Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Assessing the bond strength of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)

bars in Portland Cement Concrete fabricated with seawater through
pullout tests
Mehran Parvizi a, Martin Noël a,⇑, Jeison Vasquez b, Alejandro Rios b, Marcelo González b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
b
Departamento de Ingeniería y Gestión de la Construcción, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

h i g h l i g h t s

70 Pullout bond tests with GFRP bars in conventional or seawater-mixed concrete.

Detailed comparison of peak bond strength and bond-slip response.

One-way ANOVA tests were conducted to compare the results.

No statistically significant reduction in bond strength using seawater concrete.

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

Article history: Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) is the most used construction material worldwide and its use is expected
Received 15 May 2020 to increase in the future. PCC intensively uses two main natural resources, namely aggregates and fresh
Received in revised form 31 August 2020 water. The concrete industry consumes about 2 billion tons of potable water annually. Due to climate
Accepted 12 September 2020
change, rapid population growth, and industrial activity, there is a scarcity of fresh water; by 2025 more
Available online 2 October 2020
than half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. In contrast, there is abundant
seawater in the world, which represents about 97.5% of the total Earth’s water. However, the incorpora-
Keywords:
tion of seawater in PCC is a complex problem because the sulfate ions can affect the microstructure dura-
Seawater
Concrete
bility and the chloride ions can accelerate reinforcing steel corrosion, which can compromise the
Bond structural integrity. Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars may be used as an alternative reinforcing
GFRP material to avoid corrosion. This paper assesses the bond strength of two types of GFRP bars with either a
Pull-out sand-coating or spiral grooves using a standard pullout test. Control samples were prepared using con-
crete made with potable water and compared with companion specimens made with seawater.
Parallel experimental programs were carried out in Chile and Canada, with a total of 70 test specimens.
The results suggest that there is no statistically significant difference in the short-term (28 day) bond
strength of GFRP bars in seawater concrete compared to normal concrete.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction scarcity of clean water [1]. Additionally, world population growth

has a direct impact on infrastructure demand; in consequence, eco-
Climate change and the rapid growth of the world population nomical and ecologically-efficient building materials and solutions
are having severe impacts on availability of natural resources are needed to meet the needs of global civilization, especially in
around the world [1]. According to a report from the World Health developing countries. This creates a challenge for the construction
Organization, by 2025 more than half of world’s population will be industry considering that it consumes 16% of the global freshwater
living in water-stressed areas [2]. Freshwater accounts for only supply [3]. Concrete production, in particular, is responsible for
2.5% of the Earth’s water, and most of it is frozen; thus, water approximately 9% of global industrial water withdrawals [4].
available for drinking is very limited. As a result, there is a global The Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) industry is one of the lar-
gest industrial consumers of freshwater in the world [1]. It is pro-
jected that by 2050, 75% of the water demand for concrete
⇑ Corresponding author. production will occur in regions that are expected to experience
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Noël).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120952
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

water stress [4]. According to the Cement Sustainability Initiative damage the passive protective film, accelerating the corrosion of
[5] the production of PCC per year is around 10 billion m3, which steel bars [21]. Steel bar corrosion can lead to cracking, spalling,
means that annually 1.85 billion m3 of drinking water are used and delamination of concrete, a loss of structural integrity, and var-
for this material as mixing water. This amount corresponds to ious other problems that can significantly reduce the service life
30% of drinking water demand of the entire world population in and functionality of the structure. This causes damage in reinforced
1 year [6]. Taking into account all of the above, there is a need to concrete structures and requires time-consuming and expensive
explore new strategies to reduce or replace the use of fresh water rehabilitation work [4].
in PCC. In order to eliminate corrosion, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Considering that seawater represents about 97.5% of the total (GFRP) bars have emerged as a viable corrosion-resistant alterna-
Earth’s water, it appears to present a novel opportunity to be used tive to steel bars. GFRP reinforcement has been successfully used
as an alternative source of mixing water for PCC in order to pre- in a wide variety of structural elements, such as bridge decks, park-
serve fresh water for drinking and agriculture. While the abun- ing garages, and other elements exposed to de-icing chemicals,
dance of seawater could easily meet industry demands, the marine environments, and other aggressive conditions (e.g.
practice of using seawater for concrete production requires new [22,23]). GFRP bars possess many advantageous characteristics,
paradigms that prioritize industry sustainability and resource effi- such as resistance to harsh environmental conditions, light weight
ciency. It is worth noting that many of the same areas expected to and high tensile strength. Hence, GFRP bars have the potential to
face critical water shortages in the near future are in close proxim- replace steel bars and overcome the deterioration of concrete
ity to practically infinite supplies of seawater. In Chile, for example, structures associated with the corrosion of steel reinforcement
the Atacama desert region is one of the driest places on earth [24]. Moreover, different investigations have characterized the
despite being adjacent to the Pacific ocean. Access to freshwater physical [25], mechanical [26–28], chemical [29–30], and durabil-
is incredibly scarce, and must be prioritized for human consump- ity [31,32] properties of this reinforcement type. Whereas a few
tion and the country’s important agricultural industry. As a result, research studies affirm that GFRP materials can degrade under high
some industries such as mining are already migrating to the use of alkaline laboratory environments [33–34], this has generally not
seawater in their processes. For instance, according to the Chilean been observed in the field [30,35–37].
Copper Corporation (Cochilco), in 2014 9% of the water used for In terms of structural and mechanical performance in rein-
industrial processes came from seawater and studies predict a forced concrete structures, the bond between reinforcement and
usage of 35% by 2025 [7]. In contrast, Canada is often viewed as concrete is the mechanism through which forces are transferred
having an abundance of freshwater, but in recent years the effects between the two materials [38]. This bond between both materials
of climate change have led to risks of more frequent droughts in is provided by the combined actions of chemical adhesion, friction,
many parts of the country [8]. Globally, seawater is currently used and mechanical interlock; the last two mechanisms provide the
in various industries as well as in different states, i.e. original or main contribution between the bond of the bars due to superficial
desalinated. Water desalination has been utilized in some coun- interaction [39]. Therefore, the bond strength and stress-slip
tries; however, this process discharges a brine concentrate that response between concrete and reinforcement is key in determin-
can potentially harm, in both physicochemical and ecological attri- ing the flexural performance of reinforced concrete structures at
butes, the receiving environments [9]. the serviceability and ultimate stages. It also controls the deflec-
Some researchers have also been exploring the direct use of sea- tion, the width and the distribution of cracks, and the ultimate
water in PCC, and in general have reported no significant negative strength of a reinforced concrete member. The bond behavior of
effects on the mechanical properties of seawater concrete [10]. GFRP reinforcement embedded in concrete is strongly influenced
When seawater is used as mixing water in PCC, it may result in by the surface configuration of the bars. Various types of surface
minor changes to certain fresh and hardened properties; for treatments are used by different manufacturers, including sand-
instance, it may result in a decreased slump [11] and increased coating, helical wraps, and spiral grooves. The bond-slip response
early age strength [12], but tends to slightly decrease the long term depends on the shape and stiffness of the geometric deformations
strength gain compared to concrete made with normal potable on the bar surface. When load is applied to a deformed bar and it
water [13]. Furthermore, several undesirable chemicals will be begins to slip with respect to its surrounding concrete, the surface
incorporated into the PCC microstructure such as sulphates, adhesion to the concrete is lost at relatively low load levels, while
sodium, magnesium, calcium and potassium ions, and the implica- bearing and friction forces against the surface deformations and
tions on long-term durability are not well known. In particular, the core of the bar are mobilized. Initially, the friction forces are
potassium and magnesium sulphates could potentially lead to increased as the compressive bearing forces on the ribs increase;
deterioration of the PCC, as the sulphates can react with calcium as the slip increases, the friction forces decrease. The forces devel-
hydroxide, which is present in the set cement formed by the hydra- oped at the interface between the bar and the concrete may be
tion of dicalcium silicate (C2S) and tricalcium silicate (C3S) [14]. resolved into tensile forces that can cause cracking perpendicular
Nevertheless, preliminary studies have shown some promising and parallel to the reinforcement planes [40]. If splitting failures
results in this regard. For example, Zhang et al. [15] found that cer- are prevented, bond failure will initiate by shearing along a surface
tain admixtures greatly enhance the resistance of seawater con- around the bar leading to a pullout failure. Various studies (e.g
crete to sulphate attack, and Santhanam et al. [16] have reported [41–42]) have reported pullout strengths of different types of FRP
that PCC performed better in a seawater solution than a groundwa- bars in the range of 15 to 25 MPa, depending on their properties
ter solution, which they attributed to the high chloride concentra- and geometric features. When the peak stress is reached, the bar
tion that reduced the expansive nature of ettringite formed. Similar starts slipping out of the concrete and the load decreases, either
results were also obtained by Maes & De Belie [17]. suddenly or gradually depending on the bar features, until only
While these issues require further study, the main impediment residual friction stresses remain.
which must be addressed for structural applications is the high Use of FRP reinforcement in combination with seawater con-
concentration of chlorides present in seawater that results in rapid crete has been proposed as a potential and economically-feasible
deterioration of internal steel reinforcement due to corrosion solution to the aforementioned challenges [13]. Life-cycle cost
[18–20]. When steel bars are embedded in concrete, an iron- analyses have shown that the combination of seawater, recycled
oxide passive film forms on their surface and protect the steel bars concrete aggregates (RCA), and GFRP reinforcement could achieve
from corrosion. However, ingress of chloride from seawater can cost savings over a 20-year period following initial construction,
2
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

