Content uploaded by Viktor Gribniak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Viktor Gribniak on Feb 11, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Received: 12 August 2022 | Revised: 29 September 2022 | Accepted: 01 October 2022
DOI: 10.5185/amlett.2023.011713
R ES E A RC H
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [1 of 8]
Material-Oriented Engineering for Eco-Optimized
Structures — A New Design Approach
Viktor Gribniak*
INTRODUCTION
Notwithstanding the modern industry’s ability to produce
composite materials with a wide range of mechanical
properties applicable in medicine, aviation, and automotive
sectors, conservative structural design principles are
predominant in the building industry. At the same time, this
industrial branch generates a substantial part of the budget
worldwide and utilizes vast amounts of materials. Thus, the
engineering practice has revealed that innovative building
technologies require new design concepts related to
developing materials with mechanical properties tailored
for construction purposes [1]. It is the opposite of the
current practice where standardized engineering solutions
are associated with applying existing materials, the physical
characteristics of which are imperfectly suiting the
structural requirements, leading to an inefficient increase of
the material amounts for safety sake.
The current research trends focus on identifying
fundamental relationships between the internal structure of
advanced composites and the related physical properties.
The article collection [2] reveals considerable room for
improving the choice of structural materials from a
scientific viewpoint. Among other promising examples,
recent findings show the beneficial effect of nano-particles
on the mechanical performance of advanced composites
[3]; chemical additives can help identify the thermal impact
on structural composites [4]; heat-resistant aluminum-
based composites ensure power transmission safety [5].
Advanced woven fabrics reinforce soft body armor [6] and
structural components [7]. Hu et al. [8] reported promising
results structurally adapting the mechanical performance of
cross-linked polymers.
Regarding structural applications, the Democritus
University of Thrace research team achieved remarkable
results in developing and analyzing fibrous reinforcement,
improving cementitious composites’ mechanical
performance and sustainability [9–11]. The cyclic test
results of fiber-reinforced concrete beams with bar
reinforcement describe a valuable reference for further
development of advanced cement-based composites [9].
A BS T R AC T
The modern industry allows producing composite materials with a broad
spectrum of mechanical properties applicable in medicine, aviation, and
automotive industries. However, the building industry generates a substantial part
of budgets worldwide and utilizes vast material amounts. At the same time, the
engineering practice has revealed that innovative technologies require new design
concepts related to developing materials with mechanical properties tailored for
structural purposes. It is the opposite of the current design philosophy when
design solutions allow applying only the existing typical materials, the physical
characteristics of which, in general, are imperfectly suiting the technical
requirements, leading to an inefficient increase of the material amounts for
safety’s sake. Moreover, some structural solutions are barely possible using
standardized approaches. This work illustrates the implementation of the
proposed adaptive design concept and discusses the design perspectives.
K EY W OR DS
Structural materials, physical tests, additive manufacturing, numerical modeling,
parametric optimization.
Laboratory of Innovative Building
Structures, Vilnius Gediminas
Technical University
(VILNIUS TECH), Sauletekio av. 11,
Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania
*Corresponding author
E-mail: Viktor.Gribniak@vilniustech.lt
Tel.: +370 6 134 6759
Web of Science Researcher ID:
Viktor Gribniak
U-5312-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows for use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium as long as the original work is properly cited. © 2023 The Authors. The International Association of Advanced Materials, Sweden, publishes Advanced Materials
Letters.
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [2 of 8]
https://aml.iaamonline.org
The proper combination of advanced composite materials
can also enhance impact resistance [12] and ensure
structural integrity [13] and efficiency in utilizing the
reinforcement components [14]. The latter investigation
exemplifies the structural steel design alteration, extending
it to the post-yielding stage when deformations but not the
strength condition governs the structural solution.
Unfortunately, the mechanical performance of polymeric
composites is an aging and long-term deterioration subject
[15-18] and requires further extensive investigation. In
addition, the advanced composites raise the internal
structure and component optimization problems, e.g., [3,8,
13,14], requiring innovative design solutions and concepts.
