Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Durability evaluation of retrofitted corroded reinforced concrete

columns with FRP sheets in marine environmental conditions
Amin Kashi a,⇑, Ali Akbar Ramezanianpour a, Faramarz Moodi b
a
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Concrete Technology and Durability Research Center (CTDRc), Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

Three different retrofit methods for

rehabilitation of corroded RC columns
with FRP sheets were evaluated.

A marine simulator environment was
designed and constructed similar to
the real conditions.

In harsh environmental condition,
protecting the exterior surface of the
FRP sheets should be considered.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of marine environmental condition on durability of
Received 2 December 2016 RC-corroded columns strengthened with FRP sheets. In this study, three retrofit methods based on sub-
Received in revised form 19 June 2017 strate repairs were evaluated. There are two common retrofit methods for the corroded RC columns,
Accepted 21 June 2017
which are directly wrapping FRP (method 1) and wrapping FRP after replacing damaged concrete with
repair mortar (method 2), respectively. Also, a durable retrofit method was developed in this study
(method 3). In this method, after removing damaged concrete, wrapping was carried out, and then repair
Keywords:
mortar was applied around GFRP sheet. After strengthening, specimens were stored in a marine simulator
Corroded RC column
Wrapping by FRP
for 3000 and 9000 h. In retrofit method 1, ultimate strength of retrofitted columns by one layer of GFRP
Marine exposure and CFRP sheet decreased by 27.4% and 19.7%, respectively, after 9000 h marine exposure. The decrease in
Durability ultimate strength of columns wrapped by one layer of GFRP and CFRP in retrofit method 2 was 25% and
Distance based approach 18.3%, respectively. In retrofit method 3, 9000 h marine exposure caused 8.8% and 2.2% increase in ulti-
mate strength of strengthened columns with one and two layers of GFRP, respectively. The failure mode
of strengthened columns by methods 2 and 3 was brittle. Finally, Distance Based Approach (DBA) was
used in order to compare different retrofit methods. It was found that the performance of retrofitted col-
umns in method 3 would be ideal in marine environmental conditions.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Reinforced concrete (RC) columns in marine environment are

