Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

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

Bond durability of BFRP bars embedded in concrete under seawater

conditions and the long-term bond strength prediction
Zhiqiang Dong a,b, Gang Wu a,⁎, Bo Xu a, Xin Wang a, Luc Taerwe b
a
Key Laboratory of C & PC Structures Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
b
Ghent University, Department of Structural Engineering, Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, Ghent, Belgium

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

Article history: This paper presents a bond durability test for the basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bar to concrete im-
Received 1 September 2015 mersed in seawater. Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) bars
Received in revised form 20 November 2015 and steel bars are tested for comparison. Test parameters include the fiber type, the resin type, the temperature
Accepted 14 December 2015
and the surface treatment. 114 cube specimens are constructed and tested in direct pullout conditions, and 99 of
Available online 15 December 2015
them are immersed in seawater for different durations and at different temperatures. Scanning electron micro-
Keywords:
scope is used for microstructural observation. Moreover, a long-term bond strength prediction is conducted on
BFRP bars the BFRP bar to concrete. Test results show that the maximum bond strength of the basalt-vinyl ester (BV) bar
Durability and the glass-vinyl ester (GV) bar to concrete experiences degradation, while the value of the basalt-epoxy
SEM (BE) bar to concrete remains essentially unchanged. The value of the carbon-epoxy (CE) bar to concrete shows
Seawater increasing trend. Sand-coating the ribbed BFRP bar reduces the short-term bond strength but improves the
Bond strength prediction long-term bond durability. The prediction results indicate that the bond strength retention of the BV bar in a chlo-
ride environment would be above 93%, 78% and 47% after 50 years' service in dry, moist and moisture saturated
environment, respectively.
© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction respectively, for 6 and 12 mm basalt fiber-reinforced vinyl ester bars

Basalt fibers are produced directly from naturally occurring molten
volcanic rocks through a melting process similar to that used for glass fi-
bers. They are cost-effective materials and have extensive sources of
raw materials compared to carbon fibers. Basalt fibers have properties
including nontoxicity, environmental friendliness, magnetic insulation,
high working temperature and excellent fatigue resistance [1–3]. Re-
cently, the newly developed basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP)
bars are drawing increasingly more attention as promising supplements
to conventional FRP bars (i.e., glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars, car-
bon fiber-reinforced polymer bars and aramid fiber-reinforced polymer
bars) in reinforced concrete structures [4–7]. Traditional reinforced con-
crete (RC) structures often encounter durability problems due to cracks
caused by corrosion expansion. As another non-metallic material, BFRP
bars could be a promising alternative to traditional steel bars in extreme
corrosive environments, e.g., ocean environments and de-icing salt en-
vironments. However, studies have shown that the mechanical proper-
ties of BFRP bars will degrade in alkaline environments similar to GFRP
bars [8–10]. Serbescu [11] observed a tensile strength loss of 31% for
6 mm sand-coated BFRP bars exposed to a pH 9 solution at 60 °C for
5000 h. Wu [12]found a tensile strength loss of 39.4% and 38.6%,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: g.wu@seu.edu.cn (G. Wu).
after immersion in a 55 °C alkaline solution for 63 days. Wu [13] also ob-
served a tensile strength loss of 31.5% for 6 mm basalt fiber-reinforced
epoxy bars exposed to a 55 °C alkaline solution for 63 days. A
concrete-pore solution in ambient air conditions, especially for a dry en-
vironment, is far less aggressive than an alkaline solution. For instance,
in a field investigation of GFRP bars by Mufti [14], no degradations
were observed after servicing for 6 to 8 years. However, considering
that the environmental attacks mainly occur at the bar surface, the
bond between the BFRP bar and concrete may be particularly affected.
The bond development between the FRP bar and the concrete is a
critical issue for its successful application as reinforcement in concrete
structures because the bond governs the crack distribution, the anchor-
age of the bars, the serviceability and even the capacity of the concrete
structure. The integrity of the bond is important for the long-term per-
formance of concrete structures reinforced with FRP bars. The bond per-
formance of the FRP bar to concrete is obviously different than that of
the steel bar to concrete. Normally, the bond strength of steel bars to
concrete appears to be mainly controlled by the shear strength of the
concrete. For FRP bars and for concrete strengths greater than 30 MPa,
bond failure occurs partly on the surface of the bar and partly in the con-
crete by peeling off part of the surface layer of the bar [15]. Extensive
previous studies have reported the short-term and environmentally
conditioned bond performance of FRP bars made with glass and carbon
to concrete [16–20]. The calculation methods for development length

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.066
0264-1275/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562 553

are also given in the specifications [21–24]. However, limited studies Table 1
have been conducted on the short-term bond behavior of BFRP bars to Tensile properties of the bars.