The above-identified gaps motivated this study, and the
“Industrialised material-oriented engineering for eco-
optimized structures” research project supported by the
European Regional Development Fund inspired this
article’s emergence, which adapts the Award Lecture at the
European Advanced Material Congress 2022 in Genoa. It
summarizes the project results published in the literature
[19–26]. The proposed design approach describes the eco-
optimization criteria in a simplified and heuristic manner as
reduction of the materials’ amount, carbon emission,
energy footprint, and life cycle costs, satisfying the required
performance of the structural components. Developing a
unified design methodology of reinforced polymer- and
cement-based structural composites with material
properties tailored for sustainable and eco-optimized
construction purposes describes the target of this study. The
research flow encompasses five main activities depicted in
Fig. 1: 1) experimental characterization of composite
materials and structures [20-22]; 2) materials engineering
[20,21,25]; 3) tailoring structural components’ material
properties and production technology for construction
purposes [19]; 4) the design methodology development
employing the collected database and metaheuristic
optimization algorithms [26]; 5) adaptive prototyping for
user requirements [23,24]. The division into activities is
formal—all tasks are interlinked (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The project’s research flow.
The research results and discussion
The research activities in Fig. 1 cover a variety of tests. This
article summarizes the essential experimental outcomes and
achieved findings, providing the reader with the minimal
information necessary to follow the investigation flow and
investigation trends—an expert finds all the research details
in the references [19-27].
Developing heat-resistant composites
Within the project framework (Fig. 1), material engineering
ensures the development of fiber-reinforced cementitious
composites with outstanding mechanical performance and
high-temperature resistance. The bio-fuel furnaces describe
the working example for applying the developed ultra-high
performance composites.
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [3 of 8]
https://aml.iaamonline.org
Fig.2. Compressive strength of castables after heating at different temperatures [25].
These heat-resistant castables, representing a mixture
of a refractory aggregate, calcium aluminate cement,
ultra-fine particles, and deflocculants, were designed in the
mid of the ’80s for the metallurgy and petrochemical
industries. The castable binder shows an excellent
ability to preserve the material’s mechanical strength in the
600 °C to 1000 °C temperature range. In addition, the
micro-scaled silica/alumina activation process increases the
strength and sinterability temperature of the castables
regarding traditional alternatives. Fig. 2 shows the
mechanical resistance tendencies of the castables subjected
to elevated temperatures and expressed in terms of the
compressive strength of the post-heated samples (70 mm
cubes).
However, as the study [25] showed, the casting
temperatures substantially affected the spalling resistance
of such concretes—the castables poured and hardened at
relatively low temperatures (10 °C) tended to spall under
high temperatures, and Kudžma et al. [25] identified the test
conditions for revealing this vulnerability. In addition,
Plioplys et al. [27] analyzed the possibility of developing a
reinforced composite employing the refractory concretes
investigated in the article [25]. Plioplys et al. [27] also
found that the stainless-steel smooth bars, typical
reinforcement of the heat-resistant components, are
inapplicable for structural composites — the bonding effect
disappears already after heating at 400°C, and,
consequently, the smooth bars lost the reinforcement
essence. On the other hand, typical ribbed bars made from
structural steel S500 could reinforce flexural elements even
after heating to 1000 °C, allowing efficient structural
components to be developed.
Fiber-reinforced polymer structure and performance
The research already identified that combining steel fibers
and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets with mechanical
fastening resulted in structurally efficient and sustainable
reinforcement systems for cement-based composite
elements [13,19]. It was shown that the failure of the
ordinary concrete beams was due to the splitting of the
concrete cover at the level of the longitudinal
reinforcement. On the other hand, the debonding of the
external FRP sheet at the interfaces between concrete
and adhesive caused the failure of the specimens made of
fiber-reinforced concrete. Such a failure mechanism is
much more predictable regarding heterogeneous
concrete cracking. Jakubovskis et al. [28] discussed the
illustrative example, representing the cracking behavior
of ordinary concrete. Thus, the identified improvement in
the mechanical resistance of composite systems,
comprising fiber-reinforced cementitious and polymeric
materials, e.g., considered in the studies [19,22,26],
improves the design reliability. However, the filament
content does not describe the reinforcement efficiency
[21,29,30]. In cementitious composites for structural
applications, typically reinforced with short steel fibers, the
mix proportions govern the reinforcement efficiency until a
certain fiber amount. In most cases, the 1.5% volumetric
content describes the ultimate value, though the typical for
engineering applications fiber content does not exceed
0.5% [29,31].
On the contrary, continuous filaments typically
reinforce FRP components for structural use [32] under
much higher reinforcement ratios than mentioned above.
