ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 114-S63
Axial Load-Bearing Concrete Confined with Carbon Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Sheets in Acidic Environment
by Yail J. Kim and Yongcheng Ji
This paper presents the axial behavior of plain and carbon fiber-
reinforced polymer (CFRP)-confined concrete in an acidic environ-
ment. Despite extensive investigations of its durability, there still
is a research gap in understanding the performance of confined
concrete under this detrimental condition. Various exposure condi-
tions are tested to deteriorate the concrete with a 5% concentration
sulfuric acid solution. Ancillary tests are conducted to characterize
the effect of acid exposure on the materials’ strength and physical
properties, including thermogravimetric analysis. The efficacy of
CFRP confinement is examined using 72 concrete cylinders. The
performance of the constituent materials is degraded by acid expo-
sure. The presence of CFRP wrapping disturbs the permeation of
the acid into the core concrete, and impedes chemical reactions
associated with the concrete-acid interaction. With an increase
in acid exposure time, the effectiveness of the CFRP wrapping is
reduced. The extent of initial core damage (prior to CFRP wrap-
ping) is an important factor influencing the capacity, failure mode,
toughness, and stress-strain behavior of the confined concrete. The
initial damage, however, does not change the concrete’s strength
decrease rate. An analytical model is calibrated to predict the
acidic response of the CFRP-confined concrete, which results in
design recommendations based on a performance efficiency factor.
Keywords: carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP); compressive
behavior; durability; sulfuric acid.
INTRODUCTION
The malfunctioning of industrial facilities, wastewater
treatment structures, or sewer systems can impact daily life,
and associated economic costs are remarkable. For example,
over $298 billion is required to improve wastewater systems
in the United States over the next 20 years.1 A variety of detri-
mental attributes such as sulfate-related chemicals affect the
sustainability of structural members. It is not uncommon to
observe concrete structures that have deteriorated owing to
acid exposure, which is prevalent in industrial or agricultural
regions that produce various synthetic and mineral acids,
including sulfuric acid (H2SO4), phosphoric acid (H3PO4),
and hydrochloric acid (HCl). When concrete encounters an
acidic environment, the constituents’ integrity is weakened
by chemical ingress and, accordingly, the physical proper-
ties and strength of the concrete are degraded. Technical
concerns, therefore, arise for concrete members that are
exposed to harmful acidic chemicals, although implications
may not be immediate.
Sulfuric acid can be generated by sulfate-reducing
bacteria, which convert sulfates to hydrogen sulfide that
reacts with oxygen.2 Chemical reactions of sulfuric acid in
concrete create gypsum (CaSO4 ⋅2H2O) as a secondary
product, causing volumetric changes in combination with
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017
TECHNICAL PAPER
premature cracking.3 Attigbe and Rizkalla4 examined the
behavior of various concrete mixtures subjected to sulfuric
acid. Concrete cylinders were conditioned for 10 weeks in
an acidic solution (pH < 1.0). Energy-dispersive spectra
were employed to analyze the effect of sulfuric acid on the
physical and chemical responses of the concrete cylinders.
Scanning electron microscopy showed that the acid initially
deteriorated the concrete surface and progressed into the
core with time. Monteny et al.5 reported the degradation of
polymer-modified concrete by sulfuric acid exposure. Test
specimens mixed with styrene-acrylicester polymer exhib-
ited good resistance to the acid, whereas those with acrylic
polymer and styrene butadience polymer revealed poor
resistance. Bassuoni and Nehdi6 studied the resistance of
self-consolidating concrete when exposed to sulfuric acid.
Mixture variables included binder types, steel and polypro-
pylene fibrillated fibers, and sand-to-aggregate mass ratios.
After a 6-week exposure time, the specimens’ mass decreased
by 10%, which indicates significant concrete damage. The
acidic responses of the concrete were enhanced by the inclu-
sion of an organic corrosion inhibitor, quaternary binders,
and a combination of the steel and polymeric fibers. Araghi
et al.7 evaluated the performance of concrete mixed with an
alternative aggregate, polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
particles, in a 5% sulfuric acid solution up to 60 days. The
specimens cast with a 15% PET inclusion revealed better
acidic resistance than those with other PET inclusion ratios,
in terms of mass losses, load-bearing capacity, and density.
Further research efforts on the interaction between various
concrete types and sulfuric acid are available in state-of-
the-art reviews.2,8
The degradation of load-carrying capacity in axial
members is critical because the failure of these members
results in the collapse of the entire structural system. Of
many available options for upgrading deteriorated concrete
axial members, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) has gained
attention from the rehabilitation community over the last
two decades. The wrapping of carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets
(axial confinement) was especially promising to improve
the capacity and ductility of concrete columns, supported
by extensive research results.9,10 Although the durability of
CFRP-wrapped concrete has been examined,11,12 the effect
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 3, May-June 2017.
MS No. S-2016-291, doi: 10.14359/51689464, received August 5, 2016, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2017, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
775
Fig. 1—Test specimens: (a) CFRP-wrapped and plain concrete cylinders; and (b) exposure to sulfuric acid in fume hood.
