Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Axial compressive behavior of GFRP-confined seawater coral aggregate

concrete incorporating slag-based alkali-activated materials
Fangzheng Li a, Bai Zhang a, b, Hong Zhu a, *, Qiang Wang a, b, Jianghao Ji a
a
Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures of the Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
b
Department of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117566, Singapore

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper investigated the experimental study on the axial compressive behavior of glass fiber-reinforced
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) polymer (GFRP)-confined concrete, including cement-based seawater coral aggregate concrete (CAC) and slag-
Alkali-activated seawater coral aggregate based alkali-activated seawater coral aggregate concrete (AACAC). The axial compression characteristics of
concrete (AACAC)
the CAC and AACAC cylinders wrapped with different GFRP layers (i.e., 0, 2, 4, and 6 layers) were tested and
Axial compressive behavior
Ultimate strength model
analyzed. Experimental results showed that both CAC and AACAC specimens had a fairly similar failure pattern.
The ultimate strain increment ratios are significantly higher than the ultimate strength ones, and AACAC
exhibited a higher strain enhancement ratio than CAC. Moreover, the ultimate strength and axial strain gradually
improved as the thickness of FRP increased. Approximately 2.88- and 5.79-times improvements in the ultimate
axial strain were observed for the 6-ply CAC and AACAC specimens, respectively, compared with their un-
confined companions, demonstrating that FRP jackets can effectively improve the axial deformation capacity
of concrete cylinders. Additionally, experimental results were compared with some representative empirical
models and then preliminary ultimate strength and strain models were proposed for GFRP-confined CAC and
AACAC.

1. Introduction ability to improve the mechanical properties and durability of CAC in

As the essential components of concrete, freshwater, river sand, and
traditional natural aggregate have been facing serious shortages in a
large number of regions, particularly in reef and island areas. The
maritime transportation of these raw materials from the mainland to the
islands or coral reef areas would be very labor-intensive and costly,
which deviates from the goal of sustainable development [1–4]. If
seawater, sea sand, and coral coarse aggregate, which are locally
available as marine resources, can be fully utilized, it would help for
making engineering construction far away from the mainland. Recently,
attention has been focused on coral aggregate concrete (CAC) [5–7].
Compared to natural aggregate concrete (NAC), CAC possesses excellent
performances, such as high splitting tensile strength and rapid early
strength development [8]. However, the disadvantages of CAC include
low elastic modulus, low compressive strength, and poor resistance to
permeation due to the high brittleness, high porosity, and weak strength
of coral aggregates [9,10]. In addition, CAC has a weaker durability than
NAC due to the weak properties of the coral aggregate, combined with
high chlorine content in the marine environment. Consequently, the
marine construction is indispensable.
Alkali-activated materials (AAMs) or geopolymers can help solve the
bottleneck issue related to the CAC prepared with cement [11,12].
AAMs bear brilliant properties, such as higher early strength, better
thermal stability, higher chemical erosion resistance, and denser mi­
crostructures than the ordinary Portland cement (OPC), which has been
deemed an ideal alternative to OPC in preparing concrete [13–17]. The
interfacial microstructures between the paste matrix and coral aggre­
gates can be improved by these outstanding features of the AAMs,
leading to an increase in the permeation resistance of the concrete in
some harsh environments and an enhancement in the durability of the
concrete structures. In the meantime, the precursor materials (e.g., slag,
fly ash, metakaolin) are by-products from industrial production, if the
OPC can be replaced by these materials to prepare concrete, the CO2
emission and energy consumption will be reduced by a minimum of 40%
[15,18], leading to economically sustainable and environmentally
friendly development. In addition, calcium or sodium aluminum silicate
hydrate (C(N)-A-S-H) gel, which was generated during the hydration of
AAMs, has the ability to absorb and assimilate chloride ions especially in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 220201322@seu.edu.cn (F. Li), baizhang1120@126.com (B. Zhang), alice_zhuhong@seu.edu.cn (H. Zhu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128437
Received 19 February 2022; Received in revised form 12 June 2022; Accepted 7 July 2022
Available online 28 July 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Li et al.
the marine environment, demonstrating its promising applications for
marine engineering constructions. However, the current investigation is
less involved in the utilization of AAMs or geopolymer binders in marine
concrete construction [19,20]. Therefore, more research is worth con­
ducting to promote the development of marine concrete structures.
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) is widely regarded as a high-
performance material, characterized by enhanced mechanical proper­
ties, including high strength-to-weight ratio and superior durability
performance, which can be introduced to prevent corrosion issues of
traditional steel bars [21–23]. The external FRP jacket/tube confine­
ment for concrete has been actively researched and currently become
one of the mainstream FRP applications. The mechanism of FRP
confinement is that the FRP confinement of the passive type provides
increasing pressure as a result of the lateral expansion of concrete under
compression. With FRP confinement, it shows that the strength and
deformability of confined concrete can be greatly enhanced due to the
good confinement efficiency of FRP jackets [24,25]. Currently, re­
searches on the FRP-confined NAC have been well documented [26–28].
In addition, the performance of FRP-confined recycled aggregate con­
crete (RAC) with circular and square cross-sections was compared by Xie
and Ozbakkaloglu [29]; Tang and Li et al. [30,31] investigated the
compressive behavior of sustainable geopolymeric RAC confined by
carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) jackets. It was concluded that
the compressive strength and ultimate strain of geopolymer concrete
were remarkably enhanced by CFRP confinement. Little information has
been concerned about the study of the FRP-confined CAC [32–34],
especially those prepared by AAMs or geopolymer binders. It should be
pointed out that, no study has been carried out to investigate the
behavior of FRP-confined CAC incorporating slag-based alkali-activated
materials, to the best knowledge of the authors.
Therefore, this study conducted an experimental investigation, as
well as a theoretical analysis of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC. Axial
compressive behavior was investigated. Additionally, four different
thicknesses of GFRP jackets, (i.e., 0, 2, 4, and 6 layers) were selected to
assess the effectiveness of the FRP confinement on cylinder specimens of
CAC and AACAC. Finally, based on the test results, some typical models
to predict the ultimate condition of FRP-confined concrete were selected
and compared with the proposed models of GFRP-confined CAC and
AACAC.
Fig. 1. Morphological characteristics of the GFRP sheet and coral aggregates.
2
Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437
2. Raw materials
2.1. GFRP sheets
The adopted glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets used for
concrete wrapping were manufactured by the fiber winding process in a
bidirectional direction, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The GFRP sheet has a
nominal thickness of 0.200 mm. In terms of the GFRP sheet, the polymer
matrix used was epoxy impregnation resin and the tensile strength,
elasticity modulus, and ultimate tensile strain provided by the manu­
facturer were 85 MPa, 3.5 GPa, and 3.5%, respectively.
The GFRP sheets were tested using a flat coupon sample following
ASTM D3039/D3039M [35] to obtain the tensile ultimate strength, ul­
timate strain, and elastic modulus. The GFRP tensile coupons with 25
mm width and 250 mm length were prepared and the loading speed was
1.5 mm/min. To avoid premature failure of the coupon ends during the
test, two pairs of customized aluminum gripping pieces were used. The
tested results of GFRP sheets are shown in Table 1.
2.2. Alkali-activated materials (AAMs) and OPC
The used precursor materials were comprised of ground blast furnace
slag (GBFS), fly ash (FA), and silica fume (SF), with a weight ratio of
80:15:5, based on our previous optimization study [36]. Grade 42.5
ordinary Portland cement (OPC) was also prepared as the control
mixture to replace the ground blast furnace slag (GBFS). The chemical
compositions of the unreacted GBFS, FA, SF, and OPC were detected by
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and the results are summarized in Table 2.
According to the analysis, the unreacted OPC contained a relatively
lower Al/Si ratio and a higher Ca/Si ratio compared to the GBFS, which
makes it one of the reasons for the differences in the hydration pro­
duction of pastes [5].
The pre-prepared artificial seawater, anhydrous NaOH flakes, and
Table 1
The physical and tensile properties of GFRP sheets.
Type of Nominal Ultimate Elastic Ultimate
FRP sheet thickness strength ffrp modulus Efrp strain εfrp (%)
(mm) (MPa) (GPa)
GFRP 0.200 828 55 1.50
F. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

