AUBURN UNIVERSITY College of Architecture ...

AUBURN UNIVERSITY College of Architecture, Design, and Construction McWhorter School of Building Science Auburn, AL

An Examination of Fiber Reinforcement Bars and Fiber in Structural Steel Composite Concrete Floor Systems.

A scholarly capstone proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION by Sean Colley

Committee Chair Professor Ben Farrow, P.E.

Committee Members Dr. Salman Azhar Prof. Peter Weiss

July 2015

Acknowledgments I would like to thank my major professor Ben Farrow and committee members, Dr. Salman Azhar and Peter Weiss, for their guidance in completing this research study. I would also like to thank Michael Hein P.E., Amir Bonakdar Ph.D., P.E., Damien Smyth, and other industry representative that have helped me along the way.

I would like to thank Fibermesh, Euclid

Chemical, Aslan, Hughes Brothers, Jacob’s Engineering for their participation and guidance.

ii

Abstract This research was conducted on composite concrete floors, fibers, and FRB to evaluate if the construction industry is using new macro-synthetic fibers and FRB in steel structures. Fiber Reinforcement Bars and Fibers could possibly provide a faster and cheaper alternative to install structural steel composite concrete floor systems. Fiber reinforcement bars and fibers allow replacement of other materials such as common black steel rebar and welded wire fabric. Both have potential time and labor savings on construction projects. The aim of this research is to investigate Fiber Reinforcement Bars and Fibers in composite steel construction in order to improve composite concrete flooring, construction time, and possibly provide a more cost effective method for construction. The objectives for this research project were (1) to determine if fiber reinforcement bars or fibers are desirable substitutes for traditional reinforcements in structural steel composite concrete floor systems; (2) establish possible usage of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors; (3) establish limitations of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors; and (4) cost benefit analysis of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors. Preliminary research was collected through an extensive literature review of technical writings and publications. Then a detailed analysis of UL testing on composite concrete steel decking was examined for possible applications of fibers as a replacement to WWF. Followed by a financial analysis of Fibers and GFRP in CCF for a potential cost savings. Last, a questionnaire was sent out to a number of the top contractors in the southeastern United States, personal contacts, and corporate partners in Building Science to examine the current use of and future use of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. Research concluded that new fibers such as micro-synthetic fibers are desirable substitutions for welded wire fabric and could possibly help speed up the construction process. New fibers like FiberMesh® 650 have already been tested and approved for composite concrete steel decking, mostly in the UL-BXUV D700-900 series. Some in the D900 series do not require SprayApplied Fire Resistive Material (SFRM) placed under the deck floor, saving even more money and time. Some new fiber reinforcement bars like Tuf-Bar® 60GPa have twice the tension strength and ¼ the weight. Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) has a lower modulus of elasticity and lower melting points than steel. GFRP has a potential in transportation savings and labor installation, yet does not provide a cost savings in material. Both products could really help to improve structural steel composite concrete floor systems in the construction industry. There is a marketing and educational gap between the potential uses of these products and what these products are actually being used for today. There is a great potential for both products to use more in the construction industry and further studies should be conducted.

iii

Table of Contents Cover page………………………………………………………………………………..i Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………….…....ii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………iv-vi Chapter 1 1.1 - Introduction…………………..……………………………………….…………1-2 1.2 - Aim………………………………………………………………………………….2 1.3 - Objectives………...……………………………………………………………..….2 1.4 - Key Questions…………………………………………………………………..….3 1.5 - Scope…………………………………………………………………………….….4 Chapter 2 2.1 - 2.6 - Literature Review………...……………….………..…………………..…5-21 Chapter 3 3.1 - Methodology…………………………………………………………………........22 3.2 - Research Strategy………………………………………………………………...22 3.3 - Methodology Philosophy…………………………………………………………23 3.4 - Research Design……………………………………………………………….23-26 Chapter 4 4.1 – Results and Discussion…………………….…………………………………27-45 Chapter 5 5.1 – Conclusions……………………………………………………………………46-49 5.2 – Recommendations………………………………………………………………..50

References……………………………………………………………………………….….51-57 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………….….58

iv

List of Tables Table 2.1 - A615 Steel Rebar vs. High Modulus GFRP Table 2.2 - Potential Saving Advantage Over Time Table 4.1 - Price Comparison of FiberMesh vs Welded Wire Fabric Table 4.2 - Price Comparison of GFRP and Steel Rebar

List of Figures Figure i-1 - Composite Concreted Flooring / Steel Decking – Detail Plan View Figure 1.1 - Fiber Reinforcement Bars Figure 1.2 - Macro-Synthetic Fibers Figure 1.3 - Fibers Figure 1.4 - Metal Lath Figure 2.1 - Typical Composite Concrete Floor Figure 2.2 - Picture of Shear Studs Figure 2.3 - Steel weight vs. Span Figure 2.4 - Steel weight vs. Stories Figure 2.5 - Picture of Slimdek Figure 2.6 - GFRP Rebar # 3-7 Figure 2.7 - GFRP Example Use Figure 3.1 - Research Design Figure 3.2 - Composite Slab Detail of Gorrie Center Figure 4.1 - Question 1 Results Figure 4.2 - Question 2 Results Figure 4.4 - Question 4 Results Figure 4.5 - Question 5 Results Figure 4.6 - Question 6 Results Figure 4.7 - Question 7 Results Figure 4.8 - Question 8 Results Figure 4.9 - Question 9 Results Figure 4.10 - Question 10 Results v

Figure 4.11 - Question 11 Results Figure 4.12 - Question 12 Results Figure 4.13 - Question 13 Results Figure 4.14 - Question 14 Results Figure 4.15 - Question 15 Results Figure 4.16 - Question 16 Results Figure 4.17 - Question 17 Results Figure 4.18 - Question 18 Results Figure 4.19 - Question 19 Results Figure 4.20 - Question 20a Results Figure 4.21 - Question 21a Results Figure 4.22 - Question 22 Results Figure 4.23 - Question 23 Results Figure 4.24 - Question 24 Results Figure 4.25 - Question 25 Results Figure 4.26 - Question 26 Results

vi

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Research Background and Rationale New buildings need stronger and lighter materials in order to build one such as the Burj Dubai, the tallest building in the world. These new buildings call for new methods of construction. If a building can be designed to use lighter materials as well as less materials, then it also becomes cheaper to build. An example of this technology is the fact that the Burj Dubai used half the amount of steel as the Empire State Building (worldsteel.org, 2015). This research study intends to expand existing research on composite materials in construction, specifically with “Structural Steel Composite Concrete Floor Systems.”

As material choices for composite floors increase, the need for architects, engineers, and building construction managers to collaborate before construction begins is needed now more than ever. Complex buildings and composite systems composed of new, innovative materials mandate such collaboration. Currently composite concrete flooring (CCF), such as corrugated steel decking combined with structural concrete, is the most preferred method for commercial construction today in ‘steel structures’ (ascsd.com, 2015). This research will expand the existing literature as to whether glass fiber composites are acceptable substitutes to traditional steel reinforcing in structural steel buildings.

Traditional composite steel construction combines composite steel deck, structural concrete, and steel reinforcing acting in combination to form a combined structural system. The steel deck not only serves as a form for the wet concrete but also bonds with the concrete to form to provide tensile reinforcement once concrete is cured. Concrete has been used for its high compressive strength since it was created. However, concrete is brittle and has limited tensile strength. Steel reinforcement bars (rebar) have solved this problem for over a century. Steel bars are introduced in the slab to prevent cracking over negative moment regions and control cracking due to temperature and shrinkage. Fire ratings on composite steel systems have traditional been based on continuous welded wire fabric in the slab and shorter, steel reinforcing bars in the top of the slab over beams and girders. 1

Figure i-1. Composite Concreted Flooring – Detail Plan View

Steel reinforcing has been effective; however it has drawbacks. Oxidation and corrosion occurs when exposed to salts, water, and other aggressive chemicals. “As it corrodes, steel rebar swells and increases the tensile load on the concrete, which begins to crack and spall, creating openings that lead to further and faster deterioration of the steel and concrete” (compositesworld.com, 2015). Corrosion of reinforcing steel and other embedded metals is the leading cause of deterioration in concrete (cement.org, 2015). “Steel, is thermodynamically unstable under normal atmospheric conditions and will release energy and revert back to its natural state—iron oxide, or rust. This process is called corrosion” (cement.org, 2015). Steel is also heavy for site workers that must handle the material. This weight can limit productivity of workers and can lead to ergonomic concerns for “rodbusters” over time. Costs for steel reinforcing is also a concern in composite slabs as this adds to the costs of the composite system. Could an acceptable alternative for steel reinforcing exists that might limit costs, reduce weight, and limit susceptibility to corrosion?

Alternatives to steel reinforcing exists. Manmade processed materials, such as fiber boards, composite walls, and plastics are now replacing basic materials (wood, concrete, and brick) as primary components in building construction (Flaga, 2000). Carbon fiber, polymers, and plastics are all alternatives that may make composite concrete flooring more efficient for future use. Any use of these alternative composite materials would require study of fire resistance, environmental impact, and financial impacts.

2

This research will focus on two methods (fiber reinforcement bars and fibers) to replace steel rebar and welded wire mesh in traditional composite floors systems. The research will use fiber reinforcement bars as a replacement for traditional steel rebar in places of negative moment regions in slabs. In addition, new fibers such as microsynthetic fibers will be used to replace welded wire fabric throughout the slab system.

1.2 Research Aim The aim of this research is to investigate Fiber Reinforcement Bars and Fibers in composite steel construction in order to improve composite concrete flooring, construction time, and possibly provide a more cost effective method for construction.

1.3 Research Objectives The objectives of this research include: 1. Determine if fiber reinforcement bars or fibers are desirable substitutes for traditional reinforcements in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. 2. Establish possible usage of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors. 3. Establish limitations of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors. 4. Cost Benefit analysis of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors.

1.4 Research Key Questions 1. Are fiber reinforcement bars and fiber acceptable alternatives to traditional reinforcement, in composite steel construction? 2. What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in composite steel construction? 3. What are the barriers of using fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in composite steel construction?

3

4. What benefits would be realized by the contractor/subcontractor in the construction process by using fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors? 5. What types of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers are currently being used in construction today, and if so how are they using them? 6. Have architects or engineers considered using fiber reinforcement or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors?

1.5 Definitions: 1. Composite Concrete Flooring: sheet metal flooring and concrete which achieves over-all composite coaction of the concrete with the metal building elements (US3251167, 1963). 2. Composite Slabs: reinforced concrete cast on top of profiled steel decking, which acts as formwork during construction and external reinforcement at the final stage. 3. Steel Deck: is a cold formed corrugated steel sheet supported by steel joists or beams. 4. Corrugated Steel Decking: synonymous with Steel Deck and Composite Slabs

5. Fiber Reinforcement Bars: normally referring to glass fiber reinforcement bars or carbon fiber reinforcement bars that hold the same structural purposes of typical steel rebar (compositesworld.com, 2015).

Figure 1.1 – Fiber Reinforcement Bars

4

6. FiberMesh: a brand name that now is commonly referred to “macro-synthetic fibers.” Macro-synthetic fibers are different from micro-synthetic fibers (fibermesh.com, 2015).

Figure 1.2 – Macro-Synthetic Fibers 7. Fibers: short threads of nylon, PVA, polypropylene, fiberglass, steel, basalt, and other materials used in concrete to help prevent cracking and act as a secondary reinforcement.