⇑ Corresponding author.
continuously exposed to chloride attack, which lead to corrosion
E-mail address: kashi_1365@yahoo.com (A. Kashi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.137
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533
of the reinforcing steel and degradation of the concrete [1–5]. Tra-
ditionally, corroded RC columns have been strengthened with steel
plates. Steel jacketing has difficulties in application. Moreover, cor-
rosion of steel plates is another problem. In the last decade fiber
reinforced polymers (FRP) have been recognized as an effective
technique for strengthening corrosion-damaged RC columns. The
remarkable properties of FRP, such as lightweight, resistance to
electro-chemical corrosion, and high tensile strength, allow them
to be used for rehabilitation of corroded structures without serious
difficulties [6]. While wrapping by FRP sheets is known as an effec-
tive rehabilitation technique, the durability of this method espe-
cially in harsh environmental conditions such as marine
environment is still under investigation [7,8]. A number of
researches on the durability of FRP system in marine environments
are represented in the following:
While wrapping by FRP sheets is known as an effective rehabil-
itation technique, the durability of this method especially in harsh
environmental conditions such as marine environment is still
under investigation
Generally, hydrothermal effects (the combination of humidity
and heat) are dominant in the durability degradation of FRP mate-
rials [9]. Along with moisture absorption, the presence of salt in
water may exacerbate deleterious effects [10]. Karbhari and Zhao
investigated the behavior of FRP sheets subjected to three different
environmental conditions consisted of immersion in fresh water,
immersion in salt water, and freeze-thaw cycles. Salt water expo-
sure caused maximum degradation in mechanical properties of
FRP sheets, especially in GFRP, in comparison to other environmen-
tal conditions [11]. Having put wrapped concrete columns by FRP
layers in 15% saline solution, Micelli et al. observed that the ulti-
mate strength reduced by 27% and 10% in GFRP and CFRP-
wrapped columns, respectively, after 120 days [12]. In a study con-
ducted by Bae and Belarbi on concrete specimens confined by CFRP
and GFRP sheets, the salt water had deteriorate effect on GFRP-
wrapped columns, whereas CFRP confined columns only experi-
enced a minor decrease in ultimate strength [13]. An experimental
program was conducted by Gharachorlu and Ramezanianpour to
evaluate the strength and durability of concrete cylinders strength-
ened with FRP sheets subjected to marine environmental condi-
tion. The highest decrease in strength was observed in GFRP-
wrapped specimens after one year exposure to the wet-dry cycles
of saline solution at 38 °C. They also found that the durability of
wrapped specimens could be improved by increasing the number
of the layers [14]. Cromwell examined the performance of FRP
sheets when subjected to different environmental conditions, such
as water, saltwater, alkaline, dry heat, diesel fuel, and freeze/heat
exposure. In this research degradation was particularly observed
in salt water and alkaline environments, especially in GFRP sheets
[15]. A report by Böer et al. presented results from environmental
effects on durability of FRP-wraps in civil engineering. They found
that the exposure to saltwater reduced both the ultimate strength
and ductility of the columns which were strengthened with GFRP
sheets. The CFRP-wrapped RC columns only experienced slight
decrease in ultimate strength. Also, humidity was found to have
the primary destructive effect, while salt crystals expanding over
time in the micro cracks exacerbated the deteriorating effect on
the sheets [16]. In a study which was conducted by Silva et al.,
accelerated environmental condition was imposed by immersing
the GFRP sheets in a 5% NaCl solution. The saltwater was kept at
three different temperatures, 35 °C, 50 °C and 65 °C. Significant
decrease in mechanical properties of GFRP sheets, namely, on their
tensile strength was observed at different temperatures. Further-
more, the solution absorption by the GFRP increased with water
temperature as well as their mechanical properties degradation
[17]. Also, Kashi et al. found that marine environment caused a
521
43% and 34.3% reduction in the ultimate strength of the specimens
wrapped by one and two layers of GFRP sheets, respectively [18].
Although numerous researches have been devoted to the per-
formance of FRP sheets in an aggressive environment, not much
information is available on the post-repair structural behavior of
corrosion-damaged columns wrapped with FRP sheets in marine
environments where prolonged exposure to high humidity and
temperature, wet/dry cycles, salt water, and ultraviolet-radiation.
The main objective of this paper is to survey the performance of
corroded RC columns after strengthening by FRP sheets, in the
marginal region of the southern sea of Iran, which is known to have
extraordinarily harsh conditions due to the presence of chloride
ions in seawater, high temperature and humidity, tidal phenom-
ena, and solar UV radiations. In this study, a durable retrofit
method was developed. In this method, after removing damaged
concrete, wrapping was carried out, and then repair mortar was
applied around FRP sheet. To compare the durable method with
two common retrofit methods, which are respectively bonding
directly FRP on damaged concrete and bonding FRP after replacing
damaged concrete, uni-axial compression tests were conducted on
a series of corrosion- damaged RC columns which wrapped by FRP
sheets. Because of lower durability of GFRP sheets, the effect of
durable retrofit method was investigated only in GFRP-repaired
columns.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Material properties
There were totally 60 RC columns constructed in this study. The
height and the diameter of the specimen were 300 mm and
150 mm, respectively. Specimens reinforcement consist of four
U10 longitudinal steel bars at 25 mm cover. The rational for the
cross section of the steel bars as a fraction of the gross sectional
of the specimen was 1.7%. Two U6 circular hoops at the top and
bottom of specimens supported the longitudinal reinforcement.
Columns preparation, typical geometry and reinforcement are
shown in Fig. 1. In some cases, damaged concrete cover was
replaced by self-compacted mortar. Mix properties of the concrete
and self-compacted mortar are summarized in Tables 1 and 2,
respectively. Slump flow test was carried out on the self-
compacted mortar according to the EFNARC guideline [19].
Unidirectional carbon and glass fibers sheets were used for
strengthening of the specimens which installed with the wet lay-
up technique. Tensile strength parallel to the fiber was determined
in accordance with the ASTM D3039 standard [20]. Mechanical
properties of the FRP sheets are shown in Table 3.
2.2. Accelerated corrosion
Since the main goal of present research was to evaluate differ-
ent retrofit methods for the corrosion-damaged RC columns in
marine environment, 57 columns were firstly corroded by an accel-
erated corrosion process, and three columns remained un-
corroded. In many researches, accelerated corrosion process and
calculation of the time required to specific corrosion rate (mass
loss in reinforcing bars) have been carried out according to Fara-
day’s law, which is expressed by the following equation [21–26]:
mnF
t¼ ð1Þ
aI
where t = time of the corrosion process (s); m = mass loss of iron
(gr); n = valence of the reacting electrode for the material (nsteel = 2);
F = Faraday’s constant (96500 A.s); a = atomic mass of iron
(55.85 gr); I = corrosion current (A).
522 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533

Fig. 1. (a) Preparation of RC columns (b) RC columns-geometry and reinforcement details (dimension in mm).

Table 1
Mix properties of the concrete.

W/C Cement Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Compressive strength

(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (MPa)
0.51 341 804 974 29.8

Table 2
Mix properties of self-compacted mortar.

W/C Cement Sand Limestone powder Superplasticizer by weight of cement Slump flow Compressive strength
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (%) (cm) (MPa)*
0.45 450 1469 130 0.8 26 60
*
compressive strength test was carried out on 5  5  5 cm cubic specimens.

Table 3
Mechanical properties of FRP sheets.

FRP type Fiber volume ratio (%) Tensile strength (MPa) Ultimate strain (%) Tensile modulus of elasticity (GPa)
GFRP 35 190 1.21 15.6
CFRP 30 342 0.76 44.7

In this study, the RC columns were immersed up to 2/3 of their
height in a plastic tank which had saline solution with a concentra-
tion of about 3.5% by weight of water; then the specimens were
subjected to 1(A) external current which continued up to 15% mass
loss of steel bars (see Fig. 2).
2.3. Retrofit methods
In this study, three different types of repair were considered for
corrosion-damaged RC columns. Method 1 was conventional repair
method which was directly bonding FRP sheets on the corroded
concrete. In this method, after cleaning any staining and rust
deposits from the specimen surface, cracks were filled by primer
(see Fig. 3), then specimens were strengthened by one layer of
GFRP and CFRP, respectively.
In retrofit method 2, damaged concrete was removed and
replaced by repair mortar. The replacement mortar was a self-
compacted mortar. In this method, firstly, the corroded concrete
was cut up to the level of longitudinal steel bars, and then it was
removed and repair mortar was applied around sound concrete
(see Fig. 4). Cutting corroded concrete before removing process
caused less destructive effect on the sound concrete. The concrete
cylinders were kept in mold at laboratory temperature (20 °C) for
24 h. After demolding, specimens were stored in lime-saturated
water for 28 days. Afterwards, specimens were kept for 14 days
at laboratory temperature, and then wrapping was carried out with
one layer of GFRP and CFRP, respectively.
Retrofit method 3 was developed due to the improving the
durability of wrapped columns with GFRP sheets. This strengthen-
ing method was carried out in the following steps:
 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533 523

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic presentation of the accelerated corrosion process (b) Accelerated corrosion process in the laboratory.