Table 2
The SF, FA, GBFS, and OPC chemical compositions detected by XRF (wt. %).
Material Chemical composition

SiO2 CaO Al2O3 TiO2 Fe2O3 SO3 P2O5 MnO MgO Na2O K2 O

SF 95.41 0.456 0.485 0.004 0.837 0.149 0.102 0.021 0.066 0.448 1.68
FA 50.94 4.05 34.18 1.48 0.747 0.811 0.265 0.033 4.79 0.838 1.67
GBFS 29.86 40.48 15.5 1.78 9.02 1.53 0.026 0.491 0.401 0.510 0.365
OPC 21.08 60.2 7.1 0.374 2.11 3.85 0.17 0.15 3.45 0.214 1.16

instant dissolved Na2SiO3 powder with a modulus of 2.85 (59.6 wt%
SiO2, 21.6 wt% Na2O) were incorporated to make an alkali activator (Ms
= SiO2/Na2O = 2.85). The detailed chemical composition of seawater is
detailed in Table 3. It is noted that the corporation of seawater will exert
a beneficial effect on the hydration reaction due to the existence of
inorganic salts (e.g., NaCl and CaCl2) compared to fresh water [5,37].
The required activator solution finally achieved a modulus of 1.2,
adjusted by adding anhydrous NaOH flakes to the Na2SiO3 solution. The
alkaline content (Na2O-to-binder ratio by mass) of 4% was also ach­
ieved. It is worth noting that half of the total water content was
consumed in preparation of the alkali activator. The detailed procedure
for making an activator solution can be found in our previous study [15].
procedure was conducted in line with the Chinese code (GB/T 50081-
2019) [39]. The tested results of CAC and AACAC are summarized in
Table 5. The slumps of CAC and AACAC were 60 mm and 158 mm,
respectively. The possible reason why AACAC achieved a higher slump
than CAC may be the higher water absorption of OPC than slag material.
It can be observed that AACAC achieved a higher splitting tensile
strength (ft) and elastic modulus (Ec) compared to those of CAC. Also,
the calculated flexural-to-compressive ratios (ft/fcu) are 0.076 for CAC
and 0.08 for AACAC respectively with the discrepancy within 5%,
showing trivial differences.
3. Experimental program

