Comparative Structural Analysis of GFRP, Reinforced Concrete, and Steel Frames under Seismic Loads

Fibre-reinforced polymer composites in general, and especially glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP), have increasingly been used in recent decades in construction. The advantages of GFRP as an alternative construction material are its high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosive resistance, high durabi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Materials Vol. 16; no. 14; p. 4908
Main Authors: Mincigrucci, Luca, Civera, Marco, Lenticchia, Erica, Ceravolo, Rosario, Rosano, Michele, Russo, Salvatore
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 09-07-2023
MDPI
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Fibre-reinforced polymer composites in general, and especially glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP), have increasingly been used in recent decades in construction. The advantages of GFRP as an alternative construction material are its high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosive resistance, high durability, and ease of installation. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the response of GFRP under dynamic conditions (more specifically, under seismic loads) and to compare the performance of this composite material with that of two traditional building materials: reinforced concrete and structural steel. To this aim, a finite element analysis is carried out on a two-dimensional frame modelled with steel, reinforced concrete (RC), or GFRP pultruded materials and subjected to a seismic input. The dynamic response of the structure is evaluated for the three building materials in terms of displacements, inter-storey drift, base shear, and stress. The results show a good performance of the GFRP frame, with stress distribution and displacements halfway between those of RC and steel. Most importantly, the GFRP frame outperforms the other materials in terms of reduced weight and, thus, base shear (-40% compared to steel and -88.5% compared to RC).
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1996-1944
1996-1944
DOI:10.3390/ma16144908