Fig. 3. Preparing specimens for strengthening in method 1 (a) Cleaned specimens (b) Applying primer.

Fig. 4. Preparing specimens for strengthening in method 2 (a) Cutting corroded concrete (b) Removing corroded concrete (c) Replacing corroded concrete by self-compacted
mortar.

a) Corroded concrete cover was removed similar to the retro-
fit method 2. b) The surface preparation was carried out before
wrapping by GFRP sheets. For this purpose, sound concrete was
placed in cylindrical mold with dimensions 120 mm in diameter
by 300 mm in height and then self-compacted mortar was
casted around it (Fig. 5a). Curing process for repair mortar was
similar to the retrofit method 2. c) 120  300 mm columns were
wrapped by one and two layers of GFRP, respectively. d) In this
retrofit method, GFRP sheets were protected by self-compacted
mortar. For this purpose, firstly, the silica sand was spread onto
wet resin immediately after confining. It was due to the rough-
ening the surface of GFRP sheets and provide a better bonding
with protective mortar (see Fig. 5b). e) After curing of GFRP
sheets, self-compacted mortar was applied around them (see
Fig. 5c). Repair mortar was cured for 28 days in lime-saturated
water.
524 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533
Fig. 5. Strengthening in method 3 (a) Surface preparation of specimens before wrapping (b) Sanded confined specimens (c) Casting self-compacted mortar on the sanded
resin.
After strengthening, epoxy resin was applied on the unwrapped
portions of the columns. So, moisture and chloride ions couldn’t
ingress through the top and bottom of the wrapped specimens.
2.4. Environmental conditions
After preparation of the specimens, they were placed in two dif-
ferent environmental conditions: 1) normal condition in laboratory
and 2) marine simulator. In this study, a marine simulator has been
used at the Concrete Technology and Durability Research Center
(CTDRC) at Amirkabir University of Technology for accelerated
simulation of coastal region in the south of Iran which was selected
as a case study in this research. In this area, many RC structures
show signs of deterioration, mainly due to the chloride-induced
corrosion of steel bars. Weather conditions of coastal region in
the south of Iran- including high temperature and humidity, tidal
phenomenon of seawater and UV radiations- are simulated in an
accelerated manner on RC columns exposed to weathering.
The exterior view of the marine simulator and also the RC col-
umns which were placed in the tidal pool are shown in Fig. 6. In
order to simulate the real environmental condition, the tempera-
ture of the interior simulator was set to 40 °C, its humidity to
68%, and the salt concentration of water to 36.6 grams per liter.
The specimens were stored in the simulator for 3000 and 9000 h
and experienced 250 and 750 cycles, respectively. One cycle lasted
24 h and consisted of 12 h drying (Fig. 6b) and 12 h immersion in
salt water (Fig. 6c). UV radiation was applied in correspondence
with dry cycles (when the tidal pool was empty). The temperature
and humidity of the normal condition in laboratory was 20 °C and
40%, respectively
2.5. Test methods
After completion of the accelerated marine conditioning, uni-
axial compression tests were carried out in order to evaluate the
durability of different retrofit methods. For this purpose, the
mechanical properties of RC columns which were stored in marine
simulator compared with similar specimens which were kept in
normal environmental condition.
Concrete cylinders were tested under monotonically increasing
axial displacement (stroke control) by the rate of 1 mm/min. The
axial deflection of specimen was measured base on the relative dis-
placement between the top and bottom loading platens of the test
machine. A compressive strength test was carried out by DARTEC
machine in Rock Laboratory of AmirKabir University.
The test specimens are summarized in Table 4. Three identical
columns were prepared for each type of specimens. As shown in
Table 4, columns C-C and CA-C are non-corroded and corroded col-
umns, respectively, without any exposure. Columns C15A1G1-C,
C15A1C1-C, C15A2G1-C, C15A2C1-C, C15A3G1-C and C15A3G2-C,
are the control specimens (without exposure) wrapped with one
layer of GFRP in retrofit method 1, one layer of CFRP in retrofit
method 1, one layer of GFRP in retrofit method 2, one layer of CFRP
in retrofit method 2, one layer of GFRP in retrofit method 3 and two
layers of GFRP in retrofit method 3, respectively. Columns
C15A1G1-M3, C15A1C1-M3, C15A2G1-M3, C15A2C1-M3,
C15A3G1-M3 and C15A3G2-M3, are the weathered specimens for
3000 h, wrapped with one layer of GFRP in retrofit method 1, one
layer of CFRP in retrofit method 1, one layer of GFRP in retrofit
method 2, one layer of CFRP in retrofit method 2, one layer of GFRP
in retrofit method 3 and two layers of GFRP in retrofit method 3,
respectively. Also, Columns C15A1G1-M9, C15A1C1-M9,
C15A2G1-M9, C15A2C1-M9, C15A3G1-M9 and C15A3G2-M9, are
the weathered specimens for 9000 h, wrapped with one layer of
GFRP in retrofit method 1, one layer of CFRP in retrofit method 1,
one layer of GFRP in retrofit method 2, one layer of CFRP in retrofit
method 2, one layer of GFRP in retrofit method 3 and two layers of
GFRP in retrofit method 3, respectively.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Effect of accelerated corrosion on compressive behavior
The stress-strain curves of non-corroded and corrosion-
damaged columns are shown in Fig. 7a. Corroded columns showed
a reduction of 29%, 14.5% and 22.1% in ultimate strength, ultimate
axial strain and the modulus of elasticity, respectively. Degradation
in mechanical properties of RC corroded columns was mainly due
to the reduction in cross-sectional area of steel bars and conse-
quently propagation of the cracks in concrete.
The area under the stress-strain curves is related to the energy
absorption. The energy absorption of corroded RC columns
decreased when compared to the non-corroded ones. This indi-
cated that the failure mode of corroded columns was more brittle
than the non-corroded columns (see Fig. 7b and c).
3.2. Effect of retrofit method 1 on compressive behavior
Fig. 8 presents the axial stress vs. axial strain curve of the cor-
roded columns which were strengthened in retrofit method 1.
 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533 525

