Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Ductile, durable, and reliable alternative to FRP bars for reinforcing

seawater sea-sand recycled concrete beams: steel/FRP composite bars
Yingwu Zhou, Heng Gao, Zhiheng Hu, Yadong Qiu, Menghuan Guo, Xiaoxu Huang, Biao Hu ⇑
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Durability for Marine Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China

h i g h l i g h t s

Effects of aggregate types and kinds of SFCBs on the flexural behavior of seawater sea-sand concrete beams were clarified.

The feasibility of using SFCBs to replace conventional FRP bars in terms of reinforcing seawater sea-sand concrete beams is evaluated and discussed.

A theoretical model that can predict the load-deflection response of SFCBs reinforced seawater sea-sand concrete beams is developed.

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

Article history: The combination of seawater, sea-sand and recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) to make the so-called sea-
Received 1 May 2020 water sea-sand recycled concrete (SSRC) is a promising alternative to mitigate the shortage of raw con-
Received in revised form 28 September struction materials, e.g. river sand, freshwater and crushed stone. Although equipped with anti-corrosion
2020
and high strength, the reduced ductility due to the linear elastic nature of conventional fiber-reinforced
Accepted 5 October 2020
Available online 24 October 2020
polymer (FRP) bars hinders their application scope in civil engineering. Inherited the advantages of FRP
bars, steel fiber-reinforced polymer composite bars (SFCBs) are also characterized by good ductility and
stable post-yield stiffness, which can potentially be ideal reinforcement for concrete structures made
Keywords:
Steel fiber-reinforced polymer composite
with un-desalted corrosive raw materials. This paper presents experimental and theoretical investiga-
bar (SFCB) tions on the flexural performance of SFCB reinforced SSRC beams. Test results indicate that the displace-
Recycled aggregate ment ductility factor of almost all the SFCB reinforced SSRC beams are in a range from 3.7 to 4.9. The
Sea-sand seawater recycled concrete (SSRC) ratios of peak load-to-yielding load of SFCB reinforced SSRC beams varied from 1.5 to 3.1, indicating a
Beam test remarkable post-yield behavior. Compared with the counterparts with natural aggregates, SSRC beams
Modelling show slightly reduced flexural strength and comparable ductility. Theoretical models were proposed to
predict the load-deflection responses of SFCB reinforced SSRC beams, which paves the way for the design
of such members.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction bilitate and replace bridge substructures due to the corrosion of

The performance of reinforced concrete (RC) structures has
been guaranteed by the excellent features of steel reinforcement,
i.e., stable modulus of elasticity, demand-driven tensile strength,
and elastoplastic properties. However, the ever urgent require-
ments of durability under cracking, aggressive service environ-
ment (e.g., corrosive environment) and alternative raw materials
such as sea-sand and seawater challenged the applicability of steel
as reinforcement in RC structures. Corrosion of steel reinforcement
imposes detrimental deterioration on RC structures, leading to a
costly repair, rehabilitation or even structure collapse. The United
States spends approximately three billion dollars annually to reha-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: biaohu3-c@szu.edu.cn (B. Hu).
steel reinforcement [1]. Besides, due to elastoplastic properties,
the conventional steel rebar may not be able to meet the require-
ment of post-yield stiffness of RC structures [2], resulting in exces-
sive residual deformation and thus poor reparability [3].
Aiming to facilitate the direct use of non-desalted sea-sand and
to overcome the corrosion problem in severe environment, the use
of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) as reinforcing material in con-
crete structures has emerged to be as an alternative to steel rebar.
FRP bars are non-metal materials characterized by high strength-
to-weight ratio, excellent resistance to environmental degradation,
good insulation, etc. [4]. Over the past three decades, extensive
experimental and theoretical research work on the application of
FRP bars as reinforcement in concrete structures have been carried
out [5–8]. Due to the great efforts made by the research commu-
nity in this area, valuable test results and theoretical formulae have

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121264
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264