with a 50% reduction in life cycle cost over a 100 year period com- to ASTM D1141-98 [53]; and in Chile, at the Pontificia Universidad
pared with conventional steel-reinforced concrete [43]. The short- Católica de Chile, natural seawater was collected from the coast. In
term flexural performance of seawater-mixed beams containing both countries, the same procedures were performed in order to
RCA and GFRP were found to be similar to those of companion compare and analyze the laboratory results.
beams made with freshwater [44]. The bond stress distribution
of spiral GFRP bars in seawater-mixed concrete beam anchorage
specimens has been investigated by Noël & Parvizi [45]; they pre- 2. Materials and methods
sented an approach to calibrate the bond-slip formulation devel-
oped by Cosenza et al [46] using strain distributions in the 2.1. Materials
anchorage zones of reinforced concrete beams, accounting for the
formation of cracks and residual friction stresses following the Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) type I according to ASTM C150
descending branch of the bond-slip curve. A few researchers have [54] was used in this study. Aggregates were selected according to
also conducted experimental studies on the bond performance of ASTM C33M [55] with a maximum coarse aggregate size of 20 mm.
FRP reinforcing bars with seawater concrete containing aggregates Crushed limestone rock was used as the coarse aggregate in both
made from coral sand and reefs (e.g. [47]), and/or immersed in sea- studies. The Canadian mixtures were prepared with natural sand
water environments (e.g. [48–50]). While immersion of pullout as fine aggregate, while the Chilean mixtures were prepared with
samples in concentrated seawater solutions has resulted in some manufactured sand.
bond degradation over time and damage of the outer surface of In this study, potable water refers to water from the tap with
FRP bars, the effects of seawater as mixing water is less clear. Fur- low concentrations of contaminants that is suitable for drinking
thermore, in previous studies where sea-sand or coral aggregates and conventionally used as mixwater in concrete; potable water
are used, the relative contributions of the mixing water and aggre- was used to mix the control concrete batches. In Chile, natural sea-
gates on observed performance have not been clearly differenti- water was obtained from San Sebastián’s coast, Valparaíso, V
ated (these aggregates tend to have a very high porosity that has Region. In Canada, artificial seawater was prepared according to
a significant effect on structural and durability characteristics). ASTM D1141-98 [53]. Prepared sea-salt was added to distilled
With respect to the concrete-reinforcement interface, the water in order to produce the required volume of seawater for mix-
microstructural characterizations reported by Li et al. [51] suggest ing concrete. In accordance with ASTM D1141-98, the water pH
that the hydration products of seawater concrete are equivalent to was then adjusted to 8.2 by adding a few drops of 0.1 N solution
those of conventional concrete and dominated by the formation of of hydrochloric acid. Table 1 presents the concentration of sul-
Calcium-Silicate-Hydrate (C-S-H); whereas C-S-H is primarily phates and chlorides present in both types of seawater (natural
responsible for adhesion at the reinforcement interface, the surface and artificial). The proportions and concentrations of the inorganic
treatment of the reinforcing bar will generally have a more promi- salts in the artificial seawater are representative of ocean water
nent effect on mechanical interlock and friction. A recent study by based on average values from many individual analyses [53]; con-
Khatibmasjedi et al. [52] examined the durability of GFRP rein- centrations vary based on the sampling location which explains
forcement in seawater-mixed concrete under accelerated aging why the values from the Chilean ocean water are different. The
conditions. They found that immersion in seawater at elevated artificial seawater concentrations are at the higher end of the
temperatures did cause degradation of the bar surface fibers result- expected range and thus are considered appropriate for this study.
ing from fiber disintegration and debonding between the fibers and Fig. 1 presents the GFRP bars used in this research that corre-
the resin. However, they noted that the results were similar for spond to two groups; sand coated (SC) and spiral finishing (SP).
bars cast in conventional concrete in the same environment, and, For each group, two nominal bar diameters were considered:
for unknown reasons, the bond strength was not significantly 12 mm and 16 mm. In Chile, the same two diameters of steel rebar
affected by this degradation. (12 mm and 16 mm) were also tested for comparison. Mechanical
Despite growing interest in the combined use of seawater- properties for each GFRP bar are presented in Table 2. The mechan-
mixed concrete and GFRP reinforcement, a direct comparison of ical properties provided are average results obtained from a mini-
the bond behavior of GFRP reinforcing bars with different surface mum of five tests performed on bar samples from the same
characteristics in concrete mixed with either seawater or potable production batch and were provided by the bar manufacturers.
water using regular aggregates is noticeably absent from the avail-
able literature. It is also worth noting that while long-term durabil- 2.2. Experimental design, mixing and casting
ity assessments are of great importance and require further study,
there is currently very limited data available to establish a baseline 2.2.1. Experimental matrix design
of the relative performance of FRP-seawater concrete structures A total of 18 concrete batches were made with either potable
according to current design practice under normal environmental water, real seawater, or artificial seawater according to the details
conditions. Conventional design of reinforced concrete structures presented in Table 3. In Chile, 10 batches were prepared with three
is often based on specified concrete properties at 28 days (concrete pullout specimens cast for each set; In Canada, 8 batches were pre-
strength continues to increase beyond this point, albeit more pared with a total of five specimens for each combination. In total,
slowly), and yet the short-term bond behavior has not yet been 70 pullout specimens were fabricated and tested.
examined in detail. This information is necessary for the develop-
ment of design guidelines using these construction materials.
Based on all of the above considerations, the aim of this Table 1
research is to assess the bond strength of GFRP bars embedded into Chemical compound of natural and artificial seawater.

