperature of around 400 ◦ C
fects on temperature gradients and demonstrated that a temperature of around 400 °C is ob-
is obtainable at the 40 mm depth in a concrete zone within 3 h of exposure to a standard
tainable at the 40 mm depth in a concrete zone within 3 h of exposure to a standard fire [147].
fire [147].
High fire resistance and low cost are significant advantages of using steel rebars in
High fire resistance and low cost are significant advantages of using steel rebars in con-
concrete structures [148], considering its temperature threshold is set to between 300 °C
crete structures [148], considering its temperature threshold is−6 set to between 300 ◦ C to 500 ◦ C
to 500 °C and its thermal expansion coefficient of−611.7 × 10 /°C [116,149,150]. In compari-
and its thermal expansion coefficient of 11.7 × 10 /◦ C [116,149,150]. In comparison, GFRP
son, GFRP bars start to lose their flexural and bond strengths at temperatures above 120
bars start to lose their flexural and bond strengths at temperatures above 120 ◦ C. However,
°C. However, the complete thermal degradation of the polymer matrix can stand up to
the complete thermal degradation of the polymer matrix can stand up to 350 ◦ C. GFRP’s
350 °C. GFRP’s load-bearing capability is therefore restricted to much
load-bearing capability is therefore restricted to much lower temperatures compared to that lower temperatures
compared to that of
of steel [151,152]. steel [151,152].
Furthermore, GFRP Furthermore, GFRP exhibit
exhibit a non-uniform anda highly
non-uniform
variableand highly
coefficient
variable coefficient of thermal expansion
− 6 ◦ (8–33 × 10 −6/°C) depending on the direction.
of thermal expansion (8–33 × 10 / C) depending on the direction. Along the longitudinal
Along the longitudinal
direction, direction,
the GFRP coefficient of the GFRPexpansion
thermal coefficientisofinthermal
the range expansion
8–10.0 × is 10in−6the
/◦ Crange
[116]
8–10.0 × 10 −6/°C [116] and is similar
and is similar in magnitude to that of steel. in magnitude to that of steel.
Finite
Finiteelement
element(FE) (FE)and andexperimental
experimentalresearchresearchhavehavebeen
beenperformed
performedto toexamine
examinethe the
fire behaviour of GFRP RC beams, but direct experimentation
fire behaviour of GFRP RC beams, but direct experimentation has been rather limited.has been rather limited. The
outcomes
The outcomes fromfrom
thesethesestudies (summarised
studies (summarised in Table
in Table4),4),
suggest
suggest that
thatthe
theconcrete
concretecover cover
thickness
thickness has a significant role in the fire-resisting period of the elements. According
has a significant role in the fire-resisting period of the elements. Accordingto to
experimental
experimentaltests,tests,aaminimum
minimumconcrete concretecovercoverof of6565 mm
mm isis recommended
recommendedto to meet
meet thethe
standard
standardrequired
requiredfor foraafireproofing
fireproofing of of9090min
minand
andimpart
impartadequate
adequateprotection
protectionto tothetheGFRP
GFRP
reinforcement. Such a thick cover is not economical and may
reinforcement. Such a thick cover is not economical and may deter to use of GFRP. deter to use of GFRP.
Additionally,
Additionally,fire fire retardant
retardant coating
coatingcan canprovide
provideaapotential
potentialresistance
resistancefor forfibres
fibresfrom
from
elevated
elevated temperatures [153,154]. A recent study conducted by M.H. Khaneghahi et al.et[155]
[153,154]. A recent study conducted by M.H. Khaneghahi al.
[155] concluded
concluded thatfire-retardant
that the the fire-retardant coating coating
helpshelps to preserve
to preserve the mechanical
the mechanical properties
properties of the
of the GFRP
GFRP bars inbars
the in the range
range of 350–600 ◦ C, and
of 350–600 °C,even
andincreases
even increases the tensile
the tensile strengthstrength
retention reten-
rate
tion rate by 20–30%.
by 20–30%. A significant
A significant decreasedecrease on the performance
on the performance of fire-retardant
of fire-retardant coating was coating
only
was
notedonly noted
when thewhen the temperature
temperature 600 ◦ C. 600 °C.
exceededexceeded
Moreover,
Moreover, the the fire
fire safety
safety building
building regulations
regulations impose
impose that
that the
the minimum
minimumperiod periodof of
fire
fireresistance
resistanceshould
shouldbe be90 90minmin[156].
[156].Meanwhile,
Meanwhile,most moststandard
standardprocedures
proceduresof ofconcrete
concrete
structurefireproofing
structure fireproofingrecommend
recommendaacover coverthickness
thicknessthatthatshould
shouldprovide
provideaafire fireresistance
resistance
of 90 min with exposure to a peak temperature of 350 ◦ C. GFRP reinforcement would
therefore be adequate for most categories of buildings and structures.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 15 of 22

Table 4. Overview of FE and Experimental studies.