concrete [25–28]. Parameters that affect the short-term bond strength Bar type Fiber Resin Tensile CV Tensile CV
were preliminarily studied, e.g., the bar diameter and the embedment strength (%) modulus (%)
length. However, research on the interfacial bond durability is still lack- (MPa) (GPa)

ing [29–31]. Moreover, long-term bond strength prediction research is BFRP (BV and BVS) Basalt Vinyl ester 1400.7 3.5 60.2 1.1
urgently needed. BFRP (BE) Basalt Epoxy 1325.2 2.4 56.9 0.6
GFRP (GV) Glass Vinyl ester 1136.8 1.2 59.7 1.5
The present study is part of an ongoing research program to promote
CFRP (CE) Carbon Epoxy 1883.3 7.3 152.1 2.2
the application of BFRP bars in marine environments. Accelerated tests Steel bar – – 400.0 – 200.0 –
are conducted on the bond performance of BFRP bars to concrete within
Note: CV represents the coefficient of variation; the strength of the steel bar was reported
artificial seawater environments. The changes in the bond performance by the manufacturer.
caused by the internal core alkaline environment are explored. GFRP
bars and CFRP bars are also tested for comparison. The effects of the
resin type (vinyl ester and epoxy), the fiber type (basalt, glass and car- 2.2. Pullout specimens and accelerated conditions
bon) and the surface treatment (sand-coated or not) on the long-term
bond performance are systematically analyzed. The bond of steel bars As shown in Fig. 2a, the total length of the rebar is 900 mm, and the
to concrete is also tested under the same conditions, and comparative bond length is 40 mm (5d), which is generally assumed to be able to rep-
analyses with FRP bars are conducted. In addition, a long-term bond resent local bond behavior. The concrete block is a 100 × 100 × 100 mm
strength prediction is conducted for the BFRP bar to concrete. cube. To protect the un-bonded area, a thin epoxy coat was pasted on
the un-bonded area of the bars and then covered with PVC tubes, and
the tube ends were sealed with sealant. The PVC tube was also used as
2. Experimental program a bond breaker to minimize the bottom plate's restraint effect on the
rebar. Before casting, the rebars were horizontally placed in a specially
2.1. Materials made steel mold, as shown in Fig. 2b. Next, concrete was poured inside,
and the specimens were vibrated on a shaking table, as shown in Fig. 2c.
2.1.1. FRP bars and the steel bar The cube specimens with embedded rebar were carefully removed from
Five types of FRP bars were used in this paper: basalt fiber- steel molds two days after casting and were placed in air for another
reinforced vinyl ester (BV and BVS (sand-coated)) bars, basalt fiber- 26 days before they were immersed in 40 °C artificial seawater in a
reinforced epoxy (BE) bars, glass fiber-reinforced vinyl ester (GV) bars temperature-controlled tank, as shown in Fig. 2d.
and carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy (CE) bars. In addition, a steel bar The detailed testing plan is shown in Table 2. Three types of variables
was also used for comparison. The FRP bars impregnated with resin are included: type of rebar, temperature, and immersion time. The
were produced using pultrusion technology. The surfaces of the FRP highest temperature (55 °C) was lower than the glass transition tem-
bars were ribbed with a nylon laminate during pultrusion, and all the perature of the FRP bars, and the immersion time was long enough to
epoxy-based FRP bars were post-cured in a 200 °C oven for an additional cause measureable degradations. Following ASTM D1141-98 [33], the
2 h. As shown in Fig. 1, for all the FRP bars, the depth of the ribs is 0.06d, composition of the salt solution was 24.53 g NaCl, 5.20 g MgCl2, 4.09 g
where d is the nominal diameter. For the steel bar, the measured inner Na2SO4, and 1.16 g CaCl2 in 1 L deionized water. After the specified im-
diameter is 7.5 mm, the rib height is 0.55 mm and the rib space is mersion times were reached, the PVC tubes were removed, and the
5.5 mm. All the bars' nominal diameters are 8 mm in the calculation. Ac- specimens were dried in air for two day before testing.
cording to ACI440.3R-04 [32], the tested tensile properties are shown in
Table 1.
2.3. Test setup and procedures

2.1.2. Concrete
Concrete was cast in five batches with a maximum aggregate size of
20 mm and a water–cement ratio of 0.41. The detailed mixing ratio of ce-
ment–water–sand–coarse aggregate was 1:0.41:1.33:2.65. The concrete
compressive strengths were determined using 150 × 150 × 150 mm
cube specimens. The tested 28-day compressive strengths were in the
range of 47.1–53.8 MPa.
The pullout specimen was positioned in a universal MTS tension-
compression test machine, which applied direct tension in a
displacement-control mode (at a rate of 0.75 mm/min). As shown in
Fig. 3, all measurements, including load and displacement, were record-
ed by a TDS530 data acquisition system. The tests were stopped when
they met any of the following three criteria: (1) bar pullout; (2) concrete
splitting; or (3) the slip at the free end was greater than 10 mm.

Fig. 1. Surface configuration of the FRP bars and the appearance of the bond area of the tested bars.
554 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562

Fig. 2. Specimen details: (a) Schematic diagram of the pullout specimens (Unit: mm); (b) rebar in steel mold before pouring concrete; (c) specimens after concrete pouring;
(d) temperature-controlled tank with specimens inside.

