Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced SWSSC Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments

Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced Seawater Sea

Sand Concrete Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments
Fengming Ren a, Zexian Chen b, Ming-Xiang Xiong ∗

School of Civil Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China

Abstract. This paper introduced long-term flexural behavior of GFRP-bar reinforced seawater sea sand concrete beams exposed
to natural and chamber accelerated environments. The natural environments included outdoor and indoor environments in the
subtropical area of China. A total of twelve beams were applied with a sustained load during exposure and tested under a four-
point load with the GFRP-bar reinforced normal concrete beams working as the reference specimens. The test results showed that
the mechanical properties of the GFRP bars were more severely degraded in the seawater sea sand concrete beams, and the
coupling effect of sustained load and environmental weathering action was more pronounced at higher levels of sustained load.
The calculations for load-carrying and deformation capacities of said beams based on current modern design codes such as
ACI440.1R-15, CSA S806-12, and GB50608-2020 could not reach a reasonable agreement with the test values.
Keywords: FRP bar; Seawater sea sand; Natural environment; Accelerated environment; Long-term; Flexural behavior

by Wang et al. (2017) on the durability of basalt and glass

1. Introduction
With the growing population and increasing urban
infrastructure construction, the demand for concrete
materials is increasing. According to statistical data
(Intelligence Research Group 2021), the yearly output of
cement is 2,377 million tons and that of the commercial
concrete is 2,843 million cubic meters in 2020. Such high
demand for concrete materials requires large amounts of
fresh water and river sand for production, which causes a
possible shortage of resources and environmental problems.
To address such issues, seawater sea sand concrete (SWSSC)
may be used because the reserve of seawater and sea sand is
abundant and they can be easily obtained at a low cost (Chen
et al. 2021). Also, the mechanical properties of SWSSC have
been found like those of normal concrete (NC) using fresh
water and river sand(Wang et al. 2017; Xiao et al. 2017).
However, the higher content of chloride ions in SWSSC
accelerates the corrosion of reinforcements in the reinforced
concrete (RC) structures, limiting its application. In this
regard, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcements could
be used to replace the traditional steel reinforcements owing
to their outstanding characteristics such as high strength,
lightweight, corrosion resistance, etc.
In recent decades, many researchers have studied the
durability of FRP bars in salt solution and seawater
environments, confirming that the FRP bars can better resist
chloride ions(Aydin and Arslan 2021; Lu et al. 2020; Robert
and Benmokrane 2013; Zhu et al. 2014). But in SWSSC
solutions, the FRP bars suffer a harsher environment because
of the double corrosion of chloride ions and alkaline. A study
FRP (BFRP/GFRP) bars immersed in two types of simulated
SWSSC pore solution with different temperatures and pH
values showed that the normal SWSSC pore solution led to a
greater degradation in mechanical properties than the high-
performance SWSSC pore solution due to the higher pH
value of the normal SWSSC solution, the reaction of Cl- with
Fe3+ caused severer degradation to the BFRP bars than was
the case to the GFRP bars. Again, Wang et al. (2017)
evaluated interlaminar shear behavior of glass/basalt/carbon
FRP (GFRP/BFRP/CFRP) bars immersed in a simulated
seawater sea sand environment, it was found that the
increasing temperature caused an accelerated degradation
rate in the interlaminar shear strength of the FRP bars; the
BFRP bars showed the worst durability in the normal
SWSSC solution among the three kinds of FRP bars, while
there were no obvious differences in the high performance
SWSSC solution. Guo et al. (2018) reported degradation of
CFRP/GFRP/BFRP plates in a simulated SWSSC solution
for 6 months, showing the presence of chloride ions
increased hygroscopicity of FRP, and the CFRP plate had the
best durability in terms of fiber and fiber/matrix interface
degradation resistance, followed by GFRP and BFRP plates.
Sharma et al. (2020) proposed two numerical analysis
methods based on degradation rate and diffusion respectively
to study the durability of BFRP bars in SWSSC pore solution,
the analysis results indicated that the BFRP bars were more
prone to degradation and deformation as the temperature
increased. Guo et al. (2022) investigated the durability of
basalt/carbon hybrid FRP (HFRP) bars embedded in SWSSC
and NC exposed to seawater, it was observed that the
degradation rate of HFRP bars in SWSSC was higher than