However, Gribniak et al. [20,21] doubted the producer
datasheet adequacy regarding the adequacy specifying the
fiber content. The complex internal architecture of the
FIBERLINE FRP composite can explain the inconsistency
between the declared (≈60%) and measured (71.0%) fiber
mass contents. However, the producer did not provide
any information on fiber fraction quantification. Thus,
Gribniak et al. [20,21] proposed an equivalent
reinforcement ratio to measure the reinforcing effect and
revealed that the efficiency of glass fibers is 7% lower than
expected from the manufacturer’s declared mass fraction
content. The possible explanation relates the observed
differences to the reduction in the mechanical performance
because of the fibers’ damage observed in the test surface
micro-scans (Fig. 3).
47.69 42.48 42.75 37.98 28.97
100.60 94.92 85.42 82.51 79.53
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
110 °C 400 °C 600 °C 800 °C 1000 °C
Conventional castable
Modified castable
Compressive strength, MPa
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [4 of 8]
https://aml.iaamonline.org
Fig. 3. The filament damage in preparing test samples [20].
The studies [20,21] demonstrated the unsuitability of
the standard dumbbell-shaped coupon tensile tests to
determine the equivalent reinforcement ratio for the
simulation of FRP flexural elements. The experimentally
verified numerical (finite element) model [20], employing
the smeared reinforcement concept [33] and assuming the
producer’s datasheet specified fiber content, described the
comparison reference. Thus, the estimation error of the
fiber efficiency reached 40% by applying the standard
dumbbell-shaped coupon tensile test result for modeling the
flexural pultruded FRP profile. It is also expected that the
material characterization error increases with the decrease
of the sample size, i.e., with the coupon boundary cut-side
area increase regarding the sample cross-section size.
A new testing layout and a simplified analytical model
were developed in the study [22] to overcome the above
issue and quantify the flexural stiffness of the standardized
experimental samples. This proposed methodology helps to
estimate the efficiency of structural reinforcement systems.
The model [22] explicitly employs the equivalent residual
stiffness approach to measure the reinforced composites’
mechanical performance. The developed analytical model
relates the particular moment and curvature values,
requiring neither iterative calculations nor the load history.
This exceptional feature, regarding the existing analogs
[29,34], allows the explicit quantification and comparative
analysis of the residual stiffness of the composite systems,
varying the reinforcement type (i.e., fibers, internal bars,
near-surface mounted strips, external sheets, and those
various combinations) and materials.
Furthermore, the proposed analytical model [34] is
suitable for the stiffness quantification of the elements
subjected to cyclic and repeated loads, making the negative
effect quantification of repeated factors, e.g., technological
cycles and environmental effects. Thus, the short-term [22]
and cyclic loading [35] tests, carried out within the
framework of this project (Fig. 1), demonstrated the hybrid
systems’ efficiency in combining FRP materials and steel
bars.
Adaptive design concept
Current materials engineering trends put forward the
development of efficient structural solutions and new
design methodologies. Hence, developing an adaptive
design concept describes a central research objective of the
“Industrialised material-oriented engineering for eco-
optimized structures” project (Fig. 1).
Remarkably, the adaptive design combines two
essential innovations—the materials tailoring for the
construction purpose and developing the verified numerical
models for the efficient reference of the structural behavior.
The FRP efficiency analysis model [20] demonstrates the
latter solution; the heat-resistant castables [25] exemplify
the tailored materials. Therefore, this section combines the
above principles to develop a structural prototype,
illustrating the adaptive design flow, as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. The adaptive design approach (adapted from [26]): measurement units = mm; LVDT = linear variable displacement transducer.
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [5 of 8]
https://aml.iaamonline.org
As a running adaptive design example, Garnevičius &
Gribniak [26] employed the stress-ribbon bridge concept
[36] to create the hybrid beam system, combining the
polymeric fiber-reinforced concrete slab and pultruded FRP
profile. On the one hand, this innovative structural solution
contradicts the traditional concept of local bond
improvement, e.g., employing FRP profile perforation and
mechanical anchorage systems, e.g. [37]. The developed
prototype [26] demonstrated that the answer to the support
problem (resulting from a low resistance of pultruded FRP
profiles to transverse loads regarding the pultrusion
direction) improved the structural performance of the
bridge prototype. The supports’ enhancement (“Design
concept 2” in Fig. 4) doubled the beam’s flexural stiffness
and load-bearing capacity regarding the reference bridge
with weak supports (“Design concept 1”) without the
additional FRP bond improvement with concrete.
