FRP COMPOSITE FAÇADE

Using FRP on high-rise buildings

William Kreysler
Kreysler & Associates
bill@kreysler.com

ABSTRACT
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP), in this case glass fiber reinforced polyester resin composite with a polymer concrete face
coat, was used in the USA for the first time as exterior cladding on a Type 1 multi-story building on the SFMoMA addition.
This 11-story addition, completed in May of 2016, makes SFMoMA the largest museum of modern art in the USA with the
largest architectural FRP facade application in the USA to date.

FRP was chosen to mimic the rippling water of the nearby San Francisco Bay on the east and west elevations. Although
recognized by the IBC (International Building Code) in 2009 as an accepted building material (INTERNATIONAL CODE
COUNCIL 2009), any FRP material used must pass the same code requirements as other combustible materials. The most
difficult of these requirements is the NFPA 285 test (NFPA285). Until this and other requirements are met, no combustible
material, including FRP, is allowed.
The design for the SFMoMA project called for over 700 unique, individual, constantly curving panels (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: SFMOMA façade of Snøhetta expansion (photo Jon McNeal, © Snøhetta.jpg).

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   1

Although it is possible to construct such panels with metal, the only practical option was to mold the 710 unique panels, thus
suggesting precast concrete or the lighter UHPC or GFRC. The less familiar FRP was listed as an alternative by the façade
consultant in part because of its more widespread use in European construction (Fig.2).

Figure 2: Photo of Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center in Baku, Azerbaijan (Photo by Interfase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heydar_Aliyev_Cultural_Center.jpg, public domain).

Although used sparingly on US buildings for decades, FRP has dominated other industries such as corrosion resistant
ducting and chemical storage tanks, wind energy, marine, and heavy truck components (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Photo of wind power plants in Xinjiang, China (Photo by Fred J, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_power_plants_in_Xinjiang,_China.jpg, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

2 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

However, it has seen no extensive use on Type 1 buildings. This has been partly because of codes and partly because its
primary advantages over other materials are its high strength-to-weight ratio and its ability to be formed into complex
shapes. Neither of these characteristics has been very important in construction until recently.

After successfully passing a rigorous evaluation process, FRP was chosen because it offered solutions to several problems
presented by the use of other systems. Its primary advantages were its light weight and formability, the very features
exploited by other industries in the past, and now increasingly relevant in contemporary design and construction.

KEYWORDS
Composites, FRP, Facades, Rainscreen, NFPA 285, Fiberglass, FRP, sculpture, curtain wall, unitized panels

INTRODUCTION
Aside from curiosity about something new, several factors are pushing building designers towards sometimes radical
departures from traditional means and methods. This shaking up of the status quo, in an otherwise risk-averse industry, is
leading to the startlingly rapid deployment of fundamentally new building systems, including to a large degree the building
envelope itself. Environmental concern for building materials as well as building operations, health and safety issues relating
to building construction and occupancy, rapidly changing regulations and code modifications are driving these new
approaches. Additionally, jobsite labor costs, time to delivery, and an evolving design ethic brought about by 3D computer
modeling are leading designers to consider an array of new ideas, methods, and materials. FRP composites represent one of
these “new materials” that offer a fundamentally new approach to building construction. Although still some ways off, there is
technically no reason why FRP cannot be used to create entire building structures as well as complete envelopes (Lambrych
n.d.). Indeed, such composites structures are common in other industries such as aerospace, transportation and marine
where monocoque structures are routine (Fig. 4).

Figure 4: Photo of Boeing 787 (Photo by MilborneOne, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B787-2109.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0), photo of racecar (Photo by TyH22,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HCastronevesIndy.jpg, CC BY-SA 3.0), photo of yacht (Photo by Berthold Werner,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yacht_Lady_Moura_in_Monaco.jpg, public domain).

Meanwhile, FRP composites will find increasing use in non-load-bearing architectural applications in AEC due to its
formability, high strength-to-weight ratio, durability, and minimal maintenance requirements.

Designers, engineers, builders, owners, and even fabricators of FRP products, need reliable information about the proper use
of FRP in construction. This paper is an attempt to improve the understanding of one of these materials and to address
questions, concerns, and misconceptions relating to the proper use of Fiber Reinforced Polymers on building facades.

BACKGROUND
FRP has found limited acceptance in construction despite it’s proven success in other industries. Its principle advantages are
its high strength-to-weight rations compared to other materials (Fig. 5a & 5b) and the ability to consolidate what would
otherwise be assemblies of other materials such as wood or metal into a single molded part. For example, on the Boeing
787, a primary benefit of composites was to significantly reduce part count.