Figure 1.3 – Fibers

8. Fiber Reinforced Concrete: concrete containing fibrous material which increases its structural integrity, (en.wikipedia.org, 2015)

9. Metal Lath: also called diamond mesh, multi-purpose expanded steel base widely used for plaster and stucco reinforcement sometimes used in slabs.

Figure A4 – Metal Lath

5

1.6 Scope 1.6.1 Research Scope. The scope consisted of an online questionnaire to major commercial construction companies and architectural firms in Southeastern United States in a two week period. The target group of professionals consist of Architects, Engineers, and Construction Management. There was no specific size of a firm. Emphasis was placed on obtaining emails from larger firms in order to collect data on large projects as well as small projects that consisted of construction of steel structure buildings.

1.6.2 Constraints The constraints of the research was over a period of two college semesters to conduct a literature review and two weeks to collect the data. There was a financial constraint of $600 mostly used for traveling to collect new data on fibers and fiber reinforcement bar. There was no additional funds to pay a survey company for email address of a larger population. Therefor contacts came from corporate partners in Building Science.

6

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Typical Composite Concrete Flooring in Steel Structures Composite flooring is a group of materials joined together through cement, rebar, shear studs, beams and curing of concrete that bond them together to create a solid composite floor. What makes a composite floor in “construction terms” is the bonding of the beams girders and slab together to help resist bending and shear forces as well as deflection. There is a wide range of products that can be correlated to and called composite construction. Typically, the system consist of 5 parts: steel decking, concrete, reinforcement, beams and shear studs or pins; other material like welded wire mesh and fibers may be added. The steel decking helps to hold the concrete while it is being placed and it also provides tension strength in the overall composite floor. Concrete provides a solid structure that delivers sound dampening, fire protection, and takes compressive loads. Reinforcement gives the elasticity and helps hold the concrete together during the curing phase and prevents cracking throughout the concrete’s life span. It also provides strength horizontally throughout the slab. The beams and girders are supporting the slab vertically by transferring the weight from the slab to the columns to the foundation of the building (J. Struct. Eng. 2002). They can also transfer the loads horizontally in strong winds. What makes a slab composite is the final key bonding from the slab to the beam with the use of shear studs. This is how the load the horizontal load is transferred to the beams and columns. Shear studs are spaced more frequently near the end of the beam and less frequently as they spread outward towards the center (Gelfi et al, 2002). One of the main reasons for composite flooring or corrugate steel decking is its ability to span long distances. There is an increase in required floor space from owners (bdcnetwork.com). Composite flooring helps to meet that requirement. “Steel construction utilizing a prefabricated structural steel frame can reduce overall building costs by 2 - 3% when compared to reinforced concrete. When inflation is taken into consideration, the cost of steel build has reduced by 14% in real terms. Over the same period the real cost of the concrete construction has increased by 16% (reidsteel.com, 2015)”

7

2.2 How Composite Corrugated Steel Deck Work with a Building and Its Components With in the Slab Many projects are currently using “composite concrete corrugated steel decking” as the primary means of building (Kent, 2010). Concrete and steel have a solid bonding relationship. The steel decking acts as bracing platform and formwork all at the same time. Steel decking still requires joist to be spaced out 4-8 feet for best economics when designing the building (ascsd.com, 2014), (see figure 1.4). The further apart the joist are spread the larger and thicker the joist become and the thicker the slab has to be, both are then increasing the cost. Wire mesh is not always required since steel decking acts in tension already while the concrete is mostly in compression towards the top. Wire mesh helps to prevent cracking and it helps to reinforce the concrete, it is best used in earthquake zones, (appropedia.org, 2015). The typical composite slab is 5 to 8 inches think in most commercial buildings. ASC Steel Deck recommends an absolute minimum of 1.5 inches of concrete above the steel deck (ascsd.com, 2014). Typically the steel decking is 3 inches in depth, with another 2-6 inches of concrete poured on top of the steel decking. For example, ASC 3WHF-36 Cellular Composite Decking that has a normal weight concrete of 150 lbs. per cubic foot and maximum unshored span requires the total thickness to be 6.5 inches for one hour of fire rating and 7.5 inches for a two hour fire rating. Rivets and shear pins are normally welded to the I-beams or trusses to prevent shear forces. Composite bonding is achieved by welding studs to the I-beam or flange to form a continuous shear assembly. The slab then acts as the compression flange for the beam. When used with composite concrete flooring, the studs are welded through the decking onto the flange of the I-beams to form a connection between steel beam and concrete slab, (see figure 1.5).

Figure 2.1 (Typical Composite Concrete Floor)

Figure 2.2 (Picture of shear studs)

8

Corrugated steel decking is very strong and comes in many different shapes and forms that allow for different applications. The ribs and wells act like miniature concrete beams that help support the overall structure. Maximum beam span is about 15m (49 ft) and beam depth can be estimated as span divided by 25, (tatasteelconstruction.com, 2014). The longer the span of a slab, the heavier the floor steel is required to span the distance. This is due to the increase load and therefore causes the steel has to be thicker, larger, stronger, and more expensive to support the weight, (see Figure 2.3). A new recommendation is that more reinforcement be added along the bottom of the wells, which would increase the strength on the bottom half of the slab in tension. This could be done in a few ways. One option is to increase the thickness of the steel decking; and a second option would be to lay light weight fiber reinforcement bars along the bottom; a third option is to add fibers. The stronger a bond is between the steel and concrete the better it bonds as a composite. The bottom of a slab is where most failing occurs in CCF, initially starting with cracking, bond separation, and ultimately buckling and twisting, (J. Struct. Eng. 2002). Many studies have been conducted on the interfacial bond between concrete and steel. Various micro and macro-synthetic fibers now help keep the concrete from cracking during the early curing stages of concrete and help to provide a more solid composite slab, this intern helps to form a stronger interfacial bond (fibermesh.com, 2015).

Figure 2.3 (Steel weight vs. Span) (tatasteelconstruction.com, 2014) Figure 2.4 (Steel weight vs Stories) (tatasteelconstruction.com, 2014)

In 2004 Chaklos, Yulismana and Earls conducted testing on composite concrete deck (133.35mm & 191mm think) to see the interfacial bond strength in composite flooring. In the results, they found that after three days concrete tends to result in interfacial bond strengths adequate to resist 9

dead loads and construction live loads. They also found that during flexural testing, all specimens display a failure load well below the load to cause first yield in the composite floor cross section [i.e., failure occurred at between 1/4 and 1/3 of the ideal first yield capacity, as predicted by ASCE 3-91 (ASCE 1994)], (Chaklos et. al, 2004). To increase the interfacial bond manufactures have done various things to improve the interfacial bond, such as bumps, notches, ribs, holes, and flaps to help improve the boding. The ribs shown in Figure 2.5 helps to understand interfacial bond in a composite slab.

Figure 2.5 (Picture of Slimdek® - highlighting the ribs in steel deck)

2.3 Trends in Composite Flooring. Composite corrugated steel decking has been used for over the past 50 years. The materials inside has changed very little over the years, an example it patent US3462902 A. Some earlier patents were found around 1960’s but seemed to really expound in the 1980s. Applications in construction are expounding and becoming more prominent and affordable. According to L. G. Griffis, composite floor systems used for low-rise buildings, accounted for more than 90% of the floor area constructed annually in the United States late 1990’s (J. Struct. Eng., 2002). Over the past two decades, construction has focused on how to minimize floor spacing. Cutting the floor spacing eliminates materials and cost. Two new terms that is being used throughout the construction business is “slim decking,” (tatasteelconstruction.com, 2015) or “slim flooring,” (Nardin, et al, 2010). The goal is it reduce slab thickness and materials, (see Figure 1.8). One method is reduce the floor height by using the bottom the beam instead of the top of the beam. This is mostly used in deep decking or deep well decking. Deep decking spans father than most, some offer spans near six meters (19.7 feet) un-propped, (bmp-group.com, 2014). Shoring takes time and money and slows down construction (J. Struct. Eng., 2002). Another type of composite 10

corrugated steel decking (CCSD) is one that centralizes on asymmetric beams that bonds directly with a shallow beam when concrete is poured directly over top of the beam this eliminates shear studs and pins. The Slimdek® system offers a cost-effective, service-integrated, minimal depth floor for use in multistory steel-framed buildings with grids up to 9m x 9m, (tatasteelconstruction.com, 2014). The market is searching for lighter and stronger building materials. Recommendations for making composite decking lighter has to take into effect both as a composite when combined and the separate as parts. Steel weighs around 490 lbs. per cubic foot and concrete weights around 144 lbs. per cubic foot; and concrete reinforced concrete weights around 150 lbs. per cubic foot. As floors are made slimmer and thinner they become more susceptible to vibrations (Hicks and Devine, 2006). It is essential that an assessment of the floor vibration from walking or other activities such as equipment be fully considered at the design stage (Hicks and Devine, 2006).

2.4 Fundamental Materials in Composite Concrete Flooring The history of composite concrete flooring is important. The process of using lumber to create forms is both time consuming and labor intensive. Lumber normal requires bracing underneath for concrete floors to cure and bond to the reinforcement. This bracing method takes extra time and materials. Lumber normally has to be cut in order to fit to a specific site or location. The wooden formwork is many times unusable after only a few applications (cement.org, 2015). It is important to minimize waste during construction (Gavilan and Bernold, 1994). Early forays into this technology were done more than 100 years ago by Thomas Edison.

Steel decking allows for three steps to become one. The steel decking acts as the formwork while the shape of the decking and the beam welds allows it to span the full distance from beam to beam. Some designs do not require any bracing, therefore eliminating the bracing step. The advantages of steel and concrete lead to a very economical alternative for wide spanned slabs, “especially in terms of high bearing capacity and small dimensions as well as time efficiency due to pre-fabrication,” (Grages and Lange, 2006). Last there is no stripping of formwork. But the issue of how to make the overall process faster, lighter, and more cost effective still stands.

11

2.4.1 Concrete Concrete can be wasteful if not recycled and disposed of properly. There are proposed solutions discussed later for concrete re-use. Since time is money the need for concrete to set up and cure faster is a requirement for future development. Some current methods use accelerators and Heat to allow for a much faster cure. Self-consolidating concrete (SCC) which is more flowable and formable helps speed up the process (Deng and Morcous, 2011). Since SCC is highly flowable and self-consolidating it is ideal for different types of Composite Concrete Flooring (CCF), and works well with fiber reinforcement (Lachemi et al, 2012). SCC as a structural material that can be improved if adequate steel fiber reinforcement is added to SCC mix composition. “Fiberreinforcement mechanisms can convert the brittle behavior of SCC cement-based material into a pseudo-ductile behavior up to a crack width that is acceptable under the structural design point of view” (Pereira, et al, 2008). Therefore the process of pouring the concrete and the type of concrete needs to be carefully considered.

2.5 Reinforcement in Concrete Concrete is well known for its high compressive strength and its limited tensile strength (Metwally and Abd, 2012). Concrete cracks in tension. Reinforcement of concrete is necessary in most applications and especially in structural concrete. Concrete slabs without reinforcement are sure to crack. In some cases slabs on grade cracking is not a major concern, but in elevated floor slabs this can become a safety problem or a maintenance problem. Cracking occurs over beams and girders where top of the slab is in tension (Ramm and Elz, 2002; Muttoni and Fernández, 2007; Searer et al, 2009). Typical details for composite slabs have bars over the beam and girders to prevent cracking. In the Auburn University Building Science building, called the Gorrie Center, the bars over girders were spaced at 12 inches on center at 12 feet long and over the beams at 12 inches on center at 6 feet long.

