JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
47(4) 393407
! The Author(s) 2012
Tensile properties degradation of glass Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
fiber-reinforced polymer bars embedded DOI: 10.1177/0021998312440473
jcm.sagepub.com
in concrete under severe laboratory and
field environmental conditions

Tarek H Almusallam, Yousef A Al-Salloum, Saleh H Alsayed,

Sherif El-Gamal and Mohammed Aqel

Abstract
This paper presents the test results of an experimental study to investigate the durability of newly developed glass fiber-
reinforced polymer bars. The main objective of this study is to investigate any degradation in the tensile properties of the
glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars using accelerated aging methods. Glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars were embedded
in concrete prisms and exposed to several environmental conditions for 6, 12, and 18 months. The environments
included exposure to tap water and seawater at two temperatures (room temperature and 50 C), seawater dry/wet
cycles and alkaline solution at 50 C. In addition, two typical field conditions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Gulf area
and Riyadh area) were included. The performance of the glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars was evaluated by conducting
tensile tests on the bars extracted out from the concrete prisms after exposure to different conditions. In addition,
scanning electron microscope was used to investigate the degradation mechanism of the bars. After 18 months of
exposure, test results showed that both the tap water at 50 C and the alkaline solution at 50 C had the maximum
harmful effect on the tensile strength of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars. The two field conditions showed almost no
degradation in the tensile properties of the tested bars.

Keywords
Durability, glass fiber-reinforced polymer bar, environmental degradation, tensile properties, concrete, scanning electron
microscope

any of the above conventional or new protection tech-

Introduction
Conventional concrete structures reinforced with steel
are initially protected against corrosion by the alkalin-
ity of the concrete. For many structures subjected to
aggressive environments, such as marine structures,
bridges, and parking garages, combinations of mois-
ture, temperature, and chlorides reduce the alkalinity
of the concrete and result in the corrosion of the rein-
forcing and prestressing steel.1 The costs of repairs and
restoration in USA, Canada, and in the majority of the
European countries constitute a high percentage of
their total expenditure on infrastructure.24 This initi-
ated the development of new technologies in order to
reduce the corrosion of steel reinforcement. Various
techniques such as epoxy-coated, galvanized steel
bars, and cathodic protection were employed; however,
niques could not completely eliminate the corrosion.
This failure directed the research toward the develop-
ment of new corrosion-resistant materials for reinforce-
ment such as ber-reinforced polymers (FRP).5,6
Due to their corrosion resistance, light-weight, and
high strength, FRPs have been widely used for civil
infrastructures throughout the world for the last 20
years. Among dierent types of FRPs, glass FRP
(GFRP) bars have drawn more attention in civil
Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia
Corresponding author:
Yousef A Al-Salloum, Department of Civil Engineering, King Saud
University, P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia.
Email: ysalloum@ksu.edu.sa

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

394
engineering applications due to their low cost compared
to other types of FRPs.7,8 Durability of GFRP bars,
however, is not a straightforward subject; it tends to be
more complex than corrosion of steel reinforcement
because the durability of FRPs is related not only to
the strength of its constitutive materials (bers and
matrix) but also to the integrity of the interface between
these two components while aging. A deterioration of
this interface reduces the transfer of the loads between
bers and thus weakens the composite material.6
During the last two decades, several studies7,924
have been carried out on the parameters aecting dura-
bility and long-term behavior of FRP materials used in
civil engineering applications. These studies concluded
that most common types of GFRP bars appeared to
have some deterioration problems when subjected to
harsh environments and that moisture, alkalinity, and
temperature are the main parameters aecting the
durability of composite materials. The moisture
absorbed by the composites, combined with the tem-
perature of exposure, induces stresses in the material
that damage the bers, the matrix, and their interface.
This gradually decreases the strength of the composite
material with time. The glass transition temperature
(Tg) of the matrix is also a key parameter, since it
marks a point beyond which signicant changes in the
properties of the matrix occur and considerable reduc-
tion of the mechanical properties takes place.6 Hence,
understanding the durability of GFRP bars as a func-
tion of glass bers and polymeric resin is essential to
design GFRP-reinforced concrete members and to
guarantee the typical infrastructure service life
(50100 years) and safety. Therefore, accelerated test-
ing and evaluation programs are needed to evaluate the
expected service performance of concrete members
reinforced with these bars. In addition, calibration of
the accelerated test results with dierent natural
weathering data of in-service structures is needed to
establish safe service life of a structure.9
Several research studies were carried out to investi-
gate the durability of GFRP bare bars under dierent
environmental conditions. Porter and Barnes25 con-
ducted accelerated tests to determine the long-term ten-
sile strength of three types of GFRP bars exposed to an
alkaline solution at a high temperature (60 C) for per-
iods of 23 months. The tensile tests resulted in residual
strengths of 34%, 52%, and 71% compared to the orig-
inal tensile strength. Chu and Karbhari26 and Chu
et al.27 conducted a study on the characterization and
modeling of the eects of moisture and alkalis on
E-glass/vinylester composite strips at dierent temper-
atures (23, 40, 60, and 80 C). The degradation levels in
the tensile strength ranged between 35% and 62% of
the initial strength. In a durability study conducted by
Gaona28 on GFRP bare bars, the test results showed
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 47(4)
that tensile strength of the tested GFRP bars decreased
with time when the bars were in direct contact with
solutions simulating the interstitial solution of the con-
crete. Losses up to 24% were measured for bars condi-
tioned in an alkaline solution with high pH value (12) at
a temperature of 35 C for 50 weeks.
Wang29 conducted 330 accelerated aging tests on dif-
ferent diameters of E-glass/vinylester reinforcing bars.
The samples were conditioned in alkaline solution (pH
12.612.8) and distilled water at 23, 40 and 60 C for
150 and 300 days. For all 150-day-aged samples, no
defects were observed in the ber, whereas matrix
cracks were observed in 300-day-aged samples.
Al-Zahrani4 investigated the degradation in the
residual tensile strength of three types of GFRP bars
in aggressive solutions. Bare bars were conditioned in
four solutions (alkaline, alkaline seawater, alka-
line sabkha, and acidic) at three dierent tempera-
tures for 312 months. The maximum reduction in
the tensile strength ranged between 27% and 71% in
alkaline environment and sabkha at 60 C. For thermal
variation and out-door, the reduction ranged between
5% and 21%.
Kim et al.24 conducted a short-term durability test
on two types of commercially available GFRP bare
bars (E-glass/vinylester) under four dierent environ-
mental conditions (moisture, chloride, alkali, and
freezethaw cycling) for up to 132 days. In addition
to the room temperature (25 C), elevated temperatures
of 40 and 80 C were employed to accelerate the degra-
dation of the GFRP bars. They concluded that, alka-
line environmental condition had more inuence on the
degradation of tensile strength of GFRP bars than the
other inuencing factors.
Few research studies investigated the durability of
GFRP bars embedded in concrete. Table 1 shows a
summary of these studies and their test results.
Al-Zahrani4 subjected small concrete prism specimens
(10  10  100 cm) reinforced with single GFRP bar
embedded centrally to continuous wetting at 30 C in
potable water, seawater, sabkha solution, or out-door
for 624 months. He observed that the reductions in the
strength were much lower than in the case of bare bars.
This reduction ranged between 10% and 35% after
24 months of exposure. The researcher concluded
that this behavior could be attributed to the limited
availability of moisture around the bars and the lower
temperature of the condition solutions which was 30 C
for the embedded bars compared to 60 C for bare bars.
Another durability study on GFRP bars was carried
by Chen et al.30 Bare FRP bars and also bars embedded
in concrete were exposed to ve dierent solutions.
The results showed that signicant strength loss
resulted from the accelerated exposure of both bare
and embedded GFRP bars especially for solutions
Almusallam et al. 395