∗Corresponding author, Ph.D. Professor a

Ph.D. Professor
E-mail: cvexmx@gzhu.edu.cn
b
MA.Eng. Student
 Fengming Ren, Zexian Chen Ming-Xiang Xiong
that in NC due to the hydrolysis of resin from the higher
porosity of SWSSC. Bazli et al. (2021) found that, after
freeze-thaw cycles for 3000 hours, the maximum flexural,
compressive and tensile strengths of GFRP pultruded profiles
immersed in SWSSC pore solution for 90 days were reduced
by 35%, 48%, and 37%, respectively. Bazli et al. (2020) also
pointed out that the UV radiation and moisture cycling
exacerbated the degradation of mechanical properties of the
GFRP pultruded profiles compared to immersion in the
SWSSC pore solution alone. Su et al. (2021)’s study (2021)
on the durability of BFRP laminas exposed to SWSSC and
NC pore solutions found that the durability of BFRP laminas
under immersion was greater than that under dry and wet
cycles, while the SWWSC environment had a greater effect
on the BFRP laminas than NC.
The abovementioned studies demonstrated the influence
of corrosive solutions on the durability of FRP bars. When
they are embedded in concrete, corrosion still exists.
Morales-Mangual et al. (2020) investigated the durability of
GFRP bars embedded in seawater concrete slabs immersed
in seawater at 60 °C in subtropical South Florida of USA,
demonstrating that seawater concrete harmed residual tensile
strength of FRP bars. The study by Lu et al. (2021) showed
that the residual tensile strength of BFRP bars was larger than
that of bare BFRP bars when the SWSSC cover thickness
was 10 mm but became smaller when the cover thickness
increased to 20 mm. Dong et al. (2016) investigated the bond
durability of BFRP bars and steel-fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) composite bars (SFCB) embedded in freshwater sea
sand concrete, revealing that the retention of bond strength
of BFRP bars was 78% when immersed in seawater for nine
months, less than that under wet and dry cycles (92%);
SFCBs retained more bond strength than BFRP bars in both
environments.
The abovementioned studies covered the durability of
FRP bars embedded in concrete without loading sustained.
When the load is applied, the degradation is exacerbated. El-
Hassan et al. (2018) found that the sustained load harmed the
tensile strength of GFRP bars embedded in seawater-
contaminated concrete immersed in tap water, and such
effect could be exacerbated by higher temperatures. Wang et
al. (2018) found the residual tensile strength of BFRP bars
decreased with increasing stress levels, and a stress level of
40% could seriously affect the mechanical properties of
BFRP bars. Besides, Chang et al. (2021) reported that, for
small diameter GFRP bars, the bond strength increased
initially due to water absorption and expansion of FRP bar,
when the diameter of FRP bars increased, the bond strength
decreased with immersion time; the sustained load
accelerated the degradation of bond strength, and such effect
was more significant for small-diameter FRP bars. The
flexural durability of SWSSC beams reinforced with BFRP
and SFCBs in the simulated marine environment was studied
by Dong et al. (2018), it was reported that the strength
degradation of BFRP stirrups caused failure mode of the
BFRP-SWSSC beams to change from concrete crush to
shear. The authors of this study (Ren et al. 2021) also
investigated the long-term flexural performance of GFRP-
and BFRP-bar reinforced concrete beams in the subtropical
coastal environment, the effects of exposure time, concrete
type, and FRP-bar type were investigated, it was found that
the ultimate load-carrying capacity gradually increased with
exposure time but further decreased due to the use of
seawater and sea sand.
As a continuous study to Ref. (Ren et al. 2021) which
only covered the effects of natural outdoor environment on
long-term flexural performance of FRP-bar reinforced
SWSSC beams without sustained loads, this study
investigated the different performance of such beams with
sustained loads subjected to both natural (outdoor and
indoor) and test chamber accelerated environments. It is
expected to enrich test database of FRP-bar reinforced
concrete beams regarding their long-term durability.
2. Experimental Program
2.1 Materials
2.1.1 FRP Bar
GFRP bars were used, and the nominal diameter was 8
mm. Four GFRP bars were placed longitudinally in every
beam specimen with two at top and two at bottom of the
section. The surface of the GFRP bars was ribbed by
sandblasting to enhance bonding with the surrounding
concrete. The same type GFRP bars were employed to form
the stirrups, the spacing was 75 mm and the cover thickness
to the surface of the stirrups was 15 mm. Tensile properties
were tested conforming to ASTM D7205 (ASTM 2008)
where the ultimate tensile strength of the GFRP bars was
1421.6 MPa and the modulus of elasticity was 56 GPa.
2.1.2 Concrete
Two types of concrete mix were prepared, i.e., normal
concrete (NC) with river sands and freshwater, and seawater
sea sand concrete (SWSSC). The river sands and sea sands
were commercial products, whereas the coarse aggregates
were continuously graded and the particle sizes were 5~10
mm. Seawater was configured according to ASTM D1141
(ASTM 2013) and said two mixes of concrete were prepared
following JGJ55-2011(Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
Development of the People’s Republic of China 2011). The
mix proportions are shown in Table 1. After curing for 28
days outdoor covered by plastic sheets, the compressive
strength and elastic modulus of NC cylinders (diameter of
150 mm and height of 300 mm) were 38.6 MPa and 24.9
GPa, respectively and those of SWSSC cylinders were 43.6
MPa and 27.9 GPa. The compressive strength and elastic
modulus of SWSSC are larger than that of NC, mainly
because the chlorine salt carried in seawater and sea sand
accelerated cement hydration, leading to early strength (Xiao
et al. 2017).
The compressive strength and elastic modulus of
concrete after one-year exposure in three different
environments are shown in Table 2. The compressive
strength of concrete increased in different environments as
the exposure time increased. Concrete in outdoor
environment exhibited the most increase in strength where
NC increased 18.9% and SWSSC increased 16.6%. The high
increase of strength in outdoor environment is because the
temperature and higher relative humidity accelerated the
hydration of cement.
 Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced SWSSC Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments

Table 1: Mix proportions of concrete

Concrete type Seawater/ Tap water Cement Sea sand or river sand Coarse aggregate
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
NC 208.9 372.7 656.0 1166.3
SWSSC 211.2 372.7 656.0 1166.3

Table 2: Mechanical properties of concrete after one-year exposure

Compressive strength Elastic modulus
Concrete type
(365 days, MPa） (365 days, GPa)
I-NC 42.7 29.1
I-SWSSC 47.1 26.5
O-NC 45.9 33.3
O-SWSSC 50.9 30.1
A-NC 42.6 28.3
A-SWWSC 47.2 25.3
Notes: “I”, “O”, and “A” indicate indoor environment, outdoor environment, and chamber accelerated environment,
respectively where the exposure conditions are given in Section 2.4.

Fig. 1. Beam details and test setup (unit: mm)

2.2 Specimen Design surfaces of beams were placed opposite to each other. The
A total of 12 beam specimens were fabricated, including locations of the loading pads and bolt supports were the same
6 GFRP bar-reinforced NC beams and 6 GFRP bar- with those of loading points and supports shown in Fig. 1.
reinforced SWSSC beams. As shown in Fig. 1, the beam
width and height were 90 mm and 150 mm, respectively. The 0.62 I g f c'
span of beam between the roller supports was 850 mm, and M cr = (1)
yt
the middle part with a length of 250 mm was taken as the
pure bending area (without stirrups). The longitudinal
reinforcement ratio was 0.90%.

