Durability of Commercially Available GFRP Reinforcement in Seawater-Mixed Concrete under Accelerated Aging Conditions

Khatibmasjedi, Morteza; Ramanathan, Sivakumar; Suraneni, Prannoy; Nanni, Antonio

doi:10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0001035

Cited by 34 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1. Tensile, bond, and shear performance of GFRP rebars in seawater-mixed concrete is generally similar to that of rebars in concrete made with fresh water [15,88,89].…”

Section: Corrosion and Alternative Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of recent advances in the science and technology of seawater-mixed concrete

Ebead

Lau

Lollini

et al. 2022

Cement and Concrete Research

Self Cite

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1. Tensile, bond, and shear performance of GFRP rebars in seawater-mixed concrete is generally similar to that of rebars in concrete made with fresh water [15,88,89].…”

Section: Corrosion and Alternative Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…2. Increasing solution pH, temperature, and sustained loading in simulated conditions or in seawater-mixed concrete all lead to greater FRP degradation [15,[89][90][91][92][93][94][95].…”

Section: Corrosion and Alternative Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of recent advances in the science and technology of seawater-mixed concrete

Ebead

Lau

Lollini

et al. 2022

Cement and Concrete Research

Self Cite

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It should be noted that the resin matrix chiefly absorbs water, and the interface between the fibers and the resin matrix provides a pathway for moisture diffusion and absorption. 29 It is also reported that the water absorption of reinforced-fiber polymers increases with a decrease in the volumetric fraction of the fibers. 8 In this study, the volumetric fraction of the fibers of the GFRP bars is lower than that of the BFRP bars.…”

Section: Tensile Performance Of Monofilamentsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…These results are in agreement with the mechanical results of the FRP bars (see Section 3.3).Furthermore, according to the moisture absorption of the GFRP bars drawn in Figure9B, the uptake of moisture by the GFRP bars is lower than that by the BFRP bars under similar conditions. It should be noted that the resin matrix chiefly absorbs water, and the interface between the fibers and the resin matrix provides a pathway for moisture diffusion and absorption 29. It is also reported that the water absorption of reinforced-fiber polymers increases with a decrease in the volumetric fraction of the fibers 8.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Durability of basalt fibers, glass fibers, and their reinforced polymer composites in artificial seawater

Jiang

Pan

et al. 2022

Polymer Composites

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focused on the durability of basalt fibers, glass fibers, basalt‐fiber‐reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars, and glass‐fiber‐reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars in an artificial seawater. The specimens were immersed in the artificial seawater at 20, 40, and 60°C; the specimen immersed in distilled water at a temperature of 60°C was also used as a reference. The tensile strength of the monofilament basalt fibers and glass fibers immersed in the seawater for 90 days at a temperature of 60°C decreases by 61% and 59% respectively, showing the most significant degradation; the brittleness of the fibers also increases due to the decomposition of their sizing agent. The chloride ions in the seawater are beneficial to enhancing the resistance of the composites to moisture absorption. In addition, the tensile strength retention of the fiber‐reinforced polymer (FRP) bars is higher than that of the fibers due to the protection by the epoxy resin. The mechanical properties of the FRP bars immersed in the seawater improve after removing their moisture. The mechanical performance of the BFRP bars is inferior to that of the GFRP bars due to their higher water absorption and weak bonding between the basalt fibers and the polymer matrix.

show abstract

“…In addition, for quality control, determination of horizontal shear strength may be also necessary. Extensive investigations have been conducted to examine the degradation of GFRP and BFRP bars, and to a much lesser extent, CFRP bars, when exposed to the PC environment [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. It has been reported that, after exposure to PCC simulated pore solution, the deterioration rate among the aforementioned mechanical properties may differ significantly [ 35 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Durability of GFRP and CFRP Bars in the Pore Solution of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement Concrete Made with Fresh or Seawater

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calcium sulfoaluminate cement concrete (CSAC) reinforced by fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, termed bars for brevity, is a good alternative to steel-reinforced concrete in marine environments due to the corrosion resistance of FRP and the lower pH of CSAC. For the first time, multi-mechanical tests are conducted to compare the durability of glass FRP (GFRP) to that of carbon FRP (CFRP) after exposure to CSAC pore solution. The bars were immersed in a simulated pore solution of CSAC made with either fresh water and river sand or with seawater and sea sand. Solution temperature was held constant at 30 °C, 45 °C or 60 °C for 30, 60, 90 and 180 days of immersion. Tensile, horizontal and transverse shear tests, as well as detailed microstructural analyses, were conducted to determine the level and mechanisms of degradation for each type of bar. Sea salt increases the degradation of both bars, but it degrades GFRP more than CFRP. The bars’ retained tensile strength is a reliable indicator of their durability, while their post-exposure horizontal and transverse shear strengths are found inconsistent and counter intuitive. In the GFRP, the fiber, the epoxy matrix and their interface suffered damage, but in the CFRP, the carbon fiber was not damaged. Under the test conditions in this study, the maximum reduction in the tensile strength of the GFRP was 56.9% while that of CFRP was 15.1%. Based on the relevant ASTM standard, the CFRP bar satisfies the alkaline resistance requirement of the standard in the CSAC pore solution with and without salt, whereas the GFRP bar does not meet the same requirement in the above pore solution with salt.

show abstract

Durability of Commercially Available GFRP Reinforcement in Seawater-Mixed Concrete under Accelerated Aging Conditions

Cited by 34 publications

References 18 publications

A review of recent advances in the science and technology of seawater-mixed concrete

A review of recent advances in the science and technology of seawater-mixed concrete

Durability of basalt fibers, glass fibers, and their reinforced polymer composites in artificial seawater

Durability of GFRP and CFRP Bars in the Pore Solution of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement Concrete Made with Fresh or Seawater

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About