Table 1. Previous test results of GFRP bars in concrete

Tensile
Bar diameter Conditioning Temp Duration strength
Reference Glass material/matrix (mm) solution ( C) (days) loss

Al-Zahrani 20074 E-glass/modified vinylester 12 Water 30 720 10

Seawater 12
Sabkha solution 10
Outdoor Varied 14
E-glass/vinylester Water 30 720 33
Seawater 35
Sabkha solution 32
Outdoor Varied 12
E-glass/polyurethane Water 30 720 21
(thermoplastic) Seawater 21
Sabkha solution 20
Outdoor Varied 20
Alsayed et al. 20027 E-glass/urethane-modified 9.5 Water (LACP) 50 180 9
vinylester Water (LACP) 65 34
Seawater (LACP) 50 3
Water (HACP) 50 11
Water (HACP) 65 39
Seawater (HACP) 50 12
Robert et al. 200931 E-glass/vinylester 12.7 Water 23 240 9
40 10
50 16
Chen et al. 200730 E-glass/vinylester (type 2) 9.5 Water 20 90 10
Alkaline solution 60 39
(pH 12.7)
Almusallam and E-glass/modified vinylester 10 Tap water 40 480 16
Al-Salloum 200621 Seawater 40 480 20
Dejke 200115 E-glass/vinylester 9 Water 20 582 43
40 245 44
GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer; LACP low alkali cement (Na2O equivalent 0.2%) paste; HACP high alkali cement (Na2O equivalent 1.0%)
paste.

at 60 C. Continuous immersion resulted in greater deg-
radation than exposure to wetting and drying cycles. In
contrast, freezing and thawing cycles combined with
solutions had little degradation eects on the GFRP
bars.
A recent study on the durability of GFRP bars
in moist concrete was conducted by Robert et al.31
Sand-coated GFRP bars with a nominal diameter of
12.7 mm were embedded in concrete and exposed to
tap water at 23, 40, and 50 C for periods of 60240
days. The tensile test results showed that at 40 and
50 C, the decrease of the tensile strength was 10%
and 16%, respectively, of the original tensile strength
after 240 days of exposure. In a eld study by Mufti
et al.,32 concrete cores were taken from ve in-service
concrete bridge structures of 68 years age across
Canada, reinforced with GFRP bars. On the basis on
microscopic and chemical analysis, they concluded that
the concerns about the durability of GFRP in alkaline
concrete, based on simulated laboratory studies in alka-
line solutions, are unfounded.
The abovementioned studies showed wide and sig-
nicant variations in the strength reduction due to envi-
ronmental exposure. In addition, most of the studies
have been carried out in USA, Canada, Japan, and
some of the European countries. Unfortunately, the cli-
mate in all those countries is relatively temperate and
does not resemble the local environment of hot coun-
tries such as Middle East in general and the Arabian
Gulf in particular where GFRP bars are extensively
used. In addition, many of the previous studies have
been carried out on the old generations of FRP bars.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