2.3. Coral aggregates 3.1. Specimen preparation

The coral aggregates used herein to prepare the CAC and AACAC are
the same as used in the authors’ previous papers [38], which contained
two categories: coral sand (CS) and coral coarse aggregate (CCA), as
shown in Fig. 1(b and c). They were sourced from the South China Sea
island and their basic properties and grading curves are provided in
Table 4 and Fig. 2, respectively. The continuously graded coral coarse
aggregate had a maximum particle size of 25 mm, and coral sand had a
fineness modulus of 2.63. It is noticeable that the coral aggregates
possessed high void content and crush index value, and had a rough and
porous surface, which are reasons for an increase in binder content and
water consumption in concrete preparation.
2.4. Concrete mix proportion
According to our previous study [38], it was determined that the
adopted mixtures for CAC and AACAC had a total water-to-binder ratio
of 0.60, a total cementitious material content of 500 kg⋅m− 3, and a
volume sand rate of 55%. It is important to note that all mixtures had the
same net water-to-binder ratio of 0.3 and half of the seawater is used in
pre-soaking coral aggregates, and the other half is used for preparing the
alkaline solution or mixing CAC. The mixture proportions and basic
properties for CAC and AACAC are detailed in Table 5.
For the preparation of AACAC specimens, the mixing process is
summarized as follows: 1) dry-mix the coral coarse aggregate and coral
sand for 2 min; 2) dump half of the total seawater into the coral ag­
gregates and blend them for 3 min for coral pre-wetting; 3) pour the
precursor materials (i.e., GBFS, FA, and SF) into the mixed materials and
blend them adequately for 2 min; 4) put the activator liquid into the
mixtures and stir them for 3 min, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
The compressive strength (fcu) and splitting tensile strength (ft) were
determined by 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm concrete cubic specimens.
Prism specimens (150 mm × 150 mm × 300 mm) were also prepared to
obtain the elastic modulus (Ec) of CAC and AACAC. The specimens were
taken out from the molds and cured at 25 ± 5◦ C one day after casting.
When the samples reached the preset curing age (i.e. 28 d), the testing
Table 3
Chemical composition required for seawater preparation (g/L).
NaCl MgCl2 Na2SO4 CaCl2 KBr KCl NaHCo3
A total of 18 GFRP-confined concrete cylinders, as well as 6 un-
confined specimens, were prepared for the axial compressive test, as
listed in Table 6. Two different concrete types including CAC and
AACAC were cast. The height of the cylinders is 300 mm and the
diameter of the cylinder section is 150 mm. The number of layers of
GFRP in each concrete type consists of 0-layer, 2-layer, 4-layer, and 6-
layer, respectively, and each series contains three identical specimens.
All plain specimens were taken out from the curing room after 28
days for the purpose of GFRP wrapping and the detailed procedure of
GFRP-confined cylinder specimens is as follows, as also illustrated in
Fig. 4. Firstly, all plain specimens were cleaned with alcohol, and then
wrapped with 300 mm-length GFRP sheet along the hoop direction of
the cylinders using the wet lay-up procedure. It is worth noting that the
epoxy impregnation resin was chosen as an adhesive and an overlap
length of 150 mm was performed to give a better wrapping effect.
Subsequently, excessive resin and air bubbles were eliminated by roll­
ing. Afterward, the two ends of confined specimens were wrapped in a
two-layer GFRP sheet with 30-mm width to avoid premature end failure.
3.2. Axial compression test
All the compression cylinder specimens were tested by a 1000 kN
servo-hydraulic universal testing machine to conduct the axial
compressive tests after the GFRP-wrapped cylinders were cured for 14
days under the laboratory environment. The loading rate for all speci­
mens was 0.5 mm/min with displacement control under axial
compression, referring to the AS 1012.9:2014 specification [40]. A force
transducer was used in the machine to capture the applied load. The
applied loading procedure was terminated when the axial stress dropped
to approximately 60% of the axial compressive strength. In the middle
zone of the tested specimens, two linear variable displacement trans­
ducers (LVDTs) mounted on a customized cage were placed covering a
height of 150 mm, as shown in Fig. 5. Moreover, the axial strains of the
specimens were collected by two strain gauges with a 80 mm length
located at the middle height of the FRP jacket, and the hoop strains were
measured by two horizontally arranged strain gauges with a 50 mm
length, as shown in Fig. 5.

24.53 5.20 4.09 1.16 0.101 0.695 0.201

3
F. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

Table 4
Basic properties of the coral sand (CS) and coral coarse aggregate (CCA).
Aggregate Bulk density (kg⋅m− 3) Apparent density (kg⋅m− 3) 1 h Water absorption (%) Crush index (%) Void content (%) Fineness modulus (Mx)

CS 1176 2280 10.5 42.4 42 2.63

CCA 986 2048 12.4 36.8 50 –

As shown in Fig. 6a) and e), the plain concrete cylinder specimens
reach the failure as a result of the occurrence of a main diagonal crack
and soon lost load capacity after hitting the peak load. As for the GFRP-
confined specimens, all of them failed when the rupture of the GFRP
jacket happened under transverse tension. Moreover, the location of FRP
rupture for three different thickness specimens was quite similar, char­
acterized by the rupture along the axial direction from the mid-height to
the end or through both ends as a result of a bidirectional GFRP sheet.

4.2. Stress-strain curves

The key axial compression results for GFRP-confined CAC and

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of coral aggregates.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Failure patterns
Fig. 6 shows the representative failure modes of the un-confined and
GFRP-confined concrete cylinders. A fairly similar failure mode
exhibited by both CAC and AACAC specimens can be observed from
Fig. 6, which can be described as many vertical splitting cracks occur­
ring for the un-confined specimens and FRP ruptures appearing around
the mid-height of GFRP-confined cylinders. Similar to the damage
phenomenon of FRP-confined NAC [41,42], a severer disruption in the
middle height was observed for the thicker-layer confined CAC and
AACAC.
AACAC specimens are summarized in Table 6, in which fco and fcc
represent the ultimate compressive strength of the un-confined and
GFRP-confined specimens, respectively; εco and εcc are the ultimate axial
strain of the un-confined and GFRP-confined specimens corresponding
to the ultimate compressive strength, respectively; Two indicators i.e.,
fcc/fco and εcc/εco, representing improved strength and ductility,
respectively, were used to assess the confining effect of the FRP jacket.
4.2.1. Behavior of axial stress-axial strain
The axial stress-strain relationship curves are depicted in Fig. 7 to
present the GFRP thickness effect on the CAC and AACAC specimens. It
should be clarified that the axial stress is equal to the applied load
divided by the cross-sectional area of the un-confined cylinder speci­
mens, and the axial strain was calculated by dividing the average
shortening of the two LVDTs by the height of the frame which is 150
mm. Considering that there exists some extent of discrepancy in the axial
compressive behaviors of the three identical specimens, and thus one
representative curve which is closest to the average values (e.g., the
ultimate strength and strain) was chosen for further investigation and
discussion, as plotted in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7(a) shows the tested axial stress-strain curves of specimens with
CAC. For the un-confined group, the stress and strain values increased
almost linearly at the ascending stage, and then the stress declined

Table 5
Mixture proportions and mechanical properties of CAC and AACAC.
Concrete type Mix proportion (kg/m3) Ec (×104N/mm2) ft (MPa) fcu (MPa) Slump (mm)

OPC GBFS FA SF Seawater Na2SiO3 NaOH CS CCA

CAC 400 – 75 25 300 – – 841 577 2.08 2.60 34.39 60

AACAC – 400 75 25 300 39.00 14.45 841 577 2.30 2.99 37.37 158

Fig. 3. Mixing procedures for preparation of AACAC.

4
F. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

Table 6
Axial compression results of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC specimens.
Specimen Concrete type Number of FRP plies fco or fcc (MPa) εco or εcc εh,rup fcc/fco εcc/εco
Ind. Avg. Ind. Avg. Ind. Avg.