seawater concrete. An experimental design was developed to com- Chemicals Range for reference* Seawater
pare the behavior of control PCC mixtures incorporating potable Chilean Artificial
water as mixing water with companion PCC mixtures incorporat- ppm ppm ppm
ing seawater as mixing water. Additionally, the research considers Sulphate (SO4) 580 to 2810 1765 2769
experimental work in two countries (Canada and Chile) based on a Chloride (Cl) 3960 to 20,000 13,487 19,856
collaborative research project. In the Canadian tests conducted at
*:[56]
the University of Ottawa, artificial seawater was used according
3
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

Fig. 1. GFRP bars used in this research; sand coated and spiral.

Table 2 Table 4
Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars. Concrete mix design.

Type of reinforcing bar Longitudinal Longitudinal Cross- Material Amount (kg/m3)

Tensile Tensile sectional
Cement 340
Strength Modulus (GPa) area
Water (Fresh or seawater) 190
(MPa) (mm2)
Water/cement ratio 0.56
12 mm Steel Bar (SB) 630 200 131 Coarse aggregates 1050
16 mm Steel Bar (SB) 630 200 201 Fine aggregates 750
12 mm Sand Coated (SC) 1424 63 149
16 mm Sand Coated (SC) 1503 62 227
2.2.2. Mixing and casting of concrete
12 mm Spiral (SP) 1405 65 133
16 mm Spiral (SP) 1339 66 209 The mixing procedure used in this experimental study was per-
formed according to ASTM C192 [58]. It began with dry mixing of
OPC and aggregates for 2 min. Then, mixing water was gradually
added to the mixture and mixed for 3 min. After mixing, a slump
test (Fig. 2a) was carried out according to ASTM C143 [59] and
The following nomenclature will be used in this paper to refer complying with the specified values required by ASTM D7913
to the various test groups: XX-##-YY-ZZ, where XX refers to the [57]. Additionally, a minimum of three cylindrical concrete speci-
bar type (SB – steel bar, SC – sand-coated GFRP bar, or SP – spiral mens were prepared for each concrete batch to obtain the com-
GFRP bar), ## refers to the nominal bar diameter in mm (12 or 16), pressive strength at 28 days, according to ASTM C39 [60].
YY refers to the concrete type (CC – control concrete or SW – sea- For casting, wood molds were used to form 200 mm cubes that
water concrete), and ZZ refers to the test country (CA – Canada or were cured under moist burlap and plastic until the time of testing
CH – Chile). For example, SC-16-SW-CA refers to 16 mm sand- (Fig. 2b). For each specimen, an embedment length of five times
coated GFRP bars embedded in seawater concrete and tested in the nominal bar diameter was established, and polyvinyl chloride
the Canadian laboratory. tubes having a diameter of 20 mm (3/400 ) were used as bond break-
The same concrete mix design was used in both countries using ers to achieve the desired embedment length (Fig. 2c). The total
local materials. The concrete mix was designed according to the length of each bar was 750 mm.
recommendations of ASTM D7913 [57] which include: coarse
aggregates with a maximum size of 20 mm, slump 10 ± 2 cm,
2.3. Methods
and specified compressive strength at 28 days of 30 ± 3 MPa. The
mix design is presented in Table 4. Trial mixes were performed
The pullout specimens were tested at 28 days, according to
in order to calibrate the mix design.
ASTM D7913 [57]. For testing, a Universal Testing Machine was

Table 3
Experimental matrix for pullout test.

Type of Bar Nominal Diameter (mm) Mixing Water Number of tests (Canada) Number of tests (Chile)
Steel Bar (SB) 12 Normal – 3
16 Normal – 3
GFRP Sand Coated Bar (SC) 12 Normal 5 3
16 Normal 5 3
12 Seawater 5 3
16 Seawater 5 3
GFRP Spiral Bar (SP) 12 Normal 5 3
16 Normal 5 3
12 Seawater 5 3
16 Seawater 5 3
Total 40 30

4
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

a) b)

Loaded
c) d) end

200 mm

Debonded portion
200 mm

5db

Fig. 2. a) Slump control of mixes, b) casting of pullout specimens, c) bond breaker and formwork, and d) schematic view and dimensions.

a) b)

Fig. 3. Machines and laboratory setup used in a) Chile and b) in Canada.