396
The manufacturers of GFRP are now claiming that
they have produced new types of GFRP bars that
have greater resistance to alkaline and to other environ-
mental conditions.22 Therefore, before prescribing the
new materials to practitioners, there is an essential need
to evaluate the long-term performance of the newly
developed GFRP bars when subjected to dierent envi-
ronmental and loading conditions.
This study aims to investigate the tensile properties
of new generations of GFRP bars under accelerated
laboratory environmental conditions as well as actual
eld conditions. The laboratory environments include
exposure to ordinary tap water and seawater at two
dierent temperatures. They also included exposure to
seawater dry/wet and alkaline solution at high temper-
ature. The eld conditions include the hot weather eld
conditions of the Middle East, the Arabian Gulf area in
particular. This is represented in this study by the
Central Province (hot-dry) and Eastern Province (hot-
humid) of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Research significance
Although a number of durability studies on FRP bars
have been reported by various researchers, no general
conclusions are possible as researchers used dierent
testing procedures and conditions. In some cases,
even conicting results have been reported. This study
investigates the performance of newly developed GFRP
bars when subjected to several accelerated aging tests in
the laboratory (simulating the highly aggressive envi-
ronments). In addition, it investigates the performance
of the bars in two actual service (eld) conditions. In
this study, GFRP bars embedded in concrete are tested
to simulate the real conditions of concrete structures.
The results of this investigation will provide a certain
condence level in using the new GFRP bars in con-
crete structures taking into account the long-term
behavior of these bars in hot weather countries. It
also allows for a direct comparison between the perfor-
mance in laboratory and the real-eld conditions.
Experimental program
The experimental program of this study includes two
phases. The rst phase investigates the short-term
mechanical properties of four types of GFRP bars
available in the market to select the best type to be
used in the second phase. The second phase investigates
the durability of the selected type of the GFRP bars.
Phase-1: short-term mechanical properties
The properties of composite materials are dependent
on the individual component properties, the
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 47(4)
manufacturing technique, and the quality control of
the production process. Any variations in the charac-
teristics of these three items will produce composite
materials with variable short-term mechanical proper-
ties. Durability study cannot be conducted using mate-
rials with intolerable variations in short-term
mechanical properties. Such variation will make the
results of the durability study meaningless. Therefore,
before commencing the durability tests, tensile tests
were carried out to identify the short-term mechanical
properties of the available GFRP bars. Four dierent
types of E-glass/vinylester GFRP bars were procured
from three dierent suppliers.
All the GFRP bars were subjected to the screening
test to determine their properties. GFRP bars that
scored the highest stable results were used for the dura-
bility study. Tensile test was used to identify the suit-
able bars. Information collected from this test includes
tensile strength, tensile modulus of elasticity, and strain
at failure. Ten GFRP bar specimens of each type were
used in the screening tensile tests. The tensile tests were
carried out according to the ASTM D7205.33 All the
specimens were tested up to failure. The average stan-
dard deviation (SD), and coecient of variation (COV)
of the tensile test results for all the tested specimens are
given in Table 2. It is observed from Table 2 that
GFRP bars type I are the weakest with lowest tensile
strength and modulus of elasticity. The modulus of
elasticity of remaining three types is almost same but
the tensile strength of bars type II is the highest. The
fracture strain of type II bars is also high, which is
primarily due to its relatively higher tensile strength.
The test results of type II bars also show minimum
scatter in test results thus indicating their relatively
promising quality of manufacturing. It is due to these
reasons that the GFRP bars type II were selected to be
used in the durability phase of this investigation. The
selected bars were 12 mm diameter (area 113 mm2)
with special surface prole of regular ribs (Figure 1)
to enhance bond and force transfer between bars and
concrete. The bars were made of continuous longitudi-
nal bers impregnated in a thermosetting vinylester
resin with a ber content of 83%.
Phase 2: durability of GFRP bars
This second phase of the study investigates the eect of
dierent environmental conditions (control, labora-
tory, and eld) on the tensile properties of the selected
type of GFRP bars. To be closer to real-eld conditions
where the bars are embedded in concrete, the GFRP
bars used in this study were also embedded in concrete
prisms before aging under dierent environmental con-
ditions. For the test specimens, concrete was rst cast
Almusallam et al. 397

Table 2. Screening tensile test results of different types of GFRP barsa

Peak stress Fracture strain Modulus of

FRP samples (MPa) (mm/mm) elasticity (GPa)

Type I Average 432 0.0104 41.9

Standard deviation 59.2 0.0016 1.56
Coefficient of variation (%) 13.68 15.76 3.71
Type II Average 1478 0.0245 60.4
Standard deviation 29.9 0.0005 1.69
Coefficient of variation (%) 2.03 2.15 2.79
Type III Average 838 0.01 59.9
Standard deviation 48.9 0.0008 2.45
Coefficient of variation (%) 5.84 5.91 4.08
Type IV Average 611 0.0097 63.3
Standard deviation 66.8 0.0016 4.44
Coefficient of variation (%) 10.93 15.93 7.01
FRP: fiber reinforced polymer; GFRP: glass FRP.
a
Values indicating minimum scatter are shown in bold.

Figure 1. GFRP bars used in this study.

GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.

and cured under normal conditions then the specimens
were transferred to the dierent environmental condi-
tions until the day of testing.
Test specimens. The durability study presented in this
paper focuses on the sole eect of dierent environmen-
tal conditions on test specimens without applying any
stress on the GFRP bars. Figure 2 shows a schematic
drawing and a photo of the test specimens. For these
specimens, GFRP bars were centrally embedded in
cement mortar prisms (50  50  500 mm). The
cement mortar was prepared using 1:3 mix proportion
of ordinary Portland cement and regular coarse sand.
Both ends of the GFRP bars were protected against
environmental conditions using a plastic tape. These
ends were used later for the anchorage of the bars
before testing. The specimens were cast in wooden
molds. After demolding, specimens were cured using
wet burlaps for a period of 28 days.
Environmental conditions. The specimens were subjected
to nine environmental conditions for 6, 12, and 18
months. The environments included exposure to ordi-
nary tap water and seawater at two temperatures (room
and 50 C). They also included exposure to seawater
dry/wet and alkaline solution at 50 C. Seawater was
brought from the Arabian Gulf-Eastern Province
of Saudi Arabia. Alkaline solution was prepared
using calcium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide and
sodium hydroxide (1.185 g of Ca(OH)2 9.0 g of
NaOH 42.0 g of KOH per 10 l of water). The envi-
ronments also included two typical eld conditions of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh area and Gulf
area). Table 3 summarizes the test program of the dura-
bility study. The test program was divided into three
main categories as follows:
Unconditioned specimens (control specimens).
Specimens of this group, LE, were exposed to controlled
laboratory environment (temperature 23  2 C) as

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

398 Journal of Composite Materials 47(4)

50

250 mm 500 mm 250 mm

Figure 2. Specimens exposed to lab environment (LE).