Comparing the red and blue moment-curvature diagrams in
Fig. 4 supports this statement. Moreover, this structural
solution simplified the corresponding finite element (FE)
model, assuming the perfect bond between the components.
On the other hand, the bending tests, proving the
adequacy of the above FE solution, describe the design
reference for developing the adaptive design concept
schematically depicted in Fig. 4. The presented case
exemplifies the hybrid structural system’s design when the
FE modeling describes the expected system efficiency that
is the design reference. Thus, as Fig. 4 shows, the
preliminary design concept (“1”) forms the numerical
model (“2”), in which the predicted outcome determines the
structural design target. Further physical tests (“3”) verify
the viability of the concept “1.” If necessary, an engineer
modifies the design solution (e.g., “4”). The iterative
adaptation continues until the acceptable agreement
between the physical and numerical outcomes is achieved
(i.e., “Verification 2”). Note that Fig. 4 exemplifies the
adaptive design philosophy when the predicted outcome of
the verified FE model controls the structural design. Still,
the formal solution requires additional tests to ensure the
result’s reliability. However, the apparent difference
between the alternative design outcomes (red and blue
moment-curvature diagrams, i.e., “Verification 1” and
“Verification 2” cases in Fig. 4) proves the concept in
general.
Additive manufacturing of structural components
This section further develops the adaptive design idea,
employing additive manufacturing (3D printing)
technologies. Such fabrication ensures the tailored capacity
and precise engineering of structural components [38]; the
design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA) principles
modulate the structural units optimizing the manufacturing
and assembly workflows [39]. Thus, the expected outcomes
of the design adaptiveness are the following: efficient
application of the tailored constituents used in proper
combinations minimizing the material demands, and
accomplishing projects impossible for the current design
(e.g., ultra-durable and energy-efficient infrastructure and
buildings). Gribniak et al. [23, 24] exemplified additive
fabrication, producing 3D-printed polymeric components.
Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) parts
represent a promising alternative to steel because of their
lightweight, high tensile strength, and excellent corrosion
and fatigue resistance. Stress-ribbon structural systems,
efficient for pedestrian bridges and long-span roofs, define
the potential application object of unidirectional flat CFRP
strips, though anchorage difficulties make this idea
problematic [36]. The problems result from tremendous
thrust forces acting on the ribbons and the FRP materials’
vulnerability to the stress concentration in the clamped
region. To overcome the above anchorage problem, the
study [23] introduces a new design methodology of the
gripping system suitable for anchoring flat flexible CFRP
strips. Fig. 5 shows the gripping system proposed to anchor
flexible CFRP strips of stress-ribbon structures.
Fig. 5. The spiral FRP anchorage system [23]: (a) principle scheme;
(b) loading setup.
The 3D printing technology was applied to produce the
spiral disc prototype shown in Fig. 5. The physical tests
[23] proved the efficiency of this gripping system—the
CFRP strip failure (localized outside the anchorage block)
resulted from the tensile stresses exceeding the material
strength. Remarkably, the tension acting on the CFRP
activated the internal conical grips in Fig. 5b only at the
pre-loading stage—the friction between the CFRP strip and
polymeric disk completely resisted the testing load. The
tests [23] also proved the developed anchorage design
model. Thus, the upcoming study optimizes the geometry
of the grips, incorporating the frictional anchorage system
into the pedestrian bridge prototype [36,40].
Another case of the adaptive DfMA relates to
strengthening hollow-section aluminum profiles with low-
modulus 3D-printed polymeric stiffeners [24]. Modern
facades describe the object for aluminum profile usage, and
the self-weight controls the structural shape progress—a
decrease of the web thickness and an increase of the profile
height ensure the required flexural resistance of the
building components [41,42]. However, such an
optimization process makes these structural elements
vulnerable to web crippling. The literature findings [43,44]
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [6 of 8]
https://aml.iaamonline.org
linked the solution to the buckling problem with applying
low-modulus filler material, which stabilizes the local
web’s deformations and increases the load-bearing capacity
and the deformation energy absorption of the thin-walled
composite structures.