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   3

 Figure 5a: Strength to Weight Ratio of FRP compared to other materials (Diagram courtesy of Jordan Composites, Inc.).

Figure

5b: Strength to Weight Ratio of FRP compared to other materials (Diagram courtesy of Jordan Composites, Inc.).

Recent changes in building codes and design are opening the door to more widespread use of composites in architectural
and even structural applications. The American Concrete Institute has adapted a design standard for the use of FRP in
concrete structures (American Concrete Institute 2008, 440.2R-16), including a design standard for FRP composite rebar in
structural concrete (ACI Committee 440 2015). AASHTO has published a standard for pedestrian bridge designs using
composite structures (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2008). DOT initiatives throughout
the USA and other countries have had experimental bridges and other structures in place for decades and are beginning to
publish results indicating successes (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2009).

METHDOLOGY
The use of FRP cladding on the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art provides a case study for the use of FRP as cladding
on a multi-story Type V commercial building. Initial prototypes, cost estimation, design assist procedures, code compliance
strategies, and engineering and installation methods were developed to meet the design intent, budget, project schedule,
code requirements, and environmental constraints.

4 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

PROTOTYPE FABRICATION
The architectural façade design was modeled originally by the architect in Rhino 3D (Mc Neel Associates) (Robert McNeel &
Associates n.d.) using a “Grasshopper” script to alter the wavelength, amplitude, and frequency of the façade “ripples” over
the curved and tilting East and West elevations of the building. Rhino models can be reliably imported into software used to
guide CNC cutting tools (in this case PowerMILL by Delcam) (Delcam n.d.) which can be used to cut the shape of the part or
it’s mirror image out of a block of material, thus creating a female mold directly from the architect’s model. Once made, this
rapidly and inexpensively created mold can serve to fabricate a full scale model of any portion of the façade (Fig. 6).

Figure 6: Full scale mockup of SFMoMA panel, (Photo courtesy of Kreysler & Associates).

Easily fabricated mock-ups serve as a rapid verification of material durability, process fidelity, and panel weight. By early
fabrication of a full-scale mock-up such things as material cost per square foot, overall weight, repair ability and strength are
determined. This step improves the quality of the production cost estimate as well as the architect’s and client’s confidence
in the material option.

COST E ST IM AT ION
Although no two of the 710 façade panels were the same shape, the use of 3D computer modeling and CNC mold fabrication
made cost estimating reliable. Rhino provided accurate surface area and such key characteristics as panel center of gravity.
Knowing the materials required on a per square foot basis allowed accurate material cost prediction. PowerMILL includes
algorithms that predict milling time for each mold (Fig. 7).

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   5

 Figure 7: Screen shot of surface area and milling time in PowerMILL software, (Screenshot courtesy of Kreysler & Associates).

Thus, despite the highly complex and variable shapes, accurate cost estimation and scheduling was possible for the tooling
phase. Through the use of digital fabrication tools and conventional material, labor, and manufacturing overhead allocation
methods, a reliable cost could be predicted.

D E SIGN ASSIST
An element of contemporary construction is the ever increasing need for collaboration between the design team and
specialty contractors. Although the traditional “design, bid, build” method is still dominant, it frequently leads to wasted time
on the part of design professionals who attempt to produce a plausible “construction document” based often on insufficient
knowledge of materials or fabrication methods. Expecting an architect, or even a façade consultant, to be an expert in
composite fabrication can lead to erroneous assumptions, insufficient and inaccurate documentation, and faulty conclusions.
At best he or she might propose a solution that does not optimize current technology, which in turn leads to costlier and
lower quality solutions (Fig. 8).

6 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

 Figure 8: Early design concept for SFMoMA façade, (Screenshot courtesy of Snøhetta).

Expensive hours are spent attempting to develop plausible construction systems in hopes of achieving a “low” cost proposal.
Too often such approaches fail to leverage the current fabrication best practices and can lead to inaccurate and higher risk
results than would be the case with a negotiated contract with pre-qualified vendors based on pre-agreed budget targets.
More enlightened approaches utilize design assist (Hart 2007) services, but this method continues to suffer when the
selection process is based on responses to “conceptual” fabrication strategies, typically delivered to the vendors as 2D
drawings for contract compliance purposes (Turner Construction n.d.). Such documents when they attempt to describe
complex shapes, regularly lead to impossible construction details when applied to the actual 3D environment. Too often
these irregularities don’t reveal themselves until after the vendor selection process, leading to change orders and wasted
time. Solutions to this rapidly growing problem are beyond the scope of this paper, but they must be addressed as soon as
possible. These solutions must, among other things, allow a shift to the use of 3D models as construction documents. They
must also insist that vendors who participate in complex architectural projects be vetted and fully conversant with mutually
compatible software (Miller 2012); they must be fluent in the use of the latest digital tools.