Table 3. Program of the durability study (control, laboratory, and field)

No. of
Specimens Environment Temp. ( C) Nomenclature specimens

Control Unconditioned lab room LE 5

Lab conditioned specimens Tap water (immersed) room TWR 5
50 TW50 5
Seawater (immersed) room SWR 5
50 SW50 5
Seawater (dry/wet) 50 SW50DW 5
Alkaline (immersed) 50 ALK50 5
Field specimens Gulf area (hot humid) Field GF 5
Riyadh area (hot dry) Field RF 5
Subtotal 45
No. of exposure periods (6, 12, 18 months) 3
Total no. of specimens 135
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; LE: lab environment; SEM: scanning electron microscope; TWR: tap water at ambient; TW50: tap
water at 50 C.

shown in Figure 2. Similar to the specimens in other
conditions, after 6, 12, and 18 months of exposure,
bars were extracted out of the specimens and tested in
tension. The great care was observed during the process
of extraction of bar for making sure that the bar is not
damaged. A small hammer was used for gently removing
the cement mortar. Test results of this group were used
as reference results for specimens under all other
conditions.
Specimens under dierent environmental conditions:
The specimens of this group were exposed to dierent
environmental conditions (at normal room temperature
or at 50 C) by either immersion into dierent types of
liquids or exposure to some specied conditions.
Similar to the unconditioned specimens, the condi-
tioned specimens were tested in tension after being
exposed to the dierent conditions for 6, 12, and 18
months. The eects of each environmental condition
on the tensile strength of the bars were determined by
comparing the test results of this group with those of
the counterpart control specimens, LE specimens. The
environmental conditions considered in this group of
testing were as follows:
. Immersion in tap water at ambient and 50 C (TWR
and TW50 specimens).

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

Almusallam et al. 399

. Immersion in seawater at ambient and 50 C (SWR

and SW50 specimens).
. Wet/dry cycles in seawater at 50 C (SW50DW
specimens).
. Immersion in alkaline solution (pH 12.513) at 50 C
(ALK50 specimens).

Specimens under eld conditions: Two eld condi-

tions were considered. A set of specimens, RF, was
exposed to Riyadh hot-dry eld conditions representing
hot-dry arid land of the Middle East. A second set, JF,
was exposed to the Eastern coast of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia (Jubail city), which represents the hot-
humid environment of the Middle East. It should be
mentioned that the temperature are almost similar for
both eld conditions. Monthly average temperature
ranges between 9 and 45 C with annual average high
and low temperatures of 33 and 19 C, respectively.
However, the relative humidity is dierent. The
annual average relative humidity in Riyadh and
Jubail areas is about 26% and 52%, respectively.34

Tensile tests. All bars were tested in tension according

to the ASTM D720533 and the ACI 440.3R-04 B2
test method.35 Each specimen was instrumented with
a Linear Variable Dierential Transformer (LVDT)
to capture the elongation during testing. The total
length of bar was 1.0 m (Figure 2). After the extraction
of bar from cement mortar prism, 300-mm-long grips
of pipes were made; thus the test length of the specimen
between the grips was 400 mm. The gauge length for the
measurement of strain was 50 mm. The tests were car-
ried out using an INSTRON testing machine and the
load was increased until failure (Figure 3). For each
tensile test, the specimen was mounted on the press
with the steel pipe anchors gripped by the wedges of
the upper and the lower jaw of the machine. The rate of
loading ranged between 250 and 300 MPa/min. The
applied load and bar elongation were recorded during
the test using a data acquisition system monitored by a
computer.
Microstructural analysis. Scanning electron microscope
(SEM) was used to investigate the phenomena of deg-
radation occurring during aging. The outer surface
and the cross-sections of the GFRP bars in ALK50
and TW50 environments after 18 months of expo-
sure were examined using the SEM technique and com-
pared to those of the control specimens in the lab
environment.
Tensile tests results and discussion
The stressstrain curves for both unconditioned and
conditioned specimens were almost linear up to failure.
Figure 3. One GFRP specimen during tensile testing.
GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.
All test specimens showed ber rupture in the test
length region. Table 4 summarizes the tensile test
results of all tested bars. It can be noticed that the
specimens in the controled lab environment, LE, did
not show any degradation in the tensile strengths with
age of exposure compared to the results obtained from
Phase I (Table 2). Therefore, the results reported in
Table 2 were used as a reference for all other test
specimens.
Tensile strength
Figure 4 shows the tensile strength retention of the con-
ditioned specimens as a function of exposure time and
environmental conditions. In Figure 4, the tensile
strength of the conditioned specimen is divided by
that of the unconditioned specimen in the controlled
lap environment, LE, and the corresponding value is
denoted as the retention ratio in percent.
For the TWR specimens, most of the reduction in
the tensile strength occurred after the rst 6 months of
exposure. After 12 and 18 months of exposure, almost
no additional reductions in the tensile strength were
recorded. The residual strengths were about 95%,
94%, and 94% (reduction by 5.3%, 5.9%, and 6%)
after 6, 12, and 18 months of exposure, respectively.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between the tensile
strength retention of the TWR specimens compared

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

400 Journal of Composite Materials 47(4)

Table 4. Tensile test resultsa

Strength (MPa) Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Fracture strain (%)

Exposure period
Environment Average SD CV (%) Average SD CV (%) Average SD CV (%)

