1. ItemUncoatedEpoxy CoatedPainted GFRP Thread Bar Specimen PT1PT2PT3PTE1PTE2PTE3PTP1PTP2PTP3 Growth Height (cm) 25.776.558.013.024.421.073.528.036.2 Growth Rate Fastest 11.4 % 20.9 %12.8 %5.04 %6.92 %3.51 %17.7 %4.04 %7.14 % Slowest 0.28 % 0.19 %0.18 %0.29 %0.24 %0.19 %0.25 %0.16 %0.22 % Fractured by wind and rain frequency 020 The number of plants wither000 Growth photos GFRP Smooth Bar Specimen PS1PS2PS3PSE1 PSE1 -1 PSE2PSE3PSP1PSP2PSP3 Growth Height (cm) 26.916.819.04.035.338.329.516.06.026.0 Growth Rate Fastest 6.9 %7.6 %6.2 % 3.42 % 12%9.89%15.7%4.56 % 6.84 % 6.40% Slowest 0.20 % 0.19 %0.16 % 1.93 % 0.15 % 0.13%0.70%0.16 %0.27 % Fractured by wind and rain frequency 425 The number of plants wither010 Growth photos Study on Using GFRP for Vertical Green Vegetation Units Yeou-Fong Li 1 and Syun-Yu Chen 2 Keywords ： FRP, GFRP Vegetation Window Frame, Tree-point bending test, Carbon Footprint, Life Cycle Cost Analysis Abstract : In this study, the application of light weight, high strength, anti-corrosion, weather resistant and heat insulation Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) composite members to “Green Vegetation Units” to replace similar green facades made of metal materials is presented. Experiment was conducted on the plant-compatibility and mechanical behavior of the FRP components. From the results of the experiments discussed above, an “GFRP vegetation window frame” for vines to climb on was designed using the GFRP components. Finally, in order to investigate the carbon footprint and carbon reduction benefits of the “GFRP vegetation window frame”, carbon footprint comparison was made with that of a similar stainless steel (SUS304) frame and aluminum (6063-T5) before discussing the overall carbon footprint reduction benefits of the “GFRP vegetation window frame”. 1 Professor of the Department of Civil Engineering, NTUT, Taipei, Taiwan. 2 Master of the Department of Civil Engineering, NTUT, Taipei, Taiwan. The Plant-Compatibility Experiment Pyrostegia venustaFicus pumila Experimental location GFRP Vegetation Window Frame Carbon Footprint and Carbon Reduction Benefit Analysis Specimen P max (kN) M max (kN-cm) M max (kN/cm 2 ) S111.52403.3037.20 S213.98489.4545.15 S313.60476.0643.92 average13.03456.2742.09 Window typeGFRPStainless Steel (SUS304)Aluminum (6063-T5) Basic data Size (cm)140 × 125 × 5.08 Weight (kg)8.535.812.1 Evaluation (kgCO 2 eq) Production 31.13218.52100.01 Transportation 0.170.590.13 Construction 0.696.140.69 Total carbon footprint (kgCO 2 e) 32.00227.18 100.83 The chemical bonding experiment The physical (bolt) bonding experiment Life Cycle Cost Analysis The three-point bending test of a GFRP component Specimen P max (kN) M max (kN/cm 2 ) CE11.700.68 CE21.590.62 CE31.680.66 average1.660.65 Specimen P max (kN) PN13.69 PN23.39 PN33.79 average3.62 Initial Cost 50 years Matnain Cost 50 years Life Cycle Cost Production stage Transportation Stage Construction Stage Total GFRP Stainless steel (SUS304) Aluminum (6063-T5) GFRP Stainless steel (SUS304) Aluminum (6063-T5) NTD