Fire Resistance Concrete Cover Peak Temperature

Literature Specimen Model Fire Model
Time t (Min) (mm) (◦ C)
[157] 60 64 400 ENV EC2-1992 ASTM E119-1976
ENV EC2-1992
[158] 94 70 377 BS 476-1987
ACI-440-2001
ENV EC2-1992
[159] 30 50 400 -
(Hybrid Steel)
ASTM E119
[160] 45 25 160 ISIS Canada-2001
ISO 834
[148] 90 85 225 - DIN EN 1363
[161] 60 20 170 ACI 440.1R-06 BS EN 1363-1
1-D two-node
[162] 50 20 820 Composite Beam ISO 834
Element
[163] 120 70 400 3-D nonlinear FE Model ISO 834
[164] 40 30 500 ENV EC2-1992 EC1

4. Outlook for Future

The existing research and engineering practices overviewed in this paper elaborate
on the huge potential of hybrid GFRP–steel reinforcement systems to meet the durability,
strength, and serviceability requirements of most civil engineering applications. The studies
agree on the superiority of GFRP rebars in their tensile strength and durability compared
to steel reinforcement. Moreover, the hybrid application of GFRP and steel is an effective
way to develop ductile responses to GFRP-reinforced beams. However, there is a lack of
understanding in specifying and defining the ductility activation in the hybrid GFRP–steel
beam systems. A few concepts already exist, but further research is needed to enable
the scalability and generalisation of the proposed models. This section discusses these
constraints, challenges, and the outlook for future research.
The concept of hybrid GFRP–steel reinforcement is still in its developing stage. The
available research data and information from the out-of-the-lab implementation are build-
ing up. There is, however, great need to better understand and predict the failure modes
and ultimate states of hybrid reinforcements.
There is a lot to learn about the concept of ductility, its development and its application
to hybrid GFRP-steel RC systems. Whilst many of the proposed design models of hybrid
GFRP-steel beams are anticipated to develop into ductile failure modes, these models have
been developed based on steel RCs and their calibration conducted with set ratios and the
arrangements of reinforcement bars.
This lack of detailed information on different areas calls for more clarification before
the application of GFRP–steel hybrid RC systems can become practice. Hence, the following
summarises the topics of interest for future research studies.
• Investigation of the factors that control the activation of ductile behaviour in steel
reinforcement in hybrid reinforcement arrangements.
• Experimental studies on GFRP shear reinforcement (stirrups) incorporated with hybrid
reinforcement systems.
• Experimental and numerical studies on the effects of different grades of steel on
ductility development in hybrid GFRP–steel RC beams.
• Investigation of the behaviours of hybrid GFRP-steel reinforcement systems to varying
temperature gradients and their recovery.
• Investigations on the long-term durability of GFRP bars.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 16 of 22

• Numerical modelling of the effects of bond-slip behaviour of GFRP in hybrid RC

systems.
• Experimental and numerical studies of the effects of the surface characteristics of
GFRP bars on the structural performance of hybrid RC beams.

5. Conclusions
GFRP reinforcements are a potential alternative to steel rebars for durable and corrosion-
free structures. Though design codes exist for the use of GFRP in RCs, there is scope to
address their lack of ductility with the addition of steel reinforcement. This paper has
overviewed the research carried out to advance the design of a hybrid GFRP–steel reinforce-
ment system for concrete beams. The primary focus was given to the studies conducted on
analytical models that considered mechanical and physical effects to enhance the perfor-
mance of flexure beams. The main conclusions are summarised as follows:
• The inherent corrosive nature of steel is a threat to the durability of RC structures,
specifically in aggressive environments. The FRPs, which has high strength-to-weight
ratio than steel, are one of the most suitable solution to enhance the durability of RC
structures.
• GFRP is an economically viable option for the usual commercial applications. Al-
though its properties are not as competent as other FRP variants such as CFRP and
BFRP, it is proven to be more efficient than using conventional steel bars, especially in
harsh environments.
• Lack of ductility is one of the characteristic traits that questions the application of
GFRP bars in flexure beams, where flexural yield is a demanding behaviour to design
safe structures. Despite proposing new parameters to quantify the ductility of GFRP-
steel RC beams, the studies explaining the synergetic mechanism between the GFRP
and steel is very limited.
• The crack developments in the hybrid beams are highly dependable on the bond co-
efficient used in the design. Hence, it is important to understand the bond behaviour
between the GFRP bars used in the hybrid system.
• Most of the flexural beams that experimented with the GFRP–steel hybrid reinforce-
ment system has reported a combined failure mode of steel yielding and concrete
crushing. This indicates the activation of the yield behaviour of steel bars before the
(rupture) failure of GFRP in the system, which gives the confidence to consider a
hybrid reinforcement system for flexure beams.
• In the experimental studies of hybrid GFRP–steel, excessive shear reinforcement has
been employed as a strategy to prevent shear failure.
• The attempt to engineer the shear response of hybrid GFRP–steel in RC led to a notable
improvement in the performance of flexure-shear failures with a minimal amount of
shear cracks and shear crack widths.
• The weakness of GFRPs in RC is in its susceptibility to thermal degradation at com-
paratively lower temperatures than steel. However, recent studies suggested that
this weakness can be mitigated by using adequate concrete cover for increased ther-
mal resistance and applying fire retardants to enhance its performance up to the
recommended standard.
• Hybrid GFRP–steel reinforcement is an effective and competitive alternative to steel
reinforcement. As identified in this paper, key aspects of their design and structural
behaviours must be better understood and require further research to put forward a
reliable and sound design procedure.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.D.; Supervision, C.G. and A.O.; data curation, R.D.,
A.O. and C.G.; writing—review and editing, A.O. and C.G.; writing—original draft preparation, R.D.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 17 of 22

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Attia, M.M.; Ahmed, O.; Kobesy, O.; Malek, A.S. Behavior of FRP rods under uniaxial tensile strength with multiple materials as
an alternative to steel rebar. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01241. [CrossRef]
2. Looney, T.; Leggs, M.; Volz, J.; Floyd, R. Durability and corrosion resistance of ultra-high performance concretes for repair. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2022, 345, 128238. [CrossRef]
3. Ming, J.; Zhou, X.; Jiang, L.; Shi, J. Corrosion resistance of low-alloy steel in concrete subjected to long-term chloride attack:
Characterization of surface conditions and rust layers. Corros. Sci. 2022, 203, 110370. [CrossRef]
4. Yu, X.; Al-Saadi, S.; Zhao, X.L.; Raman, R.K.S. Electrochemical investigations of steels in seawater sea sand concrete environments.