2.3. Sustained Load

Two point loads were applied and sustained on each
beam. The sustained load (the sum of the two point loads)
was taken as the cracking load (i.e., 8.4 kN) and the double
cracking load (i.e., 16.8 kN), respectively. The cracking load
was calculated according to Eq.(1) as per ACI 440.1R-15
(ACI 2015) where 𝐼𝐼g is the gross (uncracked) moment of
inertia, 𝑦𝑦t is the distance from the centroidal axis of the
gross section to the tension face, 𝑓𝑓c’ is the specified
compressive strength of concrete.
The load-sustaining device is shown in Fig. 3 where a
Fig. 2. Device to apply sustained loads to two specimens
couple of beams were applied loads together. The top
 Fengming Ren, Zexian Chen Ming-Xiang Xiong

2.4. Exposure Environments strain gauge was attached longitudinally on the top surface
The natural environments in this study refer to the of beam at mid-span to measure the maximum compressive
outdoor environment and indoor environment in Guangzhou strain of concrete. The hereinafter mentioned “0.0” in
city of China (113o22′25′′E, 23o2′59′′N) which has a specimen names means “without sustained load”, “1.0” and
subtropical monsoon climate. The indoor load-sustained “2.0” represent sustained loads equal to cracking load and
beams are shown in Fig. 4(a) where the annual average double cracking load, respectively.
temperature and relative humidity are around 25°C and 52%,
respectively. The outdoor load-sustained beams are shown in
Fig. 4(b) where the annual average temperature was 24oC and
the relative humidity was about 79.7% (Ren et al. 2021), the
beams were directly exposed to air without sheltering above.
The load-sustained beams exposed in the acceleration
test chamber are shown in Fig. 4(c). The chamber
acceleration condition was determined according to existing Load-sustained beams
good experience (Tan and Liew 2005). The time during
which the chamber simulated the outdoor environment was (a) Indoor Environment
from January 2020 to January 2021, Guangzhou, China. For
illustration, Fig. 2 shows how the temperature was set in the
chamber for February 2020. Load-sustained
Firstly, the actual daily 24-hour temperature of beams
Guangzhou in February was fitted into four stages in
sequence, i.e., the initial constant temperature, subsequent
warming, peak constant temperature, and the last cooling.
The duration of each stage was different. Then, the fitted
highest and lowest temperatures were expanded by six times
·(b) Outdoor environment
to obtain the highest and lowest temperatures of the chamber
temperature curve meanwhile the duration of each stage was Chamber
reduced by six times smaller to obtain a single cycle of the
chamber temperature curve. Therefore, one cycle is
equivalent to one day in the natural outdoor environment, and
the chamber can perform six cycles a day. The humidity in
the test chamber was set to the monthly average humidity of
the natural outdoor environment. It should be mentioned that
the effect of UV radiation was not considered in the chamber, Load-sustained beams
this is because the GFRP bars were embedded in concrete (c) Accelerated weathering chamber
and the effect of UV radiation is believed insignificant Fig. 4. Exposure environments
(Tannous and Saadatmanesh 1998).
Actual Temperature
Fitted Temperature
Single cycle Chamber Temperature 3. Results and Discussions
35

30 Peak 3.1. Failure Modes and Cracks

constant Specimens I-NC-0.0, I-NC-1.0, and I-SS-1.0 exposed in
Temperature (oC)

25 temperature
Last cooling the indoor environment were tested first. It was found their
20 test peak loads were lower than their shear capacity as
15 calculated according to ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI 2015). This
Subsequent
10 Initial warming
means the failure modes of them should be governed by shear
constant rather than the designed flexural bending. Their failure
5 temperature modes can be seen in Fig. 5. Such shear failure could be
0 attributed to the degradation of bonding strength between
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 GFRP stirrups and surrounding concrete after exposure
Time (hour) (Tekle et al. 2020). In fact, similar shear failure was observed
Fig. 3. Temperature cycles in the chamber in BFRP-stirrup reinforced beams immersed in seawater in
the study by Dong et al. (2018).
2.5. Four-point load bending test setup and To prevent above-mentioned shear failure, the other
instrumentations specimens were strengthened with CFRP wraps in the shear
Four-point load bending test was conducted to evaluate areas of the beam, the thickness of the CFRP wrap was 0.167
the moment capacity of the environmentally weathered and mm and the wrapping range was shown in Fig. 1. After
load-sustained beams. Load control was adopted where the strengthening, the failure of the only left indoor exposed
load increment was 2.0 kN. Five LVDTs were placed with specimen (i.e., I-SWSSC-0.0) is governed by flexural failure
two at supports and three at mid-span as shown in Fig. 1. One with concrete crush in the top compression zone. The failure
 Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced SWSSC Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments

mode of I-SWSSC-0.0 is shown in Fig. 5.
As seen from Fig. 6, the failure mode of both SWSSC
and NC beams exposed to outdoor environment was
transformed from concrete crush to rupture of GFRP bar as
the sustained load increased, this is because the larger tensile
stress by sustained load increased the width of micro-cracks
on the surfaces of GFRP bars, accelerated the diffusion of
corrosive media in GFRP bars and then the degradation of
tensile strength of them.
The failure mode of SWSSC beams exposed in
weathering chamber was also transformed from the concrete
crush to rupture of GFRP bar, as shown in Fig. 7. But for the
NC beams, their failure mode was not transformed, it is
I-NC-0.0
governed by concrete crush, this is because the retention of
tensile strength of GFRP bars in NC beams is larger.
It also can be seen from Fig. 5~Fig. 7 that, for the
specimens governed by the rupture of GFRP bar (i.e., A-
SWSSC-2.0, O-NC-2.0, O-SWSSC-2.0), a horizontal crack
was produced between two vertical cracks in the pure
bending zone. This could be due to the reason that, when the
GFRP bars ruptured, the middle part of the concrete cover
between the vertical cracks behaved like an eccentrically
loaded concrete column in tension, and the bending moment
resulted from the eccentrical tension load tended to peel off
the concrete cover, as a result, the horizontal crack was
formed.
I-NC-1.0