been obtained, which in turn have laid a solid foundation for the posite bars, six reinforced by steel CFRP composite bars and one
development of design code provisions [4,9–11]. reinforced with CFRP bars. Test variables are concrete type and
However, the application of FRP as reinforcing bars in concrete reinforcement type (with varying inner steel bar diameter and
structures has a significant drawback from a ductility point of thickness of the outer FRP cloth). Test results, including global
view. This is because FRP bars have a low strain capacity and linear (e.g., load–deflection curves, failure modes and ductility) and local
elastic stress–strain behavior up to rupture without yielding and responses (e.g., the strains of SFCBs and concrete) are reported,
that the dominant failure mode of such structures is concrete crush analyzed and compared with the existing knowledge where possi-
[12]. Besides, due to the lower tension stiffness of FRP bars, the ser- ble. Finally, a model for the prediction of load–deflection of SFCBs
viceability of FRP-concrete beams is poorer than that of conven- reinforced sea-sand seawater RAC beam is proposed.
tional RC beams with the same reinforcement ratio [5,7]. Thus,
Naaman [13] stated that ‘‘unless ductility requirements are satisfied,
2. Experimental program
FRP materials cannot be used reliably in structural engineering appli-
cations”. Combining the use of FRP and steel bars as flexural rein-
2.1. Specimen design
forcement can enhance member ductility to some degree [14,15].
However, corrosion of steel can also happen, especially in a corro-
The experimental program involved 12 RC beam specimens,
sive environment. Six existing approaches to enhance the ductility
including two reinforced with conventional steel reinforcement,
of FRP-concrete members were summarized by Naaman [13] who
nine reinforced with SFCBs, and one reinforced with CFRP bars.
concluded, however, that these methods are either too complicated
All the specimens were geometrically identical with a cross-
and thus leading to a significant increase in design and construc-
section of 250 mm (depth)  120 mm (width) and a length of
tion costs or not very effective with limited increase in ductility
2000 mm (clear span of 1600 mm). The clear concrete cover for
[13].
each specimen was kept constant at 30 mm. Dimensions and rein-
To compensate for the ductility weakness of FRPs as reinforce-
forcement details of beam specimens are illustrated in Fig. 1.
ment, plain steel bar compounded by braided FRP skin to form
The main test variables were flexural reinforcement type (con-
the so-called hybrid rod was proposed by Nanni et al. [16] and Sai-
ventional steel bar, steel-CFRP composite bar, steel-GFRP compos-
kia et al. [17]. More recently, a new composite bar, namely, steel
ite bar and CFRP bar), the diameter of inner steel bar (6, 8 and
FRP composite bar (SFCB), has been proposed by Wu [18]. The
10 mm), the thickness of outer FRP layer (2, and 3 mm), and type
FRP cloth can be carbon FRP (CFRP), aramid FRP (AFRP), glass FRP
of coarse aggregate (natural aggregate and recycled aggregate).
(GFRP) or basalt FRP (BFRP). This kind of composite bar, which is
Each specimen was identified by letters 1-number 1- number 2-
compounded by elastic–plastic inner steel and linear elastic FRP
letter 2- number 3. The letters 1 denotes the type of flexural rein-
outer cloth, exhibits bilinear stress–strain behaviour with stable
forcement, namely, S for steel bar, SCF for steel-CFRP composite
post-yield stiffness [18–20]. The yielding of the inner steel bar con-
bar, SGF for steel-GFRP composite bar, and CF for CFRP bar. The
tributes to the deformation demand, and FRP cloth provides the
number 1 and number 2 means the diameter of reinforcement
post-yielding stiffness of structures under static [21,22] or cyclic
and inner steel bar, respectively. The letter 2 represents the type
loadings [23]. The rupture of FRP cloth is acceptable at member
of coarse aggregate, i.e., N and R for natural and recycled coarse
failure, provided that the amount of inner steel bar meets the
aggregate, respectively. The number 3 denotes the thickness of
requirement of the minimum reinforcement ratio.
outer FRP thickness. For instance, SCF10-6-N-2 means that the
In addition to the attractive mechanical properties, the outer
specimen reinforced by 10-mm steel-GFRP composite bars with
FRP cloth of SFCB isolates the inner steel bar from harmful medium
the diameter of the inner steel bar and thickness of the outer FRP
like chloride ions [24]. No obvious degradation of bond between
layer of 6 and 2 mm, respectively, and that the coarse aggregates
concrete and SFCBs under severe conditions such as wet-dry
used are natural aggregates. The details of all specimens are sum-
cycling and immersion in seawater was observed within a test
marized in Table 1.
duration of 90 days [22,25]. Thus, SCFBs can be used as reinforce-
All beams had two longitudinal bars at the bottom and two nor-
ment for infrastructure systems in an aggressive environment, e.g.
mal steel bars with a diameter of 8 mm at the top. The bottom bars
marine concrete structures. More importantly, SFCBs enable the
were anchored by standard hooks. The equivalent longitudinal
direct use of non-desalted sea-sand and seawater concrete [22].
reinforcement ratio [21] for each specimen was summarized in
Recycled coarse aggregate (RCA), as an alternative to natural
Table 1. The transverse reinforcing steel rebar had a diameter of
coarse aggregate to mitigate environmental concerns and raw
8 mm with a space of 50 mm in the shear span and a space of
material shortage, has gained cumulatively recognition [26–28].
100 mm in the pure-bending zone. Heavier transverse reinforce-
Besides, the existing research works indicate that the use of recy-
ment was arranged in the shear span to prevent possible shear fail-
cled aggregates, seawater, and sea-sand to prepare concrete can
ure before flexural failure. All specimens were designed according
be to a certain extent to achieve resource sustainability [29–31].
to the Chinese design code [33].
Test results have shown that the recycled aggregate concrete
(RAC) incorporating sea-sand and seawater reaches better worka-
bility and mechanical properties compared with ordinary RAC 2.2. Material property
[32]. Thus, a combination of sea-sand, seawater, RAC and SFCBs
is a very promising direction for sustainable concrete structures, 2.2.1. Sea sand and seawater
especially for coastal and marine infrastructures [32]. However, The used sea-sand and seawater were produced from the Pearl
to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no research seems to have River Estuary (PRE), South China Sea. The chemical composition of
investigated the flexural behaviour of sea-sand and seawater RAC the seawater is summarized in Table 2. The composition and char-
beams longitudinally reinforced with SFCBs. acteristics of the sea-sand used in the current research were eval-
In light of the background and literature review presented uated as per Chinese Technical Specification JGJ 206–2010 [34].
above, the current work experimentally and theoretically investi- Sieve analysis was carried out to determine the particle size distri-
gates the flexural behaviour of SFCBs reinforced seawater sea- bution (PSD) of sea-sand, and the PSD is depicted in Fig. 2, which is
sand recycled concrete (SSRC). The experimental program involved within the limits of Grade II according to JGJ 206–2010 [34]. Thus,
a total of 12 beam specimens, including two control beams with the sea-sand used is suitable for making the concrete mix. The
normal steel reinforcement, three reinforced by steel GFRP com- detailed properties of the sea-sand used in the current work is
2
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264

Fig. 1. Dimensions and reinforcement details of RC beams (unit: mm).

Table 1
Details of specimens.

Spec. ID Equivalent reinforcement Ratio qe (%) Longitudinal reinforcement type* Inner steel bar diameter (mm) Outer FRP thickness (mm)
S12-N 0.85 SD12 – –
S12-R 0.85 SD12 – –
SCF10-6-N-2 0.91 CD10d6t2 6 2
SCF10-6-R-2 0.91 CD10d6t2 6 2
SCF14-10-R-2 1.75 CD14d10t2 10 2
SGF10-6-N-2 1.28 GD10d6t2 6 2
SGF10-6-R-2 1.28 GD10d6t2 6 2
SGF12-6-R-3 1.19 GD12d6t3 6 3
SCF12-6-R-3 0.76 CD12d6t3 6 3
SCF14-8-R-3 1.19 CD14d8t3 8 3
SCF16-10-R-3 1.46 CD16d10t3 10 3
CF12-R 2.49 CD12 – –

Note: * S = steel; C = carbon fiber; G = glass fiber; D = diameter of reinforcement; d = diameter of inner steel bar; and t = thickness of fiber.

Table 2 Table 3
Chemical composition of the seawater. Summary of the properties of sea sand used.

Composition Pearl River Estuary(mg/L) Types Pearl River Estuary JGJ 206–2010
Na+ 395.0 Fineness modulus 2.75 –
K+ 422.5 Sediment content (%) 1.02  1.0
Ca2+ 1.24  104 Clay lump content (%) 0.44  0.5
Mg2+ 1.00  103 Apparent density (kg/m3) 2661 –
F- 5.14 Bulk density (kg/m3) 1475 –
Cl- 2.00  104 Tight density (kg/m3) 2072 –
SO.2-
4 1.82  103 Water content (%) 4.85 –
CO2–3 7.54 Seashell content (%) 1.12  3.0
Cl- (%) 0.05  0.03
SO3/SO2-4 (%) 0.47  1.0
Light matter content (%) 0.04  1.0
Ruggedness (%) 3.38  8.0

Most of the indicators are within the specified ranges of JGJ 206–
2010 [34] with exception of sediment content and Cl-. The Japanese
code JASS 5 [36] specifies that sea-sand is usable when the Cl- con-
tent is less than 0.04% with respect to the dry sand; otherwise, pro-
tective measures are needed. The combination of SFCBs and sea
sand concrete can be a promising solution of directly using sea
sand [25].