2.4. Scanning electron microscopy observations
Scanning electron microscopy observations were conducted on the
BV bar specimen after 60 days' conditioning in 40 °C seawater. The
SEM observation specimen was first cut with a low-speed saw and
then polished with sandpaper and fluffy cloth to eliminate damage
caused by cutting. Thereafter, microstructural observations were per-
formed on a JSM-6510 type SEM (JEOL Ltd., Japan). The observations
mainly focused on the interface area between the BV bar and the con-
crete because that is the main portion subjected to and affected by ag-
gressive exposure.
2.5. Bond stress calculation
The bond stress, τ (MPa), of the bar is determined as follows:
P conditions of the bars/concrete interface. Typical modes of failure for
τ¼ : ð1Þ
πdLd
Where P is the tensile load (N), d is the nominal bar diameter (mm),
and Ld is the embedment length, which is 40 mm in the present paper.
The bond stress–slip curves at the free end of the bar were obtained di-
rectly from the slip measurements of the upper LVDT1. For the loaded
end, the elongation of the bar between the LVDT2 support and the
beginning of the bonded zone should be subtracted from the LVDT2
measurement.
3. Test results and discussion
Because the concrete cover thickness of the present research is ap-
proximately 6d (46 mm), most specimens, approximately 92%, failed
due to bar pullout, while only 8% failed due to concrete splitting as
shown in Table 2. When splitting failure occurs, the bond strength is
not only related to the properties of the FRP bar but also to the proper-
ties of the concrete. So, the data of the splitting failures were not used in
the comparative analysis to eliminate the influence of the concrete.
3.1. Visual inspections
The pullout failure specimens were split after testing to assess the
the selected six types of specimens after conditioning are shown in
Fig. 4. Specimen BV-40-60 exhibited an obvious inter-laminar shear be-
tween the bar surface layers and the smooth core layer. The surface
coated sand layer of BVS-40-30 was separated from the inner BFRP bar
due to the friction and shearing effect. The bar surface of specimen BE-
40-60 exhibited obvious abrasion and the color turned from black to

Table 2
Testing plan.

Solution Rebar Concrete Control Solution Immersion time

type type strength specimens temperature (days)
(MPa) (°C)
15 30 45 60

Artificial BV 52.9 3 25 / 3 3 3
seawater (1st batch) 40 3 3 3 3
55 / 3 3 3
BVS 51.1 3 40 3 3 3 3
(5th batch)
BE 49.6 3 40 3 3 3 3
(2nd batch)
GV 53.8 3 40 3 3 3 3
(3rd batch)
CE 47.1 3 25 / 3 3 /
(4th batch)
40 3 3 3 /
55 / 3 3 /
Steel bar 51.1 3 40 3 3 3 /
(5th batch)

Note: The “/” means no specimens; the number “3” represents the 3 specimens of each
group. Fig. 3. Pullout test setup.
 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562 555

Fig. 4. Typical failure modes for specimens: (a) BV-40-60; (b) BVS-40-30; (c) BE-40-60; (d) GV-40-60; (e) CE-40-45; (f) Steel-40-30.

brown. As to the GV-40-60 specimen, obvious abrasion was also ob-
served, and part of the surface ribs was sheared off. However, for the
CE-40-45 specimen, concrete mortar residue was attached on the bar
surface, and no obvious damage on the CFRP bar surface was observed.
Finally, for the steel bar, no corrosion was observed and the concrete
was sheared off by the surface steel ribs of the steel bar.
3.2. Microstructural observations
Fig. 5 shows the microstructural pictures of the BV bar specimens
after 60 days' immerison at 40 °C seawater. It can be seen that there is
a clearly affected area with loose fibers embedded in resin on the BV
bar surface. There is an obvious dividing line between the outer

Fig. 5. SEM pictures of BV-40-60 specimens.

556 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562

Fig. 6. Bond–slip curves of BV bars at 25, 40 and 55 °C.

Fig. 7. Bond–slip curves of CE bars at 25, 40 and 55 °C.