I-SWSSC-1.0 I-SWSSC-0.0

Fig. 5 Failure modes of beams exposed in indoor environment

O-NC-1.0 O-SWSSC-1.0

O-NC-2.0 O-SWSSC-2.0

Ruptured FRP Ruptured FRP

Fig. 6 Failure modes of beams exposed to outdoor environment

A-NC-1.0 A-SWSSC-1.0

A-NC-2.0 A-SWSSC-2.0
Ruptured FRP

Fig. 7 Failure modes of beams exposed in weathering chamber

100 100
80 (15.2, 76.2) (15.5, 75.6) (14.9, 92) (13.5, 90.6) (14.5, 90.5)
(14.5, 76.1) (14.1, 89.7) (12.9, 84.3)
70 80 80
60 (16.1, 71.5) (14.1, 78.9)
Load (kN)

(14.2, 78.7)
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

50 60 (11.4, 58.4) 60

40
40 40
30
I-NC-0.0 O-NC-1.0 A-NC-1.0
20 I-NC-1.0 O-NC-2.0 A-NC-2.0
20 20
I-SWSSC-0.0 O-SWSSC-1.0 A-SWSSC-1.0
10
I-SWSSC-1.0 O-SWSSC-2.0 A-SWSSC-2.0
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
(a) Indoor environment (b) Outdoor environment (b) Chamber environment
Fig. 8. Test load versus mid-span deflection curves
 Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced SWSSC Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments

3.2. Load-displacement curves

The load-displacement curves are shown in Fig. 8.
Basically, the load-displacement curve is comprised of two
parts, i.e., the initial linear part and the post-cracking
hardening part. The load-displacement relationship in the
post-cracking hardening part is nearly linear, indicating the
flexural stiffness of the beam was almost not affected by the
propagation of cracks.
The ultimate deflection and load-carrying capacity (i.e.,
peak load) are labeled in Fig. 8. When exposed to indoor
environment, the ultimate deflection of I-SWSSC-0.0
governed by flexural failure is smaller than that of the beams
governed by the shear failure, but its load-carrying capacity
is generally higher than the others. Besides, the beams under
sustained load have a larger deflection and a lower load-
carrying capacity than the beams that were not subject to
sustained load.
For the beams exposed to outdoor environment, the
beams with a higher sustained load generally had a larger
ultimate deflection and a lower load-carrying capacity (only
violated by O-NC-2.0). Specifically, the load-carrying
capacity of O-SWSSC-2.0 is 26% lower than that of O-
SWSSC-1.0, showing that the degradation of tensile strength
of GFRP bars was accelerated by the higher sustained load.
Similarly, the beams exposed in weathering chamber
under a higher sustained load had a larger deflection but
lower load-carrying capacity (only violated by A-NC-2.0).
Differently, the load-carrying capacity of A-SWSSC-2.0 is
only 6.6% lower than that of A-SWSSC-1.0, indicating the
effect of sustained load on the degradation of tensile strength
of GFRP bars is less significant when the beams are exposed
in the chamber. It is worth noting that the load-carrying
capacities of SWSSC beams are lower than their NC
counterparts, this is also true for beams exposed to the
outdoor environment. This is because SWSSC contains a
large number of chloride ions that can react with the
aluminum and magnesium ions in the GRFP bars, as shown
in Eq.2 (Bethencourt et al. 2009; Sherif 2011). Such a
reaction degraded the tensile strength of GFRP bars.
Al3+ +2Cl− +2OH − → Al(OH ) 2 Cl2− (2)
3.3. Flexural Ductility
Ductility can be defined as the ability of a structure to
absorb energy without suffering damage and is usually
related to the amount of inelastic deformation that occurs
before failure. For RC structures, ductility can be calculated
as the ratio of the total deformation at failure divided by the
deformation at yield. However, because the stress-strain
relationship of FRP bars is linearly elastic without significant
yielding and plastic deformation, the traditional methods for
assessing the ductility of RC beams do not apply to FRP-bar
reinforced concrete members. The current methods to
quantitatively evaluate the ductility of FRP-bar reinforced
concrete structures are the energy-based method and the
deformation-based method. Since the beam in this paper was
applied with a sustained load, the specimens produced pre-
cracking, and there was no cracking load in the load-
deflection curve to quantify the elastic energy, the CSA-S6-
14 (CSA 2014) deformation-based ductility index was used
to explore the ductility of beam as Eq.(3).
M ult ψ ult
J= (3)
M cψ c
where 𝑀𝑀ult is the test ultimate bending moment and
𝜓𝜓ult is the curvature at 𝑀𝑀ult ; 𝑀𝑀c is the bending moment at
a maximum compressive strain of 0.001 in concrete and 𝜓𝜓c
is the curvature at 𝑀𝑀c . The maximum compressive strain of
0.001 is assumed as the beginning of inelastic deformation of
concrete. 𝜓𝜓ult and 𝜓𝜓c can be calculated by substituting
different values of L2~L4 into Eq.(4) where 𝐿𝐿2 ~𝐿𝐿4 are the
deflections measured by LVDTs L2~L4 (see Fig. 1) and 𝑙𝑙b
is the length of pure bending area.
2  L3 − ( L2 +L4 )/2
ψ= 2 (4)
(lb / 2) 2 + 4  L3 − ( L2 +L4 )/2

Table 3: Deformation-based ductility indexes

Specimen 𝑀𝑀ult (kN.m) 𝑀𝑀c (kN.m) 𝜓𝜓ult (mm) 𝜓𝜓c J

I-NC-0.0 11.43 3.33 1.54E-04 3.84E-05 13.72

I-NC-1.0 11.35 3.02 1.34E-04 2.56E-05 19.73
I-SWSSC-0.0 11.42 2.45 1.28E-04 2.56E-05 23.27
I-SWSSC-1.0 10.72 3.85 1.41E-04 3.20E-05 12.26
A-NC-1.0 13.58 3.86 1.02E-04 3.20E-05 11.24
A-NC-2.0 13.58 5.42 1.60E-04 4.48E-05 8.96
A-SWSSC-1.0 12.64 4.32 1.60E-04 3.20E-05 14.63
A-SWSSC-2.0 11.81 4.45 1.02E-04 3.84E-05 7.07
O-NC-1.0 13.46 4.46 1.47E-04 3.20E-05 13.87
O-NC-2.0 13.80 4.42 1.22E-04 1.28E-05 29.68
O-SWSSC-1.0 11.83 4.01 2.18E-04 3.84E-05 16.73
O-SWSSC-2.0 8.76 4.16 1.28E-04 4.48E-05 6.02
 Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced SWSSC Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments

The deformation index is shown in Table 3. According to sustained load was not considered in the calculation method.
CSA-S6-14 (CSA 2014), the minimum values of the
deformation index are 4 and 6 for rectangular and T-section 4.2. Bending Moment Capacity
beams, respectively. It can be seen from Table 3 that the For a design-oriented purpose, the ultimate bending
deformation index of the beams after environmental action is moment capacity (𝑀𝑀u ) was predicted according to American
all higher than the minimum values specified in the code. code ACI440.1R-15 (ACI 2015) and Chinese code
Besides, such indices of beams exposed to indoor and GB50608-2020 (Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
outdoor environment are generally higher than those of Development of the People’s Republic of China 2020). In
beams subject to chamber environment. Also, the both codes, the calculation methods are based on the failure
deformation index of SWSSC beams decreased as the modes of the FRP-bar reinforced concrete beams, i.e. the
sustained load increased. rupture of the FRP bar in tension zone and the crush of
concrete in compression zone, they differentiate each other
by the boundary reinforcement ratio (𝜌𝜌fb ). The calculation
4. Assessment of Code-Specified Calculation formulas of ACI440.1R-15 (ACI 2015) are given in
Methods Eq.(7)~Eq.(9).
ACI440.1R-15：
To examine the applicability of calculation methods in
some design codes, the load-carrying capacities of the   β1 
ε cu
GFRP-bar reinforced concrete beams such as shear and  Af CE f fu h of 1-  ρf <ρfb）
（
bending moment capacities as well as their ultimate   2 ε cu +CEε fu 
deflection were calculated and compared with the Mu =  (7)
corresponding test values. It should be mentioned that the  ρ f bh 2 1 − 0.59 ρf f f  （ρ ≥ ρ ）
effects of sustained load, concrete type (i.e., seawater and sea  f f 0f  α1 f ck 
 f fb
 
sand), and weathering action in the acceleration chamber are
not considered in such design codes, therefore, any
( Ef ε cu )
2
derivations between the test and calculated results are within 0.85β1 f ck
ff = + Ef ε cu − 0.5Ef ε cu ≤ CE f fu (8)
expectation, the purpose of the calculation is mainly to show 4 ρf
how large the derivation is.

4.1. Shear Capacity f ck Ef ε cu

The shear capacity of an FPR-bar reinforced concrete ρ fb =0.85β1 (9)
CE f fu Ef ε cu +CE f fu
beam is contributed by concrete and FRP stirrups
individually. It can be calculated based on Eq.(5) provided in which, 𝐴𝐴f is the area of FRP bars, b is the width of
by ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI 2015), where 𝑏𝑏w is the width of beam section; 𝐶𝐶E is the environmental reduction factor
beam equal to 90 mm; ℎof is the effective height of section taken as 0.7 for glass-fiber reinforced beams exposed to earth
taken as the distance of centroid of GFRP bars to the and weather beams in the American code. 𝜌𝜌f = 𝐴𝐴f /𝑏𝑏ℎ0f is
compression face which was 123 mm; 𝜌𝜌f is fiber-reinforced the FRP reinforcement ratio which is 0.91%, 𝑎𝑎1 and 𝛽𝛽1 are
polymer reinforcement ratio; 𝑛𝑛𝑓𝑓 ratio of modulus of the equivalent rectangular stress block parameters,
elasticity of FRP bars 𝐸𝐸f to modulus of elasticity of concrete respectively corresponding to the concrete stress and height
𝐸𝐸c ; 𝐴𝐴fv is the area of GFRP bars within the stirrup spacing of neutral axis, 𝜀𝜀cu is the peak compressive strain of
( 𝑠𝑠s =75 mm); 𝑓𝑓fv is tensile strength of stirrup taken as concrete taken as 0.003 according to the ACI440.1R-15 (ACI
0.004𝐸𝐸f (ACI 2015). 2015). The calculation formulas of GB50608-2020 (Ministry
of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s
2 Afv f fv hof Republic of China 2020) are given in Eq.(10)~Eq.(12).
VEd = Vc + Vf = f c' bw (khof ) + (5)
5 ss GB50608-2020:
  0.07 ρ f 
ρf Ef ρf Ef ρf Ef  Af f fe h 0f 1- − f fe  ( ρf < 1.5 ρfb )
k= 2 +( )2 − (6)   1+400f fe /E f 2 f cu 
Ec Ec Ec Mu =  (10)
 A f h 1- ρf f fe  ρ ≥ 1.5 ρ
The test and calculated shear capacities of the beams  f fe 0f  2α f  ( f fb )

failed in shear are provided in Table 4 where Pult is the test   1 cu 

ultimate load of beam (the sum of two point loads). It is found

that the shear capacity contributed by the stirrups is quite  f fu /γ f γ e ( ρ f < 1.5ρ fb )
larger than that by concrete. For the beam not subject to a f fe =  (11)
sustained load (i.e., I-NC-0.0), the test shear capacity is ( ρ f /ρ fb )
−0.55
f fu / γ f γ e ( ρ f ≥ 1.5ρ fb )
closer to the calculated one, but for the beams subject to a
sustained load, their difference is larger, especially for the
SWSSC beam, the test shear capacity is about 15% lower
than the calculated one. This may be because the effect of the
 Fengming Ren, Zexian Chen Ming-Xiang Xiong