Therefore, the experimental program [24] consisted of
compressive and bending fragments of aluminum profiles
with various adhesively bonded polymeric stiffener
configurations. The extensive tests demonstrate that even
the minimum (10%) infill density doubled the bending
samples’ flexural resistance and quadrupled the composite
fragments’ compressive strength. The latter tests helped
develop the component interaction model shown in Fig. 6.
The pseudo-elastic stage (OA branch in Fig. 6) describes
the structural design object. This diagram shows the
substantial contribution of the adhesion component to the
composite mechanical resistance.
Therefore, the adhesive contact defines the composite
essence governing the structural performance of the
stiffened profile. Thus, the current interests focus on
developing a reliable adhesion connection and internal
strengthening technology suitable for hollow-section thin-
walled shapes and adaptive DfMA technologies.
Fig. 6. The load-sharing model of the aluminum profile with low-density
polymeric stiffeners (adapted from [24]).
Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies are
flexible and efficient for prototyping, e.g., [23,24,40]. In
addition, AM ensures waste reduction because of the
continuous material addition process, distinguishing it from
the conventional manufacturing methods based on material
removal [38]. At the same time, the AM expensiveness in
energy terms contradicts the low carbon footprint concept
raised in this project. Therefore, production technology
eco-optimization defines the upcoming research subject.
CONCLUSIONS
This article summarizes the “Industrialised material-
oriented engineering for eco-optimized structures” project
activities, representing the main results. Developing an
adaptive design methodology of reinforced polymer- and
cement-based structural composites with material
properties tailored for sustainable and eco-optimized
construction determines the idea of this study. The project
research activities revealed the following aspects:
• The proper combination and connection of advanced
structural materials ensure the synergetic effect on the
mechanical performance of the composite
components. However, such a solution is impossible
without involving new design principles. This study
exemplifies the adaptive design concept when the
predicted outcome of the experimentally verified FE
model controls the structural design.
• Experimentally verified numerical models describe a
reliable reference for the structural efficiency analysis
and developing the adaptive design concept for
advanced material and structural solutions.
• The considered cases represent conceptual examples,
though adequately reflecting the structural design
problem and prospects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author acknowledges the financial support received from European
Regional Development Fund (Project No 01.2.2-LMT-K-718-03-0010)
under a grant agreement with the Research Council of Lithuania
(LMTLT).
The research success could be impossible without the invaluable
contributions of Dr. Valentin Antonovič, Prof. Joaquim A. O. Barros, Dr.
Renata Boris, Prof. Constantin Ε. Chalioris, MSc. Mantas Garnevičius,
MSc. Mahmoud Farh, Dr. Ronaldas Jakubovskis, Prof. Algirdas
Juozapaitis, Dr. Viktor Kizinievič, Dr. Andrius Kudžma, Dr. Violetta
Kytinou, Dr. Jurgita Malaiškienė, Dr. Ieva M isiūnaitė, Dr. Pui-Lam Ng,
MSc. Linas Plioplys, Dr. Arvydas Rimkus, MSc. Giedrė Sandovič, Dr.
Aleksandr Sokolov, Dr. Rimvydas Stonys, MSc. Haji Akbar Sultani, and
Prof. Lluis Torres.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There are no conflicts to declare.
REFERENCES
1. Gribniak, V.; Materials, 2020, 13(24), 5820,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245820.
2. Gribniak, V. (Ed.); Advanced Composites: From Materials
Characterization to Structural Application; MDPI, Basel, 2021.
3. Kumar, A.; Kumar, S.; Mukhopadhyay, N. K.; Yadav, A.; Winczek,
J.; Materials, 2020, 13(21), 4913.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13214913.
4. Rajadurai, R.S.; Lee, J.H.; Materials, 2020, 13(4), 993.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13040993.
5. Qiao, K.; Zhu, A.; Wang, B.; Di, C.; Yu, J.; Zhu, B.; Materials, 2020,
13(7), 1592, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071592.
6. Abtew, M. A.; Boussu, F.; Bruniaux, P.; Liu, H.; Materials, 2020,
13(19), 4233, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13194233.
7. Park, J. W.; Lee, J.; Lim, Y. M.; Construction and Building
Materials, 2022, 325, 126665,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126665.
8. Hu, W.H.; Chen, T.T.; Tamura, R.; Terayama, K.; Wang, S.;
Watanabe, I.; Naito, M.; Science and Technology of Advanced
Materials, 2022, 23(1), 153-161,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14686996.2021.2025426.