CAC-P0-S1 CAC 0 21.59 23.68 0.0017 0.0017 – – 1.00 1.00

CAC-P0-S2 23.01 0.0020 –
CAC-P0-S3 26.43 0.0015 –
CAC-P2-S1 2 28.03 24.89 0.0027 0.0027 0.0034 0.0034 1.05 1.39
CAC-P2-S2 21.74 0.0026 0.0034
CAC-P2-S3 – – –
CAC-P4-S1 4 31.23 29.26 0.0051 0.0049 0.003 0.0029 1.24 2.56
CAC-P4-S2 27.99 0.0046 0.0028
CAC-P4-S3 28.57 0.0049 0.0028
CAC-P6-S1 6 38.59 38.56 0.0062 0.0055 0.004 0.0042 1.63 2.88
CAC-P6-S2 37.17 0.0055 0.0045
CAC-P6-S3 39.91 0.0047 0.004
AACAC-P0-S1 AACAC 0 28.87 30.41 0.0017 0.0016 – – 1.00 1.00
AACAC-P0-S2 31.45 0.0017 –
AACAC-P0-S3 30.90 0.0014 –
AACAC-P2-S1 2 39.62 32.15 0.0028 0.0025 0.0034 0.0032 1.06 1.56
AACAC-P2-S2 31.45 0.0027 0.0033
AACAC-P2-S3 25.39 0.0020 0.003
AACAC-P4-S1 4 33.08 33.85 0.0067 0.0065 0.0035 0.0035 1.11 4.04
AACAC-P4-S2 36.46 0.0060 0.0034
AACAC-P4-S3 32.00 0.0067 0.0035
AACAC-P6-S1 6 39.8 42.26 0.0088 0.0093 0.0062 0.0060 1.39 5.79
AACAC-P6-S2 43.11 0.0098 0.0063
AACAC-P6-S3 43.87 0.0092 0.0055

Note: “Ind.” and “Avg.” are the individual value and average value of three identical specimens for each series, respectively. The test data of specimen CAC-P2-S3 was
lost due to a malfunction of the testing machine during the test.

Fig. 4. Preparation of the GFRP-confined specimens.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of test setup and instrumentation.

rapidly after the peak stress due to the propagation of diagonal crack and
spalling of surface concrete, presenting poor ductility of the un-confined
specimens. Overall, the curves of the un-confined specimens were
characterized by two-stage: linear ascending stage and descending stage.
While for the GFRP-confined specimens, the peak stress was clearly
improved as well as the corresponding strain. The curves of the confined
specimens showed three obvious stages: linear ascending stage, hard­
ening stage, and descending stage. At the initial stage, the axial stress
and strain showed linear growth and then the confined specimens
experienced a hardening stage from the inflection point, the strain value
of which was approximately equal to the ultimate axial strain of the un-
confined specimen (εco), demonstrating that FRP confinement mainly

5
F. Li et al.
Fig. 6. Photographs showing the failure modes of GFRP-confined CAC and
AACAC specimens wrapped with different FRP layers.
works in the second phase and its effect was minimal at the initial stage.
Eventually, the specimens experienced descending stage. It should be
noted that the slope of the curves at the hardening stage was far lower
than that of the ascending stage. The axial stress increment was provided
by the restraining force of the FRP jacket on the core concrete. In
addition, the GFRP-confined CAC specimens had significantly higher
ultimate stress and ultimate strain compared to the control specimens,
and the magnitude of improvement improved as the number of GFRP
sheets increased.
The tested axial stress to strain relationship curves of specimens with
AACAC are shown in Fig. 7(b). It can be obviously seen that the AACAC
specimens with 2-ply, 4-ply, and 6-ply GFRP jackets achieved higher
peak stress and corresponding strain than the un-confined specimens.
The AACAC specimens also had a great improvement in their axial strain
while the increased magnitude in their peak stress was not as pro­
nounced as the CAC specimens.
It is noted that the slope of the CAC curves in the initial ascending
stage had a slight increase for GFRP-confined CAC compared to the un-
confined CAC. This phenomenon is also consistent with the AACAC
specimens. It is concluded that all the CAC and AACAC specimens were
adequately confined by FRP sheets and the adopted FRP-confined
method was effective in improving both axial strength and deform­
ability of CAC and AACAC specimens, which is consistent with the FRP-
confined NAC in the previous literature [25,27,43].
Fig. 7. Tested axial stress-strain curves of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC specimens.
6
Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437
4.2.2. Axial strain-hoop strain behavior
Fig. 8 shows the axial stress-hoop strain curves of CAC and AACAC
with different GFRP jacket stiffness. It should be clarified that the axial
and hoop strains were calculated by averaging the values of the two
axial and circumferential strain gauges, respectively. From Fig. 8, it can
be seen that the curves of axial stress-hoop strain are quite similar to that
of axial stress-axial strain, exhibiting the same variation tendency.
However, the curves of axial stress-hoop strain presented a relatively
smaller changing magnitude compared to that of axial stress-axial strain,
especially before the inflection point during the ascending stage.
Moreover, a linear growth was observed in axial stress-strain curves at
the ascending stage, and the values of both strains were relatively
negligible.
When the axial strain of the GFRP-confined specimens came to the
strain corresponding to the peak stress of the control specimens (i.e.,
εco), the confining action of the FRP jacket began to play a role to
restrain the lateral dilation. At this stage, rapid growth was observed in
both axial and hoop strains of the GFRP-confined specimens as the
applied load continued. Finally, it came to a failure featured by the FRP
rupture or strain gauge disruption.
The axial stress-axial and hoop strain curves for CAC and AACAC
specimens with 0-ply, 2-ply, and 4-ply confinement showed a relatively
similar shape. However, a discrepancy was observed with 6-ply
confinement, which can be illustrated as AACAC specimens possessing
a steadier slope in the hardening stage.
The axial strain-hoop strain curves of CAC and AACAC are depicted
in Fig. 9. It can be observed from the curves that all the specimens began
to develop a hoop strain as soon as the axial load was applied. The hoop-
to-axial strain ratio (i.e., εh/εc) kept roughly consistent and began to
increase when the axial strain reached 0.0016 for both CAC and AACAC
specimens. This marks the rapid expansion of the core concrete and the
activation of the FRP jacket. The FRP jacket began to play a part in
restraining the core concrete when the axial strains of the confined
specimens exceeded εco.
As the axial strain increased from εco, the GFRP-confined specimens
with different FRP layers showed an increasingly visible discrepancy.
For the CAC specimens, the ultimate axial strain and hoop rupture strain
of GFRP-confined specimens gradually raised as the confinement
thickness increased, as observed in Fig. 9. The CAC specimens with a
thinner layer experienced a larger hoop strain under the same axial
strains greater than 0.0016. For the AACAC specimens, it is evident that
the curves of all the specimens had the same pattern. It is noted that
F. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

Fig. 8. Axial stress to hoop strain relationship curves of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC specimens.