Table 1—Acid exposure scheme Materials
Cate-
To represent typical aged concrete structures,16 a specified
gory Exposure to H2SO4 solution strength of 20 MPa (2900 psi) was designed for the mixture
of concrete. Unidirectional CFRP sheet has a nominal tensile
I Plain concrete exposed for 0, 2, 4, and 6 weeks
strength of 3800 MPa (551 ksi) with a modulus of 227 GPa
II CFRP-wrapped concrete exposed for 0, 2, 4, and 6 weeks (33,000 ksi), based on an equivalent thickness of 0.165 mm
Plain concrete exposed for 2, 4, and 6 weeks → CFRP-wrapping (0.006 in.). A two-part epoxy adhesive, comprising a hardener
III (1 week curing) → CFRP-wrapped concrete exposed for 2, 4, and a resin to be mixed at a weight ratio of 1:3, was used to
and 6 weeks
bond the CFRP, which has the following properties according
to the manufacturer: viscosity at 20°C (68°F) = 1600 cps;
of acid exposure has not. It is unknown whether the behavior
tensile strength = 52 MPa (7540 psi); tensile modulus =
of CFRP-confined concrete is affected by sulfuric acid. If so,
2.6 GPa (380 ksi); and elongation at break = 0.015.
the degree of its influence needs to be quantified. This paper
aims to elucidate the material- and member-level responses
Specimen preparation
of CFRP-wrapped concrete in a sulfuric acid environment,
Concrete cylinders were cast with dimensions of 100 mm
based on an accelerated durability test protocol. Emphasis
(4 in.) in diameter and 200 mm (8 in.) in depth. After curing
is given to the load-bearing capacity, constitutive relation-
in a humidity room for 28 days, the surface of each cylinder
ships, failure modes, and toughness of the wrapped concrete.
was cleaned with an air brush to eliminate unnecessary dirt
and cement particles. Selected cylinders were wrapped with a
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
single layer of CFRP sheet (200 mm [8 in.] wide by 340 mm
FRP composites are broadly used to upgrade constructed
[13.4 in.] long), and bonded using the two-part epoxy adhe-
concrete structures, including flexural, shear, and axial
sive (wet-lay-up). The overwrapping circumferential seam
strengthening. However, existing design guidelines
length of the CFRP was 25 mm (1 in.). The top and bottom
concerning the use of FRP such as ACI 440.2R-0813 do not
of the CFRP-wrapped cylinders were covered by the epoxy
address technical issues related to sulfuric acid. As such, there
(approximately 5 mm [0.2 in.] thick) to avoid direct contact of
is a gap in implementing FRP technologies when strength-
the concrete surface with an acidic environment through the
ened members are located in acidic service areas. Further, the
unwrapped zones, as shown in Fig. 1(a). In compliance with
infrastructure community is not informed of adequate design
the manufacturer’s guidelines, the CFRP-confined cylinders
approaches. Documents dedicated to testing the properties
were cured for 7 days at room temperature. To examine the
of FRP materials and the behavior of FRP-strengthening
effect of acid exposure at the material level, CFRP and epoxy
systems do not encompass the consequences of acid expo-
coupons (15 mm [0.6 in.] wide by 150 mm [6 in.] long, and
sure (ACI 440.3R-0414 and ACI 440.9R-1515). No research
5  mm [0.2 in.] wide by 10 mm [0.4 in.] thick by 100 mm
endeavors have been made thus far to understand the perfor-
[4 in.] long, respectively) were prepared as well.
mance of CFRP-confined concrete subjected to sulfuric acid.
The present experimental investigation attempts to evaluate
Conditioning scheme
the potential of CFRP rehabilitation for concrete members
Sulfuric acid was diluted to obtain a 5% concentration in
under acidic distress. Design recommendations are provided
a chemistry lab, by blending pure acid with distilled water.
to disseminate research findings.
Due to exothermic reactions when treating the acid, beakers
containing the stirred acid solution were placed in iced
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
water for one hour. Once the diluted acid cooled down to
A three-category test program is conducted to examine the
room temperature, the solution was stored in 114 L (30 gal.)
axial behavior of plain and CFRP-wrapped concrete cylin-
lab containers. The prepared cylinders and coupons were
ders subjected to sulfuric acid for variable periods. Specimen
submerged in the sulfuric acid solution for variable exposure
details and experimental methods are described as follows.
periods up to 6 weeks (Table 1). The maximum conditioning

776 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017

Table 2—Ultimate strength of epoxy and CFRP coupons
0 weeks (0 hr) 2 weeks (336 hrs)
Ave, MPa Stdev, MPa Ave, MPa Stdev, MPa
(ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
Epoxy 42.5 (6.2) 5.5 (0.8) 36.4 (5.3)
CFRP *
4444 (645) 308 (45) 4110 (596)
*
Properties based on CFRP equivalent thickness.
Notes: “Ave” is average strength; “Stdev” is standard deviation.
Fig. 2—Test methods: (a) epoxy coupon; (b) CFRP coupon; (c) cylinder; and (d) thermogravimetric analysis (TGA).
time was determined as per published literature.6 The 6-week
exposure period is also within the boundary of a typical
long-term test time of 1000 hours for FRP composites spec-
ified in ACI 440.3R-04.14 Two containers were employed to
store the plain and CFRP-confined concrete specimens, as
shown in Fig. 1(b). The variation of pH values and tempera-
ture inside the containers was monitored using a digital pH
meter and a thermometer, respectively. Upon achieving
the predefined conditioning periods, the individual speci-
mens were washed with tap water and dried for mechanical
testing. Three categories were tested (Table 1) with 4 repli-
cated cylinders per category (72 cylinders in total): 1) plain
concrete exposed to sulfuric acid (Category I); 2) CFRP-
wrapped concrete subjected to sulfuric acid (Category II);
and 3) plain concrete conditioned in the acidic environment
for 2-6 weeks before being wrapped with CFRP, cured, and
again exposed to the acid for up to 6 weeks (Category III).