9. Chalioris, C. E.; Kosmidou, P.M.K.; Karayannis, C.G.; Materials,
2019, 12(9), 1398, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12091398.
10. Kytinou, V. K.; Chalioris, C. E.; Karayannis, C. G.; Materials, 2020,
13(12), 2698, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13122698.
Load P, kN
0
49.6
A
A'max
A'min
43.5
35.7
B
D
0 3 6 Displacement u, mm
Reference
profile
Profile with
10% stiffener
Profile with
50% stiffener
Profile with
25% stiffener
Stiffener adhesion
Unbonded 10% stiffener
Bare 10% stiffener
9
A = the ascending branch bounda ry point
B = the adhesive contact lost point
C & D = the descending branch chara cteristic points (depending on the i nfill density)
15.0
11.6
31.9 C
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [7 of 8]
https://aml.iaamonline.org
11. Kytinou, V. K.; Chalioris, C. E.; Karayannis, C. G.; Elenas, A.;
Materials, 2020, 13(13), 2923.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13132923.
12. Ulzurrun, G. S. D.; Zanuy, C.; Construction and Building Materials,
2017, 145, 166-182,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.005.
13. Gribniak, V.; Tamulenas, V.; Ng, P.-L.; Arnautov, A. K.; Gudonis,
E.; Misiunaite, I.; Materials, 2017, 10(6), 666,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10060666.
14. Rimkus, A.; Barros, J. A. O.; Gribniak, V.; Rezazadeh, M.;
Composite Structures, 2019, 220, 273-288,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.088.
15. Vilanova, I.; Torres, L.; Baena, M.; Kaklauskas, G.; Gribniak, V;
Engineering Structures, 2014, 79, 390-400,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.08.037.
16. Jahani, A.; Baena, M.; Barris, C.; Perera, R.; Torres, L.; Construction
and Building Materials, 2022, 324, 126698,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126698.
17. Gómez, J.; Barris, C.; Jahani, Y.; Baena, M.; Torres, L.; Composite
Structures, 2022, 286, 115287,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.115287.
18. Jahani, Y.; Baena, M.; Codina, A.; Barris, C.; Torres, L.; Composite
Structures, 2022, 300, 116106,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116106.
19. Gribniak, V.; Ng, P.L.; Tamulenas, V.; Misiūnaitė, I.; Norkus, A.;
Šapalas, A.; Sustainability, 2019, 11(16), 4456.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164456.
20. Gribniak, V.; Rimkus, A.; Plioplys, L.; Misiūnaitė, I.; Boris, R.;
Pravilonis, T.; Polymer Testing, 2021, 102, 107338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2021.107338.
21. Gribniak, V.; Rimkus, A.; Plioplys, L.; Misiūnaitė, I.; Garnevičius,
M.; Boris, R.; Šapalas, A.; Frontiers in Materials, 2021, 8, 746376.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2021.746376.
22. Gribniak, V.; Sultani, H. A.; Rimkus, A.; Sokolov, A.; Torres, L.;
Composite Structures, 2021, 274, 114357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114357.
23. Gribniak, V.; Arnautov, A. K.; Rimkus, A.; Journal of
Computational Design and Engineering, 2021, 8(2), 788.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwab014.
24. Gribniak, V.; Rimkus, A.; Misiūnaitė, I.; Zakaras, T.; Thin-Walled
Structures, 2022, 172, 108858.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108858.
25. Kudžma, A.; Plioplys, L.; Antonovič, V.; Stonys, R.; Gribniak, V.;
Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and
Construction, 2022, 9(1), MAT-27.
https://doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.2022.9(1).MAT-27.
26. Garnevičius, M.; Gribniak, V.; Scientific Reports, 2022, 12, 16237,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-20666-x.
27. Plioplys, L.; Kudžma, A.; Sokolov, A.; Antonovič, V.; Gribniak, V.;
Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and
Construction, 2022, 9(1), Paper ID: MAT-26.
https://doi.org/10.14455/ISEC.2022.9(1).MAT-26.
28. Jakubovskis, R.; Kupliauskas, R.; Rimkus, A.; Gribniak, V.;
Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2018, 68(3), 345,
https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2018.68.3.345.
