J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893

Review
REVIEW

Review on degradation behavior of fiber-reinforced

polymer bars in marine environments
Shaoyong Wen1 and Mingli Cao1,*

1
School of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, Liaoning, China

Received: 17 December 2022 ABSTRACT

Accepted: 5 June 2023 Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites are expected to serve as reinforce-
Published online: ment materials for coastal and island infrastructure due to their high strength,
16 June 2023 lightweight, and good corrosion resistance. However, the performance of FRP
bars as reinforcement materials in long-term service in the marine environment
Ó The Author(s), under is also subject to deterioration. Therefore, for improving the durability perfor-
exclusive licence to Springer mance of FRP bars, it seems necessary to understand their degradation behav-
Science+Business Media, LLC, ior. This paper first analyzes the deterioration mechanisms of the fibers, resins,
part of Springer Nature 2023 and fiber–resin interfaces that make up the FRP bars under the action of sea-
water/salt solution, seawater sea-sand concrete pore solution/alkali solution,
and stress-marine corrosive environment coupling, respectively, and further
investigated the mechanical property degradation of FRP bars under the action
of various factors, including interlaminar shear strength, tensile strength, and
bond strength with concrete. The degree of degradation of FRP bars exposed to
the offshore environment was found to be more sensitive to the magnitude of
alkalinity and stress levels; GFRP bars were more resistant to seawater corrosion
than BFRP bars. Moreover, the long-term mechanical properties of FRP bars
were predicted, and the predicted result is more conservative than the field
data. Based on the summarized and analyzed results of this review, recom-
mendations for future work are presented, also for a comprehensive and better
understanding of the degradation behavior of FRP bars.

Handling Editor: Annela M. Seddon.

Address correspondence to E-mail: minglic@dlut.edu.cn

E-mail Address: sywen13@163.com

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-023-08667-1
9862
Introduction
In recent years, with the rapid development of
islands, ports, undersea tunnels, cross-sea bridges,
and other marine projects will consume huge fresh
water and river-sand resources. Currently, engineers
and researchers are considering using seawater sea-
sand concrete (SSC) instead of freshwater and river
sand for concrete production. This approach can
mitigate the environmental burden due to the mining
of river sand and consumption of freshwater and
significantly reduce the transportation cost of raw
materials for marine projects [1, 2]. However, there
are abundant chloride ions in the marine environ-
ment, which can seriously corrode reinforced con-
crete [3, 4]. Steel bar corrosion is one of the most
severe threats to the long-term performance of bar-
reinforced concrete structures in the marine envi-
ronment. Chloride ions in seawater penetrate the
protective layer of concrete through diffusion and
penetration, destroy the passivation layer on the
surface of the steel bar, induce expansion corrosion of
the steel bar, and cause the overall structure to lose its
load-bearing capacity [5, 6]. In response to this, to
mitigate the occurrence of rapid corrosion of the
reinforcement, the epoxy resin coating is sprayed on
the surface of the reinforcement. This traditional
treatment scheme not only increases the construction
process and cost but also largely reduces the bond
strength between the reinforcement and SSC [4, 7].
Furthermore, the dry/wet cycle can promote the
penetration of the chloride ions into the concrete
structure; hence, severe corrosion issues can be
observed for concrete structures in the splash and
tidal area. The annual economic loss due to marine
corrosion can reach hundreds of billions of dollars
[8]. To effectively resolve the chloride corrosion
issues, it is recommended to use corrosive-free fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) bars to reinforce the marine
concrete structure [9, 10].
Besides the application in automobiles, aerospace,
sports equipment, and medical area [12–15], FRP
composites have also been widely used as a struc-
tural material, reinforcement material, and functional
material in civil engineering, due to the advantages of
lightweight, high strength, appropriate fatigue resis-
tance, superior corrosion resistance, and strong
bonding with concrete [16–18]. FRP rebars are mainly
composed of three parts: continuous fibers, resin
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
matrix, and fiber–resin interface. Among them, the
commonly used continuous fiber types include basalt
fiber, glass fiber, carbon fiber, and aramid fiber,
which mainly determine the mechanical properties of
FRP bars. The commonly used matrix materials
include epoxy resin, polyester resin, and vinyl ester,
which mainly play the role of dispersing, bonding,
and forming, and are used to protect and fix contin-
uous fibers. The interface, as the transition region
between the fiber and the resin, mainly bears the
stress transfer to ensure that the resin and the fiber
can all be uniformly stressed. During the manufac-
turing process, the unidirectional continuous fiber
bundles were first stretched from roving creels and
then impregnated with liquid resin. The pultruded
FRP unidirectional or multiple directional composites
were then obtained after the processes of the surface
veil, forming, curing, pulling, and cutting as shown
in Fig. 1d [19, 20]. Compared with ordinary steel
bars, the FRP bars (see Fig. 1a–c) have a mass per unit
volume of about 16–27%, a higher ultimate tensile
strength, but a lower ultimate elongation and no
obvious yield strength. In addition to the high elastic
modulus of CFRP bars, the elastic moduli of B- and
GFRP bars are much lower than those of ordinary
steel bars (see Table 1 for specific physical parame-
ters). It shows that CFRP bars have more develop-
ment potential in the future market space. However,
in terms of manufacturing cost, CFRP bars are more
expensive than B- and GFRP bars, limiting their
routine use. Furthermore, to unify the application of
FRP bars as structural materials and reinforcement
materials in practical engineering, some countries
have formulated a series of specifications, such as the
Chinese GB 50608-2010 specification [21], Italian
CNR-DT 203/2006 specification [23], Canadian ISIS
Canada specification [22], European Fib Bulletin 40
specification [24], American ACI 440.1R-15 specifica-
tion [11].
However, the corrosion-free nature of FRP com-
posites does not guarantee its desirable durability in
infrastructures. The macroperformance (such as
interlaminar shear strength, tensile strength, flexural
strength, and bond strength to concrete) of FRP
composites can still be deteriorated in marine and
SSC environments due to their high salinity or alka-
linity [26–28]. The alkali and salt attack can easily
plasticize the resin matrix, corrode fiber reinforce-
ment, and deteriorate the resin-fiber interfacial region
performance. Furthermore, the marine and coastal
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893 9863