Materials 2021, 14, 5713. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Melchers, R.E.; Chaves, I.A. Durable steel-reinforced concrete structures for marine environments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13695.
[CrossRef]
6. Němeček, J.; Trávníček, P.; Němečková, J.; Kruis, J. Mitigation of chloride induced corrosion in reinforced concrete structures and
its modeling. Koroze A Ochr. Mater. 2021, 65, 79–85. [CrossRef]
7. Omer, L.M.; Gomaa, M.S.; Sufe, W.H.; Elsayed, A.A.; Elghazaly, H.A. Enhancing corrosion resistance of RC pipes using
geopolymer mixes when subjected to aggressive environment. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2022, 69, 3. [CrossRef]
8. Li, W.; Wu, M.; Shi, T.; Yang, P.; Pan, Z.; Liu, W.; Liu, J.; Yang, X. Experimental Investigation of the Relationship between Surface
Crack of Concrete Cover and Corrosion Degree of Steel Bar Using Fractal Theory. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 325. [CrossRef]
9. Li, Q.; Gao, Z.; Yang, T.; Dong, Z.; Jiang, Z.; He, Q.; Fu, C. Rust Distribution of Non-Uniform Steel Corrosion Induced by
Impressed Current Method. Materials 2022, 15, 4276. [CrossRef]
10. Gao, X.X.; Deby, F.; Gourbeyre, Y.; Samson, G.; Garcia, S.; Arliguie, G. Influence of catholytes on the generation of steel corrosion
in concrete with accelerated chloride migration method. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01123. [CrossRef]
11. Schmitt, G. Global needs for knowledge dissemination, research, and development in materials deterioration and corrosion
control. World Corros. Organ. 2009, 38, 14.
12. Mohammed, T.U.; Rahman, M.; Sabbir, A.; Hasan, M.M.; Mamun, A.A. Chloride ingress and macro-cell corrosion of steel in
concrete made with recycled brick aggregate. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2021, 15, 1358–1371. [CrossRef]
13. O’Reilly, M.; Darwin, D.; Browning, J.; Locke, C.E.; Virmani, Y.P.; Ji, J.; Gong, L.; Guo, G.; Draper, J.; Xing, L. Multiple Corrosion
Protection Systems for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Components: Field Tests. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021363. [CrossRef]
14. Long, Z.; Zhang, R.; Wang, Q.; Xie, C.; Zhang, J.; Duan, Y. Mechanism analysis of strength evolution of concrete structure in saline
soil area based on 15-year service. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 332, 127281. [CrossRef]
15. Hassanli, R.; Youssf, O.; Manalo, A.; Najafgholipour, M.A.; Elchalakani, M.; Del Rey Castillo, E.; Lutze, D. An Experimental Study
of the Behavior of GFRP-Reinforced Precast Concrete Culverts. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022043. [CrossRef]
16. Sheikh, S.A.; Kharal, Z. Replacement of steel with GFRP for sustainable reinforced concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 160,
767–774. [CrossRef]
17. Jabbar, S.A.; Farid, S.B. Replacement of steel rebars by GFRP rebars in the concrete structures. Karbala Int. J. Mod. Sci. 2018, 4,
216–227. [CrossRef]
18. El-Sayed, T.A.; Erfan, A.M.; Abdelnaby, R.M.; Soliman, M.K. Flexural behavior of HSC beams reinforced by hybrid GFRP bars
with steel wires. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01054. [CrossRef]
19. Karim, R.; Shafei, B. Performance of fiber-reinforced concrete link slabs with embedded steel and GFRP rebars. Eng. Struct. 2021,
229, 111590. [CrossRef]
20. Ramanathan, S.; Benzecry, V.; Suraneni, P.; Nanni, A. Condition assessment of concrete and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)
rebar after 18 years of service life. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 14, e00494. [CrossRef]
21. Li, W.; Wen, F.; Zhou, M.; Liu, F.; Jiao, Y.; Wu, Q.; Liu, H. Assessment and Prediction Model of GFRP Bars’ Durability Performance
in Seawater Environment. Buildings 2022, 12, 127. [CrossRef]
22. Wu, W.; He, X.; Yang, W.; Dai, L.; Wang, Y.; He, J. Long-time durability of GFRP bars in the alkaline concrete environment for
eight years. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 314, 125573. [CrossRef]
23. Xingyu, G.; Yiqing, D.; Jiwang, J. Flexural behavior investigation of steel-GFRP hybrid-reinforced concrete beams based on
experimental and numerical methods. Eng. Struct. 2020, 206, 110117. [CrossRef]
24. Acciai, A.; D’Ambrisi, A.; De Stefano, M.; Feo, L.; Focacci, F.; Nudo, R. Experimental response of FRP reinforced members without
transverse reinforcement: Failure modes and design issues. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 89, 397–407. [CrossRef]
25. Li, L.; Lu, J.; Fang, S.; Liu, F.; Li, S. Flexural study of concrete beams with basalt fibre polymer bars. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Struct.
Build. 2018, 171, 505–516. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 18 of 22

26. Yoo, D.-Y.; Moon, D.-Y. Effect of steel fibers on the flexural behavior of RC beams with very low reinforcement ratios. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 188, 237–254. [CrossRef]
27. Qin, F.; Zhang, Z.; Yin, Z.; Di, J.; Xu, L.; Xu, X. Use of high strength, high ductility engineered cementitious composites (ECC) to
enhance the flexural performance of reinforced concrete beams. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101746. [CrossRef]
28. Deng, M.; Zhang, M.; Zhu, Z.; Ma, F. Deformation capacity of over-reinforced concrete beams strengthened with highly ductile
fiber-reinforced concrete. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1861–1873.