Mechanical and thermal testing
Two universal testing machines (100 and 900 kN [20
and 200 kip] capacities) were used to load the CFRP and
epoxy coupons and the conditioned cylinders, as shown in
Fig. 2(a) through (c). All specimens were monotonically
loaded until failure at displacement-control loading rates of
2.5 and 5 mm/min (0.1 and 0.2 in./min) for the coupons and
the cylinders, respectively. A non-contacting laser exten-
someter and built-in load cells were employed to respec-
tively measure the axial strain of the specimens and the load
applied. Because the axial load-dominated behavior of the
concrete was of primary interest, secondary responses such
as hoop strains were not measured (volumetric expansion
was not of interest). Test data were recorded and managed
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017
4 weeks (672 hrs) 6 weeks (1008 hrs)
Ave, MPa Stdev, MPa Ave, MPa Stdev, MPa
(ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
6.3 (0.9) 28.6 (4.1) 5.6 (0.8) 16.5 (2.4) 5.6 (0.8)
231 (34) 3689 (535) 49 (7) 3072 (446) 636 (92)
by a data acquisition computer. To characterize the effect
of acid exposure on the physical property of concrete with
and without CFRP-wrapping (that is, material decomposi-
tion quantified by a mass loss with temperature), thermo-
gravimetric analysis (TGA) was conducted, based on ASTM
E1131.17 After the pre-scheduled acid exposure periods were
completed (Table 1), concrete samples were extracted from
the surface of each cylinder (concrete underneath the CFRP
for the wrapped cylinders) and tested (Fig. 2(d)) at elevated
temperatures from 0 to 1000°C (32 to 1832°F) with an incre-
ment rate of 20°C/min (36°F/min).
TEST RESULTS
Experimental data and analyses are presented in this
section. The effect of acid exposure on the load-carrying
capacity and constitutive response of test specimens, mate-
rial characterization, and failure modes is studied. The effec-
tiveness of CFRP-confinement in an acidic environment is
emphasized.
Ancillary test
The average strength of the tested coupons is summarized
in Table 2. The control strength of the CFRP without acid
exposure (0 weeks) was 17% greater than the manufactur-
er’s guaranteed strength. It should be noted that the manu-
facturer-guaranteed strength is conservative: three standard
deviations are typically deducted from the average test data.
With an increase in exposure time, the strength of these
materials was reduced, as shown in Fig. 3 where their indi-
vidual strengths were normalized by the average strength of
the control specimens. The decrease rate of the epoxy was
similar to the rate of the CFRP up to an exposure period of
777
Fig. 3—Ancillary test results: (a) epoxy; and (b) CFRP.
Fig. 4—Reaction between specimens and sulfuric acid: (a) pH value; and (b) temperature.
2 weeks, beyond which the former (Fig. 3(a)) showed more
susceptible responses to the acid compared with the latter
(Fig. 3(b)). The average strength decrease ratios of the epoxy
and CFRP at 6 weeks were 0.44 and 0.70, respectively. This
observation illustrates that the load-bearing capacity of the
CFRP was primarily controlled by the fibers, which were
protected by the epoxy binder, although the fibers them-
selves are also damageable in such an acidic environment
from a microscale standpoint.18 The coefficients of variation
(COVs) associated with the strength decrease ratios (Fig. 3)
tended to increase with the exposure time, which implies that
the degree of uncertainty incremented by a factor of 2.6 and
3.0 from 0- to 6-week immersion periods for the epoxy and
CFRP, respectively. These exposure-dependent uncertainty
variations should be taken into account when calibrating
design factors such as environmental reduction factors.
Acidic response of concrete
Figure 4(a) shows the variation of pH values in the sulfuric
acid solution. For the plain concrete in Category I, the pH
values tended to linearly increase up to 4 weeks (from pH
= 0.33 to 0.96 at 0 and 4 weeks), after which the pH stabi-
lized because reactions between the alkali and acid in the
concrete and the solution, respectively, reached chemical
equilibrium (analogous to conventional hydrolysis in
cement-water interaction). As will be discussed in a later
section, after 4 weeks of acid exposure, aggregates were
exposed owing to the dissolution of the cement paste, which
retarded the concrete’s acid absorption rate.19 The chemical
equilibrium of the CFRP-wrapped concrete was achieved
after 1 week of exposure (Fig. 4(a)). It is thus apparent to
state that the CFRP layer inhibited the chemical reactions
778
between the concrete and the solution, thereby protecting
the core concrete. It is worth noting that the pH values of
Category III specimens were not monitored because the
pH variation of specimens in Categories I and II covered
the full-range responses of the plain and CFRP-wrapped
concrete specimens. Temperature changes in the containers
are shown in Fig. 4(b). An abrupt drop from 34 to 27°C (93
to 81°F) was recorded for the first 24 hours of acid exposure
(0.14 weeks), after which the solution temperature was main-
tained at an average temperature of 25°C (77°F), regardless
of test category.