Fig. 6. (a) Exterior view of the marine simulator (b) Specimens placed in tidal pool (dry cycle) (c) Specimens placed in tidal pool (wet cycle).

Mechanical properties which obtained from these curves are sum-
marized in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, retrofit method1 with CFRP
and GFRP increased ultimate strength by 87% and 40.3%, respec-
tively, in normal environmental condition. After 3000 h marine
exposure, ultimate strength of columns retrofitted by method 1
decreased by 4.5% and 26.3% in CFRP and GFRP wrapped columns,
respectively. Also, after 9000 marine exposure, 19.7% and 27.4%
reduction in ultimate strength of strengthened columns by this ret-
rofit method was observes in CFRP and GFRP-wrapped specimens,
respectively.
The second slope of the stress-strain curve is an important
indicator in the design of FRP-wrapped RC columns and is
referred to as axial plastic modulus (E2), throughout this paper.
E2 in RC columns retrofitted by method 1 decreased by 20.7%
and 31.2% in CFRP and GFRP-wrapped columns, respectively,
after 3000 h marine exposure. Also, after 9000 h exposure in
marine simulator, 44.6% and 31.5% reduction in axial plastic
modulus of CFRP and GFRP-wrapped columns was observed,
respectively.
It was found that exposure to marine environment was the
most extreme condition for the GFRP-wrapped columns. While
CFRP-wrapped column was more durable than GFRP-wrapped
one, marine exposure reduced both the compressive strength and
axial plastic modulus of CFRP-wrapped columns. After confining
with CFRP sheets, moisture and chloride ions were trapped in the
wrapped columns, and hence, internal cracks developed due to
the corrosion of steel bars. So, increasing in ultimate strain was
observed in CFRP-wrapped columns after exposure. Because of
526 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533

Table 4
Test specimens.

Specimen ID Accelerated Corrosion Retrofit Method FRP type Number of layers Environmental conditioning
C-C No – – – Control
CA-C Yes – – – Control
C15A1G1-C Yes 1 GFRP 1 Control
C15A1C1-C Yes 1 CFRP 1 Control
C15A2G1-C Yes 2 GFRP 1 Control
C15A2C1-C Yes 2 CFRP 1 Control
C15A3G1-C Yes 3 GFRP 1 Control
C15A3G2-C Yes 3 GFRP 2 Control
C15A1G1-M3 Yes 1 GFRP 1 Marine Simulator-3000 h
C15A1C1-M3 Yes 1 CFRP 1 Marine Simulator-3000 h
C15A2G1-M3 Yes 2 GFRP 1 Marine Simulator-3000 h
C15A2C1-M3 Yes 2 CFRP 1 Marine Simulator-3000 h
C15A3G1-M3 Yes 3 GFRP 1 Marine Simulator-3000 h
C15A3G2-M3 Yes 3 GFRP 2 Marine Simulator-3000 h
C15A1G1-M9 Yes 1 GFRP 1 Marine Simulator-9000 h
C15A1C1-M9 Yes 1 CFRP 1 Marine Simulator-9000 h
C15A2G1-M9 Yes 2 GFRP 1 Marine Simulator-9000 h
C15A2C1-M9 Yes 2 CFRP 1 Marine Simulator-9000 h
C15A3G1-M9 Yes 3 GFRP 1 Marine Simulator-9000 h
C15A3G2-M9 Yes 3 GFRP 2 Marine Simulator-9000 h

Fig. 7. (a) Axial stress-strain curves of non-corroded and corroded RC columns before exposure (b) Failure mode of non-corroded RC columns (c) Failure mode of corroded RC
columns.
 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533 527

Fig. 8. Axial stress-strain curves of retrofitted columns in method 1 (a) wrapped with CFRP (b) wrapped with GFRP.

Table 5
Mechanical properties of the strengthened specimens in methods 1, 2 and 3 for both control and marine environmental conditions.