Results from Ujike, Okazaki and Sato in 2013 suggest that the rate of rebar corrosion in concrete accelerates as the width of internal cracking increases. Once the cracks occurs moisture then can move into the slab where it starts damaging rebar and other metal reinforcing materials. Therefore it is important to prevent cracks in concrete by using reinforcement bars or fibers.

12

2.6 Fiber Reinforcement Bars Fiber reinforcement bars are typically bars designed out of glass spun or carbon spun materials designed for the purpose of structural reinforcement in concrete. A new product called Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer or Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) is replacing steel rebar now in some markets (hughesbros.com, 2015). Currently GFRP rebar is being used in bridges and other underwater products, due to is ability to not rust or break down chemically in water (vrod.ca, 2015). GFRP is 1/4 to 1/5th the weight of steel-rebar. GFRP uses glass fibers and polymers to make up its composition (fiberglassrebar.us, 2015). In theory, FRP composites can be used as non-prestressed reinforcement to concrete for members subjected to flexure, shear, and compression (Faza, 2004). GFRP is not a suitable for prestressing tendons, yet CFRP and AFRP rods indicate fatigue performance that is superior to steel (Hensher, 2013). GFRP has the following main improvements (bpcomposites.com, 2015): 

Zero Maintenance for 100+ years



¼ the weight as steel



2 x Tensile Strength



Non-magnetic or conductive



Thermal Insulating



Easy to cut

GFRP works well with bridge decks, barrier walls, roads, concrete slabs, power generation, MRI, tunneling and marine/water applications (vrod.ca, 2015). GFRP also is used to make rock bolts, lift anchors, and form ties (bpcomposites.com, 2015). GFRP is proposed to have less cracking in concrete when subject to high frequency loading such as in a bridges (Xin, et al, 2013; Kamruzzaman, 2014). GFRP has a modulus of elasticity is very similar to concrete (bpcomposites.com, 2015). Damage occurs to concrete as steel bends within the pour. Steel’s modulus of elasticity is many times higher concrete; therefore, steel is less forgiving than GFRP. 𝑓

𝑃𝐿

From Young’s Modulus we know that (E = 𝜀 and = 𝐴𝐸 ), therefor as E gets smaller 𝛿 increses. Where E is elasticity, ƒ is stress, 𝛿 is deformation, Ɛ is strain, is P is the applied load, L is length, and A is the cross-section area (Onouye and Kane, 2012). The major improvement over steel rebar is GFRP rebar eliminates corrosion (compositesworld.com), thus prevents spalling and cracking which normally occurs over time 13

(bpcomposites.com, 2015), this cracking normally occurs in the negative reinforcement regions more so around columns (Paret, et al, 2010). There is little research in deformation in concrete floors, other research in shear walls has shown GFRP acts to protect concrete longer in cyclic deformation tests (Mohamed et. al, 2014). Although, using GFRP bars gave uniform distributions of shear strains along the shear region of the GFRP-reinforced shear walls, resulting in less shear deformations than those experienced in the steel-reinforced shear wall (Mohamed et. al, 2014). In figure 2.1 one can see Kodiak® GFRP rebar is not as strong as TufBar®, this is because new products and new technology are making GFRP Stronger. Kodiak was the pioneer of early GFRP, and they now provide new stronger products as well. Below figure 2.6 shows GFRP rebar in various sizes and shapes and figure 2.7 shows an example use of the product. GFRP is stronger in some areas and weaker in others. Table 2.1 shows these comparisons.

Figure 2.6 (GFRP Rebar # 3-7) (bpcomposites.com)

Figure 2.7 (Example use) (hughesbros.com)

Table 2.1 (A615 Steel Rebar vs. High Modulus GFRP) Data came from the following three sites: (swlaind.com/anchor-et-hp-technical-data/, fiberglassrebar.us/fiberglass-rebar/, and bpcomposites.com, 2015) ASTM A615 grade 60 Rebar Average Average Modulus Rebar Diameter Minimum Minimum Rebar of Size of Rebar Size No. Tensil Yeild Elasticity No. in. / (mm) Stenth (mm) Strengh < MPa / (ksi) MPa / (ksi) ksi #4 1/2 620 413 29 #4 (12.7) (90) (60) (12) #5 5/8 620 413 29 #5 (15.9) (90) (60) (15) #6 3/4 620 413 29 #6 (19.1) (90) (60) (20) #7 7/8 620 413 29 #7 (22.2) (90) (60) (22) #8 1 620 413 29 #8 (25.4) (90) (60) (25)

14

High Modulus GFRP (60 Gpa) Kodiak (Basalt TufBar rebar) TufBar TufBar Ultimate Ultimate Modulus of Transverse Tensile Tensile Elasticity Shear 1370.5 965 61100 235.1 (184.5) (140) (8868) (34.41) 1287.3 896 62600 249.9 (186.7) (130) (9078) (36.2) 1236.4 827 62700 234.9 (179.3) (120) (9091) (34.1) 1168.3 738 61200 230.1 (169.5) (107) (8878) (33.4) 1201 689 61700 226.7 (174.2) (100) (8944) (32.9)

GFRP is lighter than steel and concrete (vrod.ca, 2015). In multistory buildings, GFRP could make a building lighter reducing column and foundation loads. The product is so new that it is still undergoing multiple tests (compositesworld.com, 2015). Currently 60GPa High Modulus GFRP rebar complies with ASTM D7205 in tensile force and tensile strength, ACI 440.3R B3 in bond strength, and ACI 440.3R B4 in transverse shear strength and shear force (bpcomposites.com, 2015; concrete.org, 2015). GFRP is expected to go beyond the life expectancy of black steel by 3-4 times and twice as long as galvanized steel, (bpcomposites.com, 2015). The main issue with GFRP is its fire resistance, a higher fire resistance can be obtained by increasing the concrete cover thickness (Kodur and Bisby, 2005). New military applications of GFRP were test in “Light-Weight Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Deck,” (Robinson and Kosmatka, 2008). The study found that weight savings up to 35% can be realized by using FRP webbed decking in place of conventional aluminum decking, therefore if a weight savings can be realize in this application it could also be realized in corrugate steel decking.

2.6.1 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Carbon Fiber is used in a wide range of applications, from airplanes to race cars. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars (CFRP) is stronger than GFRP in some cases, mostly in tensile strength (Hensher, 2013). For example, Aslan 200 No. 4, 0.5 in (13mm) bar has a tensile strength of 2068 MPa while a GFRP bar may have around 1100-1300 MPa, (aslanfrp.com, 2015). CFRP is nearly doubling the tensile strength of GFRP. CFRP is currently being used in bridge decks with cantilevers, negative moment regions, parapets, parking garages, floor slabs, column to slab connections, and crack-stitching / adjoining members. CFRP, like the Aslan 200 are impervious to chloride ion and chemical attack (will not corrode like steel), tensile strength greater than steel, and 1/5th the weight of steel. Currently CFRP is more expensive than GFRP and steel (Burgoyne and Balafas, 2007). But when it comes to repairs of degrading bridges due to the elements of weather and salt, CFRP is an excellent choice (aslanfrp.com, 2015).

2.6.2 Basalt Fiber Reinforcement Bars Basalt Fiber Reinforcement Polymer (BFRP) bars are made from volcanic rock. Basalt® states the rebar is stronger than steel and has a higher tensile strength and is 89% percent lighter than steel (basalt-rebar.com, 2015). Basalt® also states that one man can easily lift a 500 foot coil of 15

10 mm basalt rebar. Basalt® rebar is naturally resistant to alkali, rust and acids, and has the same thermal coefficient expansion as concrete. Basalt® FRP rebar is used as per ACI 440.1R06. The construction use is dictated by code 440.6-08 (basalt-rebar.com, 2015). It is specified by 440.5-08 and tested according to ASTM D7205 and several other test methods. ASTM testing of Basalt FRP rebar shows that Basalt® FRP rebar easily meets the performance requirements of ACI 440.6-08 (basalt-rebar.com, 2015). Research conducted in early 2015 by (Altalmasa and Refai) on BFRP bars showed higher adhesion and bond strengths to concrete than the ribbed glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars irrespective of the fiber type and the exposure condition in their test (Altalmasa and Refai, 2015)

2.6.3 Fire Resistance to Fiber Bars Fire resistance is an important aspect in any structure. Since FRP/GRFP is so new to the industry there is very little research and testing done on slabs containing FRP. In accordance with Kodur and Bisby, a joint research project between NRC and PWGSC (Public Works and Government Services of Canada). Results of the parametric studies show that FRP-reinforced concrete slabs have lower fire resistance than slabs reinforced with conventional reinforcing steel when fire endurance is defined in terms of the critical temperature of the reinforcement. Outlined in the paper, the main factors that influence the fire resistance of FRP-reinforced concrete slabs are: the concrete cover thickness, type of reinforcement, and the type of aggregate in the concrete. A higher fire resistance for FRP-reinforced concrete slabs can be obtained through greater concrete cover thickness and through the use of carbonate aggregate concrete (Kodur and Bisby, 2005). The study above found out that 4 in (100 mm) thickness or more was very effective at protecting the FRP/GFRP and fire resistance remained constant (Kodur and Bisby, 2005). Interestingly the thicker concrete seemed to be the key factor in the D900 series composites that are currently already approved by Underwriter Laboratories File R14701, Project 06NK25450 (ul.com, 2015), see Appendix 3. For certain composite structures like D924-926 the thicker concrete allows the composite to do away with sprayed on fire coatings under the slab (see Appendix 2), yet still requires it around the beams and joists these slabs were at 4.5 in (114 mm) (ul.com, 2015).

16

2.7 Fibers in Concrete In the past various types of fibers have been used in concrete as a secondary reinforcement (Auchey, 1998; Roberts-Wollmann, 2004). Fibers are mainly used to help with shrinking and cracking in the early stages. Since this technology was developed microsynthetic fibers can now prevent 80-100% of all cracks in the plastic state, specifically when most cracks occur in concrete (fibermesh.com, 2015). This is a big change, since most cracking occurs in the first 24 hours of the drying phase. During the plastic settlement phase, theses fibers create a threedimensional support network that resists the downward pull of gravity, thus keeping aggregates in suspension. Cracks that do occur in the first 24 hours, in most cases, are present as long as the building stands. Cracks weaken the structure and allow moisture to come into the slab. New fibers like Fibermesh® 650 macrosynthetic fibers are stronger than fibers used in the past; they can be used as an alternate or in addition to the “welded wire fabric in 1, 1-1/2, 2, 2-1/2 and 3 hour Floor-Ceiling D700, D800 and D900 Series Designs,” (fibermesh.com, 2015).

Macro-synthetic fibers are quantum technological leap in fibers, these fibers are made from a new material that offers the long-term performance of steel fibers at a lower dosage rate. The wavelike shape of each fiber serves to anchor it firmly within the concrete (fibermesh.com, 2015). The design of the fibers allows for a much higher rate per unit volume, infusing the concrete with added levels of toughness, energy absorption and durability (fibermesh.com, 2015). In addition, macro-synthetic fibers provide an added measure of crack control without the risk of corrosion associated with steel. Using macro-synthetic fibers could save time and labor cost by cutting out welded wire mesh and metal lath (fibermesh.com, 2015). This is show later in Table 2.2 in a price comparison. Recycled high-density polyethylene (RHDPE) fiber can also be used as secondary reinforcement in concrete. In a study at Virginia Tech RHDPE after 28 days with 0.1% fiber shows an average of 5% greater compressive strength over concrete with no fiber and 10% over the fibrillated (fiber mix) specimens, (Auchey, 1998).