6 months LE 1474 16.2 1.10 61.4 0.2 0.37 2.40 0.040 1.65
TWR 1397 11.4 0.82 60.2 0.1 0.16 2.30 0.046 1.99
TW50 1229 23.2 1.88 57.2 3.5 6.05 2.16 0.146 6.78
SWR 1393 72.6 5.21 58.4 1.3 2.22 2.38 0.080 3.36
SW50 1269 5.58 0.44 57.0 0.7 1.14 2.23 0.018 0.79
SW50DW 1371 22.2 1.62 59.6 1.7 2.81 2.30 0.114 4.96
ALK50 1296 22.3 1.72 59.3 2.3 3.80 2.29 0.049 2.15
RF 1464 21.6 1.47 60.2 1.4 2.24 2.41 0.061 2.51
JF 1454 65.6 4.51 57.7 0.4 0.62 2.56 0.097 3.78
12 months LE 1474 12.5 0.85 60.7 1.1 1.76 2.43 0.049 2.04
TWR 1388 26.3 1.89 57.5 3.2 5.52 2.41 0.130 5.37
TW50 1158 17.3 1.49 56.8 2.4 4.29 2.04 0.030 1.45
SWR 1349 4.36 0.32 57.5 3.1 5.34 2.35 0.164 6.98
SW50 1300 11.2 0.86 57.4 0.3 0.53 2.26 0.035 1.55
SW50DW 1370 22.3 1.63 57.9 1.5 2.57 2.37 0.058 2.46
ALK50 1211 29.3 2.42 56.4 0.3 0.51 2.15 0.213 6.90
RF 1459 33.2 2.27 57.8 2.1 3.62 2.53 0.085 3.37
JF 1450 21.6 1.49 59.8 2.5 4.14 2.43 0.194 8.00
18 months LE 1468 23.2 1.58 61.6 0.9 1.50 2.38 0.066 2.76
TWR 1379 49.3 3.58 61.0 2.0 3.20 2.23 0.046 2.05
TW50 1123 32.1 2.85 56.2 0.5 0.80 2.00 0.048 2.40
SWR 1267 25.5 2.01 55.3 1.6 3.00 2.29 0.023 0.98
SW50 1238 39.8 3.21 58.1 0.6 1.00 2.16 0.056 2.59
SW50DW 1331 18.8 1.41 61.6 0.8 1.30 2.15 0.060 2.78
ALK50 1149 49.2 4.28 55.9 1.5 2.70 2.02 0.084 4.16
RF 1450 8.80 0.61 60.5 1.6 2.70 2.40 0.078 3.25
JF 1443 28.0 1.94 57.1 1.3 2.30 2.53 0.040 1.58
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; CV coefficient of variation (%); LE: lab environment; SD: standard deviation; SEM: scanning electron microscope;
TWR: tap water at ambient; TW50: tap water at 50 C.
a
Highest value of CV for each property is written in bold.

6 Months 12 Months 18 Months

120
Residual Tensile Strength (%)

99
99
99

99
98
98
95

94
94
94

93
93

100
92

91
88

88
86

86

84
83

82
79

78
76

80

60

40

20

0
TWR TW50 SWR SW50 SW50DW ALK50 RF JF
Environment

Figure 4. Residual tensile strength of tested bar after exposure.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

Almusallam et al.
120
Water (room temperature)
Residual Tensile Strength (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400
Exposure Period (Days)
Figure 5. Residual tensile strength of concrete-covered GFRP bars exposed to water at room temperature.
GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.
to other GFRP bars in the literature exposed to a sim-
ilar condition. It may be observed from Table 1 that
there were two types of cement paste used by Alsayed
et al.7 namely, low alkali cement (Na2O equiva-
lent 0.2%) and high alkali cement (Na2O equiva-
lent 1.0%) paste. The low alkali cement being the
regular cement used in most of the studies including
the current study, only the test results of low alkali
cement paste of Alsayed et al.7 are considered for com-
parison in Figure 5 and in subsequent comparisons. It
can be noticed that the GFRP bars tested in this study
show higher residual strengths compared to most of the
GFRP bars in the literature, which are plotted in
Figure 5. The test results of GFRP bars type 1 used
by Al-Zahrani4 show similar trend as observed in the
present study but the results of type 2, which is the one
used in the present investigation show low residual
strength. One of the predominant factors that may
inuence the test results is the procedure of extraction
of bars from concrete, which was better controlled in
the present investigation. This is also evident from the
low values of SD and coecient of variation in the
present study. The concrete cover in the present study
was 19 mm. The cover in one of the earlier studies7 was
slightly less at 15 mm whereas in another study4 it was
as great as 44 mm. Despite large cover in experiments of
Al-Zahrani,4 which provided more protection of bar,
the loss of tensile strength was more than the present
study.
For the TW50 specimens, higher reductions in the
tensile strength were recorded. After 6 months of expo-
sure, the strength loss was about 16.7%. After 12 and
18 months of exposure, this strength loss increased to
21.4% and 23.5%, respectively. This indicates that
increasing the temperature to 50 C increased the diu-
sion rate of water and harmful ions into the bars, which
resulted in a faster degradation in the resin and glass
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015
401
Al-Zahrani 2007 (25C)
(Type1)
Al-Zahrani 2007 (25C)
(Type2)
Al-Zahrani 2007 (25C)
(Type3)
Alsayed 2002 (23C)
Dejke 2001 (20C)
Chen et al 2007 (20C)
Current Study (23C)
600 800
bers leading to the signicant decrease in the tensile
strength with time, which is also conrmed by the
microscopic examination of bar discussed latter.
A comparison between the TW50 specimens and
other GFRP bars exposed to hot water (4065 C) in
the literature is presented in Figure 6. It can be noticed
that the current results are comparable to most of the
results in the literature. As expected, the results in the
literature at 60 and 65 C showed higher reductions in
the tensile strength.7,30
For the specimens in seawater at room temperature,
SWR, it can be noticed that the reduction in the tensile
strength increased gradually with time. It was about
6%, 8%, and 14%, respectively, after 6, 12, and 18
months of exposure, which is slightly higher than the
reductions in the TWR environment. Increasing the
temperature to 50 C, SW50, resulted in additional
reduction in the tensile strength after 6 months of expo-
sure. This reduction, however, did not increase with
time. After 6, 12, and 18 months, the strength loss
was about 14.0,% 11.8%, and 15.7%, respectively.
Figure 7 shows a comparison between the tensile
strength retention of the SWR and SW50 specimens
and other GFRP bars in the literature exposed to sea-
water. Again, it can be seen that the GFRP bars con-
sidered in this study have comparable or better residual
tensile strengths compared to most of the GFRP bars
reported in the literature, which is due to the reason
stated above.
For the specimens in dry/wet seawater at 50 C,
SW50DW, the recorded tensile strengths were greater
than those obtained in the SW50 specimens, which may
be due to the fact that SW50DW specimens were
exposed to wet condition for nearly 50% duration as
compared to SW50 specimens because of alternate
drying and wetting. This also indicates that the alter-
nating dry/wet condition has no eect on the tensile
402 Journal of Composite Materials 47(4)