The mass variation of the plain concrete subjected to
sulfuric acid, which is an indicator of deterioration, is plotted
in Fig. 5(a). A high-precision scale with a readability of 0.1 g
(0.0002 lb) was used to measure the specimens’ mass. The
concrete mass gradually increased up to +2.7% in 240 hours
(1.4 weeks) and decreased down to –2.3%, on average. The
initial ascending branch of the mass response was attribut-
able to the absorption of the acid solution. Attigbe and
Rizkalla4 reported a similar mass increase and explained that
the formation of ettringite (3CaO ⋅Al2O3(CaSO4) ⋅32H2O)
was a contributor. The descending portion was induced by
the presence of gypsum (CaSO4 ⋅2H2O),20 which was gener-
ated by chemical reactions between the sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) and the calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) resulting
from the cement paste. Other reasons for the mass reduction
include an increase in porosity of the concrete along with
microcracking,21 specifically within the dissolved cement
paste, and the leaching and osmosis of the concrete.22 The
variation in mass for the CFRP-wrapped concrete was much
wider than for the plain counterpart, as shown in Fig. 5(b),
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017
Fig. 5—Change in mass of concrete: (a) plain cylinders (Category I); and (b) CFRP-wrapped cylinders (Category II).

Fig. 6—Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) with concrete near-surface of cylinder: (a) mass loss of plain concrete (Category I); (b)
mass loss of CFRP-wrapped concrete (Category II); (c) mass loss of pre-conditioned CFRP-wrapped concrete (Category III);
and (d) comparison at 6-week exposure.
without showing ascending and descending branches. The
scattered mass variations can be explained, in part, by the
fact that the non-uniform epoxy thickness encircling the
cylinders (caused by the wet-lay-up process) allowed irreg-
ular acid permeation into and absorption by the concrete.
Given that the average mass of the wrapped concrete tended
to increase with time, it may be reasonable to mention that
the sulfuric acid penetrated into the CFRP layer. Previous
research corroborates this hypothesis, in that acidic chemi-
cals migrate through an epoxy resin.23
Thermogravimetric analysis
Figure 6 exhibits the results of thermogravimetric analysis
performed with the conditioned concrete. A gradual decrease
in mass with temperature was noticed for the plain concrete
without acid exposure (0 weeks), as shown in Fig. 6(a). An
abrupt drop was, however, observed in the cases subjected
to sulfuric acid between 100 and 200°C (212 and 392°F).
The degree of mass change became more pronounced with
an increase in acid exposure time, including the dehydrox-
ylation of portlandite (Ca(OH)2).24 The thermal responses
of the concrete belonging to Category II (Fig. 6(b)) signifi-
cantly improved with a steady reduction in mass up to 650°C
(1742°F), and the effect of the acid exposure time from 2 to
6 weeks was marginal (that is, a mass loss of less than 12%
at 1000°C [1832°F]). These observations confirm that the
CFRP-wrapping was effective in protecting the core concrete
from sulfuric acid. As the core concrete was damaged prior
to CFRP-wrapping, the efficacy of the CFRP dropped
conspicuously (Fig. 6(c)). Figure 6(d) compares the thermo-
gravimetric analyses of all categories at 6-week exposure.
The responses of the plain concrete (Category I) and the
one exposed 6 weeks before CFRP-wrapping (Category III)
were similar, which illustrates that the CFRP did not recover
the concrete’s deteriorated properties, although it protected
the core after wrapping. Nonetheless, the CFRP-wrapping

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017 779

Fig. 7—Variation of axial capacity with exposure time: (a) capacity of Categories I and II; (b) decrease rate of Categories I
and II; (c) capacity of Category III; and (d) decrease rate of Categories III.
was still beneficial for the pre-damage concrete with up to
4 weeks of acid exposure (Category III).
Capacity variation and failure mode
The capacities of Categories I and II are compared in
Fig. 7(a). The average capacity of the plain cylinders in the
0- and 6-week exposure periods was 21.8% of that of the
confined ones. The capacity decrease ratio between these
two categories was identical (77%) up to an exposure time
of 2 weeks, as shown in Fig. 7(b), where the definition of the
decrease ratio is provided. The confined concrete, however,
revealed lower decrease ratios with the increased exposure
time, indicating that the CFRP effectively protected the core
concrete (specifically, delayed leaching of portlandite and
decalcification in the concrete3). The capacity reduction was
a function of core damage that occurred before the CFRP
was wrapped (Fig. 7(c)). The trend of the capacity decrease
rate was, however, preserved, irrespective of initial acid
exposure time (Fig. 7(d)). Further discussions on the effect
of the initial core damage are given in subsequent sections.
Figure 8 provides the failure mode of the loaded cylinders.
The primary failure plane of the plain concrete without
acid exposure (0 weeks) was at an approximate angle of
45 degrees along with some secondary cracks (Fig. 8(a)). An
apparent shift in failure plane was, however, noticed with an
increase in the acid exposure period. This can be explained by
the fact that the cement binder was dissolved by the acid and,
thereby, the binder-cohesion was degraded with increased
porosity (that is, stress transfer between aggregates in the
concrete was not effective). All confined cylinders failed by
CFRP-rupture, as shown in Fig. 8(b) and (c). The internal
pressure of the confined concrete was uniform until a weak-
780
link around the CFRP-wrap took place, which resulted in the
abrupt rupture of the sheet and the regional disintegration of
the core concrete within the weak-link region. The extent of
core damage after the confinement system’s failure (Cate-
gory II) was correlated with the degree of acid exposure
(Fig. 8(b)). The sulfuric acid solution appeared to permeate
through the CFRP and deteriorated the core concrete, as
discussed earlier. Although the same acid-permeation mech-
anism is valid for the confined specimens with the initial core
damage (Category III), their failure mode was different from
that of the Category II concrete: no catastrophic core failure
was observed and, rather, the failure was gradual (Fig. 8(c)).
