Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMPOSITE
M AT E R I A L S
Article
Abstract
This paper presents the test results of an experimental study to investigate the durability of newly developed glass fiberreinforced polymer bars. The main objective of this study is to investigate any degradation in the tensile properties of the
glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars using accelerated aging methods. Glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars were embedded
in concrete prisms and exposed to several environmental conditions for 6, 12, and 18 months. The environments
included exposure to tap water and seawater at two temperatures (room temperature and 50 C), seawater dry/wet
cycles and alkaline solution at 50 C. In addition, two typical field conditions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Gulf area
and Riyadh area) were included. The performance of the glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars was evaluated by conducting
tensile tests on the bars extracted out from the concrete prisms after exposure to different conditions. In addition,
scanning electron microscope was used to investigate the degradation mechanism of the bars. After 18 months of
exposure, test results showed that both the tap water at 50 C and the alkaline solution at 50 C had the maximum
harmful effect on the tensile strength of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars. The two field conditions showed almost no
degradation in the tensile properties of the tested bars.
Keywords
Durability, glass fiber-reinforced polymer bar, environmental degradation, tensile properties, concrete, scanning electron
microscope
Introduction
Conventional concrete structures reinforced with steel
are initially protected against corrosion by the alkalinity of the concrete. For many structures subjected to
aggressive environments, such as marine structures,
bridges, and parking garages, combinations of moisture, temperature, and chlorides reduce the alkalinity
of the concrete and result in the corrosion of the reinforcing and prestressing steel.1 The costs of repairs and
restoration in USA, Canada, and in the majority of the
European countries constitute a high percentage of
their total expenditure on infrastructure.24 This initiated the development of new technologies in order to
reduce the corrosion of steel reinforcement. Various
techniques such as epoxy-coated, galvanized steel
bars, and cathodic protection were employed; however,
any of the above conventional or new protection techniques could not completely eliminate the corrosion.
This failure directed the research toward the development of new corrosion-resistant materials for reinforcement such as ber-reinforced polymers (FRP).5,6
Due to their corrosion resistance, light-weight, and
high strength, FRPs have been widely used for civil
infrastructures throughout the world for the last 20
years. Among dierent types of FRPs, glass FRP
(GFRP) bars have drawn more attention in civil
Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia
Corresponding author:
Yousef A Al-Salloum, Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud
University, P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia.
Email: ysalloum@ksu.edu.sa
394
Almusallam et al.
395
Reference
Glass material/matrix
Bar diameter
(mm)
Al-Zahrani 20074
E-glass/modified vinylester
12
E-glass/vinylester
E-glass/polyurethane
(thermoplastic)
E-glass/urethane-modified
vinylester
9.5
E-glass/vinylester
12.7
E-glass/vinylester (type 2)
9.5
Almusallam and
Al-Salloum 200621
E-glass/modified vinylester
10
Dejke 200115
E-glass/vinylester
Conditioning
solution
Temp
( C)
Duration
(days)
Water
Seawater
Sabkha solution
Outdoor
Water
Seawater
Sabkha solution
Outdoor
Water
Seawater
Sabkha solution
Outdoor
Water (LACP)
Water (LACP)
Seawater (LACP)
Water (HACP)
Water (HACP)
Seawater (HACP)
Water
30
720
Varied
30
720
Varied
30
720
Water
Alkaline solution
(pH 12.7)
Tap water
Seawater
Water
Varied
50
65
50
50
65
50
23
40
50
20
60
40
40
20
40
180
240
90
480
480
582
245
Tensile
strength
loss
10
12
10
14
33
35
32
12
21
21
20
20
9
34
3
11
39
12
9
10
16
10
39
16
20
43
44
GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer; LACP low alkali cement (Na2O equivalent 0.2%) paste; HACP high alkali cement (Na2O equivalent 1.0%)
paste.
at 60 C. Continuous immersion resulted in greater degradation than exposure to wetting and drying cycles. In
contrast, freezing and thawing cycles combined with
solutions had little degradation eects on the GFRP
bars.