2.2.2. SFCBs, CFRP and steel bars

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution curve.
summarized in Table 3. The fineness modulus is an empirical factor
to describe the fineness of sand. Larger fineness modulus indicates
the coarser sand. The measured fineness modulus of the sea sand
in the current study is 2.75, which is similar to that observed by
Huang [35] with a fineness modulus ranging from 1.98 to 2.85.
3
Fig. 3(a) shows the surface and cross-sectional configuration of
the SFCBs, consisting of the inner steel bar and outer FRP cloth. The
surface of all the SFCBs is ribbed or threshed, and the rib depth of
SFCBs is approximately 1.0 mm. The distance between two adja-
cent ribs equals to the diameter of respective SFCB. Two kinds of
FRP clothes are used, i.e. CFRP or GFRP. The types of resin for pro-
ducing CFRP and GFRP clothes are epoxy and vinyl ester, respec-
tively. Three kinds of grade HRB400 plain round steel bars are
used as inner steel bars, represented by S6, S8 and S10, correspond-
ing to a diameter of 6, 8 and 10 mm, respectively. The SFCBs are
provided by a local supplier. The flexural reinforcement for S12-
NCA and S12-RCA is deformed steel bar with a diameter of
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al.
Fig. 3. Properties of SFCB.
12 mm (S12). The material properties for all the reinforcement are
summarized in Table 5.
2.2.3. Concrete
Both the NCA and RCA concrete used for casting of the respec-
tive specimens were designed to be grade C40 (compressive
strength = 40 MPa) with the coarse aggregate size ranging from 5
to 31.5 mm. Concrete cubes (150  150  150 mm3) were cast with
the same batch of concrete and cured under the same condition as
the beam specimens. After demolding, the specimens were
wrapped with two layers of polyethylene and watered twice a
day to ensure a wet condition for 28 days. Three concrete cubes
were cast for each batch of NCA and RCA concrete, which were
tested to determine the compressive strength of concrete. The
average compressive strength of concrete cubes measured at 28-
day was 48.7 and 45.7 MPa for NCA and RCA concrete, respectively.
The concrete mixture for both NCA and RCA concrete are summa-
rized in Table 4.
2.3. Test setup and instrumentation
A schematic of the test setup and instrumentation are shown in
Fig. 4(a). All the beam specimens were tested under a four-point
bending manner. The load was applied in a displacement control
mode at a rate of 0.2 mm/min. A total of five linear variable differ-
ential transformers (LVDTs) were used to measure the transverse
deflections of the beam at different points (Fig. 3(b)). Since two
LVDTs were utilized to monitor the possible transverse deforma-
tion at supports, the displacements of the beam relative to its sup-
port can be obtained, which was exactly the deformation of the
beam [37,38]. A total of 16 strain gauges (SG1 to SG16) were
mounted on the longitudinal reinforcement to measure the strain
distribution (Fig. 4(b)). The concrete strains at the mid-span were
measured by a total of six strain gauges evenly distributed along
the section height (Fig. 4(c)). During the whole loading period, a
hand-held crack comparator (ZBL-F800) was used to measure the
maximum crack width in the pure-bending area, and the number
of cracks was recorded manually.
Table 4
Concrete mixture.
Types Water/Cement Seawater (kg/m3)
NCA concrete 0.49 200
RCA concrete 0.50 196
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264
3. Experimental results, analysis and discussion
3.1. Failure modes
The failure modes of all the tested specimens are shown in
Fig. 5. A total of four failure modes were identified in the tests
based on the observed experimental phenomena and monitored
strain values of longitudinal reinforcement, which are: (1) the
compression-zone concrete crushed after the ordinary steel rebar
yielded (S12-NCA and S12-RCA); (2) the outer FRP cloth of SFCBs
ruptured after yielding of inner steel rebar followed by crushing
of compression-zone concrete (all the SFCB reinforced concrete
beams with the exception of SCF14-RCA-3 and SCF16-RCA-3 that
have larger inner bar diameter and thicker CFRP cloth); (3) the
inner steel rebar yielded and then compression-zone concrete
crushed without rupture of outer FRP cloth (SCF14-RCA-3 and
SCF16-RCA-3); and (4) concrete crushed before ruptured CFRP bars
(CF12-RCA). The load causing the first cracking of beams fluctuated
in a range from 16 to 22 kN, due to the randomness nature of con-
crete tensile strength. As the external load increased, the initial
cracks for each beam widened, and new parallel cracks formed in
the pure bending zone and propagated toward the natural axis.
With further increase of applied load, cracks occurred in the shear
span and curved to the loading points due to the combined effect of
shear and normal stresses [39,40]. A total of five or six flexural
cracks were observed in the pure flexural region for specimens
reinforced with normal steel bars, which were more than that of
beams reinforced by SCFBs having three to four flexural cracks.
The difference in the final crack patterns can be due to the weak-
ened bond strength between SCFBs and surrounding concrete
[19,21]. The different surface properties due to the geometrical
properties of ribs influence the bond strength of SFCBs [41], which
will in turn affect the crack width, number and space.
3.2. Load-deflection curves
The load–deflection curves of the 12 beam tests are shown in
Fig. 6(a). For clear comparison in terms of the effects of the differ-
ent variables on the flexural behaviour, the curves are given in dif-
ferent groups, as shown in Fig. 6(b-e). Four characteristic loads
were identified from each test, namely, the load at the formation
of the first crack (Pcr), the load at the yielding of flexural reinforce-
ment (Py), the load at the occurrence of the fiber cloth rupture (Pfr),
and the load causing concrete crushing (Pcc). Those featured points
were marked on the load–deflection response of each specimen
(Fig. 6(b-e)) and also summarized in Table 6. Those characteristic
points divided the whole loading process into four stages: elastic
stage before first cracking, service stage after cracking, post-
yielding stage before FRP cloth rupture, and the stage after the rup-
ture of FRP cloth.
All the beam specimens showed similar linear load–deflection
response up to the occurrence of the first flexural crack, which
indicates the effect of gross section stiffness and the fact that flex-
ural resistance was mainly provided by the concrete. Flexural
cracks occurred in the pure bending zone as the increase of exter-
nal load, causing the post-cracking flexural stiffness considerably
smaller than the initial state. The reduced stiffness indicates the
effective section properties dominate the structural response of
Cement (kg/m3) Sea sand (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate (kg/m3)
408.1 644.1 1148.2
408.0 593.7 1205.0
4
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264

Table 5
Materials properties for reinforcement.

Material ID ey (%) ry (MPa) eu (%) ru (MPa) EI (GPa) EII (GPa) Bar type Fiber type D (mm) d (mm) t (mm)
CD10d6t2 0.23 295 1.41 950 129 55 SFCB C 10 6 2
CD14d10t2 0.24 313 1.62 825 132 36 SFCB C 14 10 2
GD10d6t2 0.24 221 1.97 662 92 25 SFCB G 10 6 2
CD12d6t3 0.23 257 1.52 716 112 35 SFCB C 12 6 3
CD14d8t3 0.21 250 1.51 706 119 35 SFCB C 14 8 3
GD12d6t3 0.27 208 2.01 623 77 24 SFCB G 12 6 3
CD16d10t3 0.22 260 1.55 700 118 33 SFCB C 16 10 3
SD6 0.24 460 – – 192 – Steel – 6 – –
SD8 0.23 445 – – 193 – Steel – 8 – –
SD10 0.22 415 – – 189 – Steel – 10 – –
SD12 0.22 435 – – 198 – Steel – 12 – –
CD12 – – – 654 68 – Carbon – 12 – –

Note: ey = yield strain; ry = yield stress; eu = ultimate strain; ru = ultimate stress; C = carbon fiber; G = glass fiber; D = diameter of reinforcement; d = diameter of inner steel
bar; and t = thickness of fiber.

Fig. 4. Test setup and instrumentation.

Fig. 5. Failure modes.

5
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264

Fig. 6. Load-deflection curves.

Table 6
Summary of test results.