Fig. 9. Tested axial-hoop strain relationship curves of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC specimens.

specimen AACAC-P6 had a larger second stage slope than that of the concrete and non-uniformly circumferential strain distribution in the
AACAC-P4, leading to a larger hoop rupture strain than other specimens. FRP composites [24].
This may be associated with the non-uniformly transverse expansion of

Fig. 10. Tested axial compressive strength and corresponding axial strain:(a) axial compressive strength;(b) ultimate axial strain.

7
F. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

4.3. Axial compressive strength and ultimate axial strain 4.4. Ultimate strength and strain models for GFRP-confined CAC and
AACAC
The axial compressive strength and ultimate axial strain of CAC and
AACAC specimens are presented in Fig. 10, and the effect of the number Currently, the modeling of the ultimate strength and strain of FRP-
of layers on axial compressive behavior is shown in Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. A confined concrete under axial compression has been actively under­
detailed comparison and discussion of the tested results are conducted in taken and some of these empirical models [32,44–47] are selected, as
this section. shown in Table 7. The FRP thickness and the FRP rupture strain affect
As can be seen from Fig. 10(a), the axial compressive strength of CAC the effectiveness of FRP confinement, which can be characterized by the
and AACAC was gradually improved with the increase of GFRP thick­ actual confining pressure (fl ), as expressed in Eq.(1).
ness. It can be concluded from Fig. 10 that both CAC and AACAC can be
2Efrp tfrp εh,rup εh,rup
adequately confined by the FRP sheet. As is shown in Fig. 10(a), CAC and fl = , kε = (1)
D εfrp
AACAC specimens with 6-ply FRP jackets gained approximately 1.63-
and 1.39-times enhancement (fcc/fco) in ultimate strength respectively
where Efrp and tfrp are the elastic modulus and the thickness of the FRP
compared with the un-confined specimens. And differences in fcc/fco
jacket, respectively; D is the diameter of the cylinders; εh,rup and εfrp are
between CAC and AACAC became more pronounced as the number of
the hoop rupture strain and ultimate strain of the FRP jacket obtained
layers increased (see Fig. 11(b)). The CAC specimens achieved a higher
from the coupon test, respectively; and kε is the hoop strain reduction
fcc/fco than that of the AACAC specimens because of a relatively higher
factor.
axial compressive strength (fco) of AACAC under the same cube
The FRP hoop rupture strains of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC
compressive strength (fcu). This may be attributed to the AAMs char­
specimens are shown in Table 8. Table 8 shows that there was an overall
acterized by a denser interfacial transition zone between the paste ma­
increase in average hoop rupture strain when the number of layers
trix and the aggregates than OPC [5]. These improved microstructures
increased both for CAC and AACAC specimens, but the average rupture
help improve the porosity of coral aggregates and delay the propagation
strain was not significantly affected by the layers and concrete type,
of the cracks inside the specimens under compressive stress. However,
which is in line with previous studies [26,47,48]. In this study, the
the gap in axial compressive strength between CAC and AACAC became
average hoop rupture strain of 0.0038 was used in Eq.(1) for further
smaller with the thickness of GFRP increased (see Fig. 11).
analysis.
As is shown in Fig. 10(b), the specimens were under a three-
In general, the ultimate strength and ultimate strain models for FRP-
dimensional state of stress due to the confinement of the GFRP jacket,
confined concrete can be respectively expressed as [47]:
and the peak axial strain was significantly improved. CAC and AACAC
specimens with 6-ply FRP jackets gained approximately 2.88- and 5.79- fcc fl
= 1 + k1 ( )m (2)
times enhancements (εcc/εco) respectively in deformation capacity fco fco
compared with the un-confined specimens. Compared with the strength
enhancement ratio (fcc/fco), the ultimate strain enhancement ratio (εcc/ εcc fl
= 1 + k2 ( )p (3)
εco) was relatively distinct ranging from 1.39 to 5.79, especially for εco fco
AACAC specimens, indicating that wrapping FRP jackets can effectively
where the k1, k2, m, and p are fitting factors that can be obtained by
improve the axial deformation capacity. It can be seen that the ultimate
regression analysis.
axial strain between the CAC and AACAC exerted a tiny difference for 0-
To determine the suitability of the existing models for the tested
ply and 2-ply FRP confinement, and the differences became progres­
results of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC specimens, six ultimate
sively apparent from 2-ply onwards. Overall, a greater ultimate strain
strength and strain models that can provide accurate predictions for
enhancement (εcc/εco) was observed in AACAC compared to CAC, as
FRP-confined NAC [44–47], CAC [32], and geopolymer concrete [31]
illustrated by 5.79 for AACAC and 2.88 for CAC under 6-ply
are selected, as plotted in Fig. 13. It is noticeable that both the strength
confinement.
enhancement ratio (fcc/fco) and strain enhancement ratio (εcc/εco) were
Overall, the axial compressive behavior is affected by the type of
basically in direct proportion to the confinement ratio (fl/fco). As the fl/
concrete, with AACAC exhibiting a similar strength enhancement ratio
fco ratio was aggrandized, the fcc/fco and εcc/εco ratios were gradually
and a higher strain enhancement ratio than CAC.
increased. It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the selected models cannot
predict well both the ultimate strength and stain of FRP-confined
AACAC. Teng’s model can produce good values in the strain

Fig. 11. Effect of the number of FRP layers on axial compressive strength of CAC and AACAC specimens.

