Technology Comparison

In modern construction technologies, increasing attention is given to materials that combine high strength, corrosion resistance, and light weight. 

We have prepared a detailed comparison table that contrasts the properties of traditional steel reinforcement with those of fiberglass reinforcement produced using Composite Group Chelyabinsk technology.

The table includes both international standards and Russian requirements — allowing you to objectively evaluate the advantages of composite solutions.

Comparison

Parameters Steel rebar (A400 type) Pultrusion requirements (acc. to National Standard of India, National Standard of USA) Requirements of the National Standard of the Russian Federation Specification of Composite Group Chelyabinsk
Dia, mm Breaking load* Breaking load* Breaking load* Breaking load*
4.0 390 MPa Not less than 873 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
6.0 390 MPa Not less than 813 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
8.0 390 MPa Not less than 795 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
10.0 390 MPa Not less than 764 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
12.0 390 MPa Not less than 708 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
16.0 390 MPa Not less than 646 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
20.0 390 MPa Not less than 604 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
25.0 390 MPa Not less than 550 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
32.0 390 MPa Not less than 552 Not less than 1000 MPa 1000-1400 MPa
Modulus of elasticity 200000 MPa Not less than 45 000 MPa Not less than 50 000 MPa From 50000 to 55000 MPa
Transverse shear strength Is not specified Not less than 130 MPa Not less than 150 MPa From 150 to 224 MPa
Ultimate strength at compression A500 – Not less than 500 MPa Is not specified by the Standard Not less than 300 MPa An average of 711 MPa
Guaranteed bond strength Is not specified Not less than 7.6 МPa Not less than 12 MPa From 24 to 27 MPa
Residue after the alkalinesolution Doesn't change Not less than 80% Not less than 80% 80-85%
Bond strength after alkaline Is not specified Not less than 6.1 MPa Not less than 10 MPa 10.9 МPa
Glass fiber content (mass fraction) (for composites)/ Continuous reinforcing filler content (for steel) 100 % Not less than 75% Not less than 80% 82-86%
Density 7,8 g/cm3 Is not specified Is not specified 1,6-2,2 g/cm3
Mass of 1 liner meter 0.617 kg/m (10 mm) 0.15 kg/m (10 mm) 0.161 kg/m (10 mm) CG technology provides the required weight in accordance with any standard
Nominal cross-sectional area, mm2 0,785 (10 mm) 73 (10 mm) 78,5 (10 mm) CG technology provides required nominal cross-sectional area in accordance with any standard
Electrical conductivity Conductor Dielectric
Magnetic characteristic Magnetized Is not magnetized
Thermal conductivity 56 W/(m°C) Is not specified Less than 0,46 W/(m°C)
Fire resistance Up to 600 Is not specified Up to 300
Moisture absorption Doesn't have not more than 0,25% (24 hours) Not more than 0,15% (24 hours) Not more than 0,15%
Reliability indicators Susceptible to corrosion, chemically unstable

High corrosion and chemical resistance

For more details, please refer to our sales office

Form send success

Receive a detailed estimate and tailored recommendations — we’ll guide you through everything important for your specific needs.

Privacy policy

*

required fields

Calculating savings for replacing steel rebar by GFRP rebar

Steel rebar  10mm in diameter is used for the comparison. Steel and FRP rebar is applied longitudinally and in transverse rods with a cell of 150x150 mm, 1 sq.m is taken for the reference.

Type of reinforcement Reinforced area, sq.m Weight of 1m of rebar, kg/m Number of meters of rebar in 1 sq.m of reinforced area Total weight of used rebar, kg Price of 1 m of rebar, rub/m Total price of used material, rub/sq.m
Steel rebar 10 mm in dia 1 0.617 13.33 8.220 43.19 575.72
GFRP rebar 10mm in dia 1 0.122 13.33 1.630 18.73 249.67
GFRP rebar 8 mm in dia 1 0.080 13.33 1.070 12.53 167.02

* The use of GFRP mesh of a smaller diameter is justified by tensile strength rate of GFRP rebar. Its ultimate tensile strength is 1100 MPa, whereas tensile strength of steel rebar is only 390 MPa.

56.63%

savings when replacing 10 mm steel rebar with 10 mm GFRP composite rebar.

70.98%

savings when replacing 10 mm steel rebar with 8 mm GFRP composite rebar.

Calculating saving for steel mesh replaced by GFRP mesh

Steel mesh with rods 4mm and 5mm in dia and a cell of 50x50mm are taken for the comparison. 1 m3 is taken for the reference.

Masonry mesh 1 m3 is taken for the reference, bricks of 250*120*88mm with reinforcement every 3 rows Area of reinforcement, sq.m in 1 m3 Weight of mesh, kg/sq.m Total weight of reinforcement in 1 m3, kg/m3 Cost of 1 sq.m of mesh, rub/sq.m Cost of mesh in 1 m3, rub/m3
Steel rebar 5mm with a cell of 50x50mm 3.40 5.650 19.210 275.00 935.00
GFRP mesh 3mm with a cell of 50x50mm 3.40 0.546 1.860 181.80 618.12
Steel mesh 4 mm with a cell of 50x50mm 3.40 3.680 12.510 228.00 775.20
GFRP mesh 2.5mm with a cell of 50x50mm 3.40 0.293 0.996 99.90 339.66

* The use of GFRP mesh of a smaller diameter is justified by tensile strength rate of GFRP rebar. Its ultimate tensile strength is 1100 MPa, whereas tensile strength of steel rebar is only 390 MPa.

33.89%

Savings when replacing 5 mm steel mesh with 3 mm GFRP composite mesh.

56.18%

Savings when replacing 4 mm steel mesh with 2.5 mm GFRP composite mesh.

Test Reports

GFRP Mesh Test Report
GFRP Mesh Test Report
Protocol of test No. 334 on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bar for Concrete Reinforcement
Protocol of test No. 334 on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bar for Concrete Reinforcement
Protocol of test on fiber-reinforced polymer bar for concrete reinforcement
Protocol of test on fiber-reinforced polymer bar for concrete reinforcement
Basalt Fiber Reinforsed Polymer bar tensile Test report
Basalt Fiber Reinforsed Polymer bar tensile Test report
GFRP Rebar Test Report
GFRP Rebar Test Report