Figure 1 Three types of FRP bars: a BFRP. Adapted with c GFRP. Adapted with permission from reference [25]. Copyright
permission from reference [23]. Copyright (2023), (ZHEJIANG (2022), (Elsevier). d The pultrusion process for FRP bars. Adapted
GBF BASALT FIBER CO., LTD). b CFRP. Adapted with with permission from reference [19]. Copyright (2020), (Elsevier).
permission from reference [24]. Copyright (2022), (Elsevier).

Table 1 Comparison of basic physical parameters, FRP bars and ordinary bar

Types of Density (g/ Longitudinal coefficient of linear Tensile strength Yield strength Young’s Ultimate
bars cm3) expansion (10–6/°C) (MPa) (MPa) modulus (GPa) elongation %

Steel [11] 7.85 11.7 483–690 276–517 200 6.0–12.0

BFRP 1.90–2.10 9.0–12.0 600–1500 – 50–65 1.2–2.6
[13]
GFRP 1.25–2.10 6.0–10.0 483–1600 – 35–51 1.2–3.1
[11]
CFRP 1.50–1.60 - 9.0 to 0.0 600–3690 – 120–580 0.5–1.7
[11]

structures can be impacted by multiple factors from
seawater, hot weather, concrete pore solution, and
the loads and surrounding environment coupling.
This will increase the possibility of internal structural
damage to FRP composites and deteriorate its
capacity for structural load bearing. Hence, it is
necessary to investigate both the long-term degra-
dation behavior of FRP composites in the marine
environment before their wide application in marine
structures. Although the investigation on the degra-
dation behavior of FRP composites has been carried
out, the current study related to the long-term
degradation mechanism in the marine environment is
currently limited. FRP bars have also been studied as
reinforcing materials in offshore environments for
more than 10 years. However, researchers have lim-
ited research and understanding of its degradation
behavior in different environments, especially the
lack of long-term exposure tests of FRP bars in the
field environment, impermeability tests, and dura-
bility issues caused by the inherent properties of the
constituent materials, which limit its large-scale
application in practical engineering. The main reason
is that there are many specifications and types of FRP
bars, the accelerated simulation test research is not
complete, and the degradation mechanism and
macroperformance change laws after a long-term
corrosive environment are not clear, resulting in the
9864
conservative value of safety factor of FRP bars in
various countries, which greatly reduces its perfor-
mance advantage. Sherif et al. [29] and Li et al. [30]
studied the degradation behavior of BFRP bars
exposed to seawater, and the results showed that
chloride ions and water molecules in seawater would
corrode basalt fibers and plasticizing resin, respec-
tively, and significantly reduce the service life of the
structure. Elgabbas et al. [31] showed the degradation
of BFRP bars in an alkaline solution at 60 °C to be
confined to the fiber–resin interface rather than in
fiber or resin itself. Benmokrane et al. [32] reported
the resin type played an important role in the inter-
laminar shear strength of BFRP bars, and GFRP bars
were more durable than BFRP bars in an alkaline
solution at 60 °C.
Therefore, applications of FRP composites in the
marine structure are still under development. The
degradation behaviors of FRP composites under
marine and SCC environments have not been fully
understood. In this regard, this review takes the
marine environment as the degradation factor of FRP
bars, systematically summarizes the degradation
mechanisms of resin hydrolysis, fibers corrosion, and
degradation of resin-fiber interface zone from a
microscopic perspective, and analyzes the changes of
residual mechanical properties of the degraded FRP
bars. This is a summary and unification of the exist-
ing research results to provide a valuable reference
for future investigation on the long-term performance
of FRP composites used in marine and SSC
environments.
Resin matrix, fiber–resin interface,
and fiber degradation under marine
environment actions
Seawater
Hydrolysis of resin matrix
FRP bars exposed to the marine environment for a
long time will inevitably come into contact with
seawater, and water molecules in seawater, as plas-
ticizers of resin, will penetrate from the surface of
FRP bars to the interior of the resin through diffusion
and capillary action, causing the resin matrix to
expand and microscopically cracks, but also lowers
its glass transition temperature (Tg) [33, 34].
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
Generally, the Tg of epoxy resin is 458.6 K in a dry
environment, and it is 382.4 K in a wet environment.
The decrease of Tg demonstrated the plasticization of
the epoxy molecule, and it deteriorated the debond-
ing of the interface [35]. This destroys the integrity of
the resin polymer, manifesting in increased mobility
of the molecular chains and weakened interaction