29. Abbas, H.; Abadel, A.; Almusallam, T.; Al-Salloum, Y. Experimental and analytical study of flexural performance of concrete
beams reinforced with hybrid of GFRP and steel rebars. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 138, 106397. [CrossRef]
30. Yuan, J.; Gao, D.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, H. Improving Ductility for Composite Beams Reinforced with GFRP Tubes by Using Rebars/Steel
Angles. Polymers 2022, 14, 551. [CrossRef]
31. Xu, J.; Zhu, P.; Qu, W. Numerical and Analytical Study of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Hybrid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer and
Steel Bars. J. Compos. Constr. 2022, 26, 04022045. [CrossRef]
32. Han, S.; Fan, C.; Zhou, A.; Ou, J. Simplified implementation of equivalent and ductile performance for steel-FRP composite bars
reinforced seawater sea-sand concrete beams: Equal-stiffness design method. Eng. Struct. 2022, 266, 114590. [CrossRef]
33. Thamrin, R.; Zaidir, Z.; Iwanda, D. Ductility Estimation for Flexural Concrete Beams Longitudinally Reinforced with Hybrid
FRP–Steel Bars. Polymers 2022, 14, 1017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Nguyen, P.D.; Dang, V.H.; Vu, N.A. Performance of concrete beams reinforced with various ratios of hybrid GFRP/steel bars. Civ.
Eng. J. 2020, 6, 1652–1669. [CrossRef]
35. Moolaei, S.; Sharbatdar, M.K.; Kheyroddin, A. Experimental evaluation of flexural behavior of HPFRCC beams reinforced with
hybrid steel and GFRP bars. Compos. Struct. 2021, 275, 114503. [CrossRef]
36. Li, Z.; Khennane, A.; Hazell, P.J.; Remennikov, A.M. Performance of a hybrid GFRP-concrete beam subject to low-velocity impacts.
Compos. Struct. 2018, 206, 425–438. [CrossRef]
37. Sijavandi, K.; Sharbatdar, M.K.; Kheyroddin, A. Experimental evaluation of flexural behavior of high-performance fiber rein-
forced concrete beams using GFRP and high strength steel bars. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021;
pp. 4256–4268.
38. Xiao, S.-H.; Lin, J.-X.; Li, L.-J.; Guo, Y.-C.; Zeng, J.-J.; Xie, Z.-H.; Wei, F.-F.; Li, M. Experimental study on flexural behavior of
concrete beam reinforced with GFRP and steel-fiber composite bars. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 103087. [CrossRef]
39. Qu, W.; Zhang, X.; Huang, H. Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars. J. Compos. Constr.
2009, 13, 350–359. [CrossRef]
40. Liu, Y.H.; Yuan, Y. Experimental Studies on High Strength Concrete Beams Reinforced with Steel and GFRP Rebars. In Applied
Mechanics and Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Bäch, Switzerland, 2012; pp. 669–673.
41. Safan, M.A. Flexural Behavior and Design of Steel-GFRP Reinforced Concrete Beams. ACI Mater. J. 2013, 110, 667.
42. Qin, R.; Zhou, A.; Lau, D. Effect of reinforcement ratio on the flexural performance of hybrid FRP reinforced concrete beams.
Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 108, 200–209. [CrossRef]
43. Yoo, D.-Y.; Banthia, N.; Yoon, Y.-S. Flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete beams reinforced with
GFRP and steel rebars. Eng. Struct. 2016, 111, 246–262. [CrossRef]
44. Behera, P.K.; Misra, S.; Mondal, K. Corrosion of Strained Plain Rebar in Chloride-Contaminated Mortar and Novel Approach to
Estimate the Corrosion Amount from Rust Characterization. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2021, 33, 04021283. [CrossRef]
45. Ding, Q.; Gao, Y.; Hou, W.; Qin, Y. Influence of Cl- concentration on corrosion behavior of reinforced concrete in soil. J. Chin. Soc.
Corros. Prot. 2021, 41, 705–711. [CrossRef]
46. Ding, Q.; Gao, Y.; Liu, R.; Li, Y.; Jin, L.; Ma, H. Corrosion behavior of HRB400 and HRB400M steel bars in concrete under DC
interference. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 23871. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Franco-Luján, V.A.; Maldonado-García, M.A.; Mendoza-Rangel, J.M.; Montes-García, P. Effect of Cl−-induced corrosion on the
mechanical properties of reinforcing steel embedded in ternary concretes containing FA and UtSCBA. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022,
339, 127655. [CrossRef]
48. Alexander, M.; Beushausen, H. Durability, service life prediction, and modelling for reinforced concrete structures–review and
critique. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 122, 17–29. [CrossRef]
49. Afshar, A.; Shokrgozar, A.; Afshar, A.; Afshar, A. Simulation of corrosion protection methods in reinforced concrete by artificial
neural networks and fuzzy logic. J. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 2022, 12, 511–527. [CrossRef]
50. Bastidas, D.M.; Martin, U.; Bastidas, J.M.; Ress, J. Corrosion inhibition mechanism of steel reinforcements in mortar using soluble
phosphates: A critical review. Materials 2021, 14, 6168. [CrossRef]
51. El Alami, E.; Fekak, F.E.; Garibaldi, L.; Elkhalfi, A. A numerical study of pitting corrosion in reinforced concrete structures.