used and each specimen’s bar was pulled out by employing a grip steel plates and threaded rods. The maximum capacity of the test
system at the end of the embedded bar, while the opposite end of machines used in this study were 150 kN (Canada) and 300 kN
the bar along with the concrete cube were secured using a set of (Chile) with an error tolerance of 0.5%. The capacities of the load
5
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

slump values ranged from 12.5 to 13.0 cm for the normal concrete

LVDT
mixtures made with potable water, and from 13.5 to 14.0 cm for
the seawater concrete. In Chile, the slump values ranged from
10.0 to 12.0 cm for the control concrete, and from 8.0 to 9.0 cm
for the seawater concrete. According to the results, it is possible
to determine that all concrete mixtures had satisfactory fresh state
properties for vibrated concrete.
Fig. 5 presents the compressive strength of PCC with normal
water and with seawater. Although the mix design and mixing pro-
cedure in both countries was the same, the 28-day strengths for
the Chilean concrete was higher than the Canadian batches. This
may be partially attributable to the local materials that were used
in each study; in particular, the use of manufactured sand in Chile
LVDT

may have contributed to increasing the strength. Another potential

contributing factor is that the aggregates in Chile may have been
more dry than those in the Canadian study, resulting in a lower
Fig. 4. Schematic view of LVDT setup.
effective water-to-cement ratio. In Chile, the 28-day compressive
strength of PCC with seawater was found to be slightly higher than
cells were 300 kN. Additionally, the slip was measured at both the the control freshwater mixtures, which is consistent with some
loaded and unloaded ends of the bar using two LVDTs, one at each previous studies that have reported that the ions present in the
end. The LVDTs measured the relative displacement between the seawater accelerate the generation of hydration products. For
bar and the concrete cube at each end of the specimen. At the example, Islam et al. [12] attributed the higher early strength of
loaded end, the free elastic deformation of the bar between the seawater concrete compared to normal concrete to the filling effect
location of the LVDT and the bonded region was subtracted from of hydration products in the concrete pores caused by the presence
the displacement measurements to obtain the true slip values. of salts. In Canada, the compressive strengths between all groups
Once the specimen was placed into the testing system, the test were approximately equal at 28 days, although the results from
was carried out with a loading rate of 1.3 mm/min, recording both supplementary tests (i.e. companion batches) showed that the
the load and the slip at each end of the bar. Each test was com- early age strength at 7 days was higher for the seawater concrete
pleted within about thirty minutes. Fig. 3 presents two pictures than the freshwater concrete, likely due to the same accelerating
of the pullout testing: a) the machine and laboratory setup used effect on cement hydration (Fig. 5a).
in Chile and b) the machine and the laboratory setup used in
Canada. Fig. 4 shows a schematic view of the instrumentation used 3.2. Bond strength determined through pullout test
during the test.
All of the test specimens failed by pullout of the reinforcing bar
3. Results and discussion without splitting of the concrete cube. The bond strength obtained
from the pullout tests may be calculated according to Eq. (1):
3.1. Slump and compressive strength P
u¼ ð1Þ
pdb Le
The workability of the fresh concrete for each batch was similar.
There was no noticeable reduction in workability or consolidation where, u is the bond strength in MPa, P is the load applied to the
for the seawater mixtures compared to the control batches, and the reinforcing bar, db is the nominal bar diameter, and Le is the bonded
concrete was easily vibrated into the cube forms. In Canada, the length (equal to 5db). The strength results are shown in Fig. 6.

70
Compressive Strength (MPa)

60
Compressive strength (MPa)

50

40

30

20

10

0
Normal Water Seawater Normal Water Seawater
Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete
(CH) (CH) (CA) (CA)
Test Day

Fig. 5. Compressive strength of PCC: a) over time, and b) at 28 days.

6
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

25
Normal water (CH) Seawater (CH) Normal water (CA) Seawater (CA)

20
Bond Strength (MPa)

15

10

Fig. 6. Average Bond Strength.

Fig. 7. Representative bar after pullout failure: sand-coated (left) and spiral (right).

Although some variability is noticeable among the strength results experimental scatter in the results. The sand-coated samples gener-
within each group, several observations can be made. The results ally demonstrated a higher average bond strength than the spiral
obtained in Canada and Chile appear quite similar for each of the bars, especially for the smaller bar size. This result is likely due to
tested groups, despite the difference in concrete compressive improved adhesion to the surrounding concrete, but also tended
strength. The 12 mm bars embedded in conventional concrete to display slightly more variability as observed by the larger error
tested in Chile had a slightly higher average bond strength than bars in Fig. 5. Increasing the bar diameter from 12 mm to 16 mm
the other groups, but the result was within the range of experimen- seemed to have little effect on the bond strength of the sand-
tal scatter. This suggests that, for the range of concrete compressive coated bars, but had a noticeable effect on both the steel (decrease)
strengths in this study, the bond failure was primarily governed by and spiral GFRP bars (increase). In the case of steel bars, where fail-
the properties of the GFRP surface treatment; indeed, inspection of ure is governed by crushing of the concrete in front of the reinforc-
the bar surface after each test showed that the surface layer (i.e. ing bar lugs, the observed decrease is expected and attributable to
sand coating or spiral ribs) was almost completely sheared off for the reduction in ‘‘relative rib area” as bar diameter increases [61].
each GFRP sample (Fig. 7). Furthermore, the use of seawater did Conversely, for the spiral GFRP bars, failure occurred by shearing
not appear to have a consistent or major effect on the ultimate bond off of the outer ribs, and thus, for the same rib height, the surface
strength of the GFRP bars, in some cases corresponding to a slight area of the critical failure plane relative to the surface area of the
increase or decrease in strength that appears consistent with the outer ribs increases with bar diameter. The range of bond strengths

7
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

Table 5
Summary of bond-slip results.