forces between the molecules. This phenomenon is
called hydrolysis or plasticization of resin, and its
reaction equation is shown in Eq. (1) [36]. Mean-
while, in combination with Fig. 2 [19] and the avail-
able literature [37, 38], it can be concluded that
hydrophilic hydroxyl groups in the resin react with
water molecules to form weak hydrogen bonds,
causing polymer chain breakage and a decrease in
intermolecular chemical bonding. It is worth noting
that once the resin matrix is hydrolyzed, it produces
irreversible phenomena that lead to the permanent
loss of its working properties. When exposed to a
higher temperature (lower than the maximum use
temperature of epoxy resin, that is, 80 °C), the cor-
rosive media such as hydroxide, chloride, water
molecules, oxygen, and sodium in seawater acceler-
ate the diffusion into the internal structure of the FRP
bar and chemically react with the resin under the
effect of high temperature [39]. Generally, the rate of
chemical reaction increases by 2–4 times for every
10 °C increase in temperature [40]. However, resins
as an organic type of material can be very sensitive to
hot and humid environments. In particular, long-
term exposure to high temperatures and high con-
centrations of water molecules can cause changes in
the internal structure and chemical composition of
the resin. In practical engineering applications, the Tg
range of the resin matrix is 50–90 °C. When the
ambient temperature is close to or exceeds the Tg of
the resin, the resin transforms from a glassy material
to a rubbery material, reducing the stiffness and
adhesion of the resin matrix [41–43]. Thus, the
hydrolyzed resin can affect the protection, fixation,
and dispersion of the fibers, and also reduce the
stress transfer between the fibers and the resin
matrix. This is also evident when FRP bars are
degraded in a seawater environment [44].
R  COO  R0 þ OH ! R  COO þ HO  R0 ð1Þ
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
Figure 2 Degradation mechanisms from high moisture or water. Adapted with permission from reference [19]. Copyright (2020),
(Elsevier).
Figure 3 Schematic
representation of fiber–epoxy
matrix interface of FRP bars.
Adapted with permission from
reference [48]. Copyright
(2015), (Elsevier).
Deterioration of fiber–resin interfacial region
Inside the FRP bar structure, there is a chemically
inhomogeneous interfacial region between the rein-
forcing fibers and the resin matrix with a width of
approximately 1 lm [45]; this is shown in Fig. 3. The
performance of this region is somewhat different
from that of the resin and fibers, and the main failure
mode is the debonding between the fibers and the
resin. In addition, the fiber–resin interfacial region is
the result of the connection of chemical components,
has unique chemical performance and morphology,
and represents a key region for fiber-reinforced
composites [46]. As basalt fiber, glass fiber, and car-
bon fiber are processed in the finished FRP bars, the
surface often needs sizing treatment, so that the
interfacial region has a certain thickness, and its main
9865
function is to undertake the stress transfer between
fibers and resin [47, 48]. When FRP bars are
immersed in seawater for a long time, the area will
become a convenient channel for water molecules,
Cl-, Na?, and other aggressive substances to enter
the internal structure of the matrix, which will not
only cause the chemical bond between the fiber and
resin to break but also corrode the fiber. In addition,
too many water molecules will also cause the resin
swelling phenomenon, thus weakening the chemical
bonding force and mechanical bite between the fiber
and resin [49]. When the adhesion of the fiber–resin
interface is low, the rate of transport of aggressive
ions at this interface will be higher [48, 50, 51]. Table 2
collects the main ion content in seawater from dif-
ferent areas in China and the average ion content in
seawater around the world, and it can be seen that
9866 J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893

Table 2 Chemical composition of natural seawater and tap water (g/L)

Ions Seawater (world-average) [54] Natural seawater along the coast of mainland China Tap water [55]

Repulse Bay [55] Whampoa [55] Chek Lap Kok [55]

Cl- 19.3524 18.3124 19.0211 18.1526 0.0116

Na? 10.7837 11.1388 11.2169 10.4194 0.0091
SO42- 2.7123 1.6998 2.7282 1.6750 0.0176
Mg2? 1.2837 1.3410 1.3497 1.2152 0.0018
Ca2? 0.4121 0.4535 0.4060 0.3582 0.0169

there are also differences in the concentration of ions concentrations of chloride and sodium ions enter the
contained in seawater in different places, and this internal structure of FRP bars under the action of
difference also causes different degrees of degrada- water transport, precipitating out the aluminum,
tion and service life of FRP bars. That is to say, higher iron, calcium, potassium, and magnesium ions from