J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102789. [CrossRef]
52. Fan, L.; Teng, L.; Tang, F.; Khayat, K.H.; Chen, G.; Meng, W. Corrosion of steel rebar embedded in UHPC beams with cracked
matrix. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 313, 125589. [CrossRef]
53. Ge, W.J.; Zhu, J.W.; Ashour, A.; Yang, Z.P.; Cai, X.N.; Yao, S.; Yan, W.H.; Cao, D.F.; Lu, W.G. Effect of Chloride Corrosion
on Eccentric-Compression Response of Concrete Columns Reinforced with Steel-FRP Composite Bars. J. Compos. Constr.
2022, 26, 04022042. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 19 of 22

54. Jee, A.A.; Pradhan, B. Long term effect of chloride and sulfates concentration, and cation allied with sulfates on corrosion
performance of steel-reinforced in concrete. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 56, 104813. [CrossRef]
55. Graham-Jones, J.; Summerscales, J. Marine Applications of Advanced Fibre-Reinforced Composites; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston,
UK, 2015.
56. Kim, Y.J. State of the practice of FRP composites in highway bridges. Eng. Struct. 2019, 179, 1–8. [CrossRef]
57. Noël, M. Probabilistic fatigue life modelling of FRP composites for construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 206, 279–286.
[CrossRef]
58. Ferdous, W.; Manalo, A.; Sharda, A.; Bai, Y.; Ngo, T.D.; Mendis, P. Construction Industry Transformation through Modular
Methods. In Innovation in Construction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 259–276.
59. Li, C.; Zhu, H.; Niu, G.; Cheng, S.; Gu, Z.; Yang, L. Flexural behavior and a new model for flexural design of concrete beams
hybridly reinforced by continuous FRP bars and discrete steel fibers. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022;
pp. 949–960.
60. Davids, W.G.; Diba, A.; Dagher, H.J.; Guzzi, D.; Schanck, A.P. Development, assessment and implementation of a novel FRP
composite girder bridge. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 340, 127818. [CrossRef]
61. Shin, J.; Park, S. Optimum retrofit strategy of FRP column jacketing system for non-ductile RC building frames using artificial
neural network and genetic algorithm hybrid approach. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 57, 104919. [CrossRef]
62. George, J.M.; Kimiaei, M.; Elchalakani, M.; Efthymiou, M. Flexural response of underwater offshore structural members retrofitted
with CFRP wraps and their performance after exposure to real marine conditions. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2022; pp. 559–573.
63. Zhou, S.; Demartino, C.; Xu, J.; Xiao, Y. Effectiveness of CFRP seismic-retrofit of circular RC bridge piers under vehicular lateral
impact loading. Eng. Struct. 2021, 243, 112602. [CrossRef]
64. Burgoyne, C.; Byars, E.; Guadagnini, M.; Manfredi, G.; Neocleous, K.; Pilakoutas, K.; Taerwe, L.; Taranu, N.; Tepfers, R.; Weber, A.
FRP Reinforcement in RC Structures; FIB (International Federation for Structural Concrete): Losanna, Switzerland, 2007.
65. Coricciati, A.; Corvaglia, P.; Mosheyev, G. Durability of fibers in aggressive alkaline environment. In Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Composite Materials-ICCM-17, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 27–31 July 2009.
66. Abbood, I.S.; aldeen Odaa, S.; Hasan, K.F.; Jasim, M.A.J. Properties evaluation of fiber reinforced polymers and their constituent
materials used in structures—A review. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 43, 1003–1008. [CrossRef]
67. Gooranorimi, O.; Nanni, A. GFRP reinforcement in concrete after 15 years of service. J. Compos. Constr. 2017, 21, 04017024.
[CrossRef]
68. Gauvin, F.; Robert, M. Durability study of vinylester/silicate nanocomposites for civil engineering applications. Polym. Degrad.
Stab. 2015, 121, 359–368. [CrossRef]
69. Bonsu, A.O.; Liang, W.; Mensah, C.; Yang, B. Assessing the mechanical behavior of glass and basalt reinforced vinyl ester
composite under artificial seawater environment. In Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 961–978.
70. Mukhtar, F.M.; Arowojolu, O. Recent developments in experimental and computational studies of hygrothermal effects on the
bond between FRP and concrete. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2020, 39, 422–442. [CrossRef]
71. Wang, P.; Wu, H.-L.; Leung, C.K. Mechanical and long-term durability prediction of GFRP rebars with the adoption of low-pH
CSA concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 346, 128444. [CrossRef]
72. Li, C.; Guo, R.; Xian, G.; Li, H. Effects of elevated temperature, hydraulic pressure and fatigue loading on the property evolution
of a carbon/glass fiber hybrid rod. Polym. Test. 2020, 90, 106761. [CrossRef]
73. Lal, H.M.; Uthaman, A.; Li, C.; Xian, G.; Thomas, S. Combined effects of cyclic/sustained bending loading and water immersion
on the interface shear strength of carbon/glass fiber reinforced polymer hybrid rods for bridge cable. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022,
314, 125587. [CrossRef]
74. Barcikowski, M.; Lesiuk, G.; Czechowski, K.; Duda, S. Static and flexural fatigue behavior of GFRP pultruded rebars. Materials
2021, 14, 297. [CrossRef]
75. Oskouei, A.V.; Bazli, M.; Ashrafi, H.; Imani, M. Flexural and web crippling properties of GFRP pultruded profiles subjected to
wetting and drying cycles in different sea water conditions. Polym. Test. 2018, 69, 417–430. [CrossRef]
76. Wang, Z.; Zhao, X.-L.; Xian, G.; Wu, G.; Raman, R.S.; Al-Saadi, S. Effect of sustained load and seawater and sea sand concrete
environment on durability of basalt-and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (B/GFRP) bars. Corros. Sci. 2018, 138, 200–218. [CrossRef]
77. Deitz, D.; Harik, I.; Gesund, H. Physical properties of glass fiber reinforced polymer rebars in compression. J. Compos. Constr.