Group Specimen Conventional concrete Seawater concrete

Peak bond Slip at Pre-peak Residual friction Peak bond Slip at Pre-peak Residual friction
strength (MPa) peak (mm) stiffness strength (MPa) strength (MPa) peak (mm) stiffness strength (MPa)
(N/mm3) (N/mm3)
SB-12-CH 1 17.8 –a – 7.6 Not tested
2 15.6 – – 4.0
3 21.5 – – 10.4
Average 18.3 – – 7.3
COV 0.16 – – 0.44
a
SB-16-CH 1 16.7 – – 9.9 Not tested
2 10.9 – – 3.4
3 15.6 – – 8.1
Average 14.4 – – 7.1
COV 0.21 – – 0.47
SP-12-CA 1 13.0 0.59 54.5 4.0 10.1 0.41 48.0 1.5
2 11.9 0.80 37.1 3.1 7.6 0.70 27.8 1.9
3 9.5 0.44 40.8 1.9 10.5 0.58 39.4 2.9
4 12.5 0.40 56.1 2.5 10.6 0.40 49.0 2.1
5 12.4 0.27 61.4 3.3 10.9 0.41 50.5 2.1
Average 11.9 0.50 50.0 3.0 9.9 0.50 42.9 2.1
COV 0.10 0.41 0.21 0.23 0.12 0.27 0.22 0.22
a a
SP-12-CH 1 9.6 – – 3.0 13.3 – – 5.4
2 11.3 – – 4.1 11.7 – – 3.4
3 8.6 – – 3.0 12.7 – – 3.8
Average 9.8 – – 3.4 12.6 – – 4.2
COV 0.14 – – 0.19 0.06 – – 0.25
SP-16-CA 1 13.4 0.86 45.0 3.3 13.0 0.66 46.1 3.5
2 12.8 1.04 50.9 2.9 11.9 0.51 55.6 2.7
3 13.4 –b –b 4.3 13.2 0.37 63.0 3.3
4 13.6 0.76 40.6 4.4 15.3 0.42 70.2 2.8
5 12.6 0.84 36.6 3.4 14.1 0.49 63.4 3.9
Average 13.4 0.88 43.3 3.7 13.5 0.49 59.7 3.2
COV 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.09 0.22 0.15 0.14
a a
SP-16-CH 1 12.4 – – 4.5 12.4 – – 3.1
2 13.7 – – –b 12.1 – – –c
3 11.6 – – 4.2 15.3 – – 6.4
Average 12.6 – – 4.4 13.3 – – 4.8
COV 0.08 – – 0.05 0.13 – – 0.49
SC-12-CA 1 10.6 1.08 30.5 5.3 14.7 0.28 44.1 8.8
2 18.4 1.18 34.3 8.8 15.5 0.52 68.9 5.9
3 16.0 0.83 42.8 7.8 13.4 1.61 15.1 7.3
4 –b –b –b –b 15.2 0.69 61.9 8.4
5 16.5 0.27 81.7 8.2 18.3 0.77 65.2 9.0
Average 15.4 0.84 47.3 7.5 15.4 0.78 51.0 7.8
COV 0.21 0.49 0.50 0.18 0.10 0.65 0.44 0.15
a
SC-12-CH 1 20.5 – – –b 16.7 – a
– 7.8
2 17.8 – – 6.7 17.6 – – 8.5
3 18.2 – – 8.7 11.3 – – 4.3
Average 18.8 – – 7.7 15.2 – – 6.9
COV 0.08 – – 0.18 0.20 – – 0.33
SC-16-CA 1 12.1 0.94 40.9 7.2 16.1 0.53 71.9 6.8
2 19.1 0.69 76.5 10.3 15.7 0.75 61.8 7.2
3 12.9 0.55 61.0 9.8 12.7 0.46 60.1 5.1
4 17.5 0.96 59.2 11.4 14.6 0.91 29.2 7.2
5 20.0 0.91 67.5 12.4 13.2 0.32 65.5 4.0
Average 16.3 0.81 61.0 10.2 14.5 0.59 57.7 6.1
COV 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.09 0.40 0.29 0.21
a a
SC-16-CH 1 13.9 – – 6.2 18.5 – – 9.2
2 14.7 – – 6.5 13.5 – – 6.9
3 16.9 – – 9.8 14.0 – – 8.6
Average 15.2 – – 7.5 15.3 – – 8.2
COV 0.10 – – 0.27 0.18 – – 0.14
a
The loaded end LVDTs in Chile used the steel bearing plate as a reference; hence, they are excluded from this analysis.
b
Lost data due to malfunctioning of test equipment

for the GFRP bars were approximately 10 to 20 MPa, and were com- GFRP bars embedded in concrete (e.g. [42,62]) The statistical differ-
parable to those of the steel reinforcing bars. These results are also ences between various groups will be examined in greater detail in
comparable to the bond strengths reported in other studies for the following sections.

8
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

Fig. 8. Selected stress-slip curves for 12 mm sand-coated GFRP bars: loaded end (left) and unloaded end (right).

Fig. 9. Selected stress-slip curves for 16 mm sand-coated GFRP bars: loaded end (left) and unloaded end (right).

Fig. 10. Selected stress-slip curves for 12 mm spiral GFRP bars: loaded end (left) and unloaded end (right).

9
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

Fig. 11. Selected stress-slip curves for 16 mm spiral GFRP bars: loaded end (left) and unloaded end (right).

readings from the top LVDT to subtract the small elastic elongation
between the point where the LVDT was attached to the bar and the
starting point of the bonded length in the concrete. This correction
was obtained by multiplying this distance by the bar strain (calcu-
lated using the known GFRP bar modulus of elasticity and the force
in the bar) and subtracting this value from the top LVDT readings.
A summary of the bond-slip results is presented in Table 5,
including the peak strength, slip at peak, pre-peak stiffness, and
residual friction strength for each test. Representative bond
stress-slip curves for each of the bar types are presented in Figs. 8–
11. The bond stress was calculated based on the applied load
according to Eq. (1). As seen in Fig. 12, the ascending branch of
the bond stress-slip curve is non-linear with negligible slip up to
bond stress values of approximately 5 to 10 MPa at which point
the surface adhesion at the bar-concrete interface is lost (the
pre-peak responses of the 12 mm bars were similar and are omit-
ted for brevity). For this study, therefore, the pre-peak stiffness is
defined as the secant modulus corresponding to a loaded-end slip
of 0.2 mm. The residual friction strength is defined as the post-
peak stress at an arbitrarily large slip value at the unloaded end
Fig. 12. Ascending branch of selected stress-slip curves for 16 mm GFRP bars at
loaded end.
of 10 mm.
The statistical differences in the peak strength are examined in
the following section. The average slip at the loaded end at the
3.3. Bond stress-slip response peak load ranged from approximately 0.5 mm to 0.9 mm for the
spiral bars, and 0.6 mm to 0.8 mm for the sand-coated bars, regard-
Linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were less of the type of concrete used. On average, the pre-peak stiffness
installed at both the loaded and unloaded ends of each pullout values ranged from approximately 40 N/mm3 to 60 N/mm3 for
specimen to measure and record the slip between the reinforcing both the spiral bars and sand-coated bars. There was little observ-
bar and the concrete (Fig. 4). A correction was applied to the slip able difference in the pre-peak response of the spiral and

Table 6
Summary of ANOVA tests.

Property Sample groups F Fcritical F > Fcritical?