Another type of fiber is Basalt fibers. Basalt fibers offers an alternative to e-glass fibers. Basalt fibers are made from processed volcanic basalt rock. Basalt fibers have a very good alkali resistance and have zero corrosion within concrete mixes. Basalt fiber is pure processed basalt aggregate. It has no additives and has no recycling issues unlike most polymer reinforcements. 17

When compared to carbon and aramid fiber, Basalt fiber has a broader application temperature range -452° F to 1,200° F (-269° C to +650° C), higher oxidation resistance, higher radiation resistance, higher compression strength, and higher shear strength (build-on-prince.com, 2015).

2.7.2 Steel Fibers Another type of fiber is PSI Crimped Steel Fibers, which are low carbon, cold drawn steel wire fibers designed to provide concrete with temperature and shrinkage crack control, enhanced flexural reinforcement, improved shear strength and increased the crack resistance of concrete (Tan and Paramasivam, 1994). PSI Crimped Steel Fiber complies with ASTM C1116, standard specification for Fiber Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete and ASTM A820, Type I, standard specification for steel fibers for fiber reinforced concrete (euclidchemical.com, 2015). These steel macro-fibers will also improve impact, shatter, fatigue, and abrasion resistance while increasing toughness of concrete. Dosage rates will vary depending upon the reinforcing requirements and can range from 25 to 100 lbs/yd³ (euclidchemical.com, 2015). Steel Fiber offer some properties that other fibers cannot compete with on the same level. Micro and macro fibers are very good at plastic shrinkage; steel fibers are better at long term shrinkage cracking, residual strength, crack width control, impact resistance, fatigue resistance and heat/fire resistance (hicfibers.com, 2015). Some companies recommend combining the two or three types of fibers (fibermesh.com, 2015). Another reason steel fibers may be added to concrete is to increase the load bearing capacity.

Steel fibers length has to be in the range of 2.5 times the maximum aggregate size in order to effectively control cracks in the sprayed concrete; however the fiber length cannot be longer than 2/3 the nozzle diameter of the spraying machine. Steel fibers also provide tensile strength in concrete. HIC and Novomesh steel fibers are crimped on the ends to provide a hook action into the concrete. ASTM 820 and ASTM 820M discuss Standard Specification for Steel Fibers for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete. Some companies call their (steel fibers) micro-rebar. Helix uses a steel wire that is shaped like a twisted square. The steel wire that Helix uses has a tensile strength of 268.3 ksi (+/- 21.8 ksi) or 1850 MPa (+/- 150 MPa) and a minimum of 3 g/m2 zinc coting. The length is about 1 inch and the cross section is 0.003 in^2 or 0.196 mm^2. Each Helix micro rebar is twisted 360 (helixsteel.com, 2015). In a test conducted in 2010, hooked 18

steel fibers in a 1.5% volume fraction were effective at increasing the ductility of slab-column connections subjected to combined gravity loads (Cheng et al, 2010).

2.7.3 Fire and Metal Lath Replacement If any fiber is going to be used in composite concrete flooring with steel decking, a clear understanding of the fire behavior of the composite floor assemblies is necessary for developing rational design approaches under performance based design environment (Pakala et al, 2011). FiberMesh 650, for example is currently tested in D700, D800 and D900 series designs (see Appendix 3), allowing General Contractors and Engineers to use the fibers now in construction. Glass fiber concrete thin sheets for pre-stressed purposes are still being tested, yet non-metallic fabric mesh is used to replace various metal lath sometimes called diamond mesh. Many fibers can now replace metal lath or diamond mesh, this is also stated in may D900 series designs (industries.ul.com, 2015). Most fibers can now replace the diamond mesh / metal lath when it is an option in a composite floor system design.

2.7.4 Combinations of Both Fibers and FRP Bars Little research has been done on the combinations of both Fibers and Fiber Reinforcement Bars. In a study called “Bond Durability of FRP Bars Embedded in Fiber-Reinforced Concrete.” The results showed that bond durability significantly improved when using a combination of Fibers and FRP Bars, owed to the restriction of the concrete crack by the addition of polypropylene fibers. With the addition of polypropylene fibers, the bond durability significantly improved, resulting in a restriction of the crack development (Belarbi and Wang, 2015).

2.8 Cost Savings and Construction Time Improvements Due to the fact that Fibers and Fiber Reinforcement Bars are so new to construction industry there are very few studies that have been conducted on them with regards to cost and time. One comparison is the cost of materials and labor using fibers vs welded wire fabric (WWF). This comparison was done using Steel Deck Institute data and Fibermesh 650 excel calculator. This comparison did not take into count slab on grade but focused more on the composite decking on the second and third floors since the ground slab is not a composite steel deck. Below is a viable cost savings in both labor and materials using fibers vs. WWF. Fibers are also lighter than WWF 19

and are also easier to ship due to the fact that they come in cubes. It has been proven in bridges that there is a cost saving in shipping FRP (Nystrom, 2003). One of the largest savings with fiber reinforcement bars are the weight to volume shipping ratios on trucks. One could ship 4 x times the fiber reinforcement bars than black steel traditional rebar due to weight of the truck and the fact that FRB is ¼ the weight of rebar (bpcomposites.com, 2015). Another comparison is the labor force could carry 4 times more bars than steel due to the weight. GFRP TufBar® uses a snap in place quick installing device that could also help speed up installation of fiber reinforcement bars. Table 2.2 Potential Saving Advantage Over Time

Black Steel GFRP (low) GFRP (high) Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Per unit Price 1 1.35 1.5

Per Unit Shipping 1 0.25 0.50

Potential Savings Advantage Over Time Per Unit Unit GFRP Unit Life Cost Savings Over Installation Cost Evaluation Advantage Expectancy Lifetime of Material 1 3 1 0.6 2.2 26.67% 4 106.67% 0.8 2.8 6.67% 4 26.67%

GFRP is 1/4 to 1/5 the weight of steel GFRP cost 1.2 to 1.5 times the amount of steel GRRP can ship 2 to 4 times the amount at the same cost of steel, due to weight Various companies state that GFRP will out last steel due to corrosion by 4 times GFRP is estimated to take half the time to install using clips and labor to carry four times as much Low range to a high range on data was used for a more accuracy

GFRP is approximately 1.2 to 1.5 times more in cost than steel (dot.state.fl.us, 2012; bpcomposites.com, 2015). An example study from Florida Department of Transportation the cost of deck rebar in a (180’ x 80’ x 8 psf) black steel was $55,296 and Basalt® GFRP was $73,728, making GFRP 1.34 more expensive. This agrees with the numbers stated above and falls between 1.2 and 1.5. The cost savings comes from transportation cost (dot.state.fl.us, 2012; Nystrom, 2003). Transportation cost is the largest savings when using GFRP. John P. Busel, Director, Composites Growth Initiative American Composites Manufacturers Association conducted research with GRFP in bridges, in his example a 150 Tons of GFRP = 1.2 million lbs of steel rebar, that is 30 truckloads (dot.state.fl.us, 2012; acmanet.org, 2015). Reducing transportation cost by 50% or more is a substantial savings. This transportation cost savings would only be practicable in large buildings and not small buildings. There is currently no testing of labor savings of GFRP in steel structure buildings. Therefore this is a limitations in the

20

research. There are two pictures below that depict truckloads of GFRP vs Rebar. Once can clearly see the difference in size and cubic space.

Figure 2.9 – Truck load of steel on left and a Truck load of GFRP on right

21

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Introduction The purpose of the study was to examine fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. The study consisted of asking architects, engineers, and construction managers through an online survey, various questions concerning fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems.

3.2 Research Strategy This study was designed to answer four primary questions and six key questions. Four Primary Questions: 1. Are fiber reinforcement bars and fibers desirable substitutes for traditional reinforcements in structural steel composite concrete floor systems? 2. What possible usage can fiber reinforcement bars and fibers be used in structural steel composite concrete floors? 3. What are the limitations of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors? 4. Is there a cost benefit of using fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors? Six detailed questions that go into further analysis and adjust primary issues: 1. Are fiber reinforcement bars and fiber safe and acceptable alternatives to traditional reinforcement, in composite steel construction? 2. What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of fiber reinforcement bars or fibers in composite steel construction? 3. What are the barriers of using fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in composite steel construction? 4. What benefits would be realized by the contractor/subcontractor in the construction process by using fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors? 5. What types of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers are currently being used in construction today, and if so how are they using them? 22

6. Have architects or engineers considered using fiber reinforcement or fibers in structural steel composite concrete floors?

3.3 Methodology Philosophy Research can be considered to be a ‘voyage of discovery’, whether anything is discovered or not (Fellows and Liu, 2008). The research used in this study was a mixed methods process to validate the use fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. Mixed methods consist of quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. Qualitative research was used to see what barriers may arise when using new products in construction by assessing the ideas of current professional construction trades. Abowitz and Tool consider that people play key roles in nearly all aspects of construction. “In effect, construction can be considered to be the application by people of technology developed by people to achieve goals established by people involving the erection or retrofitting of infrastructure and buildings” (Abowitz and Toole, 2010). It was noted early on in the literature review that there was little knowledge and use of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers being used in composite concrete flooring. The following research relied on the gathering of as much data as possible from qualified architects, engineers, and construction managers in the available time frame. Quantitative analysis was used on the data that was collected from the surveys to find percentages, averages, median, mode, and standard deviation of certain questions.

3.4 Research Design The research had a series of steps in which will achieve the objectives. Figure 3.1 shows the construction capstone research process followed to reach the objective of study.

23

Figure 3.1 Research Design 3.4.1 Step 1 – Preliminary Research on Composite Concrete Flooring The first step is to conduct preliminary research. This research was collected via extensive literature search on composite concrete flooring, steel decking, fibers, and fiber reinforcement bars. Case studies and articles published in various technical journals, magazines and conference proceedings were collected, reviewed and summarized to determine if fiber reinforcement bars and fibers have been used in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. The study also included reviewing some history of composite floor systems and types of composite floor systems on the internet and in published books. 3.4.2 Step 2 – Detailed Analysis of UL testing on Composite Concrete Steel Decking The second step was conducting a detail analysis of Underwriter Laboratories fire testing on composite slabs. A 2014 CD of UL composite flooring were scanned and a further updated 2015 online version at UL.COM was examined to verify which composite concrete floors were compatible with fibers and tested for a 2 hour fire rating. After this search was conducted, a second search was conducted on which floors that do not require sprayed on fire protection underneath. The purpose of this was to see if idea or theory was possible. Results are shown in Appendix 2. 24

3.4.3 Step 3 Financial Analysis of Fibers and GFRP in Concrete A small cost analysis was conducting using a FiberMesh online calculator to validate the theory that fibers could provide a cost savings in labor and materials during construction. This was conducted using the second and third floor of the Auburn University Building Science Gorrie center, see Figure 3.2 (further details in Appendix 5). A review of the structural drawings were used to help calculate the thickness of the slab and dimensions of the slabs as an example estimate, see Annex 5 for more details. Labor cost and material in the calculator were approximate to 2014 labor cost in the Southeastern United States. The analysis was to determine if fibers could provide a cost savings to WWF reinforcement. Further analysis was done substituting GFRP for steel rebar. From the literature review the cost of GFRP reinforcement materials is more expensive than standard steel rebar. There was little to no research on labor cost associated with GFRP which was a limitation in the research. Majority of the cost savings comes from shipping (Nystrom, 2003). These financial steps were necessary in order to continue the practicality of the study. It was also necessary to contact companies that sell GFRP in order to obtain current pricing data.