CODE COMPLIANCE
Since 2009, the International Building Code (IBC) has recognized FRP as Fiber Reinforced Plastics, Fiberglass Reinforced
Polymers in Section 2612. This section of Chapter 26 recognizes FRP as a combustible material allowing its use when the
product can demonstrate the ability to meet the code requirements applied to similar architectural products. Since FRP can
be formulated with a wide variety of mechanical and physical properties, formulations are available that meet most
requirements. For building facades, the code allows any façade made of combustible material to be used below 40 feet
provided it can pass ASTM E-84 with a class 2 rating – or better --for flame spread and also meet the appropriate structural

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   7

requirements. This is a relatively easy standard for FRP materials. Above 40 feet the code becomes more rigorous. Although
passing ASTM E-84 continues to be a requirement, any coverage over 20% of the total surface area means the material must
meet the Class 1 requirements of ASTM E-84 for flame spread and smoke density and also pass, among other tests, the
rigorous NFPA 285 test (NFPA285). For the SFMoMA addition, this was a major hurdle which had to be cleared before FRP
could be seriously considered as the façade material. The specific formulation for the test panel is confidential and is in fact
now patented by the panel fabricator. However the specifically fabricated panel did pass the test and as a result, composite
material was selected for use based on the projection of significant cost and time savings.

Code requirements for engineering of the panels to meet wind, seismic, and dead load requirements, including the fixing
designs, were met by following standard engineering principles and test standards for the design of similar façade products,
with shop drawings, stamped by engineers duly licensed to practice in the jurisdiction.

E NGINE E R ING
FRP has long been the focus of reliable engineering techniques. Indeed, the development of modern FEA (Finite Element
Analysis) engineering was driven to a large degree by the need to engineer complex aircraft forms made possible by
composites. Aerospace and military uses of composites starting in the 1940’s, followed by the large compound curved
shapes found in marine applications. These applications generated a vast array of ASTM and other standard tests
procedures, many of which can be used for architectural composite design. The American Composites Manufacturers
Association (ACMA) recently published Guidelines and Recommended Practice for Architectural FRP which contains
examples and relevant material properties, engineering examples, and test procedures for the proper use of FRP in
construction (American Composites Manufacturing Association 2016).

FAB R ICAT ION PHASE

As we have mentioned, one of the unique characteristics of FRP is its very high strength-to-weight ratio (Fig. 9).

Figure 9: Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Conventional Materials and FRP Composites. Source: (American Composites Manufacturers Association 2016, 10).

This feature led to panels whose weight was approximately 3 pounds per square foot (~15 kg/M^2), making them light
enough to be affixed to the front of the aluminum unitized panels used to form the waterproof barrier of the building. This was
convenient for several reasons. It eliminated the need for any penetrations of the waterproofing. It allowed the FRP to be
fastened to the unitized panels off site, which meant that the FRP rain screen was installed simultaneously with the unitized
wall. This simultaneous installation eliminated the need for a back-up support system and reduced the construction time by
replacing an original design that required three trips around the building by three different trades with a design that required
one trip around by one contractor. Additional benefits involved less tower crane time, fewer crane moves, easier cleaning,
higher quality damage tolerance, superior reparability, and lower overall cost. Comparative life cycle studies done by
Stanford University graduate students in a non-peer reviewed LCA comparison (Stanford University 2009) also suggested the
FRP had significantly less impact on the environment compared to the alternative system using GFRC or UHPC.

8 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

Another unique characteristic of FRP is that the shape and configuration can be economically customized. Conventional
unitized panel systems are most economical and reliable when creating flat walls.The SFMoMA façade was anything but flat.
Resolving the problem created by these two seemingly incompatible features presented a unique challenge. How do you
make a flat back on an ever varying front surface? Not only was the front wavy, it tilted forward and back as it rose higher
and curved in plan through a wide variety of irregular radii. The solution lay in the use of digital tools to create asymmetrical
return edges which were different on virtually every panel (Fig. 10).