28-day compressive strength Normal concrete (CA) vs seawater concrete (CA) 0.01 7.7 No
Normal concrete (CH) vs seawater concrete (CH) 13.2 7.7 Yes
Seawater concrete (CA)Vs seawater concrete (CH) 448 7.7 Yes
28-day peak bond strength SC-12-CC-CA vs SC-12-SW-CA 0.006 5.6 No
SC-16-CC-CA vs SC-16-SW-CA 1.1 5.3 No
SP-12-CC-CA vs SP-12-SW-CA 5.0 5.3 No
SP-16-CC-CA vs SP-16-SW-CA 0.4 5.3 No
SC-12-CC-CH vs SC-12-SW-CH 2.9 7.7 No
SC-16-CC-CH vs SC-16-SW-CH 0.008 7.7 No
SP-12-CC-CH vs SP-12-SW-CH 9.2 7.7 Yes
SP-16-CC-CH vs SP-16-SW-CH 0.4 7.7 No

10
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

sand-coated bars, except that the spiral bars, on average, tended to strength, since the results were similar or higher than the corre-
have slightly smaller peak slip values; similarly, no discernible sponding freshwater mixes in all cases.
trends were evident with respect to the effect of bar size or con- Since the concrete mixtures resulted in statistically significant
crete type. The average residual friction stress for the spiral bars differences in mechanical properties between the two studies, each
ranged from approximately 2 MPa to 5 MPa, whereas the sand- group is considered separately in terms of the bond strength
coated bars retained a higher friction stress between approxi- results. It can be seen from Table 6 that for seven out of the eight
mately 6 MPa and 8 MPa. groups of GFRP bars, the use of seawater did not result in any sta-
The shapes of the stress-slip curves were fairly consistent tistically significant difference to the peak bond strength. This sug-
among the samples within a given group (i.e. for the same bar size gests that the bond behavior of GFRP bars is similar in concrete
and surface configuration) regardless of the type of concrete used. mixtures made with either regular potable water or seawater
The use of seawater had no discernible effect on the shape of the sources.
stress-slip curve. The higher concrete strength of the Chilean con- In only one case, namely the 12 mm spiral bars tested in Chile, it
crete had little observable effect on the stress-slip response, except was found that a statistically significant difference existed
that the residual friction strength of the spiral bars was, on aver- between the pullout strengths of the GFRP bars embedded in sea-
age, slightly higher than their Canadian counterparts; the differ- water concrete compared to the freshwater concrete. It is not
ences are slight and may be attributed either to experimental immediately clear why these results were different from the
scatter or the different concrete properties discussed previously. others, but it is noteworthy that in this particular group the aver-
This trend was not observed for the sand-coated bars. At the loaded age bond strength for the seawater concrete samples was higher
end, a steep slope is observed up to the peak load at which point than that of the freshwater concrete (see Fig. 6). Hence, it is evident
the mechanical interlock with the concrete was lost and the bond that the use of seawater did not have any deleterious effect on the
stress decreased sharply to a relatively steady residual level where pullout bond strength of GFRP bars at 28 days, and in all cases the
the bond behavior was ruled by the friction between concrete and bond strengths of bars embedded in seawater concrete were sim-
the bar. The unloaded end response was similar, except that the ilar or greater than the corresponding control groups made with
slip initiated after the peak bond stress was reached once the potable water.
entire bar was mobilized.
During the post-peak friction-dominated portion of the curve,
3.5. Discussion
the bond stress fluctuated slightly but generally either remained
fairly stable between approximately 5 to 10 MPa (sand-coated
Bond behavior governs the performance of reinforced concrete
bars, see Figs. 8 and 9) or decreased very gradually to zero (spiral
structures in many respects, with important implications for ser-
bars, see Figs. 10 and 11). The post-peak behavior of the sand-
viceability and ultimate limit states, including cracking, deflec-
coated bars showed a relatively constant level of friction in terms
tions, flexural capacity, and detailing requirements. Therefore, it
of bond stress with very small fluctuations, while the spiral bar ribs
is promising that seawater concrete resulted in no negative effects
exhibited more of a wedging effect which was manifested by
on the 28-day bond strength of GFRP reinforcing bars with differ-
greater fluctuations and a greater reduction in bond stress as the
ent surface treatments. Together with the corrosion-resistant
bar was pulled out of the concrete. The test was stopped when
properties of GFRP reinforcement, the use of seawater as mixing
the LVDTs reached their maximum travel distance of approxi-
water in concrete can alleviate some of the environmental and eco-
mately 30 mm.
nomic burdens in water-stressed regions.
As previously mentioned, the pullout test setup presents dis-
3.4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
tinct advantages in terms of its repeatability and enables useful
comparisons of relative bond behavior among different parame-
A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was performed to
ters. Based on the promising results obtained in this study, future
compare the pullout test results between groups using a signifi-
works may be developed to investigate the response of large-
cance level of 0.05. In the ANOVA test, the variation between two
scale structural members as well as concrete microstructure devel-
groups are compared with the variation within each group to
opment over time. Ultimately, increased research interest in this
determine if any observed differences in the means are statistically
area will provide more confidence to concrete industry to move
significant. If the test parameter F is less than Fcritical, the null
towards improved sustainability of our natural resources while
hypothesis (i.e. no statistical difference) is accepted. On the other
continuing to meet the growing demands of the global civilization.
hand, if F is greater than Fcritical, it is concluded that the variation
between the sample means are statistically significant. Table 6
summarizes the results of the ANOVA tests for selected groups in 4. Conclusions
this study.
In the Canadian study, the compressive strength results The test results suggest that the short-term bond performance
between the normal freshwater concrete and seawater concrete of GFRP reinforcing bars embedded in seawater concrete is at least
were found not to present any statistically significant difference. similar to bars placed in normal concrete made with potable water.
Conversely, in the Chilean study, it was found that the use of sea- A total of 70 pullout tests were performed using different bar sizes
water did result in a statistically significant increase in the com- and surface treatments, as well as different concrete mixtures
pressive strength results. The Chilean concrete also exhibited a made with local materials in Chile and Canada. In all cases, ANOVA
significantly higher compressive strength than the Canadian con- tests determined that there was no statistically significant
crete, despite using the same mix design and procedure. This result decrease in bond strength as a result of using seawater as concrete
may be linked to the differences in the constituent materials and/ mixing water using a significance level of 0.05. Therefore, the
or seawater sources that were used in each study that may have potential use of GFRP reinforcement with seawater concrete
affected the cement hydration process and consequently the rate appears promising with respect to short term structural behavior.
of strength gain. Future research works examining the concrete The significance of this research is its contribution towards a
microstructure development over time may provide additional novel yet practical solution to two major worldwide challenges.
insight in this regard. Nevertheless, it is clear that the use of seawa- First, the rapidly depleting availability of freshwater in many
ter did not have any detrimental effect on the compressive regions of the world is creating humanitarian crises at a global
11
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

