MST BAR

ACI 440.11-22, ICC AC454, CSA 806 are standards for Glass fiber rebar. We also have S-Concrete/ S-line software for design and can provide training.

MST-BAR is linear elastic to failure- however the failure point is 3x higher than steel so crushing concrete is always the mechanism. Technically it is brittle, but it is impossible to break the bar and it is always under concrete compression.

Our engineers follow ACI 440.11-22, CSA 806, AASHTO-GFRP 2019, CSA S6, ICC AC 454. There are bunch of design manual available too.

Splice: 40x diameter of the bar
Development length: around ¾ of steel. Because of lower passion’s ratio and extremely high bond strength for our CIR (continuous integral ribs) to concrete, MST can have a much lower development length. For #5 bar our test show that with 7’’ of embedment the bar will reach to 145KSI.

Absolutely, attached are some pictures, there is not reaction or whatsoever.

Cutting is extremely easy with a diamond blade/chop saw/ jigsaw. Splicing is extremely easy.
Minor bent +/- 5 to 10 degree is possible but not more than that. Shop drawing must be done properly to ensure to change in bent bars. Mixing some steel bent in case of emergency is also possible.

Rebar in general is only less than 2% of the weight of the reinforced concrete. Changing it to MST will affect the final weight by 0.5% which is very negligible. Concrete weight is 98% of the weight of the structure so this is not a concern at all.

Material is being sold by linear ft. or meter because it is 4x lighter than steel. We can show them how to do a quick estimation if they have the tonnage of their steel rebar.

Absolutely incorrect! Even ACI mentioned EXCEPT ( I am a voting member at ACI), MST-BAR has been tested according to ASTM E119 for a full scale slab test and structure was able to handle over 3 hours of fire rating with minimum cover concrete of 1.5’’. we plan to repeat the test and get a UL certification.

They are linear elastic to failure at 3x higher loading and the structure can have a huge deformation where the steel rebar is blown to dust at that point! Material is extremely deformable and has been tested in seismic loading. In fact, due to high tensile strength and lower strain they provide much better confinement than steel. Material can achieve high drift ratio and it is very well tested in seismic.

Very simple. In fast ACI 440 is almost a copy paste of ACI 318 with some minor changes.

Being green is not about recyclability. 85% of MST is glass (silica- 100% Recyclable) and the other 15% is epoxy. Being green is about life to cradle. How much energy it takes to produce and how much carbon footprint it produces during production, transportation,
and service life? MST-BAR produce 75% less carbon footprint compared to steel and also recycling the concrete is MUCH easier as the rebar get crushed in the concrete which means no more big crusher and no more mega size magnet to remove the bar. GFRP will become part of the aggregate of the future concrete.

ASTM D7957 and CSA S807 includes durability testing under load and without load. Steel rebar will be dissolved in those conditions. We have many studies. Let’s think about it! If this material had no durability why DOTs such as FDOT, MDOT, ODOT and many other DOTs are specifying it in their bridge deck, barriers, seawalls? First bridge used Fiberglass was in 1986 and that bridge is still there with ZERO sign of degradation and ZERO.

Yes MANY and we can show you guys many studies where even Stainless-steel rust! But not MST.

No, typically GFRP bars don’t have a UV inhibitor and should be covered if they sit more than 2-3 months under a Florida or Texas type of sun. There has also been lots of studies to show even if they degrade it is under 5%

There is absolutely no issue with any sort of reaction to MST-BAR. MST resin has a very high chemical resistance, (Epoxy based). The only chemical that could possibly damage the bar is hydrochloric acid at 80% concentration.