Figure 4 The corrosion mechanism of FRP bars in seawater. Adapted with permission from reference [30]. Copyright (2022), (Elsevier).
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
the fibers, which will form a hydrated layer in the
fiber–resin interface region, causing serious damage
to the chemical properties and original form of the
region (see Fig. 4) [52, 53]. In addition, SSC in long-
term service in a seawater environment is subject to
SO42- and Mg2? erosion, which leads to a weakening
of the effective protection of SSC against FRP bars
and also indirectly degrades the fibers/resins.
From the perspective of material performance, the
linear thermal expansion coefficients of the rein-
forcement phase (basalt fiber, glass fiber, carbon
fiber) and the matrix phase (epoxy resin, polyester
resin, and vinyl ester) are quite different. In a high-
temperature environment, the matrix phase expands
first and fills the interfacial region, causing some
fibers to be subjected to uneven stress transfer, which
may cause stress concentration and affect the adhe-
sion and compatibility between the fiber and the
matrix [56, 57]. Furthermore, the water molecules in
the interfacial region are rapidly moved to the matrix
phase due to the coupling effect of high temperature
and moisture, which promotes the aging speed of the
matrix phase [58, 59]. No matter which factor affects
it, once cracks or voids are formed inside the resin
matrix, water molecules will carry aggressive media
to penetrate the FRP composite system through dif-
fusion and capillary action, and its structural integ-
rity will be significantly damaged [60]. This form of
diffusion conforms to Fick’s second law of diffusion
(Fick’s law, for short), which is expressed by Eq. (2),
and the relationship between its diffusion constant
and temperature is expressed by the Arrhenius
equation, as shown in Eq. (3) [48, 61].
 2  seawater combined with O2, H2O, and OH- in SSC
oC o C o2 C o2 C
¼ k þ þ ð2Þ
ot ox2 oy2 oz2
 
Ed
k ¼ A exp  ð3Þ
RT
where C is the moisture concentration, kg/m3; t is the
time, s; k is the degradation rate, 1/time; A is the
constant of the material and degradation process; Ed
is the activation energy; R = 1.38 9 10–23 J/K is the
Boltzmann’s constant; and T is the Kelvin
temperature.
Therefore, the formation of internal structural
defects in FRP bars caused by environmental factors
is a long-standing problem, which can reduce the
durability performance and mechanical properties of
FRP bars. Furthermore, resin materials, as a new field
9867
of development, aim to understand, master, and
exploit new chemical and physical performance
arising from multiscale systems between macro-
scopic, mesoscopic, and microscopic materials. It is
well known that the performance and strength of FRP
bars depend to a large extent on the adhesion
between fibers and resins. That is, the health of the
fiber–resin interfacial region determines the reliabil-
ity and durability of FRP bars over a long service life.
Generally during the service life, due to different
environmental conditions and external loads, the
interfacial region exhibits non-uniform performance
degradation at the macroscopic and microscopic
levels, which may reduce the long-term or short-term
reliability of FRP bars. During the service life, the
predicted physical or mechanical behavior may
change. Therefore, the fiber–resin interfacial region is
a sensitive area for seawater degradation of FRP bars,
and this region needs to be strictly controlled during
the processing and preparation of FRP composites.
Corrosion of fibers
Fiber as reinforcement material mainly controls the
mechanical properties of FRP bars. When the fibers
are severely corroded, FRP bars lose most of their
load-bearing capacity [62]. Generally, inorganic fibers
(basalt, broken glass fibers, and carbon fibers) do not
absorb water, but long-term immersion in deionized
water or tap water will appear micro-cracking [63],
and the exact mechanism is not clear yet. When FRP-
reinforced SSC is exposed to the marine environment
for a long time, the high concentration of Cl- in
will react with Fe2? and Al3? in B- and GFRP bars,
respectively, to produce Fe2O3nH2O (rust) and
Al(OH)2Cl2- with a loose porous structure, as shown
in reaction Eqs. (4–7) [29, 30]. These chemical corro-
sions lead to etching-like spots on the fiber surface,
reducing the local cross-sectional area of fibers (see
Fig. 5) and predisposing it to stress concentration
[64]. This can easily increase the possibility of load
redistribution during load bearing of fibers, making
the service condition of FRP bars more complicated
and safety performance reduced [65, 66]. The use of
mineral dopants to improve the compactness of SSC
not only improves the Ca/Si ratio and cures the
chloride ions carried by itself, but also further
improves the interfacial transition zone between FRP
bars, aggregates, and cement paste, which to a certain
9868 J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893

Figure 5 SEM image of fibers after corrosion: a Basalt fiber. Adapted with permission from reference [67]. Copyright (2022), (Elsevier).
b Glass fiber. Adapted with permission from reference [68]. Copyright (2022), (Material reports).

extent slows down the degradation rate of FRP bars

by external aggressive substances.
 