Spec. ID Cracking load (kN) Yielding load (kN) Yielding def. (mm) Ultimate load (kN) Ultimate def. (mm) Ductility coefficient
S12-N 22 125.4 3.56 163.3 37.05 10.51
S12-R 18 119.0 4.10 162.2 40.30 9.85
SCF10-6-N-2 22 64.4 4.37 167.1 18.76 4.29
SCF10-6-R-2 22 47.6 3.98 149.9 16.97 4.28
SCF14-10-R-2 22 91.3 6.22 139.9 14.29 2.32
SGF10-6-N-2 19 68.1 3.97 108.8 18.21 4.59
SGF10-6-R-2 20 58.9 3.66 90.1 16.31 4.47
SGF12-6-R-3 18 92.2 4.56 111.4 21.74 4.88
SCF12-6-R-3 20 74.7 3.32 190.4 15.88 4.71
SCF14-8-R-3 16 114.9 4.86 214.0 21.95 4.51
SCF16-10-R-3 20 145.2 6.14 260.2 22.35 3.76
CF12-R 22 – – 188.4 11.60 –

6
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al.
cracked beams. After cracking, beams reinforced with steel-CFRP
composite bars and steel bars behaved almost linearly until their
respective yielding points reached (Fig. 6(b-e)), whereas a decreas-
ing stiffness for beams reinforced with steel-GFRP composite bars
was observed. After yielding, obviously increasing degradation of
stiffness was found for all the SFCBs reinforced beams and steel
bars reinforced beams. For beam reinforced with CFRP bars, how-
ever, a nearly linear behaviour was observed until the crushing
of concrete.
3.2.1. Effect of reinforcement type
The comparison of load–deflection curves with respect to differ-
ent reinforcement type is shown in Fig. 6(b). All the reinforcing
bars had the same diameter of 12 mm, corresponding to the same
reinforcement ratio of 0.85%. Although the reinforcement ratios for
different specimens were the same, different longitudinal rein-
forcement types resulted in different flexural strength. Thus, this
section will not focus on load capacity and will compare the flexu-
ral stiffness instead. Before yielding of longitudinal reinforcement,
the average post-cracking flexural stiffness of S12-R was the lar-
gest, which decreased stepwise for specimens CF12, SCF12-6-R-3
and SGF12-6-R-3. The post-cracking flexural stiffness was calcu-
lated as the average slope of the curve between first cracking
and yielding points, as illustrated in Fig. 6. The difference in spec-
imens’ stiffness can be explained by the different axial stiffness of
longitudinal reinforcement, which is associated with the area (A)
and modulus of elasticity (E) of flexural bars. The E values for CFRP
bar, steel GFRP composite bar, steel CFRP composite bar and steel
bar increase gradually, as summarized in Table 5. The post-
cracking flexural stiffness of the S12-R was almost 1.89 times of
that of SCF12-6-R-3, which is approximately similar to the ratio
of the modulus of elasticity of the steel (193 GPa) to that of the
steel CFRP composite bar CD12D6T3 (112 GPa). Similar findings
were obtained by Mousa et al. [42,43].
After yielding, the load–deflection response for specimen S12-R
became significantly nonlinear and experienced a typical yielding
plateau with limited post-yielding ascending branch due to the
very low tangent modulus of steel. In terms of specimen SCF12-
6-R-3, its post-yielding stiffness subjected to a much slower degra-
dation than that of S12-R since the outer CFRP cloth maintained
the modulus of elasticity until fiber rupture and thus continuously
contributed to the flexural strength. However, the extent of post-
yielding stiffness degradation for SGF12-6-R-3 was much more sig-
nificant than that of SCF12-6-R-3. This is mainly because GFRP
cloth having a rather low modulus of elasticity compared with
GFRP, and thus contributed little to flexural strength.
3.2.2. Effect of inner steel bar diameter
Fig. 6(c) shows the comparison of the load–deflection responses
of specimens with different inner bar diameters in SFCBs. The
thickness of the outer CFRP cloth was the same (3 mm), whereas
the total diameters for those three specimens were different. The
figure shows that increasing the inner steel bar diameter enhanced
the flexural strength, ultimate deflection and stiffness of the spec-
imens reinforced with SFCBs. On the one hand, when the inner
steel bar diameter increased from 6 to 8 mm, 6 to 10 mm and 8
to 10 mm, the increments of flexural capacity were 12.4%, 36.6%
and 21.6%, respectively. This indicates that the increase of the
amount of SFCBs in the tensile side contributes to the enhance-
ment of flexural capacity, which is consistent with what was found
in normal steel reinforced concrete members.
On the other hand, the ultimate deflection increased by 38.2%,
40.7% and 1.8%, when the inner steel bar diameter increased from
6 to 8 mm, 6 to 10 mm and 8 to 10 mm, respectively. This phe-
nomenon, at first sight, contradicts the existing knowledge that
deflection of RC members decreases with increasing flexural rein-
7
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264
forcement ratio since the neutral axis shifts towards tension rein-
forcement. Notably, however, the failure mode (at peak flexural
capacity) changed from fiber rupture to concrete crush when the
inner steel bar diameter increased from 6 mm to 8 mm and above,
as indicated in Fig. 6(c). This can be a reason to explain why the
ultimate deflection of SCF14-8-R-3 was large than SCF12-6-R-3.
Under the counteractive effects of shifted neutral axis and changed
failure mode, a quantitative explanation cannot be precisely pro-
vided to this regard. Theoretically, under the same failure mode
of concrete crush, the ultimate deflection of SCF14-10-R-3 should
be smaller than that of SCF16-10-R-3. However, as recorded in
the test, the ultimate deflection of SCF16-10-R-3 increased by
1.8% compared with that of SCF14-8-R-3. This little increase can
be due to the complexity of strain states of concrete in the com-
pression zone and the possible randomness of concrete crushing.
Similar test results were observed by other researchers [44].
3.2.3. Effect of outer FRP thickness and type
Specimens SCF10-6-R-2 and SCF12-6-R-3, as well as SGF10-6-R-
2 and SGF12-6-R-3, were designed to have the same inner steel bar
diameter (6 mm), whereas their outer FRP thickness and type were
different. Fig. 6(d) compares the effects of outer FRP cloth thickness
and type on the load–deflection responses of tested specimens. The
post-cracking flexural stiffness was obviously strengthened by the
increasing outer FRP thickness and significantly enhanced by the
larger modulus of elasticity of FRP, as illustrated in Fig. 6(d). Nota-
bly, the SFCB-RC specimens experienced a much more significant
post-yielding ascending branch with higher stiffness when either
the thickness or modulus of elasticity of FRP cloth increases. This
is mainly attributed to the fact that, after inner steel bar yielding,
the modulus of elasticity of FRP was maintained and dominated
the flexural behaviour in the afterward duration of loading.
For specimens with steel CFRP composite bars, when the CFRP
cloth increased from 2 to 3 mm, the flexural strength increased
by 27.0%. This increment value is approximately close to that of
beams with steel GFRP composites bars, which was 23.7%. Besides,
the flexural capacity was 66.4% larger for beams with CFRP cloth
than that with GFRP cloth when the thickness was 2 mm. Similarly,
this value slightly increased to 70.9% at an FRP cloth thickness of
3 mm. Either the increase of FRP cloth thickness (2 to 3 mm) or
modulus of elasticity of FRP (GFRP to CFRP) means the increase
of the amount of flexural reinforcement, which contributes to the
increase of flexural capacity. Notably, no unified trend was found
in terms of the effects of FRP thickness and type on deflection at
peak capacity. Theoretically, if the rupture strain of FRP cloth with
varying thickness is the same or within limited variation, beam
reinforced with thicker FRP cloth SFCBs results in larger deflection
at FRP rupture due to the increased neutral-axis depth, as indicated
in Fig. 6(d) between SGF10-6-R-2 and SGF12-6-R-3. However, this
is not the case for SCF10-6-R-2 and SCF12-6-R-3. The deflection of
the latter is 6.4% smaller than the former. This can be due to the
randomness of the rupture strain of CFRP cloth with different
thicknesses.
3.2.4. Effect of the concrete type
Fig. 6(e) compares the effects of natural and recycled concrete
aggregates on the load–deflection responses of beams reinforced
with different types of flexural reinforcement, indicating both the
flexural strength and stiffness were larger for NAC beams than
RAC beams. The compressive strength of NAC and RAC was 48.7