Figure 3.2 Composite Slab Detail of Gorrie Center

3.4.4 Step 4 - Designing and Sending the Survey The fourth step was sending out a questionnaire to a number of the top contractors and project management companies in the southeastern United States, personal contacts, and corporate partners in Building Science to examine the current use of and future use of fiber reinforcement 25

bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. The survey was built on surverymonkey.com. The survey included a few pictures of fibers and fiber bars to help the reader understand what the product is since they are both very new to the field. Pictures are shown in Appendix 1. The questions in the survey are shown in Appendix 3. The research will collect ideas on future applications on fiber reinforcement bars and fibers for construction and how they can be realized. 3.4.5 Step 5 – Analyze the Responses and Conduct Statistical Analysis Finally the data was analyzed to determine common themes and average data in the work. This was done by a series of three questions in the beginning of the survey. Then the survey asked about experience in order to prove validity and expertise. Throughout the survey various questions contained options that are scaled to help the reader choose an answer which best fit their experience. A quantitative analysis was used to account for numbers and percentages of answers, others used a statistical analyses to validate answers. The data was charted using excel and Survey Monkeys Bar charts. Totals, Percentages, Mean Median, Mode and Standard Deviation was collected on key questions. Trend analysis was conducted on questions 22 through 26.

26

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction of Results An examination of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems was conducted using a four step process. First a detailed literature review. Second an analysis was on cost savings. Third an analysis of the UL fire resistance. Fourth a survey was sent out to query the possible use of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. Result from steps 2 and 4 are shown below.

A cost savings analysis was conducted by replacing WWF for macro-synthetic fibers and GFRP for steel rebar in an existing CCF system at Auburn University Building Science Building, which is called the Gorrie Center. The Gorrie Center was used because it is a steel structure and has composite corrugated steel decking on the second and third floors. This was done in order to validate what manufactures claimed to be true.

Finally, a 26 question survey on fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems was sent to a number of the top contractors and project management companies in the southeastern United States (selected from Engineering News-Record), personal contacts, and corporate partners in Building Science to examine the current use of and future use of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. The data was collect in the Summer of 2015 through an online survey. A total of 36 responses were collected.

The first four questions were designed to capture construction experience and possible knowledge of the subject area. The next five questions (5-9) were designed to capture knowledge and experience with fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in construction. The following nine questions (10-19) examined the possible use of fiber reinforcement bars and fiber in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. Questions 20 through 21 analyzed barriers of fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in construction. Questions 22 through 26 used questions to get feedback from the industry professionals with fill in the blank. A total of 36 responses were collected, not all participants complete all questions. 27

4.2 Cost Analysis of Fiber Reinforcement Bars and Fiber in Structural Steel Composite Concrete Floor Systems To test the cost saving claimed my manufactures, a cost analysis was done with replacing macrosynthetic fibers in place of WWF. Using a calculator designed for estimation cost savings of fibers in concrete. The cost savings analysis examined the replacement of WWF for macrosynthetic fibers in an existing CCF system in the Gorrie Center. It was discovered that there was a cost savings of $5,610 dollars which was a 42% cost savings. Table 4.1 shows the material and labor cost associated with WWF and the savings obtained. It costed 9.3 Million dollars to build the Gorrie Center in 2006 (lib.auburn.edu, 2015). The cost savings would not be significate when compared to 9.3 million, but every penny counts. Owners want buildings faster and fibers may help speed that process up.

Table 4.1 Price Comparison of FiberMesh vs Welded Wire Fabric

Floor SOG 2 3 Total

2 3 Total

Price Comparison of Fiber Mesh vs WWF using Gorrie Center, Auburn University Composite Slab - 3 inch pan with 3 inch top (total 6 inch thick) Price of WWF Price of WWF WWF Continuous Material Labor Area (sqft) Total Total Cost NA NA 6x6 2.1/2.1 WWF Yes $0.15 $0.30 13888 $0.45 6x6 2.1/2.1 WWF Yes $0.15 $0.30 13888 $0.45 chairs per/sqft $0.02 $0.01 27776 $0.03 27776 $0.48 $13,332.48 SQFT per Fibermesh Fibermesh Slab depth Cubic Yard Cost per SF Total Cost Fibermesh 650 6 $5 per 4Lb/yd In concrete mix Fibermesh 650 6 $5 per 4Lb/yd In concrete mix Fibermesh 650 6 $5 per 4Lb/yd In concrete mix 71.9 $ 0.28 $ 7,721.73 Data Resourced from Fibermesh 650 cost chart excel calculator developed 2014 SQFT per Cubic Yard Table taken from the "Steel Deck Institute" for concrete coverage.

Savings

$5,610.75

Another cost analysis was done by replacing rebar with GFRP in the Auburn University Building Science building. The Gorrie Center plans had the following information; the bars over girders were spaced at 12 inches on center at 12 feet long and over the beams at 12 inches on center at 6 feet long. Prices were obtained from Hughes Brothers/Aslan and BP Composites/TufBar. Looking at the drawings it was calculated that 15382 liner ft of reinforcement was needed. From the calculations there was no cost savings with GFRP, there was an increase of $1,637 dollars. Labor savings and transportation savings were not obtainable. Table 4.2 shows the calculations.

28

Table 4.2 Price Comparison of GFRP vs Steel in Gorrie Center Price Comparison of GFRP vs Steel Rebar using Gorrie Center, Auburn University Composite Slab - 3 inch pan with 3 inch top (total 6 inch thick) Weight Price Price per Rebar Size Type per ft per lb Linear Foot #12 ft GFRP #4 Aslan 0.167 NA 0.70 7442 Steel #4 60GPa 0.668 0.71 0.48 7442 ** data from: wirelessestimator.com; get-a-quote.net; gerdaucp.com;

#6 ft 7940 7940

Total Linear Feet Cost 15382 $5,209.40 15382 $3,572.16

4.3 Survey Results on fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems.

Below are the results from the 26 question survey on fiber reinforcement bars and fibers in structural steel composite concrete floor systems. The question and choices are shown in italic, while the results are show in non-italic.

1. What is your role in your firm? 1. Architect, 2. Engineer, 3. Contractor, 4. Sub-contractor, 5. Other

Figure 4.2 shows the majority of surveyors were Construction Managers at 56.56 percent, 2.78 percent of Architects, and 19.44 percent of Engineers. 19.44 percent are other, which are normally research and education fields.

29

Figure 4.2 Question 1 Results

2. Which industry sector do you work for? 1. Commercial, 2. Industrial, 3. Heavy civil/highway, 4. Residential, 5. Other

Figure 4.3 shows 72.2% worked in commercial construction, 16.67% Industrial, 0% heavy civil/highway, and 5.56% was residential.


3. How many years of construction experience do you have? 1.) 0-2, 2.) 3-4, 3.) 5-6, 4.) More than 6 30

100% of those surveyed have worked in the construction industry for over 6 years. No graph shown.

4. How many composite steel construction jobs have you worked on? 1.) 0, 2.) Less than 5, 3.) Less than 10, 4.) More than 10

From the data: 65.7% have worked more than ten composite steel construction jobs, while 11.4% worked less than ten composite steel construction jobs. 14.3% are under five composite steel construction jobs, and 8.6% had zero experience on steel construction jobs, shown in Figure 4.4. Therefore, 85.7% have worked on composite steel construction jobs in the past.


5. How familiar are you with Fiber Reinforcement Bars (FRB) / Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) / Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)? The following choices were given: 1.) no knowledge of subject, 2.) some knowledge, 3.) general knowledge, 4.) very familiar, 5.) expert on subject.

Figure 4.5 shows that 33.3% had no knowledge of fiber reinforcement bars; 38.9 had some knowledge of the subject; 19.4% had a general knowledge of the subject; while 8% stated they 31

were familiar. Zero people claimed to be experts on fiber reinforcement bars. Therefore, a total of 66.7% had some or more knowledge of FRB.


6. How familiar are you with Fibers in Concrete? The following choices were given: 1.) no knowledge of subject, 2.) some knowledge, 3.) general knowledge, 4.) very familiar, 5.) expert on subject.

Figure 4.6 shows 2.7% had no knowledge of fibers in concrete. 18.9% had some knowledge of the subject. 32.4% had a general knowledge of the subject while 45.9% said they were very familiar with fibers in concrete. Zero people claimed to be experts on fibers in concrete.


32

7. Have you or your company used loose fibers in concrete? 1.) Yes, 2.) No, 3.) I do not know.

Figure 4.7shows that 91.7% said yes I have used loose fiber in concrete, 5.6% said no they have not used loose fibers in concrete, and 2.8% said I do not know.


8. Have you or your company used fiber reinforcement bars in concrete? 1.) Yes, 2.) No, 3.) I do not know.

Figure 4.8 shows 27.8% said yes they have used fiber reinforcement bars in concrete. 50% said no they have not used fiber reinforcement bars in concrete and 22.2% said they do not know.


9. Did you know that fiber reinforcement bars are ¼ the weight and twice as strong in tension of typical black steel rebar? 1.) Yes, I heard that before, 2.) No, I did not know that

33

Approximately 60% of the construction industry does not know that fiber bars are ¼ the weight and twice as strong in tension of typical black steel rebar.


10. Did you know there are new fibers called (Macro-Synthetic Fibers) that can replace welded wire fabric in specific composite concrete decking that have been tested with Underwriters Laboratories and meet the same fire requirements as welded wire fabric (WWF)? 1.) Yes, I heard that before, 2.) No, I did not know that

Approximately 51% did not know that macro-synthetic fibers can replace welded wire fabric in specific composite concrete decking. They also did not know that there are new macro-synthetic fibers that have been tested with Underwriters Laboratories and meet the same fire requirements as welded wire fabric.


34

11. Assuming equal building performance with traditional rebar, how likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars? The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

The results in Figure 4.11 show 8.3% were very likely to use FRB assuming equal building performance. 58.3% were likely to use FRB assuming equal building performance. 19.4% were unsure and 13.9% not likely to use FRB assuming equal building performance. Zero percent stated that they would never use FRB.


12. Assuming equal building performance with traditional welded wire mesh, how likely would you be to use new fibers or macro-synthetic fibers? The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

The results in Figure 4.12 show that 25.7% were very likely to use macro-synthetic fibers assuming equal building performance with traditional welded wire mesh. 48.6% were likely to use them assuming equal building performance with traditional welded wire mesh. 17.1% did not know and 8.9% said not likely to use macro-synthetic fibers assuming equal building performance with traditional welded wire mesh. Zero percent stating they would never use macro-synthetic fibers.

35


13. Assuming equal strength, new fibers such as Macro-Synthetic Fibers is an appropriate substitution for welded wire fabric. The following choices were given: 1.) Strongly Disagree, 2.) Disagree, 3.) Neutral, 4.) Agree, 5.) Strongly Agree

The results in Figure 4.13 show that 8.6% strongly agree that macro-synthetic fibers as an appropriate substitution for welded wire fabric. 48.6 percent agree to use macro-synthetic fibers as an appropriate substitution for welded wire fabric. 40% are neutral and only 2.9% disagree that macro-synthetic fibers is an appropriate substitution for welded wire fabric.


14. Assuming equal strength, fiber reinforcement bars such as (Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers) are appropriate substitution for steel reinforcement bars. The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

36

The results in Figure 4.14 show 11.4% strongly agree that fiber reinforcement bars is an appropriate substitution for steel reinforcement bars. 28.6% agree to use FRB. 51.4% are neutral or don’t know and 8.6% disagree that Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers (GFRP) are appropriate substitution for steel reinforcement bars.