A recent study on the durability of GFRP bars
in moist concrete was conducted by Robert et al.31
Sand-coated GFRP bars with a nominal diameter of
12.7 mm were embedded in concrete and exposed to
tap water at 23, 40, and 50 C for periods of 60240
days. The tensile test results showed that at 40 and
50 C, the decrease of the tensile strength was 10%
and 16%, respectively, of the original tensile strength
after 240 days of exposure. In a eld study by Mufti
et al.,32 concrete cores were taken from ve in-service
concrete bridge structures of 68 years age across
396
Research significance
Although a number of durability studies on FRP bars
have been reported by various researchers, no general
conclusions are possible as researchers used dierent
testing procedures and conditions. In some cases,
even conicting results have been reported. This study
investigates the performance of newly developed GFRP
bars when subjected to several accelerated aging tests in
the laboratory (simulating the highly aggressive environments). In addition, it investigates the performance
of the bars in two actual service (eld) conditions. In
this study, GFRP bars embedded in concrete are tested
to simulate the real conditions of concrete structures.
The results of this investigation will provide a certain
condence level in using the new GFRP bars in concrete structures taking into account the long-term
behavior of these bars in hot weather countries. It
also allows for a direct comparison between the performance in laboratory and the real-eld conditions.
Experimental program
The experimental program of this study includes two
phases. The rst phase investigates the short-term
mechanical properties of four types of GFRP bars
available in the market to select the best type to be
used in the second phase. The second phase investigates
the durability of the selected type of the GFRP bars.
Almusallam et al.
397
Type II
Type III
Type IV
Average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
Average
Standard deviation
Coefficient of variation
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Peak stress
(MPa)
Fracture strain
(mm/mm)
Modulus of
elasticity (GPa)
432
59.2
13.68
1478
29.9
2.03
838
48.9
5.84
611
66.8
10.93
0.0104
0.0016
15.76
0.0245
0.0005
2.15
0.01
0.0008
5.91
0.0097
0.0016
15.93
41.9
1.56
3.71
60.4
1.69
2.79
59.9
2.45
4.08
63.3
4.44
7.01
398
500 mm
250 mm
250 mm
Environment
Temp. ( C)
Nomenclature
Control
Lab conditioned specimens
Unconditioned lab
Tap water (immersed)
room
room
50
room
50
50
50
Field
Field
LE
TWR
TW50
SWR
SW50
SW50DW
ALK50
GF
RF
Seawater (immersed)
Field specimens
Seawater (dry/wet)
Alkaline (immersed)
Gulf area (hot humid)
Riyadh area (hot dry)
Subtotal
No. of exposure periods (6, 12, 18 months)
Total no. of specimens
No. of
specimens
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
45
3
135
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; LE: lab environment; SEM: scanning electron microscope; TWR: tap water at ambient; TW50: tap
water at 50 C.
Almusallam et al.
399
Tensile strength
Figure 4 shows the tensile strength retention of the conditioned specimens as a function of exposure time and
environmental conditions. In Figure 4, the tensile
strength of the conditioned specimen is divided by
that of the unconditioned specimen in the controlled
lap environment, LE, and the corresponding value is
denoted as the retention ratio in percent.
For the TWR specimens, most of the reduction in
the tensile strength occurred after the rst 6 months of
exposure. After 12 and 18 months of exposure, almost
no additional reductions in the tensile strength were
recorded. The residual strengths were about 95%,
94%, and 94% (reduction by 5.3%, 5.9%, and 6%)
after 6, 12, and 18 months of exposure, respectively.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between the tensile
strength retention of the TWR specimens compared
400
12 months
18 months
LE
TWR
TW50
SWR
SW50
SW50DW
ALK50
RF
JF
LE
TWR
TW50
SWR
SW50
SW50DW
ALK50
RF
JF
LE
TWR
TW50
SWR
SW50
SW50DW
ALK50
RF
JF
Average
SD
CV (%)
Average
SD
CV (%)