scale. To preserve water for drinking and agriculture, it is impera- [11] H.Y. Ghorab, M.S. Hilal, E.A. Kishar, Effect of mixing and curing waters on the
behaviour of cement pastes and concrete part II: properties of cement paste
tive to rethink industrial processes to reduce their demand for
and concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 20 (1) (1990) 868–878.
potable water. The present work demonstrates that seawater, [12] M.M. Islam, M.S. Islam, M. Al-Amin, M.M. Islam, Suitability of sea water on
which is abundant, may present a viable alternative to potable curing and compressive strength of structural concrete, J. Civ. Eng in. 40 (1)
water for concrete mixing water that can have a substantial posi- (2012) 37–45.
[13] J. Xiao, C. Qiang, A. Nanni, K. Zhang, Use of sea-sand and seawater in concrete
tive impact in developing regions. The second challenge is the construction: current status and future opportunities, Constr. Build. Mater.
deterioration of reinforced concrete structures that occurs as a 155 (2017) 1101–1111.
result of reinforcing steel corrosion that can be addressed by [14] F. Wegian, Effect of seawater for mixing and curing on structural concrete, IES
J. Part A: Civ. Struct. Eng. 3 (2010) 235–243, https://doi.org/10.1080/
replacing steel with GFRP bars. Combining these two concepts, 19373260.2010.521048.
the concrete industry has a unique opportunity to drastically [15] Z. Zhang, Z. Sang, L. Zhang, Z. Ma, Y. Zhang, Experimental research on
improve sustainability and durability of structures in affected durability of concrete made by seawater and sea-sand, Adv Mater. Res. 641–
642 (2013) 385–388, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.641-
regions near coastal areas. 642.385.
[16] M. Santhanam, M. Cohen, J. Olek, Differentiating seawater and groundwater
sulfate attack in Portland cement mortars, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (2006) 2132–
CRediT authorship contribution statement 2137.
[17] M. Maes, N. De Belie, Resistance of concrete and mortar against combined
Mehran Parvizi: Investigation, Writing - original draft. Martin attack of chloride and sodium sulphate, Cem. Concr. Compos. 53 (2014) 59–72.
[18] T.U. Mohammed, H. Hamada, and T. Yamaji. Performance of seawater-mixed
Noël: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, concrete in the tidal environment, vol. 34, pp. 593–601, 2004.
Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Jeison Vasquez: Investiga- [19] Z.L. Chen, X.N. Tang, G.F. Sun, Y.L. Liu, Research on durability and application of
tion, Writing - original draft. Alejandro Rios: Investigation, Writ- seawater concrete, Ocean Eng. 26 (4) (2008) 102–106.
[20] R. Shalon, M. Raphael, Influence of sea water on corrosion of reinforcement, J.
ing - original draft. Marcelo González: Conceptualization, Am. Concr. Inst. 55 (12) (1959) 1251–1268.
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. [21] L. Fan, X. Tan, Q. Zhang, W. Meng, G. Chen, Y. Bao, Monitoring corrosion of steel
bars in reinforced concrete based on helix strains measured from a distributed
fiber optic sensor, Eng. Struct. 204 (December 2019) (2020) 110039, https://
Declaration of Competing Interest doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110039.
[22] E.A. Ahmed, F. Settecasi, B. Benmokrane. Construction and Testing of GFRP
Steel Hybrid-Reinforced Concrete Bridge-Deck Slabs of Sainte-Catherine
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
Overpass Bridges, 2014, 19(6), pp. 1–11.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared [23] B. Benmokrane, E. El-Salakawy, A. El-Ragaby, T. Lackey. Designing and Testing
to influence the work reported in this paper. of Concrete Bridge Decks Reinforced with Glass FRP Bars, (2006). 11(April), pp.
217–229.
[24] H.A. Hasan, M.N. Sheikh, M.N.S. Hadi, Maximum axial load carrying capacity of
Acknowledgments Fibre Reinforced-Polymer (FRP) bar reinforced concrete columns under axial
compression, Structures 19 (December 2018) (2019) 227–233, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.istruc.2018.12.012.
The authors greatly acknowledge the funding provided by CORFO [25] D. Deitz, I. Harik, Physical properties of glass fiber reinforced polymer rebars in
Ingeniería 2030 through the Open Seed Fund Chile-Canada Part- compression, J. Compos. Constr. 7 (4) (2003) 363–366.
nership (Escuela de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica de [26] B. Benmokrane, H.M. Mohamed, P.C. Manalo, Evaluation of physical and
durability characteristics of new headed glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars
Chile and University of Ottawa). Also the support of Grupo de Inno-
for concrete structures, J. Compos. Constr 21 (2) (2016) 04016081.
vación en Construcción con Hormigón de la Pontificia Universidad [27] G. Maranan, A. Manalo, K. Karunasena, Bond stress-slip behavior: case of GFRP
Católica de Chile is greatly appreciated. Material contributions bars in geopolymer concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (1) (2014) 04014116.
[28] G. Maranan, A. Manalo, W. Karunasena, Pullout behaviour of GFRP bars with
from Pultrall Canada and Fiberline Composites are gratefully
anchor head in geopolymer concrete, Compos. Struct. 132 (2015) 1113–1121.
acknowledged. [29] B. Benmokrane, A.H. Ali, H.M. Mohamed, A.M. ElSafty, Laboratory assessment
They also recognize Juan Arellano, Leonardo Brescia and Mauri- and durability performance of vinyl-ester, polyester, and epoxy glass-FRP bars
cio Guerra from the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile for for concrete structures, Compos. B Eng. 114 (2017) 163–174.
[30] B. Benmokrane, C. Nazair, M.A. Loranger, A. Manalo, Field durability study of
their support in this research, and Dr. Muslim Majeed from the vinyl-ester-based GFRP rebars in concrete bridge barriers, J. Bridge Eng. 23
University of Ottawa for his technical assistance. Moreover, they (12) (2018) 04018094.
acknowledge DICTUC for their support on the material testing. [31] H. El-Hassan, T. El-Maaddawy, A. Al-Sallamin, A. Al-Saidy, Performance
evaluation and microstructural characterization of GFRP bars in seawater-
contaminated concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 147 (2017) 66–78.
References [32] H. El-Hassan, T. El-Maaddawy, A. Al-Sallamin, A. Al-Saidy, Durability of glass
fiber-reinforced polymer bars conditioned in moist seawater-contaminated
concrete under sustained load, Constr. Build. Mater. 175 (2018) 1–13.
[1] P.K. Mehta, Greening of the concrete industry for sustainable development,
[33] Y.A. Al-Salloum, S. El-Gamal, T.H. Almusallam, S.H. Alsayed, A. M. Effect of
Concr. Int. 24 (7) (2002) 23–28.
harsh environmental conditions on the tensile properties of GFRP bars. (2013).
[2] World Health Organization (2015). Drinking-water. Retrieved April 4, 2016,
Compos Part B Eng, 45(1), 835e44.
from https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs391/en/#.
[34] J.-P. Won, S.-J. Lee, Y.-J. Kim, C.-I. Jang, S.W. Lee, The effect of exposure to
[3] Worldwatch Institute (2006). STATE OF THE WORLD 2006: A WORLDWATCH
alkaline solution and water on the strengtheporosity relationship of GFRP
INSTITUTE REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY.
rebar, Compos. Part B Eng. 39 (5) (2008) 764–772.
Retrieved January 30, 2020, from https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11822/2272.
[35] O. Gooranorimi, A. Nanni, GFRP reinforcement in concrete after 15 years of
[4] S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, P.J.M. Monteiro, Impacts of booming concrete
service, J. Compos. Constr. 21 (5) (2017) 04017024.
production on water resources worldwide, Nat Sustain. 1 (1) (2018) 69–76.
[36] W. Wang, J.J. Myers, Durability of extracted in-service GFRP bars in RC
[5] CSI. (2009). Recycling Concrete. Washington. Retrieved from https://www.
subjected to field exposure, in: 8th Conference on Advanced Composites in
wbcsdcement.org/pdf/CSI-RecyclingConcrete-FullReport.pdf.
Construction, University of Sheffield, UK, 2017, pp. 71–77.
[6] Mayo Clinic. (2014). Water: How much should you drink every day? Retrieved
[37] A.A. Mufti, M. Onofrei, B. Benmokrane, N. Banthia, M. Boulfiza, J.P. Newhook, B.
May 17, 2016, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-
Bakht, G.S. Tadros, P. Brett, Field study of glass-fibre-reinforced polymer
and-healthy-eating/in-depth/water/art 20044256.
durability in concrete, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34 (3) (2007) 355–366.
[7] Cochilco. (2015). Proyección del Consumo de Agua de la Minería del Cobre
[38] A. Rteil, K. Soudki, T. Topper, Mechanics of bond under repeated loading,
2014-2015. Santiago.
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (6) (2011) 2822–2827, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[8] B.R. Bonsal, D.L. Peters, F. Seglenieks, A. Rivera, A. Berg, Changes in freshwater
j.conbuildmat.2010.12.053.
availability across Canada; Chapter 6 in Canada’s Changing Climate Report,
[39] J. Yi, L. Wang, R.W. Floyd, J. Zhang, Rotation-affected bond strength model
Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 2019, pp. 261–342.
between steel strand and concrete, Eng. Struct. 204 (June 2019) (2020),
[9] F. Silva Pinto, R. Cunha Marques, Desalination projects economic feasibility: a
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110060.
standardization of cost determinants, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78 (2017)
[40] ACI 408R-03 (2003). Bond and development of straight reinforcing bars in
904–915.
tension. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. 49 pp.
[10] Adel Younis, Usama Ebead, Prannoy Suraneni, Antonio Nanni, Fresh and
[41] M.A. Aiello, M. Leone, M. Pecce, Bond performances of FRP Rebars-Reinforced
hardened properties of seawater-mixed concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 190
concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (3) (2007) 205–213.
(2018) 276–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.126.