8
F. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

Fig. 12. Effect of the number of FRP layers on the ultimate axial strain of CAC and AACAC specimens.

ultimate strain expression of FRP-confined CAC. Regression analysis was

Table 7
initiated based on Eq. (2) and Eq.(3) to obtain accurate models for GFRP-
Selected representative ultimate strength and strain models.
confined CAC and AACAC. Eventually, the ultimate strength and strain
Reference Ultimate strength expression Ultimate strain expression expressions for CAC and AACAC were formulated as Eq. (4) and Eq. (5),
Teng et al. fcc (f )
l εcc (f )
l Eq. (6) and Eq. (7), respectively.
= 1 + 3.5 = 1 + 17.5
[45] fco fco εco fco ( )
Wang et al. εcc fcc fl
fcc
=1+ = 1.5 + = 1 + 4.01 (4)
[32] fco εco fco fco
) 36.20(ρk )1.17 (ρε )1.15
( fl 0.65
2.11 0.375 × ( )
fco εcc fl
Wu et al. [46] fcc (f ) εcc (f ) = 1 + 17.5 (5)
= 0.75 + 2.5
l
= 1.3 + 6.3
l εco fco
fco fco εco fco
)
Lam et al. [44] fcc (f
l εcc ( )
= 1 + 3.3 = 1.75 + fcc fl
fco fco εco = 1 + 3.05 (6)
( f )(ε )0.45 fco fco
l h,rup
12
fco εco ( )
Ma et al. [47] fcc (f ) ( f )0.80 εcc fl
= 1 + 4.68
l εcc
= 1 + 32.50
l = 1 + 40 (7)
fco fco εco fco εco fco
Tang et al.[31] fcc (E )0.8
ε1.07
=1+
εcc
= 1.69 + 12.1
l h,rup In addition, a comparison between the calculated results and the
fco εco Ec εco
) experimental values is analyzed to validate the adaptability of the pro­
( fl 0.81
3.70 0.375 ×
fco posed models of FRP-confined CAC and AACAC, as shown in Table 9 and
[( ) ] Fig. 13. In Table 9, the deviation is between 0.17%~24.35% and 0.83%
Note: the confinement stiffness ratio ρk = 2tT Et / fco /εco D , the strain ratio ~47.02% for the ultimate strength and strain, respectively. Fig. 14
ρε = εh,rup /εco , and the lateral confinement stiffness El = 2tT Et /D. shows the theoretical values of the proposed models against the test
results. It is observed that the calculated results are consistent well with
the test results overall, with the most deviation of CAC and AACAC
specimens under 20%. However, these preliminary models are limited
Table 8
because of the relatively small number of specimens and some scatters
FRP hoop rupture strains of GFRP-confined CAC and AACAC specimens.
(see AACAC-P2 series). More test data should be gained to expand the
Specimen εh,rup kε database for an accurate model.
Ind. Avg. Ind. Avg.

CAC-P2-S1 0.0034 0.0034 0.23 0.23 5. Conclusions

CAC-P2-S2 0.0034 0.23
CAC-P2-S3 – – This paper conducted an experimental study to investigate the axial
CAC-P4-S1 0.003 0.0029 0.20 0.19 stress-strain behavior of slag-based alkali-activated seawater coral
CAC-P4-S2 0.0028 0.19
aggregate concrete (AACAC) cylinders confined with different layers of
CAC-P4-S3 0.0028 0.19
CAC-P6-S1 0.004 0.0042 0.30 0.28 glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets. On account of the results
CAC-P6-S2 0.0045 0.27 and discussions presented in this study, the main conclusions can be
CAC-P6-S3 0.004 0.27 summarized as follows:
AACAC-P2-S1 0.0034 0.0032 0.23 0.22
AACAC-P2-S2 0.0033 0.22
AACAC-P2-S3 0.003 0.20
(1) Both the un-confined concrete cylinder specimens failed suddenly
AACAC-P4-S1 0.0035 0.0035 0.23 0.23 after hitting the peak load. For the GFRP-confined CAC and
AACAC-P4-S2 0.0034 0.23 AACAC specimens, all of them failed when the rupture of the
AACAC-P4-S3 0.0035 0.23 GFRP jacket happened under transverse tension, exhibiting a
AACAC-P6-S1 0.0062 0.0060 0.37 0.40
similar failure mode. Similar to the damage phenomenon of FRP-
AACAC-P6-S2 0.0063 0.42
AACAC-P6-S3 0.0055 0.41 confined NAC, a severer disruption in the middle height was
observed for the thicker-layer confined CAC and AACAC.
(2) As the confinement stiffness of GFRP increased, the ultimate
enhancement ratio of FRP-confined CAC and thus it is used as the strength and axial strain gradually improved. Approximately

9
F. Li et al. Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437

Fig. 13. Relationship of fcc/fco and εcc/εco with fl/fco with different empirical models.

Table 9
The accuracy of the proposed model in the ultimate compressive strength and ultimate axial strain.
Specimen fcc(MPa) Test (fcc/fco) Calculation (fcc/fco) Δ(%) Test (εcc/εco) Calculation (εcc/εco) Δ(%)

CAC-P2-S1 28.03 1.18 1.18 − 0.74 1.59 1.76 9.95

CAC-P2-S2 21.74 0.91 1.18 21.87 1.53 1.76 13.29
CAC-P4-S1 31.23 1.31 1.35 2.31 3.00 2.53 − 18.68
CAC-P4-S2 27.99 1.18 1.35 12.45 2.70 2.53 − 7.04
CAC-P4-S3 28.57 1.20 1.35 10.63 2.88 2.53 − 14.03
CAC-P6-S1 38.59 1.62 1.53 − 6.86 3.64 3.29 − 10.80
CAC-P6-S2 37.17 1.56 1.53 − 2.92 3.23 3.29 1.70
CAC-P6-S3 39.91 1.68 1.53 − 10.51 2.77 3.29 16.00
AACAC-P2-S1 39.62 1.30 1.10 − 18.05 1.75 1.95 25.83
AACAC-P2-S2 31.45 1.03 1.10 6.29 1.68 1.95 28.48
AACAC-P2-S3 25.39 0.83 1.10 24.35 1.25 1.95 47.02
AACAC-P4-S1 33.08 1.08 1.21 9.90 4.18 3.68 − 12.59
AACAC-P4-S2 36.46 1.19 1.21 0.69 3.75 3.68 − 0.83
AACAC-P4-S3 32.00 1.05 1.21 12.84 4.18 3.68 − 12.59
AACAC-P6-S1 39.8 1.30 1.31 0.17 5.50 5.92 − 8.30
AACAC-P6-S2 43.11 1.41 1.31 − 8.13 6.12 5.92 − 20.60
AACAC-P6-S3 43.87 1.44 1.31 − 10.04 5.75 5.92 − 13.22

Note: fco represents the ultimate compressive strength of the un-confined specimens; εco means the ultimate axial strain of the un-confined specimens corresponding to
fco; The symbol ‘‘Δ” means the deviation.