 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562
damaged surface layer and the inner intact core area. This can explain
the observed inter-laminar shear failure as illustrated in Fig. 4a.
3.3. Bond stress–slip response
The tested bond stress–slip curves of the BV bar specimens and the
CE bar specimens at different temperatures (25, 40 and 55 °C) and dif-
ferent durations are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The obtained
bond stress–slip curves of the other four types of rebar used in the pres-
ent experiment immersed at 40 °C seawater are shown in Fig. 8. The
structure of the specimen designation is A–B–C, where A represents
the bar type, B represents the seawater temperature in °C and C repre-
sents the aging duration in days. For example, “BV-25-30” represents
the basalt-vinyl ester (BV) bar embedded in a concrete cube specimen
immersed in 25 °C seawater for 30 days.
All of the tested bond stress–slip curves show an initial ascending
branch up to a maximum stress τ*, then turn to the descending branch.
For BV bar specimens as shown in Fig. 6, the location of the peak of the
curves did not change but the maximum bond stress showed a decreas-
ing trend with immersion ages. The maximum values of the curves in
the 60 days' group decrease compared to the control group. As to the
CE bar specimens as shown in Fig. 7, the variations of the obtained
curves were large. All of the three specimens in the CE-40-45 group
failed due to concrete splitting and there were no degradation trends
observed for the bond strength as a whole. As shown in Fig. 8, for the
BE bar specimens, two of the three control specimens unexpectedly
failed due to concrete splitting. However, it can be observed that the
maximum bond strength τ*, basically remained unchanged for the con-
ditioned BE bar specimens. For the BVS bars, their initial bond stresses
Fig. 8. Bond–slip curves of four types of rebar at 40 °C.
557
when the slip first occurs (adhesion stresses) were obviously higher
than the values of the others. The variations of the obtained curves
were also large. For the GV bar specimens, the peaks of the curves basi-
cally remained unchanged with time, but the maximum bond stress τ*,
showed a slightly decreasing trend. As to the steel bars, the variations of
the obtained curves for both conditioned and unconditioned specimens
were large.
The obtained average adhesion stresses τadhesion and maximum
bond strengths τ* from the tested curves are listed in Table 3. Based
on the test variables, comparative analyses are conducted below.
3.4. Adhesion stress
In this paper, the adhesion stress to concrete was determined as the
stress at onset of slip of the bars' free end. As shown in Fig. 9, the BVS bar
specimens showed the highest adhesion stress among all the tested
specimens. The average adhesion stresses of BV bar specimens at all
the three temperatures showed an increasing trend with immersion
times. However, this phenomenon was not in accordance with a partic-
ular trend. As to the BE bar specimens, the adhesion stresses improved
at 15 and 30 days, but decreased at 45 and 60 days. For the GV bar spec-
imens, the adhesion stresses improved at 15, 45 and 60 days, but
remained unchanged at 30 days. The average adhesion stresses of the
CE bar specimens at all the three temperatures basically showed a de-
creasing trend in time. The adhesion stresses of the steel bar specimens
showed a increasing trend. It's worth to note that the variations of the
above data were large due to the random nature of deterioration during
conditioning.
558 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562

Table 3
Bond test results for all the specimens.

Specimen ID Maximum bond strength τ*(MPa) CV Bond strength retention Average adhesion stress
(%) (%) τ adhesion (MPa)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average

BV-Control 19.62 20.63 22.12 20.79 4.9 100.0 2.84

BV-25-30 22.93 19.55 21.78 21.42 6.6 103.0 1.79
BV-25-45 21.78 21.98 22.80 22.19 2.0 106.7 3.41
BV-25-60 15.83* 19.81 19.28 19.55 1.4 94.0 3.05
BV-40-15 21.78 18.53 20.63 20.31 6.6 97.7 3.11
BV-40-30 20.70 21.84 19.01 20.52 5.7 98.7 4.15
BV-40-45 17.52 21.58 19.62 19.57 8.5 94.1 4.31
BV-40-60 NA 19.48 18.33 18.91 3.0 90.9 3.29
BV-55-30 18.12 22.18 18.40 19.57 9.5 94.1 3.38
BV-55-45 15.80 18.60 20.20 18.20 10.0 87.5 4.44
BV-55-60 15.90 19.10 19.33 18.11 8.6 87.1 3.42
BVS-Control 12.18 11.09 10.41 11.23 6.5 100.0 8.50
BVS-40-15 9.54 19.42 11.16 13.37 32.4 119.1 7.48
BVS-40-30 24.69 17.99 7.78* 21.34 15.7 190.1 7.85
BVS-40-45 13.80 15.22 17.99 15.67 11.1 139.6 7.84
BVS-40-60 16.30 13.39 16.10 15.26 8.7 136.0 6.49
BE-Control 13.50* 13.90* 18.19 18.19 NA 100.0 2.91
BE-40-15 19.69 20.90 17.99 19.53 6.1 107.3 4.15
BE-40-30 21.24 18.94 14.34 18.17 15.8 99.9 3.77
BE-40-45 18.06 17.73 20.56 18.78 6.7 103.3 3.07
BE-40-60 18.26 16.57 20.50 18.44 8.7 101.4 2.61
GV-Control 24.15 21.71 16.23* 22.93 5.3 100.0 2.2
GV-40-15 24.15 21.24 25.17 23.52 7.1 102.6 2.91
GV-40-30 21.51 21.78 18.46* 21.65 0.6 94.4 2.28
GV-40-45 26.92 27.46 19.28 24.55 15.2 107.1 2.89
GV-40-60 16.37 24.28 23.27 21.31 16.5 92.9 3.12
CE-Control 21.45 26.65 24.55 24.22 8.8 100.0 5.05
CE-25-30 24.56 23.54 25.63 24.58 3.5 101.5 4.10
CE-25-45 24.01 32.40 23.54 26.65 15.3 110.0 3.29
CE-40-15 26.24 27.53 22.93 25.57 7.6 105.6 3.90
CE-40-30 28.89 30.30 28.27 29.15 2.9 120.4 5.30
CE-40-45 31.25* 32.54* 21.98* NA NA NA 2.55
CE-55-30 25.64 19.75 26.31 23.90 12.3 98.7 1.67
CE-55-45 23.13 27.67 22.73 24.51 9.1 101.2 3.79
Steel-Control 14.65 18.33 11.62 14.87 18.5 100.0 2.46
Steel-40-15 16.16 10.25 6.65* 13.21 22.4 88.8 2.59
Steel-40-30 15.22 10.83 15.95 14.00 16.2 94.2 3.07
Steel-40-45 20.49 14.36 12.70 15.85 21.1 106.6 4.08