12
M. Parvizi et al. Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120952

[42] M. Baena, A. Torres, A. Turon, C. Barris, Experimental study of bond behaviour [52] M. Khatibmasjedi, S. Ramanathan, P. Suraneni, A. Nanni, Durability of
between concrete and FRP bars using a pull-out test, Compos. B 40 (8) (2009) commercially available GFRP reinforcement in seawater-mixed concrete
784–797. under accelerated aging conditions, J. Compos. Constr. 24 (4) (2020) 04020026.
[43] A. Younis, U. Ebead, S. Judd, Life cycle cost analysis of structural concrete using [53] ASTM International. (1999). Standard for the Preparation of Substitute Ocean
seawater, recycled concrete aggregate, and GFRP reinforcement, Constr. Build. Water. D 1141, 98(Reapproved), 98–100. DOI:10.1520/D1141-98R13.
Mater. 175 (2018) 152–160. [54] ASTM International. (2015). ASTM C 150/ C150M-15 Standard specification for
[44] A. Younis, U. Ebead, P. Suraneni, A. Nanni, Short-term flexural performance of portland cement. ASTM International, 1–9. DOI:10.1520/C0150.
seawater-mixed recycled-aggregate GFRP-reinforced concrete beams, [55] ASTM Standard C33. (2003). Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates.
Compos. Struct. 236 (2020) 111860. ASTM International, i(C), 11. DOI:10.1520/C0033.
[45] M. Noël, M. Parvizi, Bond-stress distribution of GFRP-reinforced concrete [56] S.H. Kosmatka, B. Kerkhoff, R.D. Hooton, R.J. McGrath, Design and Control of
beams containing seawater, J. Compos. Constr. 24 (4) (2020) 04020035. Concrete Mixtures: The Guide to Application, Methods and Materials, 8th
[46] E. Cosenza, G. Manfredi, R. Realfonzo, Development length of FRP straight Edition., Cement Association of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 2011.
rebars, Compos. B 33 (7) (2002) 493–504. [57] ASTM D7913/D7913M-14. (2014). Standard test method for bond strength of
[47] S. Yang, C. Yang, M. Huang, Y. Liu, J. Jiang, G. Fan, Study on bond performance fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite bars to concrete by pullout testing.
between FRP bars and seawater coral aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. ASTM Standards, 1–9. DOI:10.1520/D7913.
173 (2018) 272–288. [58] ASTM C192. (2019). Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
[48] Z. Dong, G. Wu, B. Xu, X. Wang, L. Taerwe, Bond durability of BFRP bars Specimens in the Laboatory, 1-8.
embedded in concrete under seawater conditions and the long-term bond [59] ASTM C143/C143M. (2015). Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-
strength prediction, Mater. Des. 92 (2016) 552–562. Cement Concrete. Astm C143, 1, 1–4. DOI:10.1520/C0143.
[49] Z. Dong, G. Wu, X. Zhao, J.-L. Lian, Long-term bond durability of fiber- [60] ASTM C39. (2015). Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.
reinforced polymer bars embedded in seawater sea-sand concrete under ocean ASTM Standards, 1–7. DOI:10.1520/C0039.
environments, J. Compos. Constr. 22 (5) (2018) 04018042. [61] CEB Task Group (2000). fib Bulletin No. 10: Bond of reinforcement in concrete.
[50] M. Hassan, B. Benmokrane, A. ElSafty, A. Fam, Bond durability of basalt-fibre- 434 pp.
reinforced-polymer (BFRP) bars embedded in concrete in aggressive [62] W. Lei, M. Yadong, L. Haibo, C. Shuang, L. Wei, Bond properties between FRP
environments, Compos. B 106 (2016) 262–272. bars and coral concrete under seawater conditions at 30, 60, and 80 C, Constr.
[51] P. Li, W. Li, T. Yu, F. Qu, V. Tam, Investigation on early-age hydration, Build. Mater. 162 (2018) 442–449.
mechanical properties and microstructure of seawater sea sand cement
mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 249 (2020) 118776.

13