Average
SD
CV (%)
1474
1397
1229
1393
1269
1371
1296
1464
1454
1474
1388
1158
1349
1300
1370
1211
1459
1450
1468
1379
1123
1267
1238
1331
1149
1450
1443
16.2
11.4
23.2
72.6
5.58
22.2
22.3
21.6
65.6
12.5
26.3
17.3
4.36
11.2
22.3
29.3
33.2
21.6
23.2
49.3
32.1
25.5
39.8
18.8
49.2
8.80
28.0
1.10
0.82
1.88
5.21
0.44
1.62
1.72
1.47
4.51
0.85
1.89
1.49
0.32
0.86
1.63
2.42
2.27
1.49
1.58
3.58
2.85
2.01
3.21
1.41
4.28
0.61
1.94
61.4
60.2
57.2
58.4
57.0
59.6
59.3
60.2
57.7
60.7
57.5
56.8
57.5
57.4
57.9
56.4
57.8
59.8
61.6
61.0
56.2
55.3
58.1
61.6
55.9
60.5
57.1
0.2
0.1
3.5
1.3
0.7
1.7
2.3
1.4
0.4
1.1
3.2
2.4
3.1
0.3
1.5
0.3
2.1
2.5
0.9
2.0
0.5
1.6
0.6
0.8
1.5
1.6
1.3
0.37
0.16
6.05
2.22
1.14
2.81
3.80
2.24
0.62
1.76
5.52
4.29
5.34
0.53
2.57
0.51
3.62
4.14
1.50
3.20
0.80
3.00
1.00
1.30
2.70
2.70
2.30
2.40
2.30
2.16
2.38
2.23
2.30
2.29
2.41
2.56
2.43
2.41
2.04
2.35
2.26
2.37
2.15
2.53
2.43
2.38
2.23
2.00
2.29
2.16
2.15
2.02
2.40
2.53
0.040
0.046
0.146
0.080
0.018
0.114
0.049
0.061
0.097
0.049
0.130
0.030
0.164
0.035
0.058
0.213
0.085
0.194
0.066
0.046
0.048
0.023
0.056
0.060
0.084
0.078
0.040
1.65
1.99
6.78
3.36
0.79
4.96
2.15
2.51
3.78
2.04
5.37
1.45
6.98
1.55
2.46
6.90
3.37
8.00
2.76
2.05
2.40
0.98
2.59
2.78
4.16
3.25
1.58
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; CV coefficient of variation (%); LE: lab environment; SD: standard deviation; SEM: scanning electron microscope;
TWR: tap water at ambient; TW50: tap water at 50 C.
a
Highest value of CV for each property is written in bold.
12 Months
18 Months
99
98
98
99
99
99
93
93
91
86
88
84
88
82
78
80
94
92
86
83
79
76
100
95
94
94
6 Months
120
60
40
20
0
TWR
TW50
SWR
SW50
SW50DW
Environment
ALK50
RF
JF
Almusallam et al.
401
120
100
80
60
40
Chen et al 2007 (20C)
20
Current Study (23C)
0
0
200
400
600
800
Figure 5. Residual tensile strength of concrete-covered GFRP bars exposed to water at room temperature.
GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.
to other GFRP bars in the literature exposed to a similar condition. It may be observed from Table 1 that
there were two types of cement paste used by Alsayed
et al.7 namely, low alkali cement (Na2O equivalent 0.2%) and high alkali cement (Na2O equivalent 1.0%) paste. The low alkali cement being the
regular cement used in most of the studies including
the current study, only the test results of low alkali
cement paste of Alsayed et al.7 are considered for comparison in Figure 5 and in subsequent comparisons. It
can be noticed that the GFRP bars tested in this study
show higher residual strengths compared to most of the
GFRP bars in the literature, which are plotted in
Figure 5. The test results of GFRP bars type 1 used
by Al-Zahrani4 show similar trend as observed in the
present study but the results of type 2, which is the one
used in the present investigation show low residual
strength. One of the predominant factors that may
inuence the test results is the procedure of extraction
of bars from concrete, which was better controlled in
the present investigation. This is also evident from the
low values of SD and coecient of variation in the
present study. The concrete cover in the present study
was 19 mm. The cover in one of the earlier studies7 was
slightly less at 15 mm whereas in another study4 it was
as great as 44 mm. Despite large cover in experiments of
Al-Zahrani,4 which provided more protection of bar,
the loss of tensile strength was more than the present
study.
For the TW50 specimens, higher reductions in the
tensile strength were recorded. After 6 months of exposure, the strength loss was about 16.7%. After 12 and
18 months of exposure, this strength loss increased to
21.4% and 23.5%, respectively. This indicates that
increasing the temperature to 50 C increased the diusion rate of water and harmful ions into the bars, which
resulted in a faster degradation in the resin and glass
402
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure 6. Residual tensile strength of concrete-covered GFRP bars exposed to hot water.
GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.