Fig. 14. Performance of proposed model in predicting the ultimate compressive strength and ultimate axial strain of CAC and AACAC specimens.

2.88- and 5.79-times improvements in the ultimate axial strain
were observed for the 6-ply CAC and AACAC specimens,
respectively, compared with their un-confined companions,
demonstrating that FRP jackets can effectively improve the axial
deformation capacity. There was an increase of about 63% and
39% for 6-ply CAC and AACAC in the ultimate strength. It is
noticeable that the stress-strain behavior is affected by the type of
concrete, with AACAC exhibiting a similar strength enhancement
ratio (fcc/fco) but a higher strain enhancement ratio (εcc/εco) than
CAC.
(3) It shows that there was an overall increase in average hoop
rupture strain (εh,rup) when the number of layers increased both
for CAC and AACAC specimens, but the average rupture strain

10
F. Li et al.
was not significantly affected by the layers and concrete type,
which is in line with previous studies.
(4) It is noted that the selected models cannot predict well both the
ultimate strength and stain of FRP-confined AACAC. Teng’s
model can produce good values in the strain enhancement ratio of
FRP-confined CAC. Also, the proposed models are consistent well
with the test results in general.
(5) It is promising to develop an innovative FRP-confined column for
marine environment application by combining corrosion-
resistant FRP jackets with well-durable AAMs or geopolymers,
while more studies on FRP-confined slag-based AACAC, including
FRP type, concrete strength, and cross-sectional shape on the
confining effect should be investigated to expand the database.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely thank the financial support provided by the
Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No.
BK20191146), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant Nos. 52078127 and 51908118).
References
[1] A. Ahmed, S. Guo, Z. Zhang, C. Shi, D. Zhu, A review on durability of fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) bars reinforced seawater sea sand concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 256 (2020) 119484, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.119484.
[2] U. Ebead, D. Lau, F. Lollini, A. Nanni, P. Suraneni, T. Yu, A review of recent
advances in the science and technology of seawater-mixed concrete, Cem. Concr.
Res. 152 (2022) 106666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106666.
[3] Z. Wang, X.-L. Zhao, G. Xian, G. Wu, R.K.S. Raman, S. Al-Saadi, A. Haque, Long-
term durability of basalt- and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP/GFRP) bars in
seawater and sea sand concrete environment, Constr. Build. Mater. 139 (2017)
467–489, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.038.
[4] J. Xiao, C. Qiang, A. Nanni, K. Zhang, Use of sea-sand and seawater in concrete
construction: Current status and future opportunities, Constr. Build. Mater. 155
(2017) 1101–1111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.130.
[5] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, K.W. Shah, Z. Dong, J. Wu, Performance evaluation and
microstructure characterization of seawater and coral/sea sand alkali-activated
mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 259 (2020) 120403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.120403.
[6] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, F. Lu, Fracture properties of slag-based alkali-activated seawater
coral aggregate concrete, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mec. 115 (2021) 103071, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103071.
[7] A. Wang, B. Lyu, Z. Zhang, K. Liu, H. Xu, D. Sun, The development of coral
concretes and their upgrading technologies: A critical review, Constr. Build. Mater.
187 (2018) 1004–1019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.202.
[8] B. Lyu, A. Wang, Z. Zhang, K. Liu, H. Xu, L. Shi, D. Sun, Coral aggregate concrete:
Numerical description of physical, chemical and morphological properties of coral
aggregate, Cem. Concr. Compos. 100 (2019) 25–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2019.03.016.
[9] W. Zhou, P. Feng, H. Lin, Constitutive relations of coral aggregate concrete under
uniaxial and triaxial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 251 (2020) 118957,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118957.
[10] D. Niu, L. Su, Y. Luo, D. Huang, D. Luo, Experimental study on mechanical
properties and durability of basalt fiber reinforced coral aggregate concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 237 (2020) 117628, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117628.
[11] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, P. Feng, P. Zhang, A review on shrinkage-reducing methods and
mechanisms of alkali-activated/geopolymer systems: Effects of chemical additives,
J. Build. Eng. 49 (2022) 104056, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104056.
[12] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, Y. Cheng, G.F. Huseien, K.W. Shah, Shrinkage mechanisms and
shrinkage-mitigating strategies of alkali-activated slag composites: A critical
review, Constr. Build. Mater. 318 (2022) 125993, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.125993.
11
Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437
[13] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, Z. Dong, Q. Wang, Enhancement of bond performance of FRP
bars with seawater coral aggregate concrete by utilizing ecoefficient slag-based
alkali-activated materials, J. Compos. Constr. 26 (1) (2022) 04021059, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)cc.1943-5614.0001174.
[14] C. Shi, A. Fernandez Jimenez, A. Palomo, New cements for the 21st century: The
pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (7) (2011)
750–763, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.016.
[15] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, F. Li, Z. Dong, P. Zhang, Compressive stress-strain behavior of
seawater coral aggregate concrete incorporating eco-efficient alkali-activated slag
materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 299 (2021) 123886, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2021.123886.
[16] O.A. Mohamed, A review of durability and strength characteristics of alkali-
activated slag concrete, Materials 12 (8) (2019) 1198, https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma12081198.
[17] K. Arbi, M. Nedeljković, Y. Zuo, G. Ye, A review on the durability of alkali-
activated fly ash/slag systems: Advances, Issues, and Perspectives, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 55 (19) (2016) 5439–5453, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b00559.
[18] P. Zhang, K. Wang, Q. Li, J. Wang, Y. Ling, Fabrication and engineering properties
of concretes based on geopolymers/alkali-activated binders – A review, J. Cleaner
Prod. 258 (2020) 120896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120896.
[19] S. Yang, J. Xu, C. Zang, R. Li, Q. Yang, S. Sun, Mechanical properties of alkali-
activated slag concrete mixed by seawater and sea sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 196
