The American Concrete Institute (ACI) currently has an approved design guideline for FRP-reinforced concrete - ACI 440.1R-15 Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. Work is in progress to develop a consensus-based design code for GFRP-reinforced concrete consistent with ACI 318-14 where possible. The code language is expected to generally follow the principles developed in the ACI 440.1R-15 Guide, with a number of significant changes that have resulted from more recent research (e.g. changes to design limits and design philosophy) and the need to develop provisions in areas that ACI 440.1R-15 does not address (e.g. requirements for torsion). The proposed changes have not yet been vetted in practical design situations, so their impact is still to be fully explored. Three design examples, taken from ACI’s SP-17 Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook, consistent with proposed draft code language have been developed and their solutions examined to understand the impact that proposed code language may have on the design of GFRP-reinforced concrete members. This thesis investigates a number of different solutions for an L-shaped beam, a one-way slab, and a rectangular beam with torsion to: (1) provide evidence for proposed draft code provisions that can be practically implemented in typical design situations; and (2) identify situations in which proposed draft code language may require modification or additional guidance. The examples are also contrasted with the steel-reinforced solutions.

These worked design examples show that reasonable solutions are obtainable using the proposed draft code although considerably more reinforcement is required for the GFRP-reinforced designs compared to their steel-reinforced counterparts. As expected, serviceability requirements govern these designs with deflections limits controlling beam design and bar spacing requirements for crack control governing slab design. Recent research has justified changes to values used for several design factors that make tension-controlled designs more viable and relax restrictions on compression-controlled designs by allowing larger bar spacing for crack control. There are also some areas of design that require additional guidance in the proposed code such as how to interpret the equation for nominal shear strength provided by the concrete at locations where the elastic neutral axis changes abruptly and how to determine where bars provided solely for stiffness should be terminated.