Figure 10: Diagrams courtesy of Kreysler & Associates

As the façade diverged from a conventional flat wall, the edges of the panels were molded with edges that varied between 4
and 34 inches. This allowed for considerable design flexibility before running up to one of these edge dimension limits. When
the curve diverged beyond these limits, a custom unitized panel was fabricated to “twist” the flat wall into a new facet (Fig.
11).

Figure 11: SFMoMA twisted panel and frame, (Photo courtesy of Kreysler & Associates).

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   9

Again assisted by digital tools and relying on skillful craftsmanship and valuable collaboration between the FRP façade
fabricator and the aluminum unitized wall manufacturer, calculation of the balance between the additional cost of these
special twisted unitized panels and the cost of fabricating asymmetrical FRP panels determined the 4-to-34-inch edge
tolerance. The contractor was able to minimize cost while retaining the original architect’s shape within a tolerance of less
than 1.5 inches throughout the entire 11-story elevation.

DATA

Figure 12a: NFPA 285 Test Summary chart screenshot, (Courtesy of Kreysler & Associates).

10 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

 Figure 12b: NFPA 285 Test Summary chart screenshots, (Courtesy of Kreysler & Associates).

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   11

 Figure 13: E-84 Flame Spread and Smoke Density Chart screenshot, (Courtesy of Kreysler & Associates).

12 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

 Figure 14: Finite element analysis (FEA) of typical panel screenshots (Courtesy of Jordan Composites, Inc.)

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   13

 Figure 15: Connection capacity testing – aluminum rod to FRP laminate (Courtesy of Western Carolina University).

Figure 16: Calculation of connection components (Courtesy of Martin and Martin, Inc. Engineering).

14 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

 Mechanical  Properties Method Fire Method
Bearing  L oad   ASTM  D1602 ASTM  E84
Surface  Burning  Characteristics
ASTM  D695 ASTM  D162
ASTM  D6641
Compressive  Strength   Oxygen  Index ASTM  D2863
ASTM  D3410
and  Modulus
ASTM  C365 NBS  Smoke  Test   ASTM  E662
ISO  8 44
Multi-­‐Story  Building  Test NFPA  2 85
ASTM  D638
ASTM  D3039 Room  Corner  Test   NFPA  2 86
Tensile  Strength ASTM  D5083 Ignitability  by  Radiant  Panel   NFPA  2 68
ASTM  C297
DIN  5 3455 Potential  Heat  of  Building  Materials   NFPA  2 59
ASTM  D638 Cone  Calorimeter  ASTM  E1354
ASTM  D3039
Tensile  Modulus
ASTM  C297
DIN  5 3457
Suface  Testing Method
ASTM  D638
%  Elongation ASTM  D3039 Gravelometer SAE  J-­‐400
ISO  1 922
Gardner  Gloss  Meter Gardner
ASTM  D790
Flexural  Strength  and  Modulus Stain  Resistance ANSI  Z124
ASTM  D6272
ASTM  C393 Barcol  Hardness ASTM  D2583
Flexural  Strength  and  Stiffness ASTM  D7249
ASTM  D7250
Punch  Shear  Test   ASTM  D732 Physical  Properties Method
ASTM  D3518 Specific  Gravity ASTM  D792
ASTM  D3846
ASTM  D3914 Water  Absorption ASTM  D570
ASTM  D5379 Glass  Transition ASTM  D7028
In-­‐plane  Shear  Strength  
ASTM  D4255
and  Modulus CTE ASTM  E289
ASTM  D7078
ASTM  C273 Heat  Distortion ASTM  D648
ASTM  C393
ISO  1 922
Lap  Shear  Strength   ASTM  D3164 Material  Properties Method
Short  Beam  Strength   ASTM  D2344 Brookfield  Viscosity ASTM  D2196
Izod  Impact   ASTM  D256
Ignition  L oss  of  Cured  Reinforced  Resins ASTM  D2584
Charpy  Impact   ASTM  D256
Gel  Time ASTM  D2471
ASTM  D953
Bearing  Strength Glass  Fiber  Strands ASTM  D578
ASTM  D5961

Figure 17: List of composites test methods (American Composites Manufacturers Association 2016, 79).

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   15

EXPLANATION
The data show that FRP can meet the IBC acceptance criteria for architectural products. Standard test methods for fire and
durability can be applied. ASTM tests exist for composite materials; these tests have been in existence for many years and
have proven to be reliable in assisting engineers in designing structures as well as architectural products. In addition, FRP
products, in large part because of their high material efficiency, often compare favorably to conventional materials in
environmental assessments such as LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) studies.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

Although somewhat new to the construction industry, FRP is a proven material with decades of successful use in demanding
applications throughout the marine, aerospace, and transportation industries. To date, FRP composites have been used only
infrequently in construction, mainly in remote and extreme environments where the need for prefabrication, light weight, and
easy assembly have warranted their use.