120 Almusallam and Al-

Hot Water (40 to 65C)
Salloum 2006 (40C)

Residual Tensile Strength (%)

100 Chen et al 2007 (60C)

Mathieu et al. 2009

80 (40C)
Mathieu et al. 2009
(50C)
60
Alsayed 2002 (50C)

40 Alsayed 2002 (65C)

Dejke 2001 (40C)

20
Current Study (50C)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Exposure Period (Days)

Figure 6. Residual tensile strength of concrete-covered GFRP bars exposed to hot water.
GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.

Figure 7. Residual tensile strength of concrete-covered GFRP bars exposed to seawater. GFRP: glass fiber reinforced polymer.

strength of the tested GFRP bars, which is in agree-
ment with the results obtained by Chen et al.30
It can be also noticed, for both SW50 and SW50DW
conditions, that the tensile strengths were almost stable
with time. The tensile strengths after 12 and 18 months
of exposure were almost similar to those obtained after
6 months. This may be attributed to the formation of a
very thin layer of salt on the concrete surface, especially
at higher temperature, which decreases the diusion
rate of the solution into the bars. This was not recorded
in the TW50 specimens.
For the specimens in alkaline solution at 50 C,
ALK50, a signicant reduction in the tensile strength
was recorded, which increased with the passage of time,
which is primarily due to the damage to the resin as
observed in the microscopic examination. After 6, 12,
and 18 months of exposure, the decrease was 12.1%,
17.8%, and 21.7%, respectively. These reductions were
close to those obtained in the TW50 specimens. This
indicates that, for the GFRP bars embedded in con-
crete, the eect of tap water was almost similar to the
eect of alkaline environment. Thus, the alkaline envi-
ronment as high as 12.5 pH has no eect on the tensile
strength of GFRP bars. This could be attributed to the
concrete around the GFRP bars. It is well known that
the internal concrete environment is alkaline with pH
between 10.5 and 13, depending on the design mixture
of the concrete and type of cement used. The alkalinity
of concrete has been observed to have almost no eect
on the tensile strength of GFRP bars, as observed from
the test results of control specimen (Table 4), which is
also conrmed by earlier studies on bond behavior.36
As the alkalinity of concrete is not aecting the GFRP
bars, thus the alkaline solution, ALK50, whose alkalin-
ity is also in the range of that of concrete, is also not
expected to aect the GFRP bars.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

Almusallam et al. 403

6 Months 12 Months 18 Months

120

Residual Tensile Strength (%)

100
100
100
100

99
95
98

98
98
98
97
97
100

95

95
95

94
95

95

94

93
93

93
93
93

91

91
90
80

60

40

20

0
LE (control) TWR TW50 SWR SW50 SW50DW ALK50 RF JF
Environment

Figure 8. Residual tensile modulus for different exposures.

6 Months 12 Months 18 Months

120

107

106
104
Residual Tensile Strength (%)

100
101
100
99

99

98
97

96
96

96

100

95
93

93
93

90
90
90

89
85
84
84

80

60

40

20

0
TWR TW50 SWR SW50 SW50DW ALK50 RF JF
Environment

Figure 9. Residual tensile strain at failure for different exposures.

For the specimens in the two eld conditions: have signicant inuence on the elastic modulus of
Riyadh eld condition, RF, and Gulf eld condition GFRP rods. For all environments, a slight decrease
(Jubail), JF, almost no reduction in the tensile strength rangeing between 0% and 10% was observed. This
(1%2%) was recorded even after 18 months. The tem- may be due to the fact that the modulus of elasticity
perature conditions for the two elds being almost is measured for low stress values and in this range of
same and the temperature seldom increasing beyond stress, the bers were intact in the resin, which had only
50 C, the humidity is the only factor that dierentiates slightly degraded under the exposure of some of the
one environment from the other. Thus, the humdity of environmnts. Whereas the degradation of resin, how-
gulf region of Jubail has not aected the GFRP bars ever small, had signicant eect on the tensile strength
embedded in concrete. This indicates that the used of GFRP bars because of the delamination occuring
accelerated laboratory environments were too harsh during relatively early loading stage. These results are
compared to the real-eld conditions. in agreement with the results reported by dierent
researchers.4,6,24,31,35,37 Furthermore, Correia38 con-
cluded that this behavior is due to the fact that tensile
Youngs modulus
modulus of GFRPs is only aected by temperatures
Figure 8 shows the retention of tensile modulus after 6, approaching polymer glass transition temperature that
12, and 18 months in dierent exposures. It can be is well above 50 C the temperature of exposure con-
noticed that the environmental conditions did not sidered in the present study.

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

404 Journal of Composite Materials 47(4)

Figure 10. SEM micrographs of the outer surface of the bars in LE, ALK50, and TW50 environments. (a)LE (b) ALK50 (c) TW50
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; LE: lab environment; SEM: scanning electron microscope; TW50: tap water at 50 C.