Fe2þ + Cl ! FeCl complex ð4Þ
 
FeCl complex þOH ! FeðOHÞ2 þCl ð5Þ
FeðOHÞ2 þO þ H2 O ! FeðOHÞ3 ! Fe2 O3  nH2 O ð6Þ
  
Al3þ
ðin crystal lattice of the oxideÞ þ 2Cl þ 2OH ! AlðOHÞ2 Cl2

Cl or OH  0:6ðIon concentrationÞ

ð7Þ

Alkaline environment

FRP bars are embedded in SSC and the pore solution

can cause the degradation of FRP bars. Generally the
higher the alkalinity of the pore solution of concrete,
the more serious the degradation of FRP bars, mainly
because the OH- in the pore solution will diffuse into
the internal structure of FRP bars, combine with the
ester bond of the resin, and decompose the complete Figure 6 FTIR spectra for the residues after degradation of FRP
polymer chain into small hydroxyl groups, thereby bars in simulated SSC pore solutions. Adapted with permission
destroying the integrity of the resin matrix [69]. Fig- from reference [10]. Copyright (2017), (Elsevier).
ure 6 shows the signal intensity values in the O–H
collected pore fluid to appear stretching vibration
infrared band. The change in the number of hydroxyl
bands around 2900, 1732, 1550, and 1200 cm-1,
groups relative to C-H groups in the polymer was
respectively, confirming that when FRP bars were in
analyzed. Compared with the sample (O–H/C–
the SSC in an alkaline environment, a greater degree
H = 0.714) of the non-accelerated experiment, the
of chemical degradation occurs [10, 71]. When the
hydroxyl spectrum of the accelerated corrosion
resin degradation is more severe, it reduces the bond
sample at 3200–3600 cm-1 was very strong (O–H/C–
and protective effect on the fibers. OH- can further
H = 1.794) [70]. Moreover, the C–H, C=O, C=C, and
react with SiO2 and Al2O3 in basalt and glass fibers to
C–O–U functional groups were detected in the
undergo alkali-silicon and alkali-aluminum reactions,
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
respectively, to generate Si–OH gel, liquid SiO-, and
AlO -
2 . Among them, liquid SiO will also react with
H2O to produce Si–OH gel. This gel has the effect of
transporting free hydroxyl groups and water mole-
cules, which will accelerate the hydrolysis rate of the
resin. Specifically, as in Eqs. (9)–(11) [57, 67, 72, 73]. In
response to this, Scheffler et al. [74] aged basalt fibers
and glass fibers in a 5% NaOH solution (PH [ 14) at
40 and 60 °C for 7 days and found that the surface of
the two fibers was slightly etched (as shown in
Fig. 7a, b). Wang et al. [60] simulated the accelerated
aging of GFRP bars by SSC pore solution (PH = 13.4)
at 55 °C for 63 days and found that the epoxy resin
was severely corroded, resulting in a debonding state
between the resin and basalt fibers. Therefore, the
Figure 7 Morphology morphologies of FRP bars in pore solution:
a BFRP. Adapted with permission from reference [74]. Copyright
(2009), (Elsevier). b GFRP. Adapted with permission from
reference [74]. Copyright (2009), (Elsevier). c BFRP. Adapted
9869
fiber will increase the contact area with OH- without
being effectively protected, increasing the degree of
corrosion and embrittlement of fibers. The specific
manifestations are delamination and shedding on the
fibers’ surfaces (as shown in Fig. 7c) [70]. The degree
of corrosion of the fibers and resins near the surface
of the GFRP bar shown in Fig. 7d is the same as that
shown in Fig. 7c, but fibers and the resin near the
center of bars remain intact [30]. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the closer the FRP bars are to their
surface layer at higher temperatures for a long time,
the higher the water absorption of the resin and the
greater the thermal aging rate, which eventually
leads to a decrease in the adhesion of the fibers to the
resin.
with permission from reference [60]. Copyright (2017), (Elsevier).
d GFRP. Adapted with permission from reference [60]. Copyright
(2017), (Elsevier).
9870 J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893

 Si  OR þ ðHþ þ OH Þ ! Si  OH þ ROH ð8Þ MK to prepare SSC, the generated hydrocalumite and

C–S–H gel have the effect of curing Cl-, and com-
 Si  O  Si  þ Rþ þ OH ! pared with ordinary concrete mixed with MK, the
 Si  OH þ RO  Si ð9Þ
drying shrinkage of SSC rate is significantly lower