Figure 7. Residual tensile strength of concrete-covered GFRP bars exposed to seawater. GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.
strength of the tested GFRP bars, which is in agreement with the results obtained by Chen et al.30
It can be also noticed, for both SW50 and SW50DW
conditions, that the tensile strengths were almost stable
with time. The tensile strengths after 12 and 18 months
of exposure were almost similar to those obtained after
6 months. This may be attributed to the formation of a
very thin layer of salt on the concrete surface, especially
at higher temperature, which decreases the diusion
rate of the solution into the bars. This was not recorded
in the TW50 specimens.
For the specimens in alkaline solution at 50 C,
ALK50, a signicant reduction in the tensile strength
was recorded, which increased with the passage of time,
which is primarily due to the damage to the resin as
observed in the microscopic examination. After 6, 12,
and 18 months of exposure, the decrease was 12.1%,
17.8%, and 21.7%, respectively. These reductions were
Almusallam et al.
403
12 Months
18 Months
98
93
94
98
95
98
97
93
91
97
95
100
95
94
93
90
95
95
91
93
93
95
99
98
100
100
100
120
100
6 Months
80
60
40
20
0
LE (control)
TWR
TW50
SWR
SW50
SW50DW
ALK50
RF
JF
Environment
107
104
101
100
85
95
89
98
90
96
93
90
93
96
97
84
90
84
93
99
99
96
100
106
18 Months
12 Months
100
6 Months
120
80
60
40
20
0
TWR
TW50
SWR
SW50
SW50DW
ALK50
RF
JF
Environment
Youngs modulus
Figure 8 shows the retention of tensile modulus after 6,
12, and 18 months in dierent exposures. It can be
noticed that the environmental conditions did not
404
Figure 10. SEM micrographs of the outer surface of the bars in LE, ALK50, and TW50 environments. (a)LE (b) ALK50 (c) TW50
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; LE: lab environment; SEM: scanning electron microscope; TW50: tap water at 50 C.
Figure 11. SEM micrographs of the cross sections of the bars in LE, ALK50, and TW50 environments. (a)LE (b) ALK50 (c) TW50
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; LE: lab environment; SEM: scanning electron microscope; TW50: tap water at 50 C.
Strain at failure
Figure 9 shows the retention of tensile strain at failure
after 6, 12, and 18 months in dierent exposures. It can
be noticed that the retention of tensile strains at failure
presents a similar pattern to that of the tensile strength.
For the specimens in the tap water at room temperature, Riyadh eld condition, and Gulf eld condition,
almost no decrease in the strain at failure was recorded
Almusallam et al.
405
Conclusions
This study is a part of an ongoing durability research
program on FRP reinforcing bars for concrete structures. From the test results presented in this paper, the
following specic conclusions can be drawn.
1. After 18 months of exposure, the specimens in the
controlled lab environment and in the two harsh
eld conditions show almost no degradation in the
tensile properties of the GFRP bars.
2. Increasing the temperature of the tap water solution
signicantly increased the degradation rate in the
tensile strength of the GFRP bars, which got
increased from 6% at room temperature to 23.5%
at 50 C after 18 months of exposure.
3. The exposure to seawater at room temperature
showed a decrease in the tensile strength of 13.7%
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
after 18 months of exposure. Increasing the temperature to 50 C, caused 14% reduction after 6 months
of exposures but almost no additional increase
beyond 6 months.
The alternate wet/dry cycles in seawater showed less
harmful eect on the tensile strength of GFRP bars,
which could be related to the absence of humidity
during the dry stage that results in less diusion of
the solution into the bars.
For exposure to alkaline environment at 50 C, a
gradual decrease in the tensile strength was recorded
with time and a loss of 21.7% was observed after 18
months of exposure.
For all tested specimens, the tensile modulus was not
signicantly aected even after 18 months in dierent exposures. These results are in agreement with
the results reported by several researchers.
The strains at failure, showed a similar pattern to
that of the tensile strength. The maximum decrease
in the strain at failure was recorded in the alkaline
and tap water environment at 50 C.
The SEM micrographs show that the matrix around
the glass bers in both alkaline and tap water environment at 50 C were signicantly deteriorated.
However, there was almost no deterioration in the
glass bers. This explains the test results where signicant losses were recorded in the tensile strength.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Specialty Units
for Safety and Preservation of Structures and MMB Chair for
Research and Studies in Strengthening and Rehabilitation of
Structures at the Civil Engineering Department, for their support in conducting this research project.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
References
1. ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of
concrete reinforced with FRP bars. Farmington Hills, MI:
American Concrete Institute, 2006.
406
Almusallam et al.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
407