Pult a
α1 f cu β1Ef ε cu δu = (3L2 − 4a 2 ) (13)
ρ fb = (12) 48 Ec I e
f fu / γ f γ e Ef ε cu +f fu / γ f γ e
ACI440.1R-15：
where 𝑓𝑓cu is the cubic strength of concrete converted
from the cylinder strength (i.e. 𝑓𝑓ck ) based on Eurocode 2 I cr
= Ie 2
≤ Ig
(CEN 2004), 𝛾𝛾f is the factor considering the application of  0.72 M cr  M cr   I cr  (14)
FRP composites taken as 1.25 for FRP bars and 𝛾𝛾e is the 1 − 1.72-   1 − 
 M u M
 u    I 
g 
factor considering the effect of exposure environment taken
respectively as 1.25 and 1.4 for indoor environment and bh 3
outdoor environment. Since the weathering chamber is I cr = 0f k 3 + nf Af d 2 (1 − k ) 2 (15)
simulating outdoor environment, 𝛾𝛾e is also selected as 1.4. 3
Herein 𝜀𝜀cu is taken as 0.0033 according to the Chinese code. where 𝐼𝐼cr is the cracked moment of inertia, 𝑛𝑛f is the
The test and calculated bending moment capacity of ratio of elastic modulus of FRP bars to that of concrete.
beams that failed in bending are provided in Table 5. In most GB50608-2020:
cases, the calculated bending moment capacity is smaller
than the test value, their difference is about 20%~30% on nf Af hof2
Ie = (16)
average, which means the design code methods are quite 1.15ψ f + 0.2 + 6nf ρf
conservative. On average (an abnormal value is excluded,
which is underlined), the ACI code method is more f tk Ef
conservative and its calculation results are slightly more ψ=f 1.1 − 0.65 (17)
( Af / Ate )( M u / 0.9 Af h0f ) Es
scattered.
where 𝜓𝜓𝑓𝑓 is the factor considering the non-uniform
4.3. Mid-Span Deflection distribution of tensile stresses of FRP bars, 𝑓𝑓tk is the
In American code ACI440.1R-15 (ACI 2015) and characteristic tensile strength of concrete based on Chinese
Chinese code GB50608-2020 (Ministry of Housing and code GB/T 50010-2010 (Ministry of Housing and Urban-
Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China 2010),
2020), the mid-span deflection of an FRP-bar reinforced 𝐴𝐴te is the effective area of concrete in tension equal to 0.5bd
concrete beam can be calculated according to Eq.(13), it uses and d is the height of beam, 𝐸𝐸s is the elastic modulus of steel
the effective moment of inertia of section to implicitly taken as 200 GPa.
consider the effects of un-cracked and cracked sections of the In Canadian code CSA S806-12 (CSA 2012), the mid-
beam. The parameter a is the distance of a point load to the span deflection can be calculated according to Eq.(18) where
near support equal to 0.3 m, and L is the clear span equal to the beam is explicitly considered with both uncracked and
850 mm. cracked sections in the span.

Table 4: Test and calculated shear capacities

Specimens 𝑉𝑉c (kN) 𝑉𝑉f (kN) 𝑉𝑉Ed = 𝑉𝑉c + 𝑉𝑉f 𝑉𝑉test = 𝑃𝑃ult /2 𝑉𝑉test /𝑉𝑉Ed

I-NC-0.0 4.91 36.74 41.64 38.11 0.915

I-NC-1.0 4.91 36.74 41.64 37.82 0.908

I-SWSSC-1.0 5.38 36.74 42.12 35.75 0.848

Table 5: Test and calculated bending moment capacities (kN.m)

Specimens 𝑀𝑀u,ACI 𝑀𝑀u,GB 𝑀𝑀u,t 𝑀𝑀u,ACI /𝑀𝑀u,t 𝑀𝑀u,GB /𝑀𝑀u,t
I-SWSSC-0.0 8.01 10.37 11.42 0.701 0.908
A-NC-1.0 7.76 9.26 13.58 0.571 0.682
A-NC-2.0 7.76 9.26 13.58 0.571 0.682
A-SWSSC-1.0 8.01 9.32 12.64 0.634 0.737
A-SWSSC-2.0 12.30 9.32 11.81 1.041 0.789
O-NC-1.0 7.95 9.31 13.46 0.591 0.692
O-NC-2.0 12.30 9.31 13.80 0.891 0.675
O-SWSSC-1.0 8.18 9.37 11.83 0.691 0.792
O-SWSSC-2.0 12.30 9.37 8.76 1.404 1.070
Avg. 0.711 0.781
St. Dev. 0.170 0.133
 Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced SWSSC Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments

Table 6: Test and calculated mid-span deflections

Specimens f tk δ u,ACI δ u,CSA δ u,GB δ u,t δ u,ACI / δ u,t δ u,CSA / δ u,t δ GB / δ u,t
I-NC-0.0 2.72 11.71 11.95 14.71 15.2 0.77 0.79 0.97
I-NC-1.0 2.72 11.62 11.86 14.6 15.5 0.75 0.77 0.94
I-SWSSC-0.0 2.84 11.77 12.04 13.9 14.5 0.81 0.83 0.96
I-SWSSC-1.0 2.84 11.02 11.3 14.78 16.1 0.68 0.7 0.92
A-NC-1.0 2.72 14.03 14.24 17.51 14.5 0.97 0.98 1.21
A-NC-2.0 2.72 14.03 14.24 17.6 13.5 1.04 1.05 1.3
A-SWSSC-1.0 2.84 13.14 13.38 16.45 12.9 1.02 1.04 1.28
A-SWSSC-2.0 2.84 12.24 12.5 15.36 14.15 0.87 0.88 1.09
O-NC-1.0 2.81 13.7 13.92 17.16 14.05 0.98 0.99 1.22
O-NC-2.0 2.81 14.05 14.28 17.6 14.9 0.94 0.96 1.18
O-SWSSC-1.0 2.87 12.05 12.33 15.19 14.05 0.86 0.88 1.08
O-SWSSC-2.0 2.87 8.75 9.12 11.24 11.35 0.77 0.8 0.99
Avg. 0.872 0.889 1.095
St. Dev. 0.118 0.114 0.139