 Naþ ðKþ Þ þ SiO2þ þ OH ! NaðKÞ  Si  H gel [87, 88]. SSC blended with fly ash can bind Cl-
ð10Þ physically and chemically in addition to reducing Cl-

permeability coefficient, water permeability coeffi-
Al2 O3 þ 2OH ðadsorbedÞ ! 2AlO2 aqueous cient, and self-shrinkage [87]. However, SF contains
þ H2 O ð11Þ 90–95% SiO2 compared with FA, and it will have a
significant volcanic ash effect with Ca(OH)2 in SSC,
The above analysis showed that the degradation of
generating more flocculated C–S–H, which can bind
FRP bars by the pore solution in concrete is very
more Cl-. This type of binding is an irreversible
significant. In this regard, using SCMs such as gran-
physical interaction [89]. For example, Yi et al. [70]
ulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), metakaolin (MK),
prepared seawater sea-sand mortar (SSM) using SF
silica fume (SF), and fly ash (FA) to replace part of the
instead of 35% cement and embedded BFRP bars in
cement can not only achieve the effect of reducing the
SSM and exposed them to seawater at 55 °C for
alkalinity of the pore solution in concrete but also
240 days. It was found that BFRP bars in the SSM
solidify Cl-, improve impermeability, reduce drying
without SF were more corroded, some of the resin
shrinkage, and improve the internal pore structure
was in a state of debonding from fibers, and the fiber
[55, 83, 84]. As can be seen in Table 3, both ordinary
bundles became relatively loose. In contrast, the resin
concrete and SSC are mixed with 40–70% GGBS, and
and fibers in the BFRP bars of SSM doped with 35%
the water permeability coefficient and chloride ion
SF maintained good integrity, and their microscopic
diffusion coefficient of the former are higher than
morphology is shown in Fig. 8. In addition, special
those of the latter [85, 86]. This is mainly due to the
cement such as high belite sulfate aluminum cement
reaction of Cl- in seawater and sea sand with C3A,
[90], geopolymer cement [91], and magnesium
Ca(OH)2, and CaSO4 to generate Friedel’s and
chloroxylate cement [92] is used instead of ordinary
Kuzel’s salts, which fill the internal pores of SSC.
silicate cement to achieve the purpose of reducing the
Similarly, adding a certain amount of aluminum-rich

Table 3 Mix proportioning and related performance of SCMs added to SSC

Binder W/ S/B C/B Admixtures Main performance comparing with OC References

B

16.7% FA, 0.13 1.10 – SP Lower alkalinity, higher resistance to chloride ion diffusion, water [55]
16.7% SF permeability and carbonization ability, improved physical and
chemical binding of Cl-, reduced drying shrinkage, severe bar
corrosion, lower corrosion of FRP bars, lower W/B and chemical
admixtures that increase the durability of the overall structure of the
SSC
0–10% MK 0.30 1.58 1.52 – [66]
100% OPC 0.36 2.22 3.47 SP [75, 76]
0–20% 0.40 0.81/ 1.71/ SP [77, 78]
GGBS 2.34 2.9
0–20% FA
0–20% SF 0.45 2.23 3.1–4.1 SP [79–81]
45–50% 0.50 2.42 3.69 WR/CN [82]
GGBS,
0–5% SF
30–40% SF 0.40 2.00 – SP [70]
*W/B: water/binder; S/B: sand/binder; C/B: coarse aggregate/binder; SP: superplasticizer; WR/CN: water reducer/chemical admixture
containing calcium nitrate
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893 9871

Figure 8 Morphology morphologies of BFRP bars embedded in the SSM at 55 °C for 240 days: a, b 0% SF, and c, d 35% SF. Adapted
with permission from reference [70]. Copyright (2022), (Elsevier).