2003, 7, 363–366. [CrossRef]
78. Choi, E.; Utui, N.; Kim, H.S. Experimental and analytical investigations on debonding of hybrid FRPs for flexural strengthening
of RC beams. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 45, 248–256. [CrossRef]
79. Alraie, A.; Garg, N.; Matsagar, V.; Goldack, A.; Schlaich, M. Pseudo-Ductility through Progressive Failure of Multi-Layered
Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) Prestressed Concrete Beams. Struct. Eng. Int. 2022, 1–16. [CrossRef]
80. Askar, M.K.; Hassan, A.F.; Al-Kamaki, Y.S. Flexural and Shear Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams Using FRP Composites:
A State of The Art. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01189. [CrossRef]
81. Harris, H.G.; Somboonsong, W.; Ko, F.K. New ductile hybrid FRP reinforcing bar for concrete structures. J. Compos. Constr. 1998,
2, 28–37. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 20 of 22

82. Issa, M.S.; Metwally, I.M.; Elzeiny, S.M. Influence of fibers on flexural behavior and ductility of concrete beams reinforced with
GFRP rebars. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 1754–1763. [CrossRef]
83. Lau, D.; Pam, H.J. Experimental study of hybrid FRP reinforced concrete beams. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 3857–3865. [CrossRef]
84. Salleh, N.; Hamid, N.A.; Majid, M.A. Finite element modelling of concrete beams reinforced with hybrid fiber reinforced bars. In
Proceedings of the Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series, Birmingham, UK, 13–15 October 2017; p. 012093.
85. Araba, A.M.; Ashour, A.F. Flexural performance of hybrid GFRP-Steel reinforced concrete continuous beams. Compos. Part B Eng.
2018, 154, 321–336. [CrossRef]
86. Maranan, G.; Manalo, A.; Benmokrane, B.; Karunasena, W.; Mendis, P.; Nguyen, T. Flexural behavior of geopolymer-concrete
beams longitudinally reinforced with GFRP and steel hybrid reinforcements. Eng. Struct. 2019, 182, 141–152. [CrossRef]
87. Ruan, X.; Lu, C.; Xu, K.; Xuan, G.; Ni, M. Flexural behavior and serviceability of concrete beams hybrid-reinforced with GFRP
bars and steel bars. Compos. Struct. 2020, 235, 111772. [CrossRef]
88. American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with Fiber Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) Bars. 440.1 R-15; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2015.
89. Ge, W.; Wang, Y.; Ashour, A.; Lu, W.; Cao, D. Flexural performance of concrete beams reinforced with steel–FRP composite bars.
Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2020, 20, 1–17. [CrossRef]
90. Zhou, Y.; Wu, Y.; Teng, J.; Leung, A. Ductility analysis of compression-yielding FRP-reinforced composite beams. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2009, 31, 682–691. [CrossRef]
91. Oudah, F.; El-Hacha, R. Ductility of FRP reinforced RC structures: A critical review of definition and expressions. Concr. Solut.
2014, 2014, 329–335.
92. Bui, L.V.H.; Stitmannaithum, B.; Ueda, T. Ductility of concrete beams reinforced with both fiber-reinforced Polymer and steel
tension bars. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2018, 16, 531–548. [CrossRef]
93. Newhook, J. Design of under-reinforced concrete T-sections with GFRP reinforcement. In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Advanced
Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures; Canadian Society for Civil Engineering: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2000; pp. 153–160.
94. Aiello, M.A.; Ombres, L. Structural performances of concrete beams with hybrid (fiber-reinforced polymer-steel) reinforcements.
J. Compos. Constr. 2002, 6, 133–140. [CrossRef]
95. Ge, W.; Zhang, J.; Cao, D.; Tu, Y. Flexural behaviors of hybrid concrete beams reinforced with BFRP bars and steel bars. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2015, 87, 28–37. [CrossRef]
96. Grace, N.F.; Soliman, A.; Abdel-Sayed, G.; Saleh, K. Behavior and ductility of simple and continuous FRP reinforced beams.
J. Compos. Constr. 1998, 2, 186–194. [CrossRef]
97. Naaman, A.; Jeong, S. Structural Ductility of Concrete Beams Prestressed with FRP Tendons. In Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures: Proceedings of the Second International RILEM Symposium; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1995; p. 379.
98. Abdelrahman, A.; Tadros, G.; Rizkalla, S. Test model for first canadian smart highway bridge. ACI Struct. J. 1995, 92, 451–458.
99. Zou, P.X. Flexural behavior and deformability of fiber reinforced polymer prestressed concrete beams. J. Compos. Constr. 2003, 7,
275–284. [CrossRef]
100. Shin, S.; Seo, D.; Han, B. Performance of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2009, 8, 197–204.
[CrossRef]
101. Pang, L.; Qu, W.; Zhu, P.; Xu, J. Design propositions for hybrid FRP-steel reinforced concrete beams. J. Compos. Constr. 2016,
20, 04015086. [CrossRef]
102. El Zareef, M.A.; El Madawy, M.E. Effect of glass-fiber rods on the ductile behaviour of reinforced concrete beams. Alex. Eng. J.
2018, 57, 4071–4079. [CrossRef]
103. Abdelrahman, A.A.; Rizkalla, S.H. Serviceability of concrete beams prestressed by carbon. ACI Struct. J. 1997, 94, 447–454.