Figure 11. SEM micrographs of the cross sections of the bars in LE, ALK50, and TW50 environments. (a)LE (b) ALK50 (c) TW50
ALK50: alkaline solution at 50 C; LE: lab environment; SEM: scanning electron microscope; TW50: tap water at 50 C.

after 18 months of exposure. After the 18 months of

Strain at failure
Figure 9 shows the retention of tensile strain at failure
after 6, 12, and 18 months in dierent exposures. It can
be noticed that the retention of tensile strains at failure
presents a similar pattern to that of the tensile strength.
For the specimens in the tap water at room tempera-
ture, Riyadh eld condition, and Gulf eld condition,
almost no decrease in the strain at failure was recorded
exposure, the specimens in the seawater solution at
room temperature and at 50 C show a decrease of
about 4% and 10%, respectively. The reduction was
about 10% for the specimens in the wet and dry sea-
water exposure at 50 C. After 18 months of exposures,
the specimens in the TW50 and ALK50 environment
show a loss of about 16% and 15%, respectively. The
fracture of GFRP bars occur after delamination of

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015

Almusallam et al.
bers and thus the degradation of resin had almost
insignicant eect on the fracture strain.
Microstructural analysis results
Figures 10 and 11 show the SEM micrographs of the
outer surface and the cross sections, respectively, of the
bars in LE, ALK50, and TW50 environments at dier-
ent magnications. Figure 10 shows that the surface of
the LE specimens was not aected. In contrast, the
outer surface of the ALK50 and TW50 specimens was
signicantly deteriorated after 18 months of exposure.
It can be noticed that the matrix layer at the surface
that covers and protects the glass bers was lost in some
areas, which allows for fast diusion of water and alkali
ions into the bars.
In addition, Figure 11 shows that the matrix around
the glass bers in both the ALK50 and TW50 speci-
mens were deteriorated. Many gaps were observed
between bers and at berresin interfaces, which
aected the bond between glass bers and vinylester
resin; consequently aected the tensile properties of
the GFRP bars at failure. The damage to the resin
leads to the non-uniform distribution of load among
bers, which thus fail progressively leading to lower
tensile strength. There were also few cracks in the
glass bers as shown in Figure 10(c) at 2000. At
lower load levels, the glass bers in the deteriorated
area withstood the applied load resulting in slight
reductions in the tensile modulus of the GFRP bars
as observed from the tensile test results (reductions of
only 0%10% in the tensile modulus). However, at
higher load levels close to failure, these bers were
the weak point in the GFRP bars and failed resulting
in reductions in the tensile strength and fracture strains
as observed from the test results.
Conclusions
This study is a part of an ongoing durability research
program on FRP reinforcing bars for concrete struc-
tures. From the test results presented in this paper, the
following specic conclusions can be drawn.
1. After 18 months of exposure, the specimens in the
controlled lab environment and in the two harsh
eld conditions show almost no degradation in the
tensile properties of the GFRP bars.
2. Increasing the temperature of the tap water solution
signicantly increased the degradation rate in the
tensile strength of the GFRP bars, which got
increased from 6% at room temperature to 23.5%
at 50 C after 18 months of exposure.
3. The exposure to seawater at room temperature
showed a decrease in the tensile strength of 13.7%
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015
405
after 18 months of exposure. Increasing the temper-
ature to 50 C, caused 14% reduction after 6 months
of exposures but almost no additional increase
beyond 6 months.
4. The alternate wet/dry cycles in seawater showed less
harmful eect on the tensile strength of GFRP bars,
which could be related to the absence of humidity
during the dry stage that results in less diusion of
the solution into the bars.
5. For exposure to alkaline environment at 50 C, a
gradual decrease in the tensile strength was recorded
with time and a loss of 21.7% was observed after 18
months of exposure.
6. For all tested specimens, the tensile modulus was not
signicantly aected even after 18 months in dier-
ent exposures. These results are in agreement with
the results reported by several researchers.
7. The strains at failure, showed a similar pattern to
that of the tensile strength. The maximum decrease
in the strain at failure was recorded in the alkaline
and tap water environment at 50 C.
8. The SEM micrographs show that the matrix around
the glass bers in both alkaline and tap water envi-
ronment at 50 C were signicantly deteriorated.
However, there was almost no deterioration in the
glass bers. This explains the test results where sig-
nicant losses were recorded in the tensile strength.
It is reasonable to assume that alkaline and tap
water environments at 50 C are too harsh compared
to the two real-eld conditions that did not cause any
degradation in the tensile properties of the tested
GFRP bars even after 1.5 years of exposure.
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge the Center of
Excellence for Research in Engineering Materials
(CEREM), College of Engineering, King Saud University,
for funding the project.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the Specialty Units
for Safety and Preservation of Structures and MMB Chair for
Research and Studies in Strengthening and Rehabilitation of
Structures at the Civil Engineering Department, for their sup-
port in conducting this research project.
Conflict of Interest
None declared.
References
1. ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the design and construction of
concrete reinforced with FRP bars. Farmington Hills, MI:
American Concrete Institute, 2006.
406
2. Yunovich M and Thompson N. Corrosion of highway
bridges: economic impact and control methodologies.
Concr Inst 2003; 25: 5257.
3. Cusson D and Isgor B. Durability of concrete structures:
prevention, evaluation, inspection, repair and prediction.
Can J Civ Eng 2004; 21: 45, 19.
4. Al-Zahrani M. Tensile strength degradation of glass fiber
reinforced polymer bars in aggressive solutions both as
stand-alone and cast-in-concrete. In: Proceedings of the
eighth International Conference on FRP reinforcement for
concrete structures, Patras, Greece, July 1618, 2007,
pp.110.
5. El-Gamal SE, El-Salakawy EF and Benmokrane B.
Behavior of concrete bridge deck slabs reinforced with
FRP bars under concentrated loads. ACI Struct J 2005;
102: 727735.
6. Nkurunziza G, Debaiky A, Cousin P, et al. Durability of