Constitutive behavior
Figure 9 shows the stress-strain behavior of the tested
cylinders in axial compression. As the axial stress increased,
the strain of the plain concrete incremented in a linear
manner (Fig. 9(a)). In some cases, strain development was
locally unstable because the measurement of the non-con-
tacting extensometer was reliant upon the cylinders’
surface-deformation. The CFRP-wrapped concrete without
acid exposure (0-week) attained substantial improvement
in axial stress and corresponding strain compared, with
the plain concrete (Fig. 9(b)). The reason is that the core
concrete’s dilatation was restrained by the CFRP, leading to
an apparent increase in axial stress until failure. Upon acti-
vation of the CFRP-confinement where a gradual transition
in the slope of the stress-strain curve was observed at a stress
of approximately 25 MPa (36 ksi), the response of the spec-
imen stabilized, and the stress increased proportionally with
the strain, owing to the CFRP’s linear elastic nature. The
CFRP-activation mechanism began after the core concrete
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017
Fig. 8—Failure mode of test specimens: (a) plain concrete with 20 times magnification view (Category I); (b) CFRP-confined
concrete (Category II); and (c) CFRP-confined concrete (Category III: 6-week exposure before CFRP-wrapping).
(0-week acid exposure) sufficiently dilated in tandem with
significant internal damage, as evidenced by the analogous
stress-strain responses of the unconfined and confined cylin-
ders (Fig. 9(a) and 9(b), respectively) until the peak stress of
the former was achieved.
A drastic change in the stress-strain behavior was noticed
for the CFRP-wrapped specimens exposed to the acid,
although the ultimate stresses of the wrapped specimens
were still higher than those of their plain counterparts.
The specimens having experienced acid exposure before
CFRP-wrapping (Category III) demonstrated a consistent
decrease in ultimate strength with exposure time (Fig. 9(c)
to (e)). An interesting finding in this test category is that
the strains of the cylinders at failure were markedly higher
than those of the other categories, explaining the gradual
failure mode mentioned earlier, and the degree of brittleness
dwindled. The softening of the core concrete with the initial
acidic damage was responsible for such large strain develop-
ment, caused by the formation of calcium sulfate, gypsum,
and ettringite,4,25 in conjunction with the cylinders’ dimen-
sional stability provided by the CFRP-confinement.
Toughness
The toughness of each specimen was measured by an
area under the stress-strain curve of the specimens up to
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017
their peak stresses, and toughness measures were aver-
aged, as  shown in Fig. 10(a) and 10(b). The toughness
of the CFRP-confined concrete was substantially larger
than that of the plain concrete (Fig. 10(a)) because of the
improved stress-strain behavior, as elaborated previously.
With the increased acid exposure time, the toughness of
the CFRP-confined concrete was reduced, primarily attrib-
utable to the decreased load-carrying capacity (Fig. 9(b)).
The effect of the initial core  damage in the Category III
specimens (before CFRP-wrapping) was obvious in terms
of decreasing toughness under the same exposure conditions
(Fig. 10(b)). For instance, the average toughness decreased
from 1.54 to 0.78 MPa (223 to 113 psi) at 2- and 6-week
initial exposure, respectively. The exposure time after
CFRP-wrapping, however, raised the toughness owing to
the aforementioned concrete softening with dimensional
stability, as comprehensively compared in Fig. 10(c). To
statistically characterize the significance of the initial core
damage, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted
using an F statistic calculated by Eq. (1)
m ⋅ s−2
F= 2
x
(1)
∑ sk / k
781
Fig. 9—Stress-strain behavior of concrete in axial direction: (a) Category I; (b) Category II; (c) Category III (2-week exposure
before CFRP-wrapping); (d) Category III (4-week exposure before CFRP-wrapping); and (e) Category III (6-week exposure
before CFRP-wrapping). (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 10—Toughness of specimens with exposure time: (a) average of Categories I and II; (b) average of Category III:
(c) comparison of toughness variation; and (d) analysis of variance. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

782 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017

Fig. 11—Calibration of concrete strength: (a) plain and confined concrete in Categories I and II; and (b) confined concrete in
Category III. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Table 3—Calibrated model parameters in Parameters are calibrated and assessed using test data, which
conjunction with exposure periods in sulfuric acid result in practical design factors.