(2019) 395–410, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.113.
[20] R. Alzeebaree, A. Cevik, A. Mohammedameen, A. Nis, M.E. Gulsan, Mechanical
performance of FRP-confined geopolymer concrete under seawater attack, Adv.
Struct. Eng. 23 (6) (2020) 1055–1073, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1369433219886964.
[21] S. Yang, C. Yang, M. Huang, Y. Liu, J. Jiang, G. Fan, Study on bond performance
between FRP bars and seawater coral aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 173
(2018) 272–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.015.
[22] L. Wang, Z. Song, J. Yi, J. Li, F. Fu, Experimental studies on bond performance of
BFRP bars reinforced coral aggregate concrete, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 13 (1)
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-019-0367-7.
[23] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, G. Wu, Q. Wang, T. Li, Improvement of bond performance
between concrete and CFRP bars with optimized additional aluminum ribs
anchorage, Constr. Build. Mater. 241 (2020) 118012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.118012.
[24] H. Zhao, T. Ren, A. Remennikov, Behaviour of FRP-confined coal reject concrete
columns under axial compression, Compos. Struct. 262 (2021) 113621, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113621.
[25] Y. Zhou, J. Hu, M. Li, L. Sui, F. Xing, FRP-confined recycled coarse aggregate
concrete: Experimental investigation and model comparison, Polymers (Basel) 8
(10) (2016) 375, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym8100375.
[26] Q. Cao, H. Li, Z. Lin, Study on the active confinement of GFRP-confined expansive
concrete under axial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 227 (2019) 116683,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116683.
[27] Y. Xiao, H. Wu, Compressive behavior of concrete confined by various types of FRP
composite jackets, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 22 (13) (2016) 1187–1201, https://doi.
org/10.1177/0731684403035430.
[28] H. Bouchelaghem, A. Bezazi, F. Scarpa, Compressive behaviour of concrete
cylindrical FRP-confined columns subjected to a new sequential loading technique,
Compos. Part B 42 (7) (2011) 1987–1993, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2011.05.045.
[29] T. Xie, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Behavior of recycled aggregate concrete-filled basalt and
carbon FRP tubes, Constr. Build. Mater. 105 (2016) 132–143, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.068.
[30] Z. Tang, W. Li, V.W.Y. Tam, L. Yan, Mechanical behaviors of CFRP-confined
sustainable geopolymeric recycled aggregate concrete under both static and cyclic
compressions, Compos. Struct. 252 (2020) 112750, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2020.112750.
[31] Z. Tang, W. Li, V.W.Y. Tam, L. Yan, Mechanical performance of CFRP-confined
sustainable geopolymeric recycled concrete under axial compression, Eng. Struct.
224 (2020) 111246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111246.
[32] J. Wang, P. Feng, T. Hao, Q. Yue, Axial compressive behavior of seawater coral
aggregate concrete-filled FRP tubes, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 272–285,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.169.
[33] Z. Dong, T. Han, B. Zhang, H. Zhu, G. Wu, Y. Wei, P. Zhang, A review of the
research and application progress of new types of concrete-filled FRP tubular
members, Construction and Building Materials 312 (2021) 125353, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125353.
[34] T. Zhang, D. Niu, C. Rong, GFRP-confined coral aggregate concrete cylinders: The
experimental and theoretical analysis, Constr. Build. Mater. 218 (2019) 206–213,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.052.
[35] ASTM D3039/D3039M-14. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer
matrix composite materials, American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA. 2014.
[36] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, K.W. Shah, P. Feng, Z. Dong, Optimization of mix proportion of
alkali-activated slag mortars prepared with seawater and coral sand, Constr. Build.
Mater. 284 (2021) 122805, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122805.
[37] F. Qu, W. Li, K. Wang, V.W.Y. Tam, S. Zhang, Effects of seawater and undesalted
sea sand on the hydration products, mechanical properties and microstructures of
cement mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 310 (2021) 125229, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125229.
[38] B. Zhang, H. Zhu, Q. Wang, K.W. Shah, W. Wang, Design and properties of
seawater coral aggregate alkali-activated concrete, J. Sustain. Cem-Based Mater.
11 (2022) 187–201, https://doi.org/10.1080/21650373.2021.1913659.
F. Li et al.
[39] GB/T 50081-2019. Standard for test methods of concrete physical and mechanical
properties, Ministry of Construction. 2019.
[40] AS 1012.9:2014. Method of testing concrete, Method 9: Compressive strength tests-
Concrete, mortar and grout specimens, Australian Standard. 2014.
[41] G. Ma, H. Li, L. Yan, L. Huang, Testing and analysis of basalt FRP-confined
damaged concrete cylinders under axial compression loading, Constr. Build. Mater.
169 (2018) 762–774, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.172.
[42] Y. Zhou, X. Liu, F. Xing, H. Cui, L. Sui, Axial compressive behavior of FRP-confined
lightweight aggregate concrete: An experimental study and stress-strain relation
model, Constr. Build. Mater. 119 (2016) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2016.02.180.
[43] G.M. Chen, Y.H. He, T. Jiang, C.J. Lin, Behavior of CFRP-confined recycled
aggregate concrete under axial compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 111 (2016)
85–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.054.
12
Construction and Building Materials 347 (2022) 128437
[44] L. Lam, J.G. Teng, Ultimate condition of fiber reinforced polymer-confined
concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 8 (6) (2004) 539–548, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)1090-0268(2004)8:6(539).
[45] J.G. Teng, Y.L. Huang, L. Lam, L.P. Ye, Theoretical model for fiber-reinforced
polymer-confined concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 11 (2) (2007) 201–210, https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0268(2007)11:2(201).
[46] G. Wu, Z.T. Lu, Z.S. Wu, Strength and ductility of concrete cylinders confined with
FRP composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (3) (2006) 134–148, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.022.
[47] G. Ma, X. Chen, L. Yan, H.J. Hwang, Monotonic and cyclic axial compressive
properties and modeling of basalt FRP-retrofitted predamaged short columns,
J. Compos. Constr. 24 (4) (2020) 04020023, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)
cc.1943-5614.0001034.
[48] T. Ozbakkaloglu, T. Xie, Geopolymer concrete-filled FRP tubes: Behavior of
circular and square columns under axial compression, Compos. Part B 96 (2016)
215–230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.04.013.