Note: NA means data are not adopted; the symbol “*” means obvious splitting failure.

3.5. Change of bond strength
3.5.1. Effect of temperature
There are three temperature levels adopted for BV bar specimens
and CE bar specimens. As shown in Fig. 10, for the BV bar specimens,
the bond strength degradation is accelerated when the temperature is
elevated. For instance, after 60 days, the bond strength retention is
94.0%, 90.9% and 87.1% at 25, 40 and 55 °C, respectively. This phenome-
na can be explained by the more severe damage on the bar surface due
to the higher diffusion and chemical reaction rate at a higher tempera-
ture. In contrast, the average bond strength of BV bars after 30 and
45 days in 25 °C seawater improved by 3.0% and 6.7%, respectively.

Fig. 9. Adhesion stresses versus time for all the specimens. Fig. 10. Average bond strength retention versus time for all the specimens.
 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562 559

This result might occur because of the beneficial effect of hygroscopic
expansion of the BV bar being stronger than the adverse effect caused
by alkali corrosion at a low temperature (25 °C) during the initial corro-
sion stages. Based on a similar mechanism, as shown in Fig. 10, the av-
erage bond strength of the CE bars also increased at 25 and 40 °C,
while remaining basically unchanged at 55 °C. The improvements at
40 °C were the most significant because of the largest difference be-
tween the beneficial effect of hygroscopic expansion and the adverse ef-
fect caused by alkali corrosion.
3.5.2. Effect of resin type
The resin matrix plays an important role in the FRP bar/concrete in-
terface, and the alkali resistance property of the resin is believed to have
an important influence on the bond durability performance. As shown
in Fig. 10 and Table 3, there is a noticeable degradation trend for the
bond strength of BV-40 °C bar specimens, while the values of the BE-
40 °C bar specimens are basically unchanged. For instance, the bond
strength retention of BV bar specimens and BE bar specimens after
60 days is 90.9% and 101.4%, respectively. The above results indirectly
indicate that the alkali resistance property of the epoxy resin is better
than that of the vinyl ester resin.
3.5.3. Effect of fiber type
For comparison, glass fiber and carbon fiber were also used in the ex-
periments. As shown in Fig. 10 and Table 3, the variation of the bond
strength of GV-40 °C bars with time is similar to that of BV-40 °C bars.
For instance, the bond strength retention of GV-40 °C bars and BV-40
°C bars after 60 days is 92.6% and 90.9%, respectively. Comparing the
BE bar specimens with the CE bar specimens both at 40 °C, due to the ex-
cellent anti-corrosion performance of carbon fibers and the swelling ef-
fect caused by absorbing water, increased bond strengths are observed
for CE-40 °C bars. However, because the anti-corrosion performance of
the basalt fiber is not as good as that of the carbon fiber, the bond
strength of the BE-40 °C bars remained basically unchanged.
4. Long-term bond strength prediction for the basalt-vinyl ester bar
in field environments
4.1. The assumptions
Two basic assumptions were adopted for the bond strength predic-
tion research of the BV bar:
1) The degradation of the BFRP bar surface due to the concrete alkali
environment attack is the largest cause of the bond strength reduc-
tion. The degradation rate of the BFRP bar surface follows the Arrhe-
nius relationship as shown in Eq. (2):
k ¼ A expð−Ea =RT Þ ð2Þ
where k = degradation rate (1/time); A = constant of the material and
degradation process; Ea = activation energy; R = universal gas con-
stant; and T = Kelvin temperature.
2) The pore alkali solution environment in field concrete is different
than that in the laboratory seawater immersed concrete and relies
on the ambient relative humidity (RH). Huang [36] noted that the
capillary water and absorbed water contained in concrete are the
most important parts with regard to corrosion. The transportation
of OH− in concrete can only occur in the capillary water and some
absorbed water, which could be easily removed from the concrete
when the environmental RH starts to decrease. A correction factor
β accounting for the effects of RH is introduced and is assumed to
be the same as the ratio of the capillary and adsorbed water in con-
crete. The relationship is shown in Fig. 11.