104. Mufti, A.A.; Newhook, J.P.; Tadros, G. Deformability versus ductility in concrete beams with FRP reinforcement. In Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridge and Structures, Montreal, QC, Canada, 11–14
August 1996.
105. Bakht, B.; Al-Bazi, G.; Banthia, N.; Cheung, M.; Erki, M.-A.; Faoro, M.; Machida, A.; Mufti, A.A.; Neale, K.W.; Tadros, G. Canadian
bridge design code provisions for fiber-reinforced structures. J. Compos. Constr. 2000, 4, 3–15. [CrossRef]
106. BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Volume 1-Supplement to CHBDC S6-14; BC Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure: Coquitlam, BC, Canada, 2016.
107. Allam, S.M.; Shoukry, M.S.; Rashad, G.E.; Hassan, A.S. Crack width evaluation for flexural RC members. Alex. Eng. J. 2012, 51,
211–220. [CrossRef]
108. JSCE. Application of Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials to Concrete Structures; JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers): Tokyo,
Japan, 1992.
109. Nanni, A. Guide for the design and construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars (ACI 440.1 R-03). In Structures Congress
2005: Metropolis and Beyond; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2005; pp. 1–6.
110. AASHTO-LRFD. Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd ed.; American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials: Washing-
ton, DC, USA, 2018.
111. El Refai, A.; Abed, F.; Al-Rahmani, A. Structural performance and serviceability of concrete beams reinforced with hybrid (GFRP
and steel) bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 518–529. [CrossRef]
112. Nanni, A.; De Luca, A.; Zadeh, H. Reinforced Concrete with FRP Bars; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-0-203-87429-5.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 21 of 22

113. ACI-440; Guide for the Design and Construction of structural concrete reinforced with FRP bars (ACI 440.1 R-01). American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2001.
114. van Zijl, G.; Mbewe, P. Flexural modelling of steel fibre-reinforced concrete beams with and without steel bars. Eng. Struct. 2013,
53, 52–62. [CrossRef]
115. Leung, H.Y.; Balendran, R. Flexural behaviour of concrete beams internally reinforced with GFRP rods and steel rebars. Struct.
Surv. 2003, 21, 146–157. [CrossRef]
116. American Concrete Institute. Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. 440.1 R-06;
American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2006.
117. CNR-DT. Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars; National Research
Council: Rome, Italy, 2006; Volume 203.
118. Rizkalla, S.H.; Aftab, A.M.; ISIS. Reinforcing Concrete Structures with Fibre Reinforced Polymers; ISIS Canada Research Network:
Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2001.
119. JSCE. Recommendations for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures Using Continuous Fibre Reinforced Materials; Japan Society
of Civil Engineers: Tokyo, Japan, 1997; Volume 23.
120. Arabzadeh, A.; Rahaie, A.; Aghayari, R. A Simple Strut-and-Tie Model for Prediction of Ultimate Shear Strength of RC Deep
Beams. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2009, 7, 141–153.
121. Rasheed, M.M. Modified Softened Strut and Tie Model for Concrete Deep Beams. J. Eng. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 16, 348–361.
122. Nehdi, M.; El Chabib, H.; Saïd, A.A. Proposed shear design equations for FRP-reinforced concrete beams based on genetic
algorithms approach. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007, 19, 1033–1042. [CrossRef]
123. Vo-Le, D.; Tran, D.T.; Pham, T.M.; Ho-Huu, C.; Nguyen-Minh, L. Re-evaluation of shear contribution of CFRP and GFRP sheets in
concrete beams post-tensioned with unbonded tendons. Eng. Struct. 2022, 259, 114173. [CrossRef]
124. Campana, S.; Fernández Ruiz, M.; Anastasi, A.; Muttoni, A. Analysis of shear-transfer actions on one-way RC members based on
measured cracking pattern and failure kinematics. Mag. Concr. Res. 2013, 65, 386–404. [CrossRef]
125. Zilch, K.; Niedermeier, R.; Finckh, W. Strengthening of Concrete Structures with ADHESIVELY Bonded Reinforcement: Design and
Dimensioning of CFRP Laminates and Steel Plates; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.
126. Ayoubinejad, J.; Marashi, M. Investigation of fatigue phenomena and stress variations by using FRP dowel bars. J. Struct. Constr.
Eng. 2022, 8, 144–155.
127. Szczech, D.; Kotynia, R. Effect of shear reinforcement ratio on the shear capacity of GFRP reinforced concrete beams. Arch. Civ.
Eng. 2021, 67, 425–437.
128. Shehata, E.F. Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) for Shear Reinforcement in Concrete Structures; University of Manitoba: Winnipeg, MB,
Canada, 1999.
129. Nasrollahzadeh, K.; Aghamohammadi, R. Reliability analysis of shear strength provisions for FRP-reinforced concrete beams.
Eng. Struct. 2018, 176, 785–800. [CrossRef]
130. Choi, K.-K.; Hong-Gun, P.; Wight, J.K. Unified shear strength model for reinforced concrete beams-Part I: Development. ACI
Struct. J. 2007, 104, 142.
131. Oller, E.; Marí, A.; Bairán, J.M.; Cladera, A. Shear design of reinforced concrete beams with FRP longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 74, 104–122. [CrossRef]
132. Pilakoutas, K.; Guadagnini, M. Shear of FRP RC: A review of the state-of-the-art. In Composites in Construction: A Reality; American
Society of Civil Engineers: Capri, Italy, 2001; pp. 173–182.
133. IStructE. Interim Guidance on the Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures Using Fibre Composite Reinforcement; Institution of Structural
Engineers: London, UK, 1999.