Environmental condition Specimen ID ,u (MPa)* єu (%)* E2 (GPa)*

Control C-C 37.1 0.738 –
CA-C 26.3 0.631 –
C15A1G1-C 36.9 (40.3%)y 0.945 (49.7%)y 1.98
C15A1C1-C 49.2 (87%)y 1.137 (80.1%)y 2.72
C15A2G1-C 54.7 (108%)y 0.906 (43.5%)y –
C15A2C1-C 66.5 (152.8%)y 1.075 (70.4%)y –
C15A3G1-C 42.1 (60.1%)y 0.819 (29.8%)y –
C15A3G2-C 47.4 (80%)y 0.861 (36.5%)y –
Marine Simulator after 3000 h C15A1G1-M3 27.2 (3.4%)y (26.3%)à 0.831 (31.7%)y (12%)à 1.36 (31.2)à
C15A1C1-M3 47 (78.7%)y (4.5%)à 1.259 (99.5%)y (10.7%)à 2.16 (20.7%)à
C15A2G1-M3 42.4 (61.2%)y (22.4%)à 0.578 (8.4%)y (36.2%)à –
C15A2C1-M3 63.7 (142.2%)y (4.2%)à 0.919 (45.6%)y (14.5%)à –
C15A3G1-M3 44.7 (70%)y (6%)à 0.754 (19.5%)y (8%)à –
C15A3G2-M3 48 (82.3%)y (1.3%)à 0.729 (15.5%)y (15.3%)à –
Marine Simulator after 9000 h C15A1G1-M9 26.8 (1.9%)y (27.4%)à 0.746 (18.2%)y (21%)à 1.36 (31.5)à
C15A1C1-M9 39.5 (50.2%)y (19.7%)à 1.356 (115%)y (19.1%)à 1.50 (44.6)à
C15A2G1-M9 41 (55.8%)y (25%)à 0.604 (4.3%)y (33.4%)à –
C15A2C1-M9 54.3 (106.3%)y (18.3%)à 0.812 (28.7%)y (24.5%)à –
C15A3G1-M9 45.9 (74.3%)y (8.8%)à 0.740 (17.3%)y (9.6%)à –
C15A3G2-M9 48.4 (84%)y (2.2%)à 0.703 (11.4%)y (18.3%)à –
*
,u: The ultimate compressive stress at failure, єu: The ultimate axial strain at failure, E2: Axial modulus in the plastic region.
y
Values in parentheses show the increase/decrease percentage compared to CA-C.
à
Values in parentheses show the increase/decrease percentage compared to similar specimens which were placed in normal condition.
528 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533
severe degradation in mechanical properties of GFRP sheets, this
phenomenon was not seen in GFRP-wrapped columns.
Failure modes of retrofitted columns in normal condition
revealed in both GFRP and CFRP-wrapped columns FRP sheets rup-
tured perpendicular to fibers orientation (see Fig. 9a and b). This
failure mode was due to matrix cracking and fibers fracture
together. After exposure, in CFRP-wrapped columns FRP sheets
ruptured mainly parallel to fibers orientation. It was due to the
degradation of fiber–matrix interface. On the other hand because
of lower durability of glass fibers, GFRP sheets ruptured by fibers
fracture (see Fig. 9c and d).
3.3. Effect of retrofit method 2 on compressive behavior
The axial stress-strain curves of the corroded columns which
were strengthened by retrofit method 2 are presented in Fig. 10.
Also, mechanical properties which obtained from these graphs
are summarized in Table 5. The linear axial stress–strain curve of
the FRP-confined column has been verified in this retrofit method.
It is important to note that this behavior is different from that of
FRP–wrapped concrete. It was due to the elastic-brittle behavior
of the repair mortar. As shown in Table 5, in normal environmental
condition, retrofit method 2 with CFRP and GFRP sheets increased
the compressive strength of the corroded column by 152.8% and
108%, respectively. In this retrofit method, after 3000 marine expo-
sure, 4.2% and 22.4% reduction in ultimate strength of CFRP and
GFRP-wrapped columns was observed, respectively. Also, 9000 h
marine exposure decreased the ultimate strength of wrapped col-
umns with CFRP and GFRP by 18.3% and 25%, respectively.
These results indicate, compared with retrofit methods 1, the
retrofit method 2 could provide higher compressive strength. It
was due to the higher strength of repair mortar when compared
to the damaged concrete. In term of durability, degradation in ulti-
mate strength of retrofitted columns by method 2 was almost sim-
ilar to the corresponding strengthened columns in method 1. It was
due to the similar exposure condition, which in both retrofit meth-
ods, FRP system was exposed during its service life. It should be
noted that prevention of internal cracks propagation in retrofit
method 2, caused minor enhancement in durability of wrapped
columns. Moreover, because of lower strength and durability of
GFRP sheets, internal cracks expansion had more destructive effect
in GFRP-wrapped columns.
Fig. 11 shows failure modes of columns retrofitted by method 2.
Similar to the retrofit method 1, GFRP-wrapped columns failed due
Fig. 9. Failure mode of (a) C15A1G1-C (b) C15A1C1-C (c) C15A1G1-M9 (d) C15A1C1-M9.
to the matrix cracking and fibers fracture together which was more
evident in the weathered specimens. In CFRP-wrapped columns,
fiber–matrix interface fracture was seen in normal environmental
condition. Also, fiber-matrix interface degradation was more evi-
dent after marine exposure.
3.4. Effect of retrofit method 3 on compressive behavior
The axial stress-strain curves of columns retrofitted by method
3 are shown in Fig. 12. Also, mechanical properties of these col-
umns are summarized in Table 5. Similar to the retrofit method
2, linear axial stress–strain curve was observed in this retrofit
method. It can be due to the elastic behavior of mortar, and also
the effect of mortar confinement around the GFRP sheets. As
shown in Table 5, in normal environmental condition, retrofitted
columns by method 3 increased ultimate strength by 60.1% and
80% after confining with one and two layers of GFRP, respectively.
Different durability performance was seen in retrofit method 3.
Unlike the retrofit methods 1 and 2, not only the durability of the
retrofitted columns with method 3 was not affected, but also a
minor increase was observed in ultimate strength of the columns
after marine exposure. It was due to the post-curing of the repair
mortar in marine environmental condition. In retrofit method 3,
after 3000 h marine exposure, ultimate strength of columns
wrapped with one and two layers of GFRP, increased by 6% and
1.3%, respectively. Also, in this retrofit method, 8.8% and 2.2%
increase in ultimate strength of the wrapped columns with one
and two layers of GFRP was observed, respectively, after 9000 h
exposure.
The failure modes of retrofitted columns by method 3 are
shown in Fig. 13. In these specimens, loading was continued up
to the rupture of GFRP. Concurrent with the rupturing of the
sheets, some longitudinal cracks appeared on the protective mortar
and they failed simultaneously. Moreover, in this retrofit method,
the failure of the columns occurred with a lower sound and a less
explosive manner, in comparison with other retrofit methods. In
normal environmental condition, after failure, cracked mortar
cloud be removed easily from the surface of FRP. On the other
hand, after marine exposure, cracked mortar was departed
together with some parts of sheets. Therefore, it can be found that
bond strength between FRP and protective mortar was improved
after marine exposure.
In some specimens, steel bar buckling was observed behind of
ruptured sheets (see Fig. 13d). It seems in this retrofit method, pre-
 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533 529