and RAC 45.7 MPa, respectively. The old cement mortar adhered
to the RCA is much more deformable than the stone of an NCA,
which results in a decrease in the modulus of elasticity of RAC
[28]. As indicated in Fig. 6(e), the flexural strength for NAC beams
increased by 0.7%, 11.5% and 20.8% compared with RAC counter-
parts under flexural reinforcement types of steel bars, steel CFRP
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al.
composite bars and steel GFRP composite bars, respectively. Simi-
larly, the deflection at peak flexural load for the NAC beam rein-
forced with steel CFRP composite bars was 10.5% larger than that
of RAC beams, and this value increased slightly to 11.6% for beams
reinforced with steel GFRP composite bars. After FRP cloth rupture,
the loading decreased to the level corresponding to only inner steel
bars being effective, which agrees well with the test results
observed in [21].
3.3. Strain analysis
3.3.1. Strain of SFCB
Fig. 7 illustrates the load versus flexural tension strain relation-
ships for certain specimens. The curves are plotted in different
groups to clearly show the effects of the different variables. Fig. 7(-
a-c) and Fig. 7(d) show the curves of strains recorded by SG2 and
SG1, respectively. The locations for SG2 and SG1 are depicted in
Fig. 4(b), among which the former is close to the midspan and
the letter is a little away from midspan. As expected, the flexural
bars started to be strained at the initiation of the first cracking.
After cracking, the strains increased much faster as external load
increased—a clear sign of transfer of major tensile internal forces
from the concrete to the flexural bars. An afterward generally trend
was that the strains increased gradually at different rates as the
loading continued.
Specimens with normal steel bars (S12-N and S12-R) experi-
enced a yielding plateau, followed by a sharp strain accumulation
up to the concrete crush (in Fig. 7(a), the gauging was terminated
due to strain gauge failure). However, for specimens reinforced
with SFCBs, the longitudinal strain increased with different rates
at different loading levels up to member failure. The recorded max-
imum strain in steel bars and SFCBs before strain gauge failure was
over 6000 and 10000le, respectively. The curves suggest that the
flexural strains decreased with an increasing modulus of elasticity
Fig. 7. Load-strain of flexural reinforcement.
8
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264
of the flexural bars at the same load level, which was consistent
with what was indicated in load–deflection curves (i.e. larger mod-
ulus of elasticity of the flexural bars lead to smaller deflection at
the same load level). In addition, for the same longitudinal rein-
forcing condition, smaller flexural bar strains were recorded for
beams with NAC than their RAC counterpart. Those phenomena
can be explained by either the increased or decreased height of
the neutral axis under the widely accepted Bernoulli hypothesis.
3.3.2. Strain of concrete
Fig. 8(a) shows the development of concrete strains in extreme
compression fiber (recorded by SG 1) and the corresponding tensile
strains in flexural bars (recorded by SG 2) against the applied load.
The locations for SG1 on concrete and SG 2 on flexural rebar are
shown in Fig. 4(c) and (d). Some strain gauges did not work at
the time of testing, possibly due to the casual damage caused dur-
ing concrete casting. Some others did not work properly or were
damaged before member failure because intensive cracks or exces-
sive straining occurred in the instrumented regions of concrete and
tensile bars. Nevertheless, for an illustrative purpose, only five
specimens were selected to clarify the effect of test variables.
Before the first cracking, recorded concrete strains were rather
small in all the specimens, ranging from 120 to 300le. As the
external load increases, the degree of linearity of the concrete com-
pressive strain curves decreases as the tensile stiffness of flexural
reinforcement increases. The concrete compressive strains were
found to be highly associated with the tensile stiffness of longitu-
dinal reinforcement, i.e. larger tensile stiffness led to smaller con-
crete compressive strains at the same load level. Besides, due to the
lower modulus of elasticity of RAC, beams with RAC experienced
larger compressive strain compared with NAC specimens.
Again, for an illustrative purpose, Fig. 8(b-c) presents the strain
profiles along with the height of the midspan section of three spec-
imens reinforced with three different kinds of flexural bars,
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al.
Fig. 8. Concrete strain development and distribution along midspan cross-section.
namely, normal steel bar, steel-CFRP composite bar and steel-GFRP
composite bar. Generally, the strain distributed approximately lin-
ear over the deformed section at different loading levels, indicating
the assumption that the plane section remains plane after defor-
mation can be considered as an acceptable simplification for beams
reinforced with SFCBs. The substantiated assumption was used to
analyze some related experimental behaviour and will be used to
calculate the flexural strength of members subsequently.
3.4. Displacement ductility
Ductility is an important factor that should be considered in any
structural element, which may vary from 1 to 7 (typically in a
range from 3 to 6) [45]. The displacement ductility coefficient in
the current paper is defined as l = dp /dy, where l = displacement
ductility coefficient; dp = the displacement corresponding to the
peak load; and dy = yield displacement corresponding to the yield
load. The ductility coefficients, as summarized in Table 6, vary from
2.32 to 10.51. As expected, specimens reinforced with normal steel
reinforcement (S12-N and S12-R) show the largest ductility. For
specimens using SFCBs as strengthening material, their displace-
ment ductility coefficients are all larger than 3.7, with the excep-
tion of specimen SCF14-10-R-2. Under the same longitudinal
reinforcement, the difference in aggregate type (natural and recy-
cled) shows a rather limited effect of members’ ductility (e.g.,
S12-N and S12-R, SCF10-6-N-2 and SCF10-6-R-2 as well as
SGF10-6-N-2 and SGF10-6-R-2).
4. Prediction models
4.1. Load-deflection prediction model
Various empirical and theoretical models have been proposed
in the literature to predict the flexural deformation and flexural
9
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264
strength [46] of RC beams. Wu [47] mathematically derived a sim-
ple formula to predict the deflection of simply supported FRP rein-
forced concrete beams by integrating the curvatures along the
member length, which has been experimentally validated and used
to optimize the design of FRP reinforced concrete members from a
ductility point of view by the first author of this paper and the
coauthors [48–51]. In the development of the model, the total
member deflection is defined as the superposition of plastic and
elastic deformations. It is assumed in the model that the plasticity
concentrates in the plastic hinge zone within a limited length of Lp
where the plastic curvature is approximated to be constant
[47,52,53]. Rigorous mathematical development of the model is
available elsewhere [47]. The equation consists of two parts, i.e.,
the deflection due to the plastic hinge zone and that beyond the
plastic hinge, which is
D ¼ 1=8jað2  aÞL2 þ Drc ð1Þ
where j is the curvature within the plastic hinge zone of a beam; L
is the clear span of a beam; Lp is the length of the plastic hinge; a is
the ratio of plastic hinge spacing-to-member clear span (a = Lp/L);
and Drc is the deflection caused by curvature outside plastic hinge
load spacing. In other words, Drc can be calculated as per the con-
ventional RC theory for a beam with a total length of L-Lp, which
gives:
Drc ¼ kð1  aÞ2 L2 M=ðEc Ie Þ ð2Þ
where k is a factor depending on the load distribution, which equals
to 1/12 for two concentrated loads; and EcIe is the flexural rigidity of
the member. Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete, which is
qffiffiffiffi
0
taken as Ec ¼ 4700 f c (MPa) as per ACI 318-14 [54]; and Ie is the
effective moment of inertia of the cross-section.
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264