134. CSA. Design of Concrete Structures; CSA: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2004; Volume A23.
135. Taerwe, L.; Matthys, S.; Pilakoutas, K.; Guadagnini, M. European Activities on the Use of FRP Reinforcement; Thomas Telford
Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2001; Volume 1, pp. 3–15.
136. ICS. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings; National Standards Authority of
Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2004.
137. BSI. Structural Use of Concrete—Design and Construction; 8110-1; BSI: London, UK, 1997.
138. American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (ACI 318R-05);
American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005.
139. Lie, T.; Kodur, V. Fire resistance of steel columns filled with bar-reinforced concrete. J. Struct. Eng. 1996, 122, 30–36. [CrossRef]
140. Le, Q.X.; Dao, V.T.; Torero, J.L.; Maluk, C.; Bisby, L. Effects of temperature and temperature gradient on concrete performance at
elevated temperatures. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2018, 21, 1223–1233. [CrossRef]
141. de Oliveira, A.M.; Oliveira, A.P.; Vieira, J.D.; Junior, A.N.; Cascudo, O. Study of the development of hydration of ternary cement
pastes using X-ray computed microtomography, XRD-Rietveld method, TG/DTG, DSC, calorimetry and FTIR techniques. J. Build.
Eng. 2022, 64, 105616. [CrossRef]
142. Naus, D.J. The Effect of Elevated Temperature on Concrete Materials and Structures—A Literature Review; Oak Ridge National
Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2006.
143. Bilow, D.N.; Kamara, M.E. Fire and Concrete Structures. In Structures Congress 2008: Crossing Borders; American Society of Civil
Engineers: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2008; pp. 1–10.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1463 22 of 22

144. Jiang, J.; Qi, H.; Lu, Y.; Li, G.-Q.; Chen, W.; Ye, J. A state-of-the-art review on tensile membrane action in reinforced concrete floors
exposed to fire. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103502. [CrossRef]
145. Buchanan, A.H.; Abu, A.K. Structural Design for Fire Safety; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017.
146. Hajiloo, H.; Green, M.F.; Noël, M.; Bénichou, N.; Sultan, M. GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Slabs: Fire Resistance and Design
Efficiency. J. Compos. Constr. 2019, 23, 04019009. [CrossRef]
147. ASTM International Standards Organization. Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials; ASTM
International Standards Organization: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2012.
148. Weber, A.; Witt, C.; Nadjai, A. Composite rebars in RC members in case of fire. In Proc., Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges
and Structures; Canadian Society of Civil Engineering: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2008.
149. Karakurt, C. Properties of reinforced concrete steel rebars exposed to high temperatures. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2008, 2008, 814137.
150. Raj, H.; Saraf, A.; Sangal, S.; Misra, S. Residual properties of TMT steel bars after exposure to elevated temperatures. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2016, 28, 04015098. [CrossRef]
151. Kodur, V.; ASCE, M.; Bisby, L. Evaluation of Fire Endurance of Concrete Slabs Reinforcedwith Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars.
J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 131, 34–43. [CrossRef]
152. Robert, M.; Benmokrane, B. Behavior of GFRP reinforcing bars subjected to extreme temperatures. J. Compos. Constr. 2010, 14,
353–360. [CrossRef]
153. Li, C.; Xian, G. Experimental and modeling study of the evolution of mechanical properties of PAN-based carbon fibers at
elevated temperatures. Materials 2019, 12, 724. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
154. Feng, G.; Zhu, D.; Guo, S.; Rahman, M.Z.; Jin, Z.; Shi, C. A review on mechanical properties and deterioration mechanisms of FRP
bars under severe environmental and loading conditions. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 134, 104758. [CrossRef]
155. Khaneghahi, M.H.; Najafabadi, E.P.; Shoaei, P.; Oskouei, A.V. Effect of intumescent paint coating on mechanical properties of FRP
bars at elevated temperature. Polym. Test. 2018, 71, 72–86. [CrossRef]
156. Benson, C.M.; Elsmore, S. Reducing fire risk in buildings: The role of fire safety expertise and governance in building and
planning approval. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2022, 37, 927–950. [CrossRef]
157. Saafi, M. Effect of fire on FRP reinforced concrete members. Compos. Struct. 2002, 58, 11–20. [CrossRef]
158. Abbasi, A.; Hogg, P.J. Fire Testing of Concrete Beams with Fibre Reinforced Plastic Rebar; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004;
pp. 445–456.
159. Nadjai, A.; Talamona, D.; Ali, F. Fire performance of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars. Proc. Int. Sympsium Bond Behav.
FRP Struct. 2005, 401–410. [CrossRef]
160. Sadek, A.W.; El-Hawary, M.; El-Deeb, A.S. Fire resistance testing of concrete beams reinforced by GFRP rebars. J. Appl. Fire Sci.
2006, 14, 91. [CrossRef]
161. Rafi, M.; Nadjai, A.; Ali, F.; O’Hare, P. Evaluation of thermal resistance of FRP reinforced concrete beams in fire. J. Struct. Fire Eng.
2011, 2, 91–107. [CrossRef]
162. Lin, X.; Zhang, Y. Nonlinear finite element analyses of steel/FRP-reinforced concrete beams in fire conditions. Compos. Struct.
2013, 97, 277–285. [CrossRef]
163. Hawileh, R.; Naser, M. Thermal-stress analysis of RC beams reinforced with GFRP bars. Compos. Part B Eng. 2012, 43, 2135–2142.
[CrossRef]
164. Carvelli, V.; Pisani, M.A.; Poggi, C. High temperature effects on concrete members reinforced with GFRP rebars. Compos. Part B
Eng. 2013, 54, 125–132. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.