15. Assuming equal building performance with traditional rebar, how likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars if it could save you money and time? The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

The results in Figure 4.15 show 31.4% were very likely to use fiber reinforcement bars and 54.3% were likely to use FRB assuming equal building performance with traditional rebar. 8.6% do not know or were unsure about using FRBs. 5.7% stated not likely and zero percent stated they would never use FRB. Therefor 85.7% are likely to use fiber reinforcement bars if it could save them time and money under the assumption of equal building performance.

Figure 4.15 Question 15 Results 37

16. Assuming equal building performance with traditional welded wire mesh, how likely would you be to use new fibers or macro-synthetic fibers if it could save you money and time? The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

The results in Figure 4.16 show that 37.1% were very likely to use macro-synthetic fibers, 60.0% were likely to use macro-synthetic fibers, 2.9% don’t know or were unsure, 0% not likely, and 0% never. Therefor 97.1% is likely to use macro-synthetic fibers if it could save them time and money.


17. How likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars if it reduced the weight that field labors had to move by hand in the field? The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

The results were 28.6% were very likely to use fiber reinforcement bars, 45.7% were likely to use FRB, 20.0% don’t know or were unsure, 5.7% not likely, and 0% never. Therefore 74.3% is likely to use fiber reinforcement bars if it reduced the weight that field labors had to move by hand in the field.

38


18. How likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars if it reduced the shipping cost by ¼ or you could ship 4 times as much for the same price? The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

The results were 28.6% were very likely to use fiber reinforcement bars, 51.4% were likely to use FRB, 17.1% don’t know or were unsure, 2.9% not likely, and 0% never. Therefore 80.0% is likely to use fiber reinforcement bars if reduced the shipping cost by ¼ or you could ship 4 times as much for the same price?


19. How likely would you be to use new fibers such as macro-synthetic fibers if it could cut out the cost of material as an appropriate substitution for WWF? The following choices were given: 1.) Never, 2.) Not likely, 3.) Don’t know, 4.) Likely, 5.) Very Likely

39

The results were 34.3% were very likely to use macro-synthetic fibers, 51.4% were likely to use macro-synthetic fibers, 14.3% don’t know or were unsure, 0% not likely, and 0% never. Therefor 85.7% is likely to use macro-synthetic fibers if it cost of material as an appropriate substitution for WWF.


Other Factors and Barriers:

The following questions were multiple choice questions to identify barriers on fibers and fiber reinforcement bars in construction. Each question had 5-6 possible barriers.

20. What are some barriers that you might face using fibers such as macro-synthetic fibers? (Please rank the following questions on a sale of 1-5), (Select only one choice).

1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know

Not Likely a Barrier

No Barrier

a) Not specified by engineers b) Not commonly available in my area c) Workers are unfamiliar with handling and installation d) Concern over how it might perform in a fire e) Concern over performance issues (slab cracking, owner complaints, strength issues, etc.)

40

The following results were collected:

Figure 4.20a Question 20 Results

21. What are some barriers that you might face using fibers such as fiber reinforcement bars? (Please rank the following questions on a sale of 1-5), (Select only one choice). 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

a) Not specified by engineers b) Not commonly available in my area c) Workers are unfamiliar with handling and installation d) Concern over how it might perform in a fire e) Concern over performance issues (slab cracking, owner complaints, strength issues, etc.) 41

f) GFRP is very strong in tension but low in elasticity, therefore it may have a larger deformation. The following results were collected:

Figure 4.21a Question 21 Results

22. Have you used fibers or macro-synthetic fibers and if so, how have you used them? (Write: “NA” if you have none) Figure 4.22 shows that, 42% stated “NA.” 44% said that they have used macro-synthetic fibers in slab on grade or slabs. 8% said that they have used macro-synthetic fibers in exterior concrete. 3% said other. While only 3% used macro-synthetic fibers in elevated slabs.

42

3% 3% NA

8% 42%

Slab on Grade Exterior Concrete Other

44%

Elevated Slabs


23. Have you used fiber reinforcement bars/FRB/FRP/GFRP/CFRP, and if so, how have you used them? (Write: “NA” if you have none)

Figure 4.23 shows that 85% said none, and 15% said that they have used fiber reinforcement bars.

15% None Yes 85%


24. Are there other benefits or drawbacks that could be realized with replacing rebar with GFRP in composite concrete steel decking?

Data was separated into Benefits and Concerns for a total of seven categories. From 20 respondents Figure 4.24 shows that 5% stated new material use in composite concrete steel decking. 11% said GFRP could be used as lighter materials. 16% said ease of installation with GFRP in composite concrete steel decking. 32% stated “NA” or had no opinion. 5% were 43

concerned about handling issues with GFRP. 26% wanted some proof of success with GFRP in composite concrete steel decking. While 5% wanted approval from an engineer before using GFRP in composite concrete steel decking.

New Materials

5% 5%

Lighter Materials

11%

Ease of Installation

26% 16%

NA or No Handeling

5%

Proof of Success

32%

Approval by Engineer


25. Are there other benefits or drawbacks that could be realized with replacing WWF with fibers or macro-synthetic fibers?

The following data is based on benefits and concerns using macro-synthetic fibers to replace WWF. From 20 respondents Figure 4.25 shows that 4% stated no corrosion as a benefit. 9% said a savings in labor costs. 9% stated lighter materials using macro-synthetic fibers, 21% stated a savings in installation time using macro-synthetic fibers. 29% stated “NA.” 17% had owner concern with macro-synthetic fibers. 8% was concerned about final finish and 8% were concerned about the engineer’s approval of macro-synthetic fibers.

4% 8% 8%

9%

No corrosion

4%

Savings in Labor Lighter Materials

17%

21%

Installation Time NA or No Owner Concern

29%

Final Finish

Figure 4.25 Question 25 Results 44

26. Are there any future applications that you can think of using macro synthetic fibers and/or fiber reinforcement bars in the construction industry?

From 20 respondents Figure 4.26 shows 5% stated residential foundations could be a possibility fibers and/or fiber reinforcement bars in the construction industry. 9% stated precast work. 5% stated walls. 5% stated raised slabs and 67% did not have an answer for future applications using macro synthetic fibers and/or fiber reinforcement bars in the construction industry.

5%

9%

5%

Residential Foundations Precast Concrete

5% 9% 67%

Walls Raised Slabs Road Work None


45

Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

There is a strong demand for innovation and change in commercial construction so that buildings may be built faster, cheaper, and leaner. In composite steel construction, traditional methods using WWF and traditional rebar add weight, costs, and time to the structure. There is a need for new methods and materials of constructing composite concrete flooring in steel structures. New qualified fiber reinforcement bars and macro-synthetic fibers offer possible solutions to help speed construction and allow for possible cost savings in materials and labor as well as time savings when constructing composite concrete floors in steel structures.

Current research states that micro and macro-synthetic fibers help to prevent shrinkage and cracking. New fibers such as macro-synthetic fibers can provide a secondary reinforcement and help strengthen concrete slabs. New steel fibers are better at long term shrinkage cracking, residual strength, crack width control, impact resistance, fatigue resistance and heat/fire resistance (hicfibers.com, 2015; euclidchemical.com, 2015). Using a combination of fibers and fiber reinforcement bars help to restrict concrete cracking and improved the bond durability significantly (Belarbi and Wang, 2015). With the addition of fibers in the slab, the bond durability significantly improved. New fiber reinforcement bars are twice as strong as steel in tension, ¼ the weight as steel, non-magnetic or conductive, thermal insulating, and easy to cut. They are very good in corrosive environments, and in use of or around medical equipment suck as an MRI. Some FRB can last up to a 100 years which is much longer than non-protected steel rebar (bpcomposites.com, 2015). GFRP is currently being used in bridge decks bridge decks, barrier walls, roads, concrete slabs, power generation, MRI, tunneling and marine/water applications (vrod.ca, 2015).

Recent research by companies found that new macro-synthetic fibers can replace welded wire fabric in composite concrete floors systems (fibermesh.com, 2015; abcpolymerindustries.com, 2015; euclidchemical.com, 2015). This substitution can provide cost savings in labor and material when substituting it for WWF in CCF. It was also found that these new fibers in 46

specific UL D900 series can be used to produce a CCF that provides up to a 2 hour fire rating. This fire rating is central for commercial construction. If was found that some of the D900 Series CCFs do not require Spray-Applied Fire Resistive Material (SFRM) sprayed on the bottom of the slab/CCF. Reducing this material use also provides added cost savings. Taking out the cost of material and labor for WWF and adding in macro-synthetic fibers has proven to provide a possible cost savings in steel construction in multi-story buildings using composite concrete flooring.

Research was conducted on composite concrete floors, fibers, and FRB to evaluate if the construction industry is using new macro-synthetic fibers and FRB in steel structures. In the survey conducted, 100% of the respondents worked in the construction industry for over 6 years, which is a strong experience level in construction. Such results give credibility to the results of this study. From the survey, it was estimated that 97.2% of construction professionals had some or more knowledge of fibers being used in concrete. 91% have used fibers on the job in previous construction. However, only 51% knew that there are new fibers macro-synthetic fibers can replace WWF in CCF and are approved by UL®. This could be a strong reason why fibers are not used more often in elevated slabs and CCF. 85.7% of construction professionals were likely to use macro-synthetic fibers if it could cut out the cost of material as an appropriate substitution for WWF.

It can be concluded that there might be a marking or educational issue from the companies directly with architects, engineers, and construction management personnel in the use of their products in CCF in steel structures. Major reasons for not using new fiber products in composite steel construction include: approval of the engineer or architect, owner concerns on the finished product, proof of success in industry.

There might be a possible use of GFRP bars in steel decking in the negative moment regions over the girders and beams. Few construction professionals knew that GFRP is twice as strong in tension as typical steel rebar and ¼ the weight. The results show that the majority of construction professionals were concerned with the modulus of elasticity and the approval by the engineer (modulus of elasticity for GFRP is lower than steel). Currently many concrete bridges 47

and concrete slabs are using GRFP for reinforcement. In 2012 there was over 190 installations of GFRP in the United States. 50 installations were used in bridge decks in over 15 states. In Canada over 195 installations with over 190 installations used in bridge decks, parapets, and barriers (acmanet.org, 2015). It was obvious that there was a large difference between question 7 and question 8 on fibers and FRB. A very strong response of 91.7% said yes they have used fibers in concrete, but a low response of 27% would use FRB/GFRP in concrete. It seems that FRP/GFRP is so new to architects, engineers, and construction management personnel that they do not know all the ways in which the products can be used. From the data collected, 85.7% are likely to use fiber reinforcement bars if it could save them time and money. 74.3% are likely to use fiber reinforcement bars if it reduced the weight that field labors had to move by hand in the field. GFRP has a real potential for use in composite concrete flooring base on the labor and transportation cost.

From cost analysis it was concluded that replacing WWF with macro-synthetic fibers a cost savings of 42%, in the Gorrie Center. This included material and labor in CCF (shown in Figure 4.1). By picking a CCF like the D925 or D926 early on in the design process. One could save money on SFRM costs as well. Using fibers like macro-synthetic fibers will enable a structure to last longer by preventing cracking in the early stages of the curing process which last the majority of a buildings life. When replacing black steel rebar with GFRP in the Gorrie Center GFRP did not provide a cost savings and it was found to be 1.46 x more expensive.