Initial exposure
before CFRP Model formulation
wrapping Equation R2 The axial behavior of the CFRP-confined concrete
fc′ = 20.287 Exp (–0.104 T) 0.9892
subjected to sulfuric acid was modeled based on the constitu-
tive relationship suggested by ACI 440.2R-08,13 in conjunc-
fcc′ = 83.368 Exp (–0.066 T) 0.9026
0 weeks tion with the present test data
εccu = 0.0176 Exp (–0.062 T) 0.8931
E2 = 3640 Exp (0.0063 T) 0.4947 
E ε −
( Ec − E2 ) 2
2

εc for 0 ≤ ε c ≤ ε t′
fcc′ = 75.454 Exp (–0.071 T) 0.9489 fc =  c c 4 f c′ (2)
2 weeks εccu = 0.0264 Exp (0.1209 T) 0.9999 
 f c′+ E2 ε c for ε t′ ≤ ε c ≤ ε ccu
E2 = 2338.8 Exp (–0.2240 T) 0.9869
f cc′ − f c′
fcc′ = 65.267 Exp (–0.073 T) 0.9815 E2 = (3)
ε ccu
4 weeks εccu = 0.0251 Exp (0.1415 T) 0.9913
E2 = 2249.5 Exp (–0.2530 T) 1.0000
2 f c′
fcc′ = 48.499 Exp (–0.044 T) 0.8528 ε t′ = (4)
Ec − E2
6 weeks εccu = 0.0153 Exp (0.2346 T) 0.9405
where fc and εc are the stress and strain of the confined
E2 = 2702.3 Exp (–0.3130 T) 0.9844 concrete exposed to sulfuric acid, respectively; Ec and E2
Notes: R2 is coefficient of determination; T is exposure period from 0 to 6 weeks. are the elastic modulus (Ec = 4730√fc′ in MPa [57,000√fc′
in psi]) and the second slope of the ascending branch of
the concrete, respectively; fc′ and fcc′ are the compressive
where m is the sample size per test group; s− is the sample strengths of the plain and confined concrete, respectively;
x
variance of the test average; sk is the sample variance; and k and εt′ and εccu are the transition strain and the ultimate strain
is the number of the test group. Further details about ANOVA at fcc′, respectively. Figure 11 shows calibrated expressions
are available in statistics texts.26 Figure 10(d) reveals the for the average concrete strength (fc′ and fcc′) with respect to
ANOVA results of Category III (with core damage) calcu- exposure time T in weeks, and those for all other variables
lated against Category II (without core damage) at variable are summarized in Table 3 with the coefficients of determi-
exposure periods after CFRP-wrapping. There was evidence nation (R2).
to conclude that the effect of the initial core damage was
statistically significant at a confidence interval of 95%, Assessment and prediction
except the specimens subjected to the initial acid exposure The calibrated expressions for the CFRP-confined
of 6 weeks (F = 8.24 and 0.12 at the post-wrapping exposure concrete were evaluated as shown in Fig. 12(a) and (b). The
time of 4 and 6 weeks, respectively). The influence of the predicted strengths (fcc′) of the concrete in Categories II and
acid-induced core damage prior to CFRP-wrapping, there- III were compared with their experimental counterparts,
fore, needs to be considered, when proposing design recom- resulting in an average absolute margin of 5.1% (Fig. 12(a)).
mendations for existing concrete structures. The toughness of these categories was assessed in Fig. 12(b),
which can demonstrate the overall behavior of the confined
MODELING AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS concrete along with the strength (fcc′) and ultimate strain
Analytical modeling is conducted to predict the behavior (εccu). The prediction margin of the toughness (15.7%) was
of CFRP-confined concrete in a sulfuric acid environment. higher than that of the strength (5.1%), because the failure

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017 783

Fig. 12—Predicted behavior of CFRP-confined concrete subjected to sulfuric acid: (a) model validation for capacity; (b) model
validation for toughness; (c) CFRP-wrapping before exposure to acid; and (d) CFRP-wrapping after exposure to acid (6-week
initial exposure). (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)

Fig. 13—Coefficients of strength degradation: (a) linear regression; and (b) determination.
strains of the experimental cylinders were rather inconsistent
and were influenced by surface deformation, as explained
earlier. The predicted stress-strain responses of the Cate-
gory II concrete without initial core damage are exhibited in
Fig. 12(c). The consequences of sulfuric acid exposure were
obvious in terms of reducing the load-carrying capacity of
the confined concrete, whereas the exposure did not influ-
ence the second slope E2 until failure. This fact implies that
the integrity of the confined concrete was preserved by the
CFRP-confinement. On the other hand, the behavior of the
confined concrete with initial core damage revealed a signif-
icant change in the second slope, in addition to the decreased
load-carrying capacity (for conciseness, Fig. 12(d) shows
only the prediction with 6-week initial exposure). Unlike the
strengthened concrete without initial core damage (Fig. 12(c)),
a pivot was observed near the capacity of the core concrete
(fc′ = 10.9 MPa [1625 psi] in Fig. 12(d)).
Performance efficiency factor
Strength degradation model—The strength degradation
of the CFRP-confined concrete in sulfuric acid may be
expressed by the following power-law
fcc(i)′ = fcc(0)′(1 – A0(T)m) (5)
where fcc(i)′ and fcc(0)′ are the CFRP-confined concrete strength
at i-week exposure time (with initial core damage) and at
0-week exposure time (without initial core damage), respec-
tively; A0 and m are the degradation coefficient and exponent
of the confined concrete, respectively; and T is the sulfuric
acid exposure time after CFRP-wrapping. The ratio between
fcc(i)′ and fcc(0)′ can be considered as a performance efficiency
factor (ΨSA), which intends to represent the effect of the
initial core damage induced by sulfuric acid. The use of this
factor is recommended when conducting CFRP-strength-
ening design for existing axial concrete members pre-dam-

784 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017

Table 4—Performance efficiency factor (ΨSA) for CFRP-confined concrete (fcc') in sulfuric acid
Decrease in fc′*
Exposure condition Strength range
Moderate Δ fc′ ≤ 5%
Severe 5% < Δ fc′ ≤ 10%
Critical 10% < Δ fc′ ≤ 20%
Extreme 20% < Δ fc′ ≤ 30%
*
Compressive strength of concrete before CFRP wrapping.