Fig. 10. Axial stress-strain curves of retrofitted columns in method 2 (a) wrapped with CFRP (b) wrapped with GFRP.

Fig. 11. Failure mode of (a) C15A2G1-C (b) C15A2C1-C (c) C15A2G1-M9 (d) C15A2C1-M9.

mature failure of FRP occurred by buckling of longitudinal rein-
forcement. It was due to the closer distance between longitudinal
steel bars and FRP sheets.
3.5. Comparison of retrofit methods
Comparing with different retrofit methods, method 1 was easier
to do, but could not prevent the corrosion of steel reinforcements.
On the other hand, both retrofit methods 2 and 3 could protect
steel bars from corrosion. Also, they were more costly and
increased the difficulty of strengthening. Thus, retrofit methods 2
and 3 better to use for the corroded columns undertaken high level
of corrosion. In term of durability, comparing with different retrofit
methods, retrofit method 3 was more durable, which was due to
the protection of the sheets against marine exposure. In term of
strength, replacing confined damaged concrete by self-compacted
mortar, resulting in the increasing of the ultimate strength in retro-
fit methods 2.
In this study, Distance Based Approach (DBA) [27–29] has been
utilized in order to evaluation of three retrofit methods. In this
technique, the first step was to establish the decision criteria. For
this purpose, strength, durability and cost have been selected as
530 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533

Fig. 12. Axial stress-strain curves of retrofitted columns in method 3 (a) wrapped with two layers of GFRP (b) wrapped with one layer GFRP.

Fig. 13. Failure mode of (a) C15A3G1-C (b) C15A3G2-C (c) C15A3G1-M9 (d) C15A3G2-M9.

criteria for comparing different retrofit methods. Strength criterion
was calculated by comparing ultimate strength of each specimen
with specimen CA-C (see Table 5). Also, durability criterion was
calculated by comparing ultimate strength of weathered speci-
mens with corresponding specimens in control condition (see
Table 5). A repair cost included, FRP, primer, repair mortar and
worker wage cost, which was calculated based on each specimen
in different retrofit methods. After specifying decision criteria, they
should be standardized. Higher standardized values are nearer to
the ideal state. Standardized criteria for different retrofitted speci-
mens are presented in Table 6. For each environmental condition,
individual standardization was carried out.
Finally, the distance between each alternative method to the
optimum state is derived from the following equation:
 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533 531

Table 6
Standardized criteria.

Environmental condition Specimen ID Strength criterion Durability criterion Cost criterion

Control C15A1G1-C 1.22 – 1.62
C15A1C1-C 0.01 – 0.03
C15A2G1-C 0.51 – 0.60
C15A2C1-C 1.64 – 0.99
C15A3G1-C 0.71 – 0.32
C15A3G2-C 0.21 – 0.96
Marine Simulator after 3000 h C15A1G1-M3 1.56 1.37 1.62
C15A1C1-M3 0.13 0.29 0.03
C15A2G1-M3 0.26 1.08 0.60
C15A2C1-M3 1.55 0.32 0.99
C15A3G1-M3 0.06 1.1 0.32
C15A3G2-M3 0.21 0.74 0.96
Marine Simulator after 9000 h C15A1G1-M9 1.68 0.94 1.62
C15A1C1-M9 0.33 0.43 0.03
C15A2G1-M9 0.17 0.78 0.60
C15A2C1-M9 1.24 0.34 0.99
C15A3G1-M9 0.34 1.46 0.32
C15A3G2-M9 0.61 1.03 0.96