For conventional RC beams, the Ie established by Branson [55] is f c  50

n¼2 62 ð7bÞ
used in the deflection analysis of steel-reinforced concrete mem- 60
bers, as follows:
 3 "  3 # 1
M cr M cr e0 ¼ 0:002 þ f c  50  105 P 0:002 ð7cÞ
Ie ¼ Ig þ 1  Icr ð3Þ 2
M M
ecu ¼ 0:0033 þ f c  50  105 6 0:0033 ð7dÞ
For SFCB beams, Ie given by ACI 440.1R-15 [4] is used in this
work, and the equation gives as follows: where rc = stress of concrete; ec = strain of concrete; fc = compressive
strength of concrete; e0 and ecu = strain at peak stress and ultimate
Icr
Ie ¼ M 2 h i ð4Þ strain of concrete, respectively; and n = empirical coefficient. The
1c M
cr
1  IIcrg elasticity-ideal plasticity-hardening relation as is used to simulate
the conventional steel reinforcement:
  (
Mcr
c ¼ 1:72  0:72 ð5Þ Es es 0 6 es 6 ey
M rs ¼   ð8Þ
f y þ 0:01Es es  ey ey < es 6 esu
in which, Ig is the gross moment of inertia; Icr is the cracked
moment of inertia for SFCBs reinforced concrete beams before the where rs and es = stress and strain of the steel rebar; ey = strain
yielding of SFCB; and M is the applied moment. of steel rebar when yielding occurs; fy = yield strength of steel
Mcr is the cracking moment and can be calculated by the follow- rebar; and Es = Young’s modulus of the steel rebar.
ing equation per ACI 318-14 [54]: In terms of the SFCBs, as shown in Fig. 3, the model developed
by Wu et al. [18] is adopted to represent the constitutive relation,
M cr ¼ f r Ig =yt ð6Þ which is:
8
< EI esf 0 6esf 6 esfy 
where fr is the modulus of rupture of concrete and can be calculated
qffiffiffiffi >
0
as 0:62 f c (MPa) (ACI 318-14); yt is the distance from the centroid rsf ¼ f sfy þ EII esf  esfy esfy < esf 6 esfu ð9Þ
0 >
:f e < e
axis of the cross-section to the extreme fiber in tension; and f c is sfr sfu sf
concrete compressive strength.
where rsf = stress of SFCB; rsf = strain of SFCB; fsfy = yield stress of
4.2. Material properties SFCB; esfy = yield strain of SFCB; fsfu = ultimate stress of SFCB at the
rupture of outside FRP cloth; esfu = ultimate strain of SFCB at the
For simplicity, the following assumptions are made in the calcu- rupture of outside FRP cloth; EI and EII = the slop of curves (refer
lating of load–deflection curves of both conventional steel and to Fig. 3); and fsfr = residual strength of SFCB. Notably, EI and EII
SFCBs reinforced concrete beams: (1) plane section remains plane are related to the cross-sectional percentage of steel and FRP, which
before and after applying moment; (2) tensile strength of concrete can be calculated as per the equations provided by Wu et al. [18]. In
is neglected; (3) the constitutive laws of concrete, conventional the current paper, all the material properties required in the consti-
steel bars and SFCBs are known; (4) the bond between concrete tutive laws are obtained by material tests.
and longitudinal reinforcement (including steel rebar and SFCBs)
as well as the bond between inner steel rebar and out FRP cloth 4.3. Verification of the model
is perfect.
Existing findings indicate that the sea-sand seawater recycled Based on the assumptions made previously and the material
concrete is comparable to ordinary concrete in terms of the 28- constitutive laws, the moment–curvature relationship of a typical
day compressive strength and long-term behaviour [28,32]. Thus, cross-section can be obtained according to the conventional lay-
in the current work, the following constitutive law proposed for ered method [48,56]. In the method, the deformed section is dis-
ordinary concrete recommended by the Chinese design code [33] cretized into certain layers, and the strain value of each layer is
is adopted to predict the compressive behaviour of both ordinary represented at the layer center for a given curvature value under
concrete and sea-sand seawater recycled concrete: the assumption of plane section remaining plane. The equilibrium
8 h   i of the deformed section on the basis of the presented stress–strain
< f 1  1  ec n 0 6 e 6 e relations under a certain curvature gives the location of the neutral
rc ¼ c e 0
c 0
ð7aÞ axis, and the corresponding moment provided by the cross-section
:
f c e0 < ec 6 ecu is eventually calculated by integrating the moment contribution by
each discretized layers. With the moment–curvature relationships

Fig. 9. Calibration of the model using conventional steel rebar reinforced concrete beam tests.

10
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al. Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264

Fig. 10. Calibration of the model using SFCBs reinforced concrete beam tests.

at different sections known, the load–deflection curves can then be
obtained using Eqs. (1) and (2).
To verify the model, load–deflection curves of normal steel
rebar reinforced concrete beams in different research papers [57–
59] and SFCBs reinforced concrete beams available in the current
experimental work and elsewhere [21,60,61] are collected to com-
pare with the predicted results. As shown in Fig. 9, the predicted
data can match the load–deflection curves of normal steel rebar
reinforced concrete beams from different literatures well, indicat-
ing the accuracy of the model in this regard. Fig. 10(a-b), 10(c-f),