the cracked flexural stiffness of such beams are affected little

Pult L3   a   a 3  I   2 M cr Pult 3 
=δu 3   − 4   − 8 1 − cr     (18)
24 Ec I cr   L   L   Ig  L  
The test and calculated mid-span deflections at ultimate
load are provided in Table 6. It is seen that the calculations
for deflection are better than those for bending moment
capacity since the test and calculated values are closer on
average and less scattered in terms of standard deviation.
Averagely, the American and Canadian codes
underestimated the deflection (the underestimation is less
than 15%), whereas the Chinese code overestimated it but on
the conservative and safe side for design (the overestimation
is less than 10%). However, the calculations by the Chinese
code are slightly more scattered. Besides, the calculations for
beams with NC are generally closer to the test values
compared with those for beams with SWSSC. And, the
calculated deflections of the beams in the indoor
environment, especially the beams that failed in shear
(underlined), are quite smaller than the test values, this may
be because the large shear deformation was not considered in
the calculation model (Tran and Vu 2021).
5. Conclusions
This paper has been concerned with the long-term
flexural performance of GFRP-bar reinforced seawater sea
sand concrete beams exposed to natural and accelerated
environments. The following conclusions can be drawn.
• The failure mode of GFRP-bar reinforced SWSSC
beams under bending could be transformed from concrete
crush to rupture of GFRP bars owing to the coupling effect
of sustained load and environment that deteriorates the GFRP
bars, therefore, it is recommended to propose a new
boundary reinforcement ratio to differentiate such failure
modes in a future study which considers said effect.
• The load-displacement response of GFRP-bar
reinforced beams under bending features initial elastic
behavior and post-cracking linear hardening, the hardening
rate in terms of the slope of the load-displacement curves are
quite similar irrespective of exposure conditions, indicating
by the exposure conditions, this is because the GFRP bars are
embedded in concrete.
• The GFRP-bar reinforced SWSSC beams have
lower load-carrying capacity than their NC counterparts. The
higher the level of the sustained load, the lower the load-
carrying capacity. The effect of seawater sea sand in the test
chamber is less severe, which turns out a higher load-
carrying capacity compared with the GFRP-bar reinforced
SWSSC beams exposed in the natural outdoor environment.
• At ultimate limit state, the American code
(ACI440.1R-15) overestimates the shear capacity, the
overestimation is within 10%); whereas both American code
and Chinese code (GB50608-2020) underestimate the
bending moment capacity, the underestimation is in the range
of 20%~30%.
• At serviceability limit state, both American code
and Canadian code (CSA S806-12) underestimate the
flexural deflection, the underestimation is less than 15%;
whereas the Chinese code overestimates it, the
overestimation is less than 10%.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Project No.: 51878189 and 52178125); the Yangcheng
Scholar Project of Guangzhou Education Bureau (Project
No: 202032849); and the Guangzhou Science and
Technology Program (Project No.: 202102010407).
References
ACI 440.1R-15 （2015）, Guide for the design and construction
of concrete reinforced with FRP bars, American Concrete
Institute; Farmington Hills, USA.
ASTM D7205 (2008), Standard test method for tensile properties of
fiber reinforced polymer matrix composite bars, ASTM
International; West Conshohocken, USA.
 Fengming Ren, Zexian Chen Ming-Xiang Xiong