3.5.4. Effect of sand-coating 4.2. Detailed steps and prediction results

Surface treatment with sand-coating is a common way to improve
the bond performance of FRP bars with concrete [34]. From the perspec- 4.2.1. Degradation rule
tive of durability, additional resin cover might also have some positive Referring to the Fib bulletin 40 [37], the relationships of bond
effects on the long-term bond performance. Thus, BFRP bars with strength retention vs. time at 40 and 55 °C are linearly fitted in a double
sand-coating (BVS bars) were adopted in the present study. As shown logarithmic scale, as shown in Fig. 12.
in Fig. 10 and Table 3, the bond strength of BVS-40 °C bars improves
with immersion time. In contrast, the bond strength of BV-40 °C bars de-
creases with immersion time. For instance, the bond strength retention 4.2.2. Shift due to temperature
of BV-40 °C bars and BVS-40 °C bars after 60 days is 90.9% and 136.0%, Based on the Arrhenius relationship, Dejke [38] proposed a time-
respectively. The improvements can be attributed to the hygroscopic shift factor (TSF) between the times needed for the same degree of deg-
expansion effect of the additional surface resin layer [35]. Because the radation at two different temperatures (T1 b T2). The TSF method was
sand-coating layer reduces the surface rib depth of the BFRP bar used, also successfully used in the long-term tensile strength prediction of
the short-term bond strength of BVS bars is obviously lower than that
of BV bars. In addition, due to the non-uniformity of the handmade
sand-coating, the tested bond–slip curves of the BVS bars are more dis-
crete than others, as shown in Fig. 8.

3.5.5. Comparison between the steel bar and FRP bars

Traditional steel bars were adopted in the present study as well. As
shown in Table 3, the short-term bond strengths of steel bars are
lower than those of the FRP bars (except for the BVS bar). As shown in
Fig. 10, the bond strength of steel bars remained overall unchanged
with immersion time. Although the specimens with steel bars or FRP
bars are subjected to the same seawater environment, the corrosion
mechanisms are totally different. The high alkali environment inside
concrete forms a passivation membrane at the steel bar surface to pro-
tect it from being corroded. However, the concrete carbonization and
chloride penetration will induce the protection layer destroyed. Once Fig. 11. Relationship between the correction factor and relative humidity (derived from
after that, the steel bar will corrode rapidly. Huang, J. and Aboutaha, R. 2010).
560 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562

Fig. 14. Schematic diagram for the prediction results at representative 10 °C with different
humidity categories.

Fig. 12. Fitted bond strength retention vs. time curves in log/log scale for BV bars (40 °C
and 55 °C). As shown in Fig. 14, taking T = 10 °C as an example, the calculated TSF
value is 2.177 from Eq. (4). Thus, the value of the “shift due to tempera-
BFRP bars by Wu et al. [13]. The equation is shown below: ture” illustrated in Fig. 14 is lg(2.177) = 0.338. Then, the formula of the
curve at T = 10 °C is y= −0.117(x−0.338)+2.3284. After 50 years of
h i h i
B
− B service, the bond strength retention is 51.1% by substituting lg(t, 50
T 1 þ273:15 T 2 þ273:15
TSF ¼ e ð3Þ years) as the value of x into the newly obtained curve at 10 °C. The results
at other temperatures (e.g., 20 °C and 30 °C) can also be calculated based
where B = Ea/R, and the constant value of B can be calculated on the same procedures and they are listed in Table 4. The environments
from the two experimentally obtained curves with known temperatures herein are all moisture saturated with 100% RH.
(T1 b T2). Once the value of B is obtained, the degradation curves at a
specified unknown temperature (T) can be derived from Eq. (3) (the
4.2.3. Shift due to environmental humidity
known curve at T1 or T2 is taken as the reference curve). The detailed cal-
According to assumption (2) adopted in the present paper,
culation steps are shown in Fig. 13. The slopes of the curves in Fig. 12 are
the correction factor β is 0.408 and 0.131 when the RH is 80%
approximately taken as the same value of −0.118, and the correspond-
and 50%, respectively. As shown in Fig. 14, when the RH is 80%
ing horizontal distance value m is 0.1458, as shown in Fig. 12.
and the temperature is 10 °C, the bond strength retention will be
As shown in Fig. 13, the obtained TSF formula between a specified
100% −0.408⋅(100% −51.1%)=80.0% after 50 years of service. Similar-
unknown temperature (T) and a reference temperature (40 °C) is
ly, the bond strength retention will be 100% −0.131⋅(100% −51.1%)=
shown below:
93.6% when the RH is 50% and the temperature is 10 °C. Based on the
same procedures, the values at other temperatures (e.g., 20 °C and 30
TSF ¼ e½Tþ273:15−½40þ273:15 :
2299 2299
ð4Þ °C) are obtained and listed in Table 4.