The following are some key issues found with FRB and fibers in CCF. GFRP has a modulus of elasticity that is lower than steel causing some applications to use a higher or thicker FRB for the same application. The more FRB stretches the more cracking will occur. To correct this issue a thicker FRB/GFRP has to be used to prevent stretching. GFRB has a lower melting point of steel. GFRP needs 4 inches thickness or more to be effective at protecting the FRP/GFRP in order for temperatures to remain constant and hold for two hours, which is a necessary fire rating for many building structures.

Some construction management personnel have encountered

issues with fibers in the fine finishes in the top of the slab required by owners in the past. Further testing and analysis would need to be conducted to further prove the fire safety and UL ratings of GFRP in composite concrete flooring in steel construction. 48

Overall there is an educational issue with fibers. From the data is could be concluded that the general population knows about loose fibers in concrete. Yet the general population does not know all the potential uses of fibers in concrete, like CCF. It seems that the majority thinks the product only for driveways and exterior slabs. 40% feel that cracking issues is a major concern when using Macro-Synthetic Fibers (MSF) in concrete. This seems to be another issue in the education of what the MSF does, since the main purpose of MSF is to prevent cracking. Approximately 51% did not know that macro-synthetic fibers can replace welded wire fabric in specific CCF. The results indicated 97.1% is likely to use MSF if it could save them time and money. Therefore the potential use is high, this could indicate another marketing issue. From the results there is a marketing and educational gap in GFRP use in concrete as well. The majority of construction professionals are willing to use FRB, yet the architect and engineers have not trained up on all the possible ways in which the product could be used. This is a marketing issue.

5.2 Recommendations for Future Research.

GFRP companies should invest in more educational training with engineers and architects with possible building applications in commercial and residential construction. GFRP is an easy to use light material which could prove as a possible solution for residential use. GFRP is already picking up in Hawaii, this is because of shipping expenses. This could be a key indicator for military grade quick applications of GFRP and fibers in runways in a combat environments due to the lightweight materials. GFRP could be used in underground building construction like concrete piers which are subjected to moisture.

The general market of loose fibers in concrete are catching with Slab-On-Grade (SOG) applications. New macro-synthetic fibers should invest in marketing that target elevated slabs and the replacement of WWF. Both GFRP and fiber companies should help owners feel more comfortable with the use of GFRP and fibers in building structures, specifically in corrugated steel decking.

49

In summery new fibers like macro-synthetic fibers are fiber reinforcement bars are new to the market. Most of the market knows about loose fibers in SOG, but few know about macrosynthetic fibers (like Fibermesh 650) which can replace WWF in steel construction. Majority of the market in building construction do not know about GFRP/FRB. Education in GFRP building applications would be beneficial to the market. Education in labor saving and material savings with steel fibers or macro-synthetic fibers could help speed up construction. Composites are here to stay in the construction industry but what they are made of will surely change.

50

References

Abd elaty Metwally, 2014. Compressive strength prediction of Portland cement concrete with age using a new model. HBRC Journal 10, 145–155. doi:10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.09.005 About Becht Engineering [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.bechtbt.com/buildingenv-articles-flat-roofs.php (accessed 6.14.15). ACI Committee 302, American Concrete Institute, 2004. Guide for concrete floor and slab construction, ACI report. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. A hidden revolution: FRP rebar gains strength : CompositesWorld [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/a-hidden-revolution-frp-rebar-gainsstrength (accessed 6.14.15). Ahmadi, B., Saka, M., 1993. Behavior of Composite Timber‐Concrete Floors. Journal of Structural Engineering 119, 3111–3130. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(1993)119:11(3111) Altalmas, A., El Refai, A., Abed, F., 2015. Bond degradation of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars exposed to accelerated aging conditions. Construction and Building Materials 81, 162–171. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.036 Amin Akhnoukh and Jim Carr, 2012. High Performance Concrete for Bridge I-Girders [WWW Document]. Associated Schools of Construction. URL zotero://attachment/50/ (accessed 9.18.14). A New Generation of Fiber Reinforced Plastic Rebars for Bridge Deck Reinforcement, 2004. , in: Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1–10. An Optimization Model for Maximizing the Benefits of Fast-Tracking Construction Projects, 2012. , in: Construction Research Congress 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 247–257. Auchey, F.L., 1998. The use of recycled polymer fibers as secondary reinforcement in concrete structures. Journal of Construction Education 3, 131–140. Ballast, D.K., 2010. Interior Design Reference Manual: Everything You Need to Know to Pass the NCIDQ Exam. www.ppi2pass.com. Basalt Rebar ACI Codes | Basalt Rebar, 2015. 51

Behavior of hybrid FRP/concrete subjected to static, cycle and fatigue loading [WWW Document], 2013. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262913693_Behaviour_of_hybrid_FRPconcrete _subjected_to_static_cycle_and_fatigue_loading (accessed 6.19.15). Bond Durability of FRP Bars Embedded in Fiber-Reinforced Concrete, 2012. . Journal of Composites for Construction 16, 371–380. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000270 Boshoff, W.P., 2014. Cracking Behavior of Strain-Hardening Cement-Based Composites Subjected to Sustained Tensile Loading. ACI Materials Journal 111. Building Design and Construction August 2014 [WWW Document], 2014. URL http://editiondigital.net/publication/index.php?i=219082 (accessed 6.9.15). Building Products [WWW Document], 2015. . UL, Building Materials and Building Products. URL industries.ul.com/building-materials/building-products (accessed 6.15.15). Cast-In Place/Removable Forms [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.cement.org/thinkharder-concrete-/homes/building-systems/cast-in-place (accessed 6.10.15). Chaklos, J., Yulismana, W., Earls, C., 2004. Concrete-Steel Interfacial Bond Strength in Composite Flooring: Shoring and Form Removal. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 9, 9–15. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2004)9:1(9) Cobiax Technologies AG [WWW Document], 2014. URL http://www.cobiax.com/startseite (accessed 11.29.14). Concrete Fibers - Euclid Chemical [WWW Document], 2015. . Euclid Chemical. URL http://www.euclidchemical.com/products/concrete-fibers/ (accessed 2.8.15). Concrete vs. steel - Designing Buildings Wiki [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Concrete_vs._steel (accessed 6.5.15). Construction Considerations for Composite Steel-and-Concrete Floor Systems, 2002a. . Journal of Structural Engineering 128, 1099–1110. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2002)128:9(1099) Construction Considerations for Composite Steel-and-Concrete Floor Systems, 2002b. . Journal of Structural Engineering 128, 1099–1110. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2002)128:9(1099) CONSTRUCTION TRENDS THAT CHANGE THE WORLD [WWW Document], 2013. URL https://bootheglobalperspectives.com/article/1385327516WBG195389453/construction52

trends-that-change-the-world (accessed 11.28.14). Corrugated Steel Deck - Floors - Alpine Energy Companies [WWW Document], 2014. URL http://www.alpinerocksolidfloors.com/floors_steel_deck.html (accessed 11.28.14). Dealing With Change in the Construction Industry | Vinyl Info, 2014. Deflection of Steel Concrete Composite Beams in Real Structures as Basis for the Calculation of the Serviceability of Buildings, 2006. , in: Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 304–313. De Nardin, S., El Debs, A.L.H.C., 2012. Composite connections in slim-floor system: An experimental study. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 68, 78–88. doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.07.006 DIRTT Environmental Solutions [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.dirtt.net/ (accessed 4.14.15). E, A.R., E, C.B., G, L.R., 1969. Composite floor construction. US3462902 A. Earthquake proofing for buildings - Appropedia: The sustainability wiki [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.appropedia.org/Earthquake_proofing_for_buildings (accessed 2.26.15). E, C.B., 1966. Composite concrete floor construction and unitary shear connector. US3251167 A. Effect of Reinforcement Type on the Ductility of Suspended Reinforced Concrete Slabs, 2007. . Journal of Structural Engineering 133, 834–843. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2007)133:6(834) Evaluation of Fire Endurance of Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars, 2005a. . Journal of Structural Engineering 131, 34–43. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2005)131:1(34) Evaluation of Fire Endurance of Concrete Slabs Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars, 2005b. . Journal of Structural Engineering 131, 34–43. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2005)131:1(34) Experimental Evaluation of Composite Floor Assemblies under Fire Loading, 2011. , in: Structures Congress 2011. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 451–462. Experimental Study on Effect of Internal Cracking on Corrosion Rate of Reinforcement in Concrete, n.d. , in: Mechanics and Physics of Creep, Shrinkage, and Durability of 53

Concrete. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 277–284. Fellows, R.F., Liu, A.M.M., 2009. Research Methods for Construction. John Wiley & Sons. FHWA - 2008 Conditions and Performance: Chapter 9 Scenario Implications [WWW Document], 2008. URL https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2008cpr/chap9.htm (accessed 11.28.14). Fiberglass Rebar -1st FRP Rebar-1984-, 2015. . FiberglassRebar.us. Fibermesh | Concrete Solutions by Propex [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.fibermesh.com/ (accessed 2.18.15). Financial Viability of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Bridges, 2003. . Journal of Management in Engineering 19, 2–8. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:1(2) Flaga, K., 2000. Advances in materials applied in civil engineering. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 106, 173–183. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00611-7 Flexure and Shear Deformation of GFRP-Reinforced Shear Walls, 2014. . Journal of Composites for Construction 18, 04013044. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000444 Floor systems | Tata Steel Construction [WWW Document], 2014. URL http://www.tatasteelconstruction.com/en/reference/teaching-resources/architecturalteaching-resource/design/choice-of-structural-systems/floor-systems (accessed 11.30.14). George Morcous, Ph.D., P.E., Afshin Hatami, 2011. Job-Built Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) for Building [WWW Document]. Associated Schools of Construction. URL zotero://attachment/50/ (accessed 9.18.14). GFRP Vs Black Steel, 2015. Grancrete [WWW Document], 2014. URL http://www.grancrete.net/videos/index.cfm (accessed 12.1.14). Growth in US construction to outpace GDP over next 10 years, 2014. . RLB. Henin, E., Morcous, G., Tadros, M., 2013. Shallow Flat Soffit Precast Concrete Floor System. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 18, 101–110. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000135 Hensher, D.A., 2013. Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures: Properties and Applications. Elsevier. High-Strength Lightweight SCC Matrix with Partial Normal-Weight Coarse-Aggregate Replacement: Strength and Durability Evaluations, 2014. . Journal of Materials in Civil 54

Engineering 26, 04014086. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000990 Influence of Polyvinyl Alcohol, Steel, and Hybrid Fibers on Fresh and Rheological Properties of Self-Consolidating Concrete, 2012. . Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 24, 1211– 1220. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000490 Jin, R., Chen, Q., 2013. An Investigation of Current Status of “Green” Concrete in the Construction Industry. Kamruzzaman, M., Jumaat, M.Z., Ramli Sulong, N.H., Islam, A.B.M.S., 2014. A Review on Strengthening Steel Beams Using FRP under Fatigue. Scientific World Journal 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/702537 Mixed Method Research: Fundamental Issues of Design, Validity, and Reliability in Construction Research, 2010. . Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136, 108–116. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000026 Norbert L. Lovata, 1989. Concrete Composites A New Construction Material [WWW Document]. URL http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/1989/Lovata89.htm (accessed 9.16.14). Publications | Department of Engineering [WWW Document], 2007. URL http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/research/publications (accessed 6.19.15). Publications | Plus Composites Website [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.pluscomposites.eu/publications (accessed 6.18.15). Punching Shear Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Slabs, 1994. . Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 6, 240–253. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1994)6:2(240) Radial Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Flat Plate Slabs, 2010. , in: Structures Congress 2010. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1959–1970. Reinforcing Fibers for Concrete | Secondary Reinforcement Fibers for Asphalt, Plastic, Soils [WWW Document], 2015. . Nycon Corporation. URL http://nycon.com/ (accessed 6.14.15). Salman Azhar, 2011. Building Information Modeling (BIM): Trends, Benefits, Risks, and Challenges for the AEC Industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering 11, 241– 252. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000127 Shear Strength and Drift Capacity of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections Subjected to Biaxial Displacements, 2010. . Journal of Structural Engineering 136, 1078– 55