11
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al.
(g-h) and (i-n) compare the model predicted and experimentally
measured load deflection-curves of SFCBs reinforced concrete
beam specimens tested in [60,61,21] and the current paper, respec-
tively. Generally, the calculated curves agree with experimental
curves with reasonable accuracy in terms of stiffness before and
after yielding of reinforcement, load capacity and ultimate deflec-
tion. Thus, the proposed model can be used to predict the struc-
tural responses of SFCBs reinforced concrete beams under
varying parameters.
5. Conclusions
The shortage of raw construction materials, e.g., river sand,
freshwater and natural aggregate, is increasingly challenging the
sustainable development of construction and civil engineering.
The use of SSRC can be a promising solution. To overcome the cor-
rosion due to un-desalinated seawater and sea-sand, SFCBs, instead
of FRP bars, are used as reinforcement with an aim to maintain
ductility and post-yield stiffness of reinforced beams. In this paper,
twelve reinforced concrete beams, including nine SFCB reinforced
ones, are tested under four-point bending. Some key experimental
results are presented and analyzed. A model that can predict the
load–deflection response of SFCB reinforced concrete beams is pro-
posed. The following conclusions were drawn from this work:
(1) Two failure modes can be identified for SFCBs reinforced
concrete beams, namely, the outer FRP cloth ruptured after yield-
ing of inner steel rebar followed by crushing of compression-
zone concrete; and the inner steel rebar yielded and then
compression-zone concrete crushed without rupture of outer FRP
cloth. Different failure modes result in different structural
responses, which should be considered in the design of this kind
of beam.
(2) Fewer flexural cracks are found for SFCBs reinforced con-
crete beams than normal steel bars reinforced members.
(3) The initial stiffness of SFCB reinforced concrete beam is
smaller than that of normal steel bar reinforced concrete beams,
but the post-yield stiffness of the former is much larger than the
latter. The extent of the enhancement of post-yielding stiffness is
related to the kind and thickness of FRP cloth.
(4) Under a similar reinforcement ratio, the flexural strength for
NAC beams is 0.7%, 11.5% and 20.8% larger than their RAC counter-
parts under flexural reinforcement types of normal steel bar, steel
CFRP composite bar and steel GFRP composite bar, respectively.
(5) The displacement ductility factors for SFCBs reinforced con-
crete beams are in a range from 3.76 to 4.88, which are all larger
than 3 with the exception of specimen SCF14-10-R-2. Under the
same longitudinal reinforcement, the difference in aggregate type
(natural and recycled) shows a rather limited effect on members’
ductility.
(6) A model that can predict the load–deflection responses of
SFCBs reinforced concrete beams with reasonable accuracy is
proposed.
Within the scope of the current investigation, based on the test
results, discussions and theoretical modelling, the conclusions that
emerged from the current study are summarized above. It is noted
that this work has limited ranges of parameter variation; therefore,
the conclusions are only applicable to the cases studied in this
work. Further studies are needed to substantiate and further
improve the findings in the current work.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yingwu Zhou: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisi-
tion, Writing - original draft. Heng Gao: Investigation, Visualiza-
tion. Zhiheng Hu: Investigation. Yadong Qiu: Investigation,
12
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264
Validation. Menghuan Guo: Validation. Xiaoxu Huang: Methodol-
ogy. Biao Hu: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was financially supported by
the National Key Research & Development Plan of China (No.
2018YFE0125000) and the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grants No. 51978412 and 51878414), to which the
authors are grateful.
References
[1] H.M. Mohamed, M.Z. Afifi, B. Benmokrane, Performance evaluation of concrete
columns reinforced longitudinally with FRP bars and confined with FRP hoops
and spirals under axial load, J. Bridge Eng. 19 (7) (2014) 1–10.
[2] J. Ruiz-Garcia, E. Miranda, Residual displacement ratios for assessment of
existing structures, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn 35 (3) (2006) 315–336.
[3] D. Pettinga, C. Christopoulos, S. Pampanin, N. Priestley, Effectiveness of simple
approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings, Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 36 (12) (2007) 1763–1783.
[4] ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 440. Guide for the design and
construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars. ACI 440.1R-15, Farmington
Hills, MI; 2015.
[5] A. Nanni, Flexural behavior and design of RC members using FRP
reinforcement, J. Struct. Eng. 119 (11) (1993) 3344–3359.
[6] C.E. Bakis, L.C. Bank, V.L. Brown, E. Cosenza, J.F. Davalos, J.J. Lesko, A. Machida,
S.H. Rizkalla, T.C. Triantafillou, Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for
construction—state-of-the-art review, J. Compos. Constr. 6 (2) (2002) 73–87.
[7] W.K. Lee, D.C. Jansen, B. Kenneth, Flexural cracks in fiber-reinforced concrete
beams with fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcing bars, ACI Struct. J. 107 (3)
(2010) 321–329.
[8] C. Kassem, A.S. Farghaly, B. Benmokrane, Evaluation of flexural behavior and
serviceability performance of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars, J.
Compos. Constr. 15 (5) (2011) 682–695.
[9] CSA (Canadian Standards Association). Canadian highway bridge design code.
CAN/CSA S6-14, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; 2014.
[10] CNR (National Research Council). Guide for the design and construction of
concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer bars. CNR DT-
203/2006, Italian Research Council, Rome; 2007.
[11] Fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete). FRP reinforcement in RC
structures. Bulletin 40, Technical Rep., Lausanne, Switzerland; 2007.
[12] Y.F. Wu, New avenue of achieving ductility for reinforced concrete members, J.
Struct. Eng. 132 (9) (2006) 1502–1506.
[13] A.E. Naaman, in: FRP Reinforcements in Structural Concrete: Assessment,
Progress and Prospects, World Scientific, Singapore, 2003, pp. 1–24.
[14] M.A. Aiello, L. Ombres, Structural performances of concrete beams with hybrid
(fiber-reinforced polymersteel) reinforcements, J. Compos. Constr. 6 (2) (2002)
133–140.
[15] W. Qu, X. Zhang, H. Huang, Flexural behavior of concrete beams reinforced
with hybrid (GFRP and steel) bars, J. Compos. Constr. 13 (5) (2009) 350–359.
[16] A. Nanni, M.J. Henneke, T. Okamoto, Tensile properties of hybrid rods for
concrete reinforcement, Constr. Build. Mater. 8 (1) (1994) 27–34.
[17] B. Saikia, J. Thomas, A. Ramaswamy, K.N. Rao, Performance of hybrid rebars as
longitudinal reinforcement in normal strength concrete, Mater. Struct. 38 (10)
(2005) 857–864.
[18] G. Wu, Z.S. Wu, Y.B. Luo, X.Q. Hu, Mechanical properties of steel-FRP composite
bar under uniaxial and cyclic tensile loads, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22 (10) (2010)
1056–1066.
[19] G. Wu, Z.Y. Sun, Z.S. Wu, Y.B. Luo, Mechanical properties of steel-FRP
composite bars (SFCBs) and performance of SFCB reinforced concrete