( )1=2
X 2
Dk ¼ wj  ðzkj  zJ Þ
j method was not appropriate, especially in GFRP-wrapped
where k = number of alternatives; j = number of criteria; Dk = dis-
tance index for kth alternative; wj = weight of jth criterion; zkj = -
standardized value of the kth alternative with respect to the jth
criterion; z⁄j = the higher value of jth criterion. In this study distance
index was calculated based on the assumption of equal weights.
The results of the DBA methodology for each retrofit method in
different environmental conditions are presented in Fig. 14. Based
upon the concept, the chosen alternative should have the shortest
distance index from the ideal solution. Results showed, regardless
of durability (in normal environmental condition), strengthening
with one layer of GFRP in method 2 was the best retrofit method.
It should be noted that retrofit method 3 was not appropriate in
this condition. After 3000 marine exposure, specimen which was
wrapped by one layer of CFRP in retrofit method 1 showed better
performance. It was due to the higher strength and durability of
CFRP sheet, and also lower cost of retrofit method 1. Columns ret-
rofitted by method 3 showed the best performance after 9000 mar-
ine exposure. It was due to the higher durability of these
specimens. On the other hand, comparing with retrofit method 3,
in retrofit methods 1 and 3, which FRP sheets were exposed to
the marine environment, the performance of the retrofitted col-
umns was not acceptable. Hence, it can be concluded that durabil-
ity is a significant parameter which must be considered in
strengthening of the corroded columns in marine environment.
In a short period of time, applying durable type of FRP sheets can
be improved the performance of wrapped members, but in long
term exposure, protecting FRP sheets seems to be necessary.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, an experimental investigation was carried out in
the rehabilitation of corroded RC columns with FRP sheets. The fol-
lowing conclusions are drawn from this study:
1) In the retrofit method 1, regardless of environmental con-
dition, wrapping corroded columns by one layer of GFRP
and CFRP increased ultimate strength by 40.3% and 87%,
respectively. After 9000 h marine exposure, ultimate
strength of these columns decreased by 27.4% and 19.7%,
respectively. So, with regard to the long-term durability
ð2Þ of RC columns wrapped with FRP sheets, this retrofit
columns.
2) In the retrofit method 2, confining RC columns increased
ultimate strength by 108% and 152.8% in GFRP and CFRP-
wrapped columns, in normal environmental condition.
Regarding to the long-term durability, 25% and 18.3% reduc-
tion in ultimate strength of GFRP and CFRP-wrapped col-
umns was observed, respectively, after 9000 marine
exposure. Hence, it can be concluded that bonding FRP
sheets after replacing corrosion-damaged concrete didn’t
have any significant effect on durability of retrofitted col-
umns. Compared with the retrofit method 1, minor improve-
ment in durability of retrofitted columns by method 2 was
observed, which was due to the prevention of further steel
corrosion.
3) In the retrofit method 3, strengthening RC columns with
one and two layers of GFRP increased ultimate strength
by 60.1% and 80%, respectively, in normal environmental
condition. Generally, in retrofitted columns by methods 2
and 3, brittle manner was observed, which was mostly
due to the brittle behavior of self-compacted mortar. In
the retrofit method 3, regarding to the long-term durability
of strengthened columns, 8.8% and 2.2% improvement in
ultimate strength of wrapped columns by one and two lay-
ers of GFRP was observed, respectively after 9000 h expo-
sure. Therefore, in this retrofit method not only any
degradation was not observed, but also ultimate strength
was slightly improved. This was due to the protection of
GFRP sheets by repair mortar, and also better curing of
repair mortar in marine environments. Furthermore, repair
mortar showed better bonding to GFRP sheet after marine
exposure.
4) Failure modes of specimens revealed that in RC-wrapped
columns which FRP sheet was exposed during its service life,
CFRP sheets mostly ruptured because of degradation of
fiber–matrix interface. On the other hand, degradation of
glass fibers was more evident in GFRP sheets.
5) DBA analysis based on ultimate strength, durability and cost
criteria was carried out. Results showed that in marine envi-
ronmental condition, short-term performance of retrofitted
column by one layer of CFRP in the method 1 was ideal. It
was also found that strengthened columns by one layer of
532 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533

Fig. 14. Distance indicator for specimen retrofitted by methods 1, 2 and 3 which stored in (a) Control environmental condition (b) Marine simulator for 3000 h (c) Marine
simulator for 9000 h.