29. Gribniak, V.; Kaklauskas, G.; Kwan, A. K. H.; Bacinskas, D.;
Ulbinas, D.; Engineering Structures, 2012, 42, 387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.032.
30. Gribniak, V.; Kaklauskas, G.; Torres, L.; Daniunas, A.; Timinskas,
E.; Gudonis, E.; Composites Part B: Engineering, 2013, 50, 158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.02.003.
31. Hamrat, M.; Boulekbache, B.; Tahenni, T.; Chemrouk, M.;
Amziane, S.; European Journal of Environmental and Civil
Engineering, 2022, 26(6), 2057.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2020.1749941.
32. Zhu, Y.; Zhu, H.; Gribniak, V.; Materials, 2022, 15, 2901.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15082901.
33. Cervenka, V.; Keynote lecture in Session 13: Computer Simulation
of Failure of Concrete Structures for Practice, the First fib Congress
Concrete Structures in 21 Century Proceedings, Osaka, Japan,
2002, 289.
34. ACI Committee 544; Report on Indirect Method to Obtain Stress-
Strain Response of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (FRC), ACI 544.8R-
16; American Concrete Institute (ACI), Farmington Hills, MI, 2016.
35. Sultani, H. A.; Rimkus, A.; Sokolov, A.; Gribniak, V. Presentation
in Section Durability and Materials: A new testing procedure to
quantify unfavourable environmental effect on mechanical
performance of composite reinforcement system, the 14th fib Ph.D.
Symposium, Rome, Italy, 2022, 377-384.
36. Juozapaitis, A.; Sandovič, G.; Jakubovskis, R.; Gribniak, V.; Applied
Sciences, 2021, 11(6), 2585, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062585.
37. Zhang, P.; Lv, X.; Liu, Y.; Zou, X.; Li, Y.; Wang, J.; Sheikh, S. A.;
Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 286, 122720.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122720.
38. Rimkus, A.; Farh, M. M.; Gribniak, V.; Polymers, 2022, 14(17),
3471, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14173471.
39. Tan, T.; Mills, G.; Papadonikolaki, E.; Li, B.; Huang, J.;
Architectural Engineering and Design Management.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2022.2104208.
40. Gribniak, V.; Arnautov, A. K.; Rimkus, A.; Composite Structures,
2023, 303, 116369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2022.116369.
41. Lee, A. D.; Shepherd, P.; Evernden, M. C.; Metcalfe, D.; Structures,
2017, 10, 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.03.002.
42. Leśniak, A.; Górka, M.; Applied Sciences, 2020, 10(17), 6021.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10176021.
43. Eyvazian, A.; Taghizadeh, S. A.; Hamouda, A. M.; Tarlochan, F.;
Moeinifard, M.; Gobbi, M.; Journal of Sandwich Structures and
Materials, 2021, 23(7), 2643-2670.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636219894665.
44. Bock, M.; Theofanous, M.; Dirar, S.; Lipitkas, N.; Engineering
Structures, 2021, 227, 111468.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111468.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Viktor Gribniak is the Chief Researcher and
Head of the Laboratory of Innovative Building
Structures, Professor of the Department of Steel
and Composite Structures, and the Materials
Engineering Doctoral Committee Chairman at
VILNIUS TECH. He is a co-author of several
patents, more than 180 scientific publications,
and 70 articles in the Web of Science database
journals. More than 60 conference presentations
have also been made in the USA, Argentina, South Africa, South
Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Austria, France, Italy, Spain, and
the Czech Republic.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License, which allows for use, sharing, adaptation,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, a link
to the Creative Commons license is provided, and changes are indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated in a credit line to the materials, the images or
other third-party materials in this article are included in the article's
Creative Commons license. If the materials are not covered by the Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you must seek permission from
the copyright holder directly.
Visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ to view a copy of this
license.
Adv. Mater. Lett. | Issue (January-March) 2023, 23011713 [8 of 8]
https://aml.iaamonline.org
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT
Developing a unified design methodology of structural composites with material properties tailored for construction purposes describes the research
target. The investigation flow encompasses five main activities: 1) characterization of composite materials and structures; 2) materials engineering; 3)
tailoring material properties and production technology for construction purposes; 4) the design methodology development employing the collected
database and metaheuristic optimization algorithms; 5) adaptive prototyping. The activity division is formal—all tasks are interlinked.