Fig. 13. Calculation flow chart for the TSF formula based on experimental data.
 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562
Table 4
Predicted bond strength retention after 50 years of service in different environment categories.
Relative humidity categories
Maximum bond strength retention (%) Dry (RH app. 50%)
Moist
(Concrete not constantly in contact with seawater, RH app. 80%)
Moisture saturated
(Concrete constantly in contact with seawater, RH app. 100%)
Note: The environment classification refers to fib bulletin 40.
As the results listed in Table 4 show, the bond strength retention of a
basalt-vinyl ester (BV) bar to concrete in a chloride environment will be
above 93%, 78% and 47% after 50 years of service in a dry environment
(RH b 50%), a moist environment (RH ≈ 80%) and a moisture saturated
environment (RH = 100%), respectively.
5. Conclusion
This research is a component of an ongoing durability research pro-
gram to improve the durability performance of concrete structures in
extreme corrosive environments using BFRP reinforcement bars. This
paper focuses on the bond durability of BFRP bars embedded in concrete
under seawater environments. Other types of rebar, such as GFRP bars,
CFRP bars and steel bars, are also tested for comparison. Based on the re-
sults of this research, the following conclusions may be drawn for the
bars used in this paper.
1) In the test period, the bond strengths of BV bars and GV bars both
show overall degradation trends. For instance, after 60 days in 40
°C seawater, the bond strength of the BV bars and GV bars decreased
by 9.1% and 7.1%, respectively. While the bond strength of the BE
bars remained basically constant, the CE bars showed an improving
trend. In addition, the bond durability of composite bars with epoxy
resin is generally better than that of bars with vinyl ester resin.
2) For the ribbed BFRP bars, surface sand-coating lowered the short-
term bond strength but significantly improved the bond durability.
3) The short-term bond strengths of the ribbed FRP bars were higher
than the bond strengths of the steel bars. In the test cycle, the
bond strengths of the steel bars showed no decreases due to the pas-
sivation membrane formed on the bar surface.
4) Referring to the environment classification in fib bulletin 40, the
long-term prediction results showed that the bond strength reten-
tion of a BV bar will be above 93%, 78% and 47% after 50 years of
service in a dry environment (RH b 50%), a moist environment
(RH ≈ 80%) and a moisture saturated environment (RH = 100%),
respectively.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the Na-
tional Key Basic Research Program of China (Grant No: 2012CB026200),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No:
51525801) and the Key Project of Chinese Ministry of Education (Grant
No: 113029A). The project funded by the Priority Academic Program De-
velopment of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD). The authors
would like to also acknowledge the component materials of FRP bars pro-
vided by Zhejiang GBF Basalt Fiber, Hengdian, China, Taishan Fiberglass
Inc. Tai'an, China, Zhongfu Shenying Carbon Fiber Co., Ltd., Lianyungang,
China and Blue Star New Chemical Materials, Wuxi, China.
561
Environment temperature (°C)
10 20 30
93.6 93.4 93.2
80.0 79.4 78.8
51.1 49.4 47.9
References
[1] J. Militky, V. Kovacic, J. Rubnerova, Influence of thermal treatment on tensile failure
of basalt fibers, Eng. Fract. Mech. 69 (2002) 1025–1033.
[2] A. Palmieri, S. Matthys, M. Tierens, Basalt fibers: mechanical properties and applica-
tions for concrete structures, Concrete Solutions: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Concrete Solutions 2009, pp. 165–169 (London).
[3] Z. Wu, X. Wang, K. Iwashita, T. Sasaki, Y. Hamaguchi, Tensile fatigue behavior of FRP
and hybrid FRP sheets, Compos. Part B 41 (5) (2010) 396–402.
[4] J. Sim, C. Park, D.Y. Moon, Characteristic of basalt fiber as a strengthening material
for concrete structures, Compos. Part B 36 (6) (2005) 504–512.
[5] V. Lopresto, C. Leone, I. De Iorio, Mechanical characterization of basalt fiber rein-
forced plastic, Compos. Part B 42 (4) (2011) 717–723.
[6] D. Tomlinson, A. Fam, Performance of concrete beams reinforced with basalt FRP for
flexure and shear, J. Compos. Constr. (2014) 04014036, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943–5614.0000491.
[7] A. Lapko, M. Urbanski, Experimental and theoretical analysis of deflections of con-
crete beams reinforced with basalt rebar, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 15 (1) (2014)
223–230.
[8] A.S.M. Kamal, M. Boulfiza, Durability of GFRP rebars in simulated concrete solutions
under accelerated aging conditions, J. Compos. Constr. 15 (4) (2010) 473–481.
[9] J.F. Davalos, Y. Chen, I. Ray, Long-term durability prediction models for GFRP bars in
concrete environment, J. Compos. Mater. 46 (16) (2012) 1899–1914.
[10] Al-Tamimi, F.H. Abed, A.A. Al-Rahmani, Effects of harsh environmental exposures on
the bond capacity between concrete and GFRP reinforcing bars, Adv. Concr. Constr.
Int. J. 2 (2014) 1–11.
[11] A. Serbescu, M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas, Mechanical characterization of basalt FRP