structures, Adv. Struct. Eng. 15 (4) (2012) 625–635.
[20] F.M.F. Fahmy, Z.S. Wu, G. Wu, Z.Y. Sun, Post-yield stiffnesses and residual
deformations of RC bridge columns reinforced with ordinary rebars and steel
fiber composite bars, Eng. Struct. 32 (9) (2010) 2969–2983.
[21] Z.Y. Sun, Y. Yang, W.H. Qin, S.T. Ren, G. Wu, Experimental study on flexural
behavior of concrete beams reinforced by steel-FRP composite bars, J Reinf
Plast Comp 31 (24) (2012) 1737–1745.
[22] Z.Q. Dong, G. Wu, Y.Q. Xu, Bond and flexural behavior of sea sand concrete
members reinforced with hybrid steel-composite bars presubjected to wet-dry
cycles, J. Compos. Constr. 21 (2) (2016) 04016095.
Y. Zhou, H. Gao, Z. Hu et al.
[23] Z.Y. Sun, G. Wu, J. Zhang, Y.H. Zeng, W.C. Xiao, Experimental study on concrete
columns reinforced by hybrid steel-fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars under
horizontal cyclic loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 130 (2017) 202–211.
[24] Y.W. Zhou, Y.W. Zheng, J. Pan, L.L. Sui, F. Xing, H.F. Sun, P.D. Li, Experimental
investigations on corrosion resistance of innovative steel-FRP composite bars
using X-ray microcomputed tomography, Compos Part B 161 (2019) 272–284.
[25] Z.Q. Dong, G. Wu, Y.Q. Xu, Experimental study on the bond durability between
steel-FRP composite bars (SFCBs) and sea sand concrete in ocean environment,
Constr. Build. Mater. 115 (2016) 277–284.
[26] T.C. Hansen, Recycled aggregate and recycled aggregate concrete, second
state-of-the-art report, developments from 1945–1985, Mater. Struct. 19 (3)
(1986) 201–246.
[27] ACI (American Concrete Institute) Committee 555. Removal and Reuse of
Hardened Concrete. ACI 555R-01, Farmington Hills, MI; 2001.
[28] J.Z. Xiao, W.G. Li, Y.H. Fan, X. Huang, An overview of study on recycled
aggregate concrete in China (1996–2011), Constr. Build. Mater. 31 (2012) 364–
383.
[29] M.H. Guo, B. Hu, F. Xing, X.Q. Zhou, M. Sun, L.L. Sui, Y.W. Zhou, Characterization
of the mechanical properties of eco-friendly concrete made with untreated sea
sand and seawater based on statistical analysis, Constr. Build. Mater. 234
(2020) 117339.
[30] Y.C. Yue, Y.W. Zhou, F. Xing, G.Q. Gong, B. Hu, M.H. Guo, An industrial
applicable method to improve the properties of recycled aggregate concrete by
incorporating nano-silica and micro-CaCO3, J Clean Prod 259 (2020) 120920.
[31] A. Zhou, R.Y. Qin, C.L. Chow, D. Lau, Structural performance of FRP confined
seawater concrete columns under chloride environment, Compos. Struct. 216
(2019) 12–19.
[32] J.Z. Xiao, C.B. Qiang, A. Nanni, K.J. Zhang, Use of sea-sand and seawater in
concrete construction: current status and future opportunities, Constr. Build.
Mater. 155 (2017) 1101–1111.
[33] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. Code for design of
concrete structures. GB 50010-2010. Beijing, China; 2010.
[34] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China. Technical specification for sea sand concrete. JGJ 206-2010, Beijing;
2010.
[35] Huang HX. An experimental study on the durability of sea sand concrete.
Master thesis, Jinan University, Jinan, China; 2007 (in Chinese).
[36] JASS, 5 (Japanese Architectural Standard Specification 5). Specification for
reinforced concrete work, Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo (2003).
[37] Y.F. Wu, B. Hu, Shear strength components in reinforced concrete members, J.
Struct. Eng. 143 (9) (2017) 04017092.
[38] B. Hu, Y.F. Wu, Effect of shear span-to-depth ratio on shear strength
components of RC beams, Eng. Struct. 168 (2018) 770–783.
[39] B. Hu, Y.F. Wu, Quantification of shear cracking in reinforced concrete beams,
Eng. Struct. 147 (2017) 666–678.
[40] Y.W. Zhou, M.H. Guo, L.L. Sui, F. Xing, B. Hu, Z.Y. Huang, Y.C. Yun, Shear
strength components of adjustable hybrid bonded CFRP shear-strengthened
RC beams, Compos Part B 163 (2019) 36–51.
[41] D.B. Zhao, J. Pan, Y.W. Zhou, L.L. Sui, Z.H. Ye, New types of steel-FRP composite
bar with round steel bar inner core: Mechanical properties and bonding
performances in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 242 (2020) 118062.
13
Construction and Building Materials 269 (2021) 121264
[42] S. Mousa, H.M. Mohamed, B. Benmokrane, Flexural strength and design
analysis of circular reinforced concrete members with glass fiber-reinforced
polymer bars and spirals, ACI Struct. J. 115 (5) (2018) 1353–1364.
[43] S. Mousa, H.M. Mohamed, B. Benmokrane, Strength and deformability aspects
of circular concrete members reinforced with hybrid carbon-FRP and glass-FRP
under flexure, J. Compos. Constr. 23 (2) (2019) 04019005.
[44] X.F. Zhang, S.L. Xu, L.J. Hou, Influence of reinforcement ratio on flexural
behavior of RUHTCC beams, China Civil Eng J 42 (2009) 16–24.
[45] R. Park, Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing.
Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-
Kyoto, Japan, 1988, vol. 8, pp. 605–16.
[46] B. Hu, Y.W. Zhou, F. Xing, L.L. Sui, M.S. Luo, Experimental and theoretical
investigation on the hybrid CFRP-ECC flexural strengthening of RC beams with
corroded longitudinal reinforcement, Eng. Struct. 200 (2019) 109717.
[47] Y.F. Wu, Ductility demand of compression yielding fiber-reinforced polymer-
reinforced concrete beams, ACI Struct. J. 105 (1) (2008) 104–110.
[48] Y.W. Zhou, Y.F. Wu, J.G. Teng, A.Y.T. Leung, Ductility analysis of compression-
yielding FRP-reinforced composite beams, Cem Conc Compos 31 (9) (2009)
682–691.
[49] Y.F. Wu, Y.W. Zhou, X.Q. He, Performance-based optimal design of
compression-yielding FRP-reinforced concrete beams, Compos. Struct. 93 (1)
(2010) 113–123.
[50] Y.W. Zhou, Y.F. Wu, J.G. Teng, A.Y.T. Leung, Parametric space for the optimal
design of compression-yielding FRP-reinforced concrete beams, Mater. Struct.
43 (2010) 81–97.
[51] Y.F. Wu, Y.W. Zhou, Controlling the damage of concrete columns through
compression yielding, Struct Control Health Monitor 18 (8) (2011) 890–907.
[52] T. Paulay, M.J.N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 768 pp; 1992.
[53] Y.F. Wu, D.J. Oehlers, M.C. Griffith, Partial interaction analysis of composite
beam/column members, Mech Struct Mach 30 (3) (2002) 309–332.
[54] ACI (American Concrete Institute). Building code requirements for structural
concrete and commentary. ACI 318-14, Farmington Hills, MI; 2014.
[55] Branson DE. Instantaneous and time-dependent deflections of simple and
continuous reinforced concrete beams. No. HPR Report No. 7, Alabama, State
Highway Dept.; 1963.
[56] Y.F. Wu, Rational definition of the flexural deformation capacity of RC column
sections, Eng. Struct. 26 (2004) 641–650.
[57] J.Y. Liang, Study on Ductility of Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beams
Confined by CFRP Masteral dissertation, Dalian University of technology,
China, 2011.
[58] Y.W. Zhou, Analytical and Experimental Study on the Strength and Ductility of
FRP-Reinforced High Strength Concrete Beam Doctoral dissertation, Dalian
University of technology, China, 2009.
[59] Y.W. Zhou, X.W. Wang, L.L. Sui, F. Xing, Y.F. Wu, C. Chen, Flexural performance
of FRP-plated RC beams using H-type end anchorage, Compos. Struct. 206
(2018) 11–21.
[60] Y. Yang, Z.Y. Sun, G. Wu, D.F. Cao, D. Pan, Experimental study of concrete
beams reinforced with hybrid bars (SFCBs and BFRP bars), Mater. Struct. 53 (4)
(2020) 1–15.
[61] W. Ge, Y. Wang, A. Ashour, W. Lu, D. Cao, Flexural performance of concrete
beams reinforced with steel–FRP composite bars, Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 20 (56)
(2020) 56.