1088. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000213 Song, L., Liang, D., Javkhedakr, A., 2008. A Case Study on Applying Lean Construction to Concrete Construction Projects. A Case Study, University of Houston, Texas Tech University, FMC Technologies, Houston, Texas. Steel Fiber-Reinforced Self-Compacting Concrete: Experimental Research and Numerical Simulation, 2008. Journal of Structural Engineering 134, 1310–1321. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:8(1310) Strength and Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Composite Slabs, 2004. . Journal of Structural Engineering 130, 520–528. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:3(520) Structural Steel Roof and Floor Deck [WWW Document], 2014. . ASC Steel Deck. URL http://www.ascsd.com/ (accessed 11.30.14). Stud Shear Connection Design for Composite Concrete Slab and Wood Beams, 2002. . Journal of Structural Engineering 128, 1544–1550. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)07339445(2002)128:12(1544) Sullivan, C.C., 2014. Concrete thinking: New ideas for age-old material [WWW Document]. SmartPlanet. URL http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/the-astute-architect/concretethinking-new-ideas-for-age-old-material/ (accessed 12.1.14). Technical Documents [WWW Document], 2015. URL http://www.concrete.org/publications/technicaldocuments.aspx (accessed 6.19.15). TUF-BAR | Fiberglass Rebar | Composites | Rock Bolts | Form Ties, 2015. Uniform ES ER-0279 | Helix Steel [WWW Document], 2015. . HELIX. URL http://www.helixsteel.com/technical/uniform-es-er-0279 (accessed 5.15.15). Vibration Characteristics of Modern Composite Floor Systems, 2006. , in: Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete V. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 247–259. Voided biaxial slab, 2014. . Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. V-Rod fiberglass rebar - Retaining walls [WWW Document], 2015. . V-ROD. URL http://www.vrod.ca/en/index.asp (accessed 6.15.15). World Steel Association - Ever taller skyscrapers made possible by steel [WWW Document], 2014. URL http://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/Steel-news/Ever-taller-skyscrapersmade-possible-by-steel.html (accessed 6.7.15). Yaohua Deng, George Morcous, Ph.D., P.E., 2011. Construction Challenges of Cast-In-Place 56

Self-Consolidating Concrete [WWW Document]. Associated Schools of Construction. URL zotero://attachment/50/ (accessed 9.18.14).

57

Appendices 1. Pictures of products in Survey 2. Composite Concrete Floor UL Summery Chart 3. Survey Questions on SurveyMonkey.com 4. Underwriter Laboratories File R14701 5. Structural Drawings of the Gorrie Center Building 6. Florida Department of Transportation Cost Analysis

58

Appendix 1 – Pictures in Survey 1. Fiber Reinforcement Bars

Figure A1. Fiber Reinforcement Bar

2. FiberMesh

Figure A2. Fiber Mesh 3. Fibers

Figure A3. Fibers

59

4. Steel Construction

Figure A4. Steel Construction

5. BSCI Logo

Figure A5. BSCI Logo

60

Appendix 2 List of Approved UL Composite Concrete Steel Decking Systems Composite Concrete and Steel decking Restrained Assembly Ratings (Optional) see note 3 Non-Metallic Average Minimum Fibermesh / Metal Lath Fabric Mesh Glass Fiber Slab Thickness 2hr Fireproofing Needed No UL # WW Mesh Fibers / DM * matting Reinforcement F.R. with 3(in) wells under deck 1 D739 6x6 1 lb/cu-yd NA NA 1-1/2 in Yes 2 D743 6x6 NA NA NA 1-1/2 in Yes 3 D755 6x6 opt. NA 3/8 DM 1.9 oz/sq yd NA 1-1/2 in Yes 4 D759 6x6 NA 3/8 DM 1.9 oz/sq yd NA 2-1/2 in Yes 5 D760 6x6 NA NA NA NA 2-1/2 in Yes 6 D767 6x6 NA 3/8 DM 2.5 oz/sq yd. NA 2-1/2 in Yes 7 D775 6x6 NA 3/8 DM NA NA 1-1/2 in Yes 8 D779 6x6 YES(CBXQ) 3/8 DM NA NA 1-1/2 in Yes 9 D787 6x6 NA 3/8 DM 2.5 oz/sq yd. NA 1-1/2 in Yes 10 D840 6x6 NA NA NA NA 1-1/2 in NO 11 D859 6x6 NA 3/8 DM NA NA 2 in ? 12 D871 6x6 1.5 lb/cu-yd NA NA NA 1-1/2 in Yes 13 D883 6x6 NA NA NA NA 2-1/2 in Yes 14 D888 6x6 NA NA NA NA 3-1/4 in NO 15 D898 6x6 1.5 lb/cu-yd NA NA NA 1-1/2 in Yes 16 D902 6x6 1.0 lb/cu-yd NA NA NA 4-1/2 in NO 17 D907 6x6 NA NA NA NA 3-1/4 in NO 18 D914 6x6 NA NA NA NA 2-1/2 in NO 19 D916 6x6 NA 3/8 DM NA NA 3-1/4 in NO 20 D919 6x6 NA NA NA NA 3-1/4 in NO 21 D924 6x6 1.0 lb/cu-yd NA NA NA 4-1/8 in NO 22 D925 6x6 5.0 lb/cu-yd NA NA NA 4-1/2 in NO 23 D926 6x6 1.0 lb/cu-yd NA NA NA 4-1/2 in NO 21 D969 6x6 1.0 lb/cu-yd NA NA NA 4-1/8 in NO * DM = Diamond Mesh, example (Metal Lath: 3/8 in. diamond mesh) ** Most restrained units allow 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 in thick deck above the rib/well up to 3hr ratings, and increase after that in thickness for over 3 hr ratings. *** For 3 Hr Unrestrained Assembly and Beam Ratings, 1-3/4 in. cover is required Note 1 See Fiber Reinforcement (CBXQ) Category for names of manufacturers. Note 2 3/8 in. DM, 3/8 in metal ribbed lath weighs approximatley 1.7 lb per sq yd to 3.4 lb/yd 2 Note 3 Metal Lath is optional for many cases and it varies depending on specifications, see specs for details

61

Appendix 3: Survey Questions Survey on Fiber Reinforcement Bars and Fiber Mesh in Composite Concrete Flooring in Steel Structures (by Sean Colley)

Thank you for taking this survey. Your knowledge could directly improve and help change how commercial construction is conducted now and in the future. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy the subject. For each of the following, circle the best answer or fill in the blank with the appropriate answer. Introduction and Screening 1. What is your role in your firm? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Architect Engineer Contractor, Sub-contractor Other

2. Which industry sector do you work for? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Commercial Industrial Heavy civil/highway Residential Other

3. How many years of construction experience do you have? 1. 2. 3. 4.

0-2, 3-4, 5-6, More than 6

4. How many composite steel construction jobs have you worked on? 1. 2. 3. 4.

0 Less than 5 Less than 10 More than 10

62

Background 5. How familiar are you with Fiber Reinforcement Bars (FRB) / Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) / Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

no knowledge of subject some knowledge general knowledge very familiar expert on subject

6. How familiar are you with Fibers in Concrete? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

no knowledge of subject some knowledge general knowledge very familiar expert on subject

7. Have you or your company used loose fibers in concrete? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 8. Have you or your company used fiber reinforcement bars in concrete? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 9. Did you know that fiber reinforcement bars are ¼ the weight of typical black steel rebar? 1. Yes, I heard that before 2. No, I did not know that 10. Did you know there are new fibers called (Macro-Synthetic Fibers) that can replace welded wire fabric in specific composite concrete decking that have been tested with Underwriters Laboratories and meet the same fire requirements as welded wire fabric (WWF)? 1. Yes, I heard that before 2. No, I did not know that

63

11. Assuming equal building performance with traditional rebar, how likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars? 1

2

3

4

5

Never

Not likely

Don’t know

Likely

Very Likely

12. Assuming equal building performance with traditional welded wire mesh, how likely would you be to use new fibers or macro-synthetic fibers? 1

2

3

4

5

Never

Not likely

Don’t know

Likely

Very Likely

13. Assuming equal strength, new fibers such as Macro-Synthetic Fibers is an appropriate substitution for welded wire fabric. 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

14. Assuming equal strength, fiber reinforcement bars such as (Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymers) are appropriate substitution for steel reinforcement bars. 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

15. Assuming equal building performance with traditional rebar, how likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars if it could save you money and time? 1

2

3

4

5

Never

Not likely

Don’t know

Likely

Very Likely

16. Assuming equal building performance with traditional welded wire mesh, how likely would you be to use new fibers or macro-synthetic fibers if it could save you money and time? 1

2

3

4

5

Never

Not likely

Don’t know

Likely

Very Likely

64

17. How likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars if it reduced the weight that field labors had to move by hand in the field? 1

2

3

4

5

Never

Not likely

Don’t know

Likely

Very Likely

18. How likely would you be to use fiber reinforcement bars if it reduced the shipping cost by ¼ or you could ship 4 times as much for the same price? 1

2

3

4

5

Never

Not likely

Don’t know

Likely

Very Likely

19. How likely would you be to use new fibers such as macro-synthetic fibers if it could cut out the cost of material as an appropriate substitution for WWF? 1

2

3

4

5

Never

Not likely

Don’t know

Likely

Very Likely

Other Factors and Barriers: 20. What are some barriers that you might face using fibers such as macro-synthetic fibers? (Please rank the following questions on a sale of 1-5, 1 being the lowest, and 5 being the highest) (Select only one choice).

Not specified by engineers (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

Not commonly available in my area (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

65

Workers are unfamiliar with handling and installation (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

Concern over how it might perform in a fire (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

Concern over performance issues (slab cracking, owner complaints, strength issues, etc.) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

21. What are some barriers that you might face using fibers such as fiber reinforcement bars? Not specified by engineers (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

Not commonly available in my area (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

Workers are unfamiliar with handling and installation (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

66

Concern over how it might perform in a fire (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

Concern over performance issues (slab cracking, owner complaints, strength issues, etc.) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

GFRP is very strong in tension but low in elasticity, therefor it may have a larger deformation (1 to 5) 1

2

3

4

5

Major Barrier

Medium Barrier

Don’t know


No Barrier

22. Have you used fibers or macro-synthetic fibers and if so, how have you used them? (Write: NA if you have none) __________________________________________________________________________

23. Have you used fiber reinforcement bars/FRB/FRP/GFRP/CFRP, and if so, how have you used them? (Write: NA if you have none) _________________________________________________________________________

24. Are there other benefits or drawbacks that could be realized with replacing rebar with GFR in composite concrete steel decking? _________________________________________________________________________

25. Are there other benefits or drawbacks that could be realized with replacing WWF with fibers or macro-synthetic fibers? 67

_________________________________________________________________________

26. Are there any future applications that you can think of using macro synthetic fibers and/or fiber reinforcement bars in the construction industry? _________________________________________________________________________

68