rebars and long-term strength predictive model, J. Compos. Constr. 19 (2) (2014)
04014037.
[12] G. Wu, X. Wang, Z. Wu, Z. Dong, Q. Xie, Degradation of basalt FRP bars in alkaline
environment, Sci. Eng. Compos. Mater. (2014)http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/secm-
2014-0040.
[13] G. Wu, Z. Dong, X. Wang, Y. Zhu, Z. Wu, Prediction of long-term performance and
durability of BFRP bars under the combined effect of sustained load and corrosive
solutions, J. Compos. Constr. 19 (3) (2014) 04014058.
[14] A. Mufti, et al., Durability of GFRP reinforced concrete in field structures, ACI Special
Publication, 138, 2005.
[15] Z. Achillides, K. Pilakoutas, Bond behavior of fiber reinforced polymer bars under di-
rect pullout conditions, J. Compos. Constr. 8 (2) (2004) 173–181.
[16] E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, R. Realfonzo, Behavior and modeling of bond of FRP rebars
to concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 1 (2) (1997) 40–51.
[17] M. Mashima, K. Iwamoto, Bond characteristics of FRP rod and concrete after freezing
and thawing deterioration, ACI Special Publication, 138, 1993.
[18] C. Bakis, T. Boothby, J. Jia, Bond durability of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars em-
bedded in concrete beams, J. Compos. Constr. 11 (3) (2007) 269–278.
[19] M. Robert, B. Benmokrane, Effect of aging on bond of GFRP bars embedded in con-
crete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 32 (6) (2010) 461–467.
[20] J. Alves, A. El-Ragaby, E. El-Salakawy, Durability of GFRP bars' bond to concrete
under different loading and environmental conditions, J. Compos. Constr. 15 (3)
(2011) 249–262.
[21] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440, Guide for the Design and Con-
struction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP bars, ACI 440.1R-06, Farming-
ton Hills, MI, 2006.
[22] Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Design and Construction of Building
Components with Fibre Reinforced Polymers, CAN/CSAS806-02, Rexdale, ON,
Canada, 2002.
[23] Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code,
CAN/CSA-S6-00, CSA International, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2000.
[24] Japanese Society of Civil Engineering (JSCE), Recommendation for design and con-
struction of concrete structures using continuous fiber reinforcing Materials, Con-
crete Engineering Series, No. 23, JSCE, Tokyo, Japan, 1997.
[25] V. Ramakrishnan, S. Neeraj, V. Brik, Performance evaluation of 3-D basalt fiber rein-
forced concrete and basalt rod reinforced concrete, Final Rep. NeCHRP-45, Transpor-
tation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1998.
[26] V.B. Brik, Advanced concept concrete using Basalt Fiber/BF composite bar rein-
forcement, Final Rep. for Highway-IDEA Project 86, Innovations Deserving
Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) Programs, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 2003.
562 Z. Dong et al. / Materials and Design 92 (2016) 552–562
[27] R. Parnas, M. Shaw, Q. Liu, Basalt fiber reinforced polymer composites, Rep.
NETCR63, Institute of Materials Science, Univ. of Connecticut, Mansfield, CT, 2007.
[28] A. El Refai, M. Ammar, R. Masmoudi, Bond performance of basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer bars to concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 19 (3) (2015) 04014050.
[29] A. El Refai, F. Abed, A. Altalmas, Bond durability of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer
bars embedded in concrete under direct pullout conditions, J. Compos. Constr. 19
(5) (2015) 04014078.
[30] A. Altalmas, A. El Refai, F. Abed, Bond degradation of basalt fiber-reinforced polymer
(BFRP) bars exposed to accelerated aging conditions, Constr. Build. Mater. 81 (2015)
162–171.
[31] B. Benmokrane, F. Elgabbas, E.A. Ahmed, P. Cousin, Characterization and compara-
tive durability study of glass/vinylester, basalt/vinylester, and basalt/epoxy FRP
bars, J. Compos. Constr. (2015) 04015008.
[32] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440, Guide Test Methods for Fiber Re-
inforced Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures, ACI
440.3R-04, Farmington Hills, MI, 2004.
[33] ASTM, Standard Practice for the Preparation of Substitute Ocean Water, D1141-98,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008.
[34] J.P.M. Arias, A. Vazquez, M. Escobar, Use of sand coating to improve bonding be-
tween GFRP bars and concrete, J. Compos. Mater. 46 (18) (2012) 2271–2278.
[35] J.F. Davalos, Y. Chen, I. Ray, Effect of FRP bar degradation on interface bond with high
strength concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (8) (2008) 722–730.
[36] J. Huang, R. Aboutaha, Environmental reduction factors for GFRP bars used as con-
crete reinforcement: new scientific approach, J. Compos. Constr. 14 (5) (2010)
479–486.
[37] Fib Bulletin 40, FRP Reinforcement in RC structures, International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), 2007 160 (September 2007).
[38] V. Dejke, R. Tepfers, Durability and service life prediction of GFRP for concrete rein-
forcement, Proceedings of FRPRCS, 5 1997, pp. 505–514.