Fig. 14—Implementation of model: (a) capacity change in plain concrete; and (b) strength degradation by initial core damage.
aged by sulfuric acid. In other words, the confined strength
calculated by a conventional design equation (for example,
fcc′ as per ACI 440.2R-0813) is multiplied by the efficiency
factor to take into account the core damage. By taking the
logarithm of Eq. (5), the empirical constants A0 and m are
determined
Ln(1 – fcc(i)′/fcc(0)′) = mLn(T) + Ln(A0) (6)
Figure 13(a) depicts linear regression lines, whose slopes
and intercepts are the constants m and Ln(A0) of Eq. (6). The
calibrated constants were then fitted as a function of expo-
sure time before CFRP-wrapping (initial core damage), as
shown in Fig. 13(b).
Implementation—According to a strength change in plain
concrete (initial core damage), four service conditions are
defined (Fig. 14(a)): Moderate, Severe, Critical, and Extreme.
The strength degradation model of the plain concrete (fc′ =
20.287 Exp (–0.104 T) in Table 3) was employed to obtain
an exposure period T corresponding to the strength decrease
range, as listed in Table 4. The pre-determined constants m
and A0 related to the period T were substituted into Eq. (5)
to attain the performance efficiency factor (ΨSA) for each
service condition. With a decrease in core strength Δfc′ (prior
to CFRP-wrapping), the efficiency factors were gradually
reduced (Fig. 14(b)). The calculated efficiency factors were
slightly adjusted for design convenience, and summarized in
Table 4 for practical implementation.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper has discussed the axial behavior of plain and
CFRP-confined concrete exposed to sulfuric acid. Materi-
al-level responses dependent upon variable exposure periods
were characterized by coupon tests and thermogravimetric
analysis (TGA). To examine the efficacy of CFRP-wrap-
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017
Equivalent exposure time (week) ΨSA
0.49 0.95
1.01 0.90
2.15 0.80
3.43 0.65
ping, comparative investigations were conducted using 72
cylinders. An analytical model was calibrated to predict the
behavior of the confined concrete in sulfuric acid. A design
factor was proposed to implement the CFRP-confinement
technology in an acidic environment. It is worth noting that
the present study did not consider the size effect of concrete
specimens; therefore, the results could be strengthened by
future research. The following conclusions are drawn:
• The strength of both epoxy and CFRP materials
decreased when exposed to sulfuric acid. The strength
decrease rate of the epoxy was similar to that of the
CFRP up to an exposure period of 2 weeks, after which
the former deteriorated more rapidly than the latter with
increased uncertainty levels (coefficients of variation).
• The CFRP layer impeded the ingress of sulfuric acid
into the core concrete and, hence, retarded the chem-
ical interactions between the cement paste and the acid,
evidenced by the observations of the pH values and the
thermogravimetric analysis. The mass variation of the
plain concrete revealed an ascending and descending
pattern with time, because of the acid-uptake and chem-
ical reactions. The mass variation of the CFRP-wrapped
concrete, however, did not show this pattern and was
rather constant.
• Although the CFRP-confinement significantly
improved the axial capacity of the concrete, the effec-
tiveness of the CFRP was reduced with increasing acid
exposure time. The degree of initial core damage prior
to CFRP-wrapping influenced the capacity and stress-
strain behavior of the confined concrete; nonetheless,
the initial damage did not alter the concrete’s strength
decrease rate (the slope of the capacity-time response).
• The acid exposure deteriorated the cohesion of the
cement paste, so that the failure plane of the plain
concrete shifted. The failure of the confined concrete
785
 accompanied by CFRP-rupture was either catastrophic
or gradual, depending upon the level of the initial core
damage.
• The toughness of the confined concrete without the
initial core damage dwindled, whereas it increased
when the core damage was augmented because of the
concrete-softening and dimensional stability provided
by the CFRP-wrapping.
• According to the calibrated prediction models, the
second slope of the confined concrete was a function of
the initial core damage, which controlled the concrete’s
toughness. The proposed performance efficiency factor
(ΨSA) was recommended to take into account, in prac-
tice, the effect of the initial core damage induced by
sulfuric acid.
AUTHOR BIOS
Yail J. Kim, FACI, is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering
at the University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO. He is Chair of ACI
Committee 345, Concrete Bridge Construction, Maintenance, and Repair,
and ACI Subcommittee 440-I, FRP-Prestressed Concrete; and a member
of ACI Committees 342, Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge
Elements; 440, Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; and Joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 343, Concrete Bridge Design. His research inter-
ests include advanced composite materials for structural rehabilitation;
complex systems; uncertainty quantification; and science-based structural
engineering, including statistical and interface physics
ACI member Yongcheng Ji is a PhD Student in the Department of Civil
Engineering at the University of Colorado Denver. He is a member of ACI
Committee 345, Concrete Bridge Construction, Maintenance, and Repair.