GFRP in the retrofit method 3 performed better than other Acknowledgments

specimens. Thus, it can be concluded that in harsh environ-
mental condition, wrapping by durable type of FRP sheets The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the
would not be sufficient, and protecting the exterior surface Concrete Technology and Durability Research Center (CTDRC) of
of the FRP sheets should be considered. Amirkabir University of Technology.
 A. Kashi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 151 (2017) 520–533 533

References [16] P. Böer, L. Holliday, T.H.-K. Kang, Independent environmental effects on

durability of fiber-reinforced polymer wraps in civil applications: a review,
Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 360–370.
[1] A. Costa, J. Appleton, Case studies of concrete deterioration in a marine
[17] M.A.G. Silva, B.S. da Fonseca, H. Biscaia, On estimates of durability of FRP based
environment in Portugal, Cem. Concr. Comp. 24 (2002) 169–179.
on accelerated tests, Compos. Struct. 116 (2014) 377–387.
[2] M.A. Pech-Canul, P. Castro, Corrosion measurements of steel reinforcement in
[18] A. Kashi, A.A. Ramezanianpour, F. Moodi, Effect of cement based coatings on
concrete exposed to a tropical marine atmosphere, Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (2002)
durability enhancement of GFRP-wrapped columns in marine environments,
491–498.
Constr. Build. Mater. 137 (2017) 307–316.
[3] X. Shi, N. Xie, K. Fortune, J. Gong, Durability of steel reinforced concrete in
[19] EFNARC, Specification and Guidelines for Self-compacting Concrete, The
chloride environments: an overview, Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (2012) 125–138.
European Federation of Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete
[4] M. Safehian, A.A. Ramezanianpour, Assessment of service life models for
Systems, 2005.
determination of chloride penetration into silica fume concrete in the severe
[20] ASTM D3039/D3039M, Standard test method for bearing response of polymer
marine environmental condition, Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 287–294.
matrix composite laminates, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials,
[5] M. Otieno, H. Beushausen, M. Alexander, Chloride-induced corrosion of steel in
2008.
cracked concrete–Part I: experimental studies under accelerated and natural
[21] G. Nossoni, R.S. Harichandran, M.I. Baiyasi, Rate of reinforcement corrosion
marine environments, Cem. Concr. Res. 79 (2016) 373–385.
and stress concentration in concrete columns repaired with bonded and
[6] L.C. Bank, Composites for Construction: Structural Design with FRP Materials,
unbonded FRP wraps, J. Compos. Constr. ASCE 19 (2015). 04014080 7.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2006.
[22] J. Joshi, H.C. Arora, U.K. Sharma, Structural performance of differently confined
[7] ACI 440.2R-08, Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
and strengthened corroding reinforced concrete columns, Constr. Build. Mater.
systems for strengthening concrete structures, American Concrete Institute,
82 (2015) 287–295.
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008.
[23] S.J. Pantazopoulou, J.F. Bonacci, S. Sheikh, M.D.A. Thomas, N. Hearn, Repair of
[8] P. Böer, L. Holliday, T.H.-K. Kang, Interaction of environmental factors on fiber-
corrosion- damaged columns with FRP wraps, J. Compos. Constr. ASCE 5 (2001)
reinforced polymer composites and their inspection and maintenance: a
3–11.
review, Constr. Build. Mater. 50 (2014) 209–218.
[24] J. Xie, R. Hu, Experimental study on rehabilitation of corrosion-damaged
[9] P.D. Anstice, P.W.R. Beaumont, Hygrothermal ageing of fibrous composites,
reinforced concrete beams with carbon fiber reinforced polymer, Constr. Build.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Composite Materials
Mater. 38 (2013) 708–716.
(ICCM-IV), Tokyo, 1982, pp. 1001–1007.
[25] E. Guneyisi, M. Gesoglu, F. Karabog?a, K. Mermerdas, Corrosion behavior of
[10] V.M. Karbhari, M. Engineer, Investigation of bond between concrete and
reinforcing steel embedded in chloride contaminated concretes with and
composites: use of a peeling test, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 15 (1996) 208–227.
without metakaolin, Compos. Part B 45 (2013) 1288–1295.
[11] V.M. Karbhari, L. Zhao, Issues related to composite plating and environmental
[26] J. Sun, Q. Huang, Y. Ren, Performance deterioration of corroded RC beams and
exposure effects on composite-concrete interface in external strengthening,
reinforcing bars under repeated loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 96 (2015) 404–
Compos. Struct. 40 (1998) 293–304.
415.
[12] F. Micelli, J. Myers, S. Murthy, Performance of FRP confined concrete subjected
[27] R. Kumar, R.K. Garg, Optimal selection of robots by using distance based
to accelerated environmental conditioning, Proceedings of the Second
approach method, Robot. Cim-Int. Manuf. 26 (2010) 500–506.
International Conference (CDCC 02) on Durability of Fiber Reinforced
[28] A. Widiyanto, S. Kato, N. Maruyama, Optimizing Selection of Appropriate
Polymer (FRP) Composites for Construction, Montreal, Quebec, 2002.
Power Generation Systems in Indonesia By Using Distance Based Approach
[13] A. Belarbi, S.W. Bae, An experimental study on the effect of environmental
Method, J. Energy Resour.-ASME 126 (2004) 63–71.
exposures and corrosion on RC columns with FRP composite jackets, Compos.
[29] A. Widiyanto, S. Kato, N. Maruyama, Development of decision model for
Part B 38 (2007) 674–684.
selection of appropriate power generation system using distance based
[14] A. Gharachourlou, A.A. Ramezanianpour, Resistance of concrete specimens
approach method, JSME Int. J. 47 (2004) 387–395.
strengthened with FRP sheets to the penetration of chloride ions, Arab. J. Sci.
Eng. 35 (2010) 141–154.
[15] J.R. Cromwell, K.A. Harries, B.M. Shahrooz, Environmental durability of
externally bonded FRP materials intended for repair of concrete structures,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2528–2539.