alkaline environment in concrete. However, the
research on this type of cement is relatively shallow
compared to ordinary cement, and it is currently in
the exploratory stage. Therefore, to meet the long-
term durability performance of FRP bars, the study of
a low alkalinity and high-density SSC is the main
goal and direction of future research.
Stress and corrosive environment coupling
In practical engineering, FRP bars often work with
loads. If applied in marine environments, the influ-
ence of the surrounding environment’s temperature,
hydroxides, chlorides, water molecules, and other
aggressive media also needs to be considered.
Therefore, the coupling of stress and environment
has a significant effect on the mechanical properties
and long-term life of FRP bars [94]. In general, con-
stant tensile and extrusion stresses accelerate the
degradation of FRP bars. For example, FRP bars can
leave defects such as cavities, bubbles, and uncom-
pact fiber–resin interfaces during the preparation
process, and these defects not only create stress
concentrations but also form more microcracks.
These microcracks may become a channel for corro-
sive media (water molecules, chlorides, hydroxides,
etc.) from the surrounding environment to enter the
9872
interior of the FRP bars, thus reducing their long-
term durability. However, Nkurunziza et al. [95]
found that not all stress levels adversely affect the
long-term durability performance of FRP bars. In this
regard, the stress levels were divided into three
stages, as shown in Fig. 9. In stage 1, when the stress
level was low, the internal defects of the FRP bars are
not sufficient to form micro-cracks, and fibers were
not directly corroded. The external corrosive medium
could only reach the internal structure of FRP bars by
diffusion, which had a long life at this stage. In stage
2, when the stress level was high, the defects inside
the resin would gradually produce micro-cracks
under continuous stress, providing a convenient
channel for aggressive media to enter the internal
structure of the FRP bars, making the life of FRP bars
reduced. In stage 3, when the stress continued to
increase, the number of cracks inside the resin
becomes increased and fibers become brittle under
the corrosive effect of a large amount of aggressive
media, resulting in possible brittle fracture of FRP
bars. Therefore, in an environment like the ocean, the
design stress of FRP bars should be lower than the
stress level of the resin matrix cracking to ensure that
FRP bars have a longer life under the coupling effect
of stress and environment. In response to this, Wang
et al. [96] applied different stress levels (20% and
40%) to G- and BFRP bars and, after exposure to
Figure 9 Deterioration mechanism of FRP bars subjected to
sustained load and environments coupling: a loading device.
Adapted with permission from reference [67]. Copyright (2022),
(Elsevier). b and d Schematic diagram of the coupling of stress
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
high-performance SSC pore solution at 25 °C for
42 days, found that at the low-stress level (20%) the
internal structure of the G- and BFRP bars is rela-
tively complete, and their tensile strength retention
values were greater than 90%. However, after being
subjected to high-stress levels (40%), the degree of
damage was relatively severe for both types of FRP
bars, especially the tensile strength retention of BFRP
bars was reduced by about 50%, and their micro-
scopic morphologies are shown in Fig. 10a and b.
Deng et al. [97] and Zhang et al. [98] applied 40%
compressive stress to both B- and GFRP bars and
then immersed them in salt and alkali solutions at
40 °C for 90 days, respectively. It was found that
compared with the samples without compressive
stress, the resin hydrolysis of the surface layer of FRP
bars with compressive stress was more serious, and
some fiber bundles appeared loose, intertwined, and
entangled (see Fig. 10c, d), resulting in a 30–40%
reduction in the final compressive strength retention
of both B- and GFRP bars in the salt and alkaline
solutions. It indicates that the combined presence of
stress, temperature, humidity, and aggressive media
increases the possibility of fibers’ brittleness, resin
hydrolysis, and fiber–resin interface debonding. This
is mainly because in the humid-hot environment, the
moisture absorption softens the resin matrix and
reduces stress transfer, and elevated temperature
and corrosive environment. Adapted with permission from
reference [93]. Copyright (2021), (Elsevier). c Effect of different
stress levels on the degree of deterioration of FRP bars.
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893 9873

Figure 10 Microscopic
topographies of G- and BFRP
bars under different stress and
environmental coupling. a,
b BFRP specimens exposed to
SSC solution at 25 °C for
42 days: a 20% stress and
b 40% stress. Adapted with
permission from reference
[96]. Copyright (2018),
(Elsevier). c, d GFRP
specimens exposed to alkaline
solution at 40 °C for 90 days:
c 0% stress and d 40% stress.
Adapted with permission from
reference [98]. Copyright
(2019), (Elsevier).
9874 J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893



accelerates the destruction rate of the resin matrix, smax ¼ 0:849F D2 ð12Þ
reinforcing fibers, and fiber–resin interfacial region
by erosive substances, which often leads to a reduc-
where smax is the ILSS (MPa), F is the peak load (N),
tion in the strength and modulus of the fibers and the
and D is the diameter of FRP bars (mm).
resin matrix, Tending to result in a reduction in the
strength and elastic modulus of the fiber and resin
Residual ILSS
matrix [99, 100].
Figure 12 summarizes the influences of exposure
temperature, time, and alkalinity on the ILSS reten-
Mechanical properties analysis tion of FRP bars. The ILSS of FRP bars generally
decreases with the immersion time, and the elevated
The mechanical properties of FRP bars mainly
exposure temperature can enhance the degradation
include interlaminar shear—ASTM D4475 [101, 102],
rate. In addition, the fiber type and diameter can also
transverse shear—ASTM D7617 [103], tensile—ASTM
affect the degree of degradation of FRP bars. Specif-
D7205 [104], flexural—ASTM D4476 [105], compres-
ically, Wang et al. [10] compared the degradation of
sive—GB/T 1448–2005 [106], and bond properties
B- and GFRP bars in normal SSC (N-SSC) pore
with concrete—ASTM D7913 [107]. This review
solution (PH = 13.4) at 40 °C for 42 and 63 days. The
mainly summarizes the degradation behavior on the
results showed that the ILSS retention of BFRP bars
interlaminar shear, tensile, and bond properties of
exposed for only 42 days was less than that of GFRP
FRP bars under the following exposure conditions:
bars exposed for 63 days, indicating that the alkali
(1) pore solution/alkaline solution simulating the
resistance of GFRP bars was significantly greater than
alkaline environment inside SSC; (2) artificial sea-
that of BFRP bars. Furthermore, it is found that the
water/natural seawater simulating marine environ-
resistance of GFRP to salt condition was better than
ment; (3) FRP bars are embedded in SSC/SSM and
that of BFRP, especially at higher temperatures. To
immersed in a water-based solution. This reveals the
study the effect of high-performance SSC (HP-SSC)
mechanical property damage of FRP bars under the
on the ILSS of FRP bars, Wang et al. [10] prepared a
action of each factor and provides a reference for
pore solution with a pH = 12.7 according to the
designing more durable FRP bars for different envi-
alkaline environment of HP-SSC. After immersing
ronments. During the exposure test, elevated envi-
the GFRP bars in pore solution at 40 °C and 55 °C for
ronment temperature is normally applied to
63 days, the retentions were 87.9% and 85.8%,
accelerate the degradation of FRP bars. The relative
respectively. Compared with the alkaline environ-
residual interlaminar shear strength, tensile strength,
ment of N-SSC at pH = 13.4, the durability of GFRP
and bond strength are used to examine the durability
bars in HP-SSC was higher. Wu et al. [114] studied
performance of FRP bars after the exposure test; the
the long-term interlaminar shear properties of BFRP
device for these performance tests is shown in
bars exposed to an alkaline solution. It was found
Fig. 11.
that bars could maintain more than 80% of their
original ILSS after 63-day immersing. However,
Interlaminar shear strength (ILSS)
under an extremely similar environment, Sawpan
The interlaminar shear strength of FRP bars is known et al. [115] found that the retention of GFRP bars
as an important parameter for its quality control and remained above 85% after exposure for 420 days. It is
deterioration index [31, 104]. It not only reflects the mainly because its performance deterioration degree
conditions of the resin matrix and the fiber–resin can be highly correlated to the fiber type and mois-
interface but also is an important factor affecting the ture absorption rate. Similar results were also repor-
tensile and flexural strength of FRP bars. It controls ted in the studies by Rifai et al. [116]. In this regard, to
the bond properties with SSC/normal concrete reduce the alkaline environment of SSC and improve
[70, 111–113]. ILSS is generally measured by the short the durability of FRP bars, Yi et al. [70] added 35%
beam test method, and the result is compared with and 50% SF (relative to the weight of cement) in SSM
the original strength value, and its value is deter- to replace part of the cement. The results showed
mined by Eq. (12). after 180 days of exposure to seawater at 55 °C, the
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893 9875

