Weight Comparison – Steel vs GFRP (12m Rods)
| Dia (mm) |
Steel TMT (kg) |
GFRP TMT (kg) |
Weight Saved |
| 4 |
1.20 |
0.30 |
0.90 |
| 6 |
2.64 |
0.66 |
1.98 |
| 8 |
4.68 |
1.18 |
3.50 |
| 10 |
7.44 |
1.86 |
5.58 |
| 12 |
10.68 |
2.68 |
8.00 |
| 16 |
18.96 |
4.74 |
14.22 |
| 20 |
29.64 |
7.40 |
22.24 |
| 25 |
46.20 |
11.56 |
34.64 |
| 32 |
75.72 |
18.96 |
56.76 |
GFRP vs Steel Comparison
| Factor |
Traditional Steel |
Epoxy-Coated Steel |
GFRP Rebar |
| Corrosion Resistance |
Prone to Rust |
Temporary Protection |
100% Rust-Proof |
| Weight |
Heavy |
Heavy |
4x Lighter |
| Strength |
Moderate |
Moderate |
2x Stronger |
| Chemical Resistance |
Rusts in Chemicals |
Limited |
Fully Resistant |
| Electrical Conductivity |
Conductive |
Conductive |
Non-Conductive |
| Magnetic Properties |
Magnetic |
Magnetic |
Non-Magnetic |
| Service Life |
10–15 Years |
15–20 Years |
80–100 Years |
| Installation |
Labor Intensive |
Same as Steel |
Easy & Cost Effective |
| Bonding |
Good |
Good |
Excellent |
| Environmental Impact |
High Carbon |
High Carbon |
Eco-Friendly |
| Cost Effectiveness |
High Lifecycle Cost |
Medium |
Best Value |
GFRP rebars are the smartest, most durable, and future-ready
alternative to traditional steel reinforcement.