ASTM D1141-98 （2013）, Standard practice for the preparation dynamics and investment prospects of China's commercial
concrete industry from 2021 to 2027.
of substitute ocean water, ASTM International; West
Lu, C. H., Ni, M. Z., Chu, T. S., and He, L. Y. (2020), “Comparative
Conshohocken, USA.
Investigation on Tensile Performance of FRP Bars after Exposure
Aydin, F., and Arslan, S. (2021), “Investigation of the durability
to Water, Seawater, and Alkaline Solutions”, Journal of Materials
performance of FRP bars in different environmental conditions”,
in Civil Engineering, 32(7), 04020170.
Advances In Concrete Construction, 12(4), 295-302.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0003243.
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2021.12.4.295.
Lu, Z. Y., Li, Y. C., and Xie, J. H. (2021), “Durability of BFRP bars
Bazli, M., Zhao, X. L., Jafari, A., Ashrafi, H., Bai, Y., Raman, R. K.
wrapped in seawater sea sand concrete”, Composite Structures,
S., and Khezrzadeh, H. (2020), “Mechanical properties of
255, 112935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112935.
pultruded GFRP profiles under seawater sea sand concrete
GB/T 50010-2010 (2010), Code for design of concrete structures,
environment coupled with UV radiation and moisture”,
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the
Construction and Building Materials, 258.
People’s Republic of China; Beijing, China.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120369.
JGJ55-2011 (2005), Specification for mix proportion design of
Bazli, M., Zhao, X. L., Jafari, A., Ashrafi, H., Raman, R. K. S., Bai,
normal concrete,Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
Y., and Khezrzadeh, H. (2021), “Durability of glass-fibre-
Development of the People’s Republic of China ;Beijing,China.
reinforced polymer composites under seawater and sea-sand
GB 50608 (2020), Technical code for infrastructure application of
concrete coupled with harsh outdoor environments”, ADVANCES
FRP composites, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural
IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, 24(6), 1090-1109.
Development of the People’s Republic of China; Beijing,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433220947897.
China.
Bethencourt, M., Botana, F. J., Cano, M. J., Marcos, M., Sánchez-
Morales-Mangual, C. N., Claure, G., Emparanza, A. R., and Nanni,
Amaya, J., and González-Rovira, L. (2009), “Behaviour of the
A. (2020), “Durability of GFRP Reinforcing Bars in Seawater
alloy AA2017 in aqueous solutions of NaCl. Part I: Corrosion
Concrete”, Construction and Building Materials, 270.
mechanisms”, Corrosion Science, 51(3), 518-524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121492.
EN 1992-1-1:2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures —
Ren, F. M., Liu, T. Y., Chen, G. M., Xie, P., Xiong, M. X., Yuan, T.,
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.European
Chen, Y. L., and Guo, S. Z. (2021), “Flexural behavior and
Committee for Standardization; Brussels, Belgium.
modelling of FRP-bar reinforced seawater sea sand concrete
Chang, Y. F., Wang, Y. L., Wang, M. F., Zhou, Z., and Ou, J. P.
beams exposed to subtropical coastal environment”,
(2021), “Bond durability and degradation mechanism of GFRP
Construction and Building Materials, 309, 125071.
bars in seawater sea-sand concrete under the coupling effect of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125071.
seawater immersion and sustained load”, Construction and
Robert, M., and Benmokrane, B. (2013), “Combined effects of
Building Materials, 307, 124878.
saline solution and moist concrete on long-term durability of
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.1248
GFRP reinforcing bars”, Construction and Building Materials,
78.
38, 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.021.
Chen, Z. P., Mo, L. L., Song, C. M., and Zhang, Y. Q. (2021),
Sharma, S., Zhang, D., and Zhao, Q. (2020), “Degradation of basalt
“Investigation on compression properties of seawater-sea sand
fiber–reinforced polymer bars in seawater and sea sand concrete
concrete”, Advances In Concrete Construction, 12(2), 93-103.
environment”, Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 12(3),
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2021.12.2.093.
168781402091288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814020912888
CSA S806-12 (2012), Design and construction of building
Sherif, E. S. M. (2011), “Corrosion and Corrosion Inhibition of
structures with fibre-reinforced polymers, Canadian Standards
Aluminum in Arabian Gulf Seawater and Sodium Chloride
Association; Canada.
Solutions by 3-Amino-5-Mercapto-1,2,4-Triazole”,
CSA-S6-14 (2014) ,Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CWB
International Journal of Electrochemical Science, 6(5), 1479-
Group; Milton, Canada.
1492.
Dong, Z. Q., Wu, G., and Xu, Y. Q. (2016), “Experimental study on
Su, C., Wang, X., Ding, L., and Wu, Z. (2021), “Effect of carbon
the bond durability between steel-FRP composite bars (SFCBs)
nanotubes and silica nanoparticles on the durability of basalt fiber
and sea sand concrete in ocean environment”, Construction and
reinforced polymer composites in seawater and sea sand concrete
Building Materials, 115, 277-284.
environment”, Polymer Composites, 42(7), 3427-3444.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.052.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.26069.
Dong, Z. Q., Wu, G., Zhao, X. L., Zhu, H., and Lian, J. L. (2018),
Tan, K. H., and Liew, Y. S. (2005), “Performance of GFRP under
“Durability test on the flexural performance of seawater sea-sand
tropical climate”, Science & Engineering of Composite Materials,
concrete beams completely reinforced with FRP bars”,
12(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/SECM.2005.12.3.219
Construction and Building Materials, 192, 671-682.
Tannous, F. E., and Saadatmanesh, H. (1998), “Environmental
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.166.
effects on the mechanical properties of E-glass FRP rebars”, Aci
El-Hassan, H., El-Maaddawy, T., Al-Sallamin, A., and Al-Saidy, A.
Materials Journal, 95(2), 87-100.
(2018), “Durability of glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026651218279.
conditioned in moist seawater-contaminated concrete under
Tekle, B. H., Cui, Y. F., and Khennane, A. (2020), “Bond properties
sustained load”, Construction and Building Materials, 175, 1-13.
of steel and sand-coated GFRP bars in Alkali activated cement
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.107.
concrete”, Structural Engineering And Mechanics, 75(1), 123-
Guo, F., Al-Saadi, S., Singh Raman, R. K., and Zhao, X. L. (2018),
131. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.75.1.123.
“Durability of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) in simulated
Tran, N. C. T., and Vu, S. N. (2021), “Shear deformations based on
seawater sea sand concrete (SWSSC) environment”, Corrosion
variable angle truss model for concrete beams reinforced with
Science, 141, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2018.06.022.
FRP bars”, Structural Engineering And Mechanics, 79(3), 337-
Guo, X. K., Jin, Z. Q., Xiong, C. S., Sun, T., Li, N., Yu, Y., and
345. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2021.79.3.337.
Zhang, X. Y. (2022), “Deterioration of mechanical properties of
Wang, Z., Zhao, X.-L., Xian, G., Wu, G., Singh Raman, R. K., and
basalt/carbon hybrid FRP bars in SWSC under seawater corrosive
Al-Saadi, S. (2017), “Durability study on interlaminar shear
environment”, Construction and Building Materials, 317.
behaviour of basalt-, glass- and carbon-fibre reinforced polymer
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125979.
(B/G/CFRP) bars in seawater sea sand concrete environment”,
Intelligence Research Group (2021). Analysis report on market
 Long-Term Flexural Performance of GFRP-Bar Reinforced SWSSC Beams Exposed to Natural and Accelerated Environments
Construction and Building Materials, 156, 985-1004.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.045.
Wang, Z. K., Zhao, X. L., Xian, G. J., Wu, G., Raman, R. K. S., and
Al-Saadi, S. (2018), “Effect of sustained load and seawater and
sea sand concrete environment on durability of basalt- and glass-
fibre reinforced polymer (B/GFRP) bars”, Corrosion Science,
138, 200-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2018.04.002.
Wang, Z. K., Zhao, X. L., Xian, G. J., Wu, G., Raman, R. K. S., Al-
Saadi, S., and Haque, A. (2017), “Long-term durability of basalt-
and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP/GFRP) bars in
seawater and sea sand concrete environment”, Construction and
Building Materials, 139, 467-489.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.038.
Xiao, J. Z., Qiang, C. B., Nanni, A., and Zhang, K. J. (2017), “Use
of sea-sand and seawater in concrete construction: Current status
and future opportunities”, Construction and Building Materials,
155(nov.30), 1101-1111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.130.
Zhu, Y., Wu, G., Dong, Z., Xin, W., and Wu, Z. (2014),
“Experimental study on the durability of BFRP bars embedded in
concrete”, Journal of Southeast University (English Edition),
30(3). https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-7985.2014.03.013.