Although offering many advantages, care must be taken to use industry standard design principles. As with any new material,
the specifier of composite materials will be greeted with a wide variety of options and prices. Since quality is a function of
fabrication, not unlike concrete, it is incumbent on the designer to beware of and to exercise caution in selecting a fabricator.
Conflicting information needs to be reconciled and verified. Engineers must recognize this is a highly specialized discipline.
Being an anisotropic material there are virtually limitless options in terms of fiber orientation, fiber volume, number of layers,
type of resin, resin filler options, sandwich and single-skin construction techniques, and cure options. Engineers have control
over a dizzying array of material properties, including even thermal expansion and contraction CTE which will vary from
carbon fiber and it’s negative CTE to resins that have higher CTE’s than aluminum.

Use of FRP on the SFMoMA and other façade projects in Europe and Asia demonstrates that properly executed work can
result in successful outcomes. However, there are ample examples of less successful outcomes. Although FRP has been
proven for decades in applications at least as demanding as building facades and often in those that are much more
demanding, making decisions based solely on cost is risky and almost certain to yield poor results. With care, appropriate
formulation, and proper quality control, FRP can not only provide the structural properties to compete favorably with
alternatives, but can also meet fire and other code requirements.

Similar to concrete, the mechanical and other critical properties are largely determined during the fabrication process.
Stringent quality assurance is essential and close collaboration with a reliable and properly certified fabricator is critical. The
IBC code requires any FRP part delivered to a jobsite to have affixed to it an ICC recognized independent test agency label
certifying that it is manufactured in compliance with the code and subject to third-party inspection. Such a label is the first
line of defense in the proper selection of FRP products for buildings.

Future study will need to explore structural opportunities for composites in construction. Engineering examples and ideally an
LRFD model for FRP tailored to the construction industry should be developed. Durability case studies need to be assembled
from the wide variety of existing examples to improve documentation. Such studies should rely on properly documented
empirical evidence and science of which there are numerous examples (Pauer 2016).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the following persons for providing information used in this paper:
John Busel, P.E., American Composites Manufacturers Association
Dr. Robert Steffen, PhD, P.E., North Carolina State University school of Construction Management
Dr. Nicholas Dembsey, PhD, FPE, P.E., Professor, Wooster Polytechnic Institute, Wooster MA
Jesse Beitel, P.E., FPE, Jensen Hughes Consultants, Baltimore MD
Kevin Lambrych, CE, Ashland Chemical
Emily Guglielmo, S.E., Martin & Martin Consulting Engineers
Kurt Jordan, M.E., P.E., Jordan Composites

16 FACADE TECTONICS INSTITUTE  

REFERENCES
ACI Committee 440. 2015. Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Bars. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2009. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guide
Specifications for GFRP -Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks and Traffic Railings. D.C.: American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
—. 2008. Design Guidelines for FRP Pedestrian Bridges. D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
American Composites Manufacturers Association. 2016. Guidelines and Recommended Practices for Fiber-Reinforced-
Polymer (FRP) Architectural Products. Arlington: American Composites Manufacturers Association.
American Composites Manufacturing Association. 2016. FRP Architectural Products Guidelines. Accessed 05 25, 2016.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9GMCPHD.
American Concrete Institute. 2008. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for
Strengthening Concrete Structures. Farmington Hills: American Concrete Institute.
n.d. Delcam. Accessed 05 25, 2016. https://www.delcam.com/software/powermill/.
Hart, David. 2007. "The Basics of Design-Assist Contracting." AIA Best Practices. The AIA, October.
International Code Council, Inc. 2009. "2009 International Building Code." 543. Country Club Hills: International Code
Council, Inc.
Lambrych, Kevin. n.d. "300 Ft. Tall FRP." Wind Turbine Power Paper.
Miller, Nathan. 2012. The Proving Ground. September 8. Accessed July 2016.
http://www.theprovingground.org/2012/09/interoperable-geometry-part-1-curves.html.
Pauer, Rick. 2016. "Durability."
n.d. Robert McNeel & Associates. http://www.en.na.mcneel.com/.
Stanford University. 2009. "Architectural Facades for the Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center." Life Cycle Assessment, Stanford.
Turner Construction. n.d. "Turner Construction Standard Contract."

2016 WORLD CONGRESS   17