His research interests include material characterization, durability of
concrete members, and bridge engineering.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Univer-
sity of Colorado Denver and technical advice from C. Rathbun. Proprietary
information, such as manufacturers and product names, was not provided
to avoid commercialism.
REFERENCES
1. ASCE, “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure,” American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2013, http://www.infrastructurereportcard.
org/. (last accessed Mar. 27, 2017)
2. O’Connell, M.; McNally, C.; and Richardson, M. G., “Biochemical
Attack on Concrete in Wastewater Applications: A State of the Art Review,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 32, No. 7, 2010, pp. 479-485. doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.05.001
3. Dyer, T., Concrete Durability, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2014, 447 pp.
4. Attigbe, E. K., and Rizkalla, S. H., “Response of Concrete to
Sulfuric Acid Attack,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 85, No. 6, Nov.-Dec.
1988, pp. 481-488.
5. Monteny, J.; De Belie, N.; Vincke, E.; Verstraete, W.; and Taerwe, L.,
“Chemical and Microbiological Tests to Simulate Sulfuric Acid Corrosion of
Polymer-Modified Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 31, No. 9,
2001, pp. 1359-1365. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00565-8
6. Bassuoni, M. T., and Nehdi, M. L., “Resistance of Self-Consolidating
Concrete to Sulfuric Acid Attack with Consecutive pH Reduction,” Cement
and Concrete Research, V. 37, No. 7, 2007, pp. 1070-1084. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconres.2007.04.014
786
7. Araghi, H. J.; Nikbin, I. M.; Reskati, S. R.; Rahmani, E.; and Alla-
hyari,  H., “An Experimental Investigation on the Erosion Resistance
of Concrete Containing Various PET Particles Percentages against
Sulfuric Acid Attack,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 77, 2015,
pp. 461-471. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.037
8. Zivica, V., and Bajza, A., “Acidic Attack of Cement Based Mate-
rials—A Review: Part 1. Principle of Acidic Attack,” Construction
and Building Materials, V. 15, No. 8, 2001, pp. 331-340. doi: 10.1016/
S0950-0618(01)00012-5
9. Bisby, L. A.; Dent, A. J. S.; and Green, M. F., “Comparison of
Confinement Models for Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Wrapped Concrete,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2005, pp. 62-72.
10. Sadeghian, P., and Fam, A., “A Rational Approach Toward Strain Effi-
ciency Factor of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Wrapped Concrete Columns,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2014, pp. 135-144.
11. Kshirrsagar, S.; Lopez-Anido, R. A.; and Gupta, R. K., “Environ-
mental Aging of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Wrapped Concrete Cylinders,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2000, pp. 703-712.
12. El-Hacha, R.; Green, M. F.; and Wight, R. G., “Effect of Severe Envi-
ronmental Exposures on CFRP Wrapped Concrete Columns,” Journal of
Composites for Construction, ASCE, V. 14, No. 1, 2010, pp. 83-93. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000074
13. ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures
(ACI 440.2R-08),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2008, 76 pp.
14. ACI Committee 440, “Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced
Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures
(ACI 440.3R-04),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2004, 40 pp.
15. ACI Committee 440, “Guide to Accelerated Conditioning Proto-
cols for Durability Assessment of Internal and External Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement (ACI 440.9R-15),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2015, 10 pp.
16. CSA S6-14, “Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,” Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2014, 894 pp.
17. ASTM E1131-08(2014), “Standard Test Method for Compositional
Analysis by Thermogravimetry,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2014, 6 pp.
18. Shokrieh, M. M.; Nasir, V.; and Karimipour, H., “Strength Behavior
and Crack-Formation Mechanisms of E-Glass Fiber Exposed to Sulfuric
Acid Cnvironment,” Journal of Composite Materials, V. 46, No. 7, 2011,
pp. 765-772. doi: 10.1177/0021998311410481
19. Romben, L., “Aspects of Testing Methods for Acid Attack on
Concrete,” CBI Research, Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Insti-
tute, Stockholm, Sweden, 1979.
20. Cohen, M. D., and Mather, B., “Sulfate Attack on Concrete: Research
Needs,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1991, pp. 62-69.
21. Girardi, F., and Di Maggio, R., “Resistance of Concrete Mixtures
to Cyclic Sulfuric Acid Exposure and Mixed Sulfates: Effect of the Type
of Aggregate,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 33, No. 2, 2011,
pp. 276-285. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.10.015
22. Lawrence, C. D., “The Influence of Binder Type on Sulfate Resis-
tance,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 22, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1047-1058.
doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(92)90035-T
23. Kalenda, P., “Diffusion of Acids into Epoxy Resin Compositions,”
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, V. 45, No. 12, 1992, pp. 2235-2238.
doi: 10.1002/app.1992.070451219
24. Cheyrezy, M.; Maret, V.; and Frouin, L., “Microstructural Analysis of
RPC (Reactive Powder Concrete),” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 25,
No. 7, 1995, pp. 1491-1500. doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(95)00143-Z
25. Chang, Z.-T.; Song, X.-J.; Munn, R.; and Marosszeky, M., “Using
Limestone Aggregates and Different Cements for Enhancing Resistance of
Concrete to Sulfuric Acid Attack,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 35,
No. 8, 2005, pp. 1486-1494. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.03.006
26. Chase, W., and Bown, F., General Statistics, third edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, 1997, 640 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2017