GFRP bars: a critical review of the literature. Proc Struct
Eng Mater 2005; 7: 194209.
7. Alsayed SH, Alhozaimy AM, Al-Salloum YA, et al.
Durability of the new generation of GFRP rebars under
severe environments. In: Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Durability of Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Construction
(CDCC 2002), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 2931,
2002, pp.651663.
8. El-Gamal SE, El-Salakawy EF and Benmokrane B.
Influence of reinforcement on the behavior of concrete
bridge deck slabs reinforced with FRP bars. J Compos
Constr ASCE 2007; 11: 449458.
9. Ceroni F, Cosenza E, Gaetano M, et al. Durability issues
of FRP rebars in reinforced concrete members. Cem
Concr Compos 2006; 28: 857868.
10. Alsayed S and Alhozaimy A. Effect of high temperature
and alkaline solutions on the durability of FRP bars. In:
Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Durability of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Composites for Construction (CDCC98), Sherbrooke,
Canada, 57 August, 1998, pp.623634.
11. Chong K. Durability of composite materials and struc-
tures. In: First International Conference on Durability of
Fiber Reinforced Polymer for Construction (CDCC98),
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, 57 August, 1998, pp.112.
12. Tannous E and Saadatmanesh H. Environmental effects
on the mechanical properties of E-glass FRP rebars. ACI
Mater J 1998; 95: 87100.
13. Swit G. Durability of stressed E-glass fibre in alkaline
medium. In: Cardon AH, Fukuda H, Reifsneider KL
and Verchery G (eds) Recent developments in durability
analysis of composite systems. Rotterdam, Netherlands:
Balkema, 2000, pp.473476.
14. Valter T and Ralejs T. Durability and service life predic-
tion of GFRP for concrete reinforcement. In: Proceedings
of 4th International Conference on Fibre-Reinforced
Plastics for reinforced Concrete Structures, University of
Cambridge, Vol. 1, 2001, pp.505514.
15. Dejke V. Durability of FRP reinforcement in concrete.
Thesis for the degree of Licentiate of Engineering,
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, 2001.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015
Journal of Composite Materials 47(4)
16. Sen R, Mullins G and Salem T. Durability of E-glass/
vinylester reinforcement in alkaline solution. ACI Struct
J 2002; 99: 369375.
17. Almusallam T, Al-Salloum Y, Alsayed S, et al. Durability
of GFRP rebars in concrete beams under sustained loads
at severe environments. In: Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium on FRP Reinforcement
for Concrete Structures, Singapore, 810 July 2003,
pp.823832.
18. Uomoto T. Durability design of GFRP rods for concrete
reinforcement. In: Proceedings of the sixth international
symposium on FRP reinforcement for concrete structures,
Singapore, July 810 2003, pp.3750.
19. Nkurunziza G. Performance of glass FRP bars as rein-
forcement for concrete structures under the effect of sus-
tained loads and elevated temperature in humid and
alkaline environment. PhD thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke,
Quebec, Canada, 2004.
20. Micelli F and Nanni A. Durability of FRP rods for con-
crete structures. Constr Build Mater 2004; 18: 491503.
21. Almusallam T and Al-Salloum Y. Durability of GFRP
rebars in concrete beams under sustained loads at severe
environments. J Compos Mater 2006; 40: 623637.
22. Al-Salloum Y and Almusallam T. Creep effect on the
behavior of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars
subjected to different environments. Constr Build Mater
2007; 21: 15101519.
23. Demis S, Pilakoutas K and Byars E. Durability of fibre
reinforced polymers in concrete-procedures for reduced
alkalinity exposures. In: Proceedings of the eighth
International Conference on FRP reinforcement for con-
crete structures, Patras, Greece, July 1618 2007.
24. Kim H, Park Y, You Y, et al. Short-term durability test
for GFRP rods under various environmental conditions.
Compos Struct 2008; 83: 3747.
25. Porter M and Barnes B. Accelerated durability of FRP
reinforcement for concrete structures. In: Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Durability of Fiber
Reinforced Polymer for Construction, Sherbrooke,
Canada, 1998, pp.191202.
26. Chu W and Karbhari V. Characterization and moisture
and alkali effects on E-glass/vinylester composites. In:
Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on
Durability of Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites
for Construction, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2002,
pp.359369.
27. Chu W, Wu L and Karbhari V. Durability evaluation of
moderate temperature cured E-glass/vinylester systems.
Compos Struct 2004; 66: 367376.
28. Gaona F. Characterization of design parameters for com-
posite reinforced concrete systems. PhD thesis. Texas
A&M University, 2003.
29. Wang P. Effect of moisture, temperature, and alkaline on
durability of E-glass/vinyl Ester reinforcing bars. PhD
thesis, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec,
Canada, 2005.
30. Chen Y, Davalos J, Ray I, et al. Accelerated aging tests
for evaluations of durability performance of FRP
Almusallam et al.
reinforcing bars for concrete structures. Compos Struct
2007; 78: 101111.
31. Robert M, Cousin P and Benmokrane B. Durability of
GFRP reinforcing bars embedded in moist concrete.
J Compos Constr 2009; 13: 6673.
32. Mufti A, Onofrei M, Benmokrane B, et al. Durability of
GFRP reinforced concrete in field structures. ACI Spec
Publ 2005; 230: 13611378.
33. ASTM D 7205. Standard test method for tensile proper-
ties of fiber reinforced polymer matrix composite bars,
2006.
34. Syed S. Atmospheric corrosion of hot and cold rolled
carbon steel under field exposure in Saudi Arabia.
Corros Sci 2008; 50: 17791784.
35. ACI 440.3R-04. Guide test methods for fiber reinforced
polymer (FRP) for reinforcing or strengthening concrete
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015
407
structures. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute, 2004.
36. Masmoudi R, Masmoudi A, Ouezdou MB, et al. Long-
term bond performance of GFRP bars in concrete under
temperature ranging from 20 C to 80 C. Constr Build
Mater 2011; 25: 486493.
37. Liao K, Schultheisz CR and Hunston DL. Effects of
environmental aging on the properties of pultruded
GFRP. Composites Part B 1999; 30: 485493.
38. Correia J, Cabral-Fonseca S, Branco F, et al. Durability
of glass fibre reinforced polyester (GFRP) pultruded pro-
files used in civil engineering applications. In: Proceedings
of the Third International Conference Composites in
Construction, Lyon, France, July 1113, 2005.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com by guest on January 4, 2015