Figure 11 Test setups of the material performance of FRP bars: c Bond test (From two references). Adapted with permission from
a interlaminar shear test. Adapted with permission from reference reference [109]. Copyright (2022), (Elsevier). Adapted with
[10]. Copyright (2017), (Elsevier). b Tensile test. Adapted with permission from reference [110]. Copyright (2018), (Elsevier).
permission from reference [108]. Copyright (2019), (Elsevier).

Figure 12 ILSS retention of

FRP bars under different
environmental conditions
(note: B—BFRP bar; G—
GFRP bar; B6/T25/21d—6-
mm-diameter BFRP bars were
exposed at 25 °C for 21 days,
and the rest of the expressions
were the same).
9876
embedded BFRP bars in two low-alkalinity SSMs
(PH = 11.6 and 11.1) demonstrate relatively smaller
variations in ILSS retention with increasing temper-
ature than their counterparts in normal SSM (PH =
12.5). Bare BFRP bars immersed in simulated SSC
pore solutions display a similar trend as well. Yi et al.
[117] also found that reducing the pH of simulated
SSC pore solutions from 13.2 to 12.3 had a more
significant impact on mitigating the ILSS loss of BFRP
bars than lowering it from 12.3 to 10.1. It showed that
reducing alkalinity also reduces the accelerated effect
of elevated temperatures on the BFRP bars’ degra-
dation behavior. Besides that, the degradation degree
of FRP bars can be affected by the diameter. Sawpan
et al. [118] studied the residual ILSS of 20-mm-di-
ameter GFRP bars exposed in a seawater environ-
ment. The results showed that the ILSS of GFRP bars
decreased by only 2% after immersion in seawater at
23, 55, and 75 °C for 240 days, respectively. Com-
pared with the results studied by Chen et al. [119]
and Kim et al. [120], it can be concluded that FRP bars
with larger diameters have lower corrosion thickness
and higher residual ILSS. Similar conclusions were
also reported in the studies by Ali et al. [62] and Bazli
et al. [121].
Long-term interlaminar shear behavior
To predict the long-term performance of FRP bars in
marine environments, the Arrhenius theory (Eq. 3)
was generally used by researchers based on short-
term data from accelerated degradation tests. The
basic assumption of the theory is that the degradation
behavior of the material does not vary with time and
temperature during exposure, while the degradation
rate accelerates with increasing temperature.
According to the Arrhenius theory, several prediction
models were proposed by researchers [114, 122–128].
Among these models, the three most commonly used
by researchers are shown in Fig. 13. These three
models demonstrate that the shear, tensile, and flex-
ural properties degradation rate of FRP composites is
high in the initial stage and then reduces with the
increase of exposure time and defined by:
Model 1 [45, 94, 128]:
Y ¼ a logðtÞ þ b ð13Þ
Model 2 [60, 124, 129]:
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
 
t
Y ¼ 100 exp  ð14Þ
s
Model 3 [60, 70, 122]:
 
t
Y ¼ ð100  Y1 Þ exp  þ Y1 ð15Þ
s
where Y is the strength retention value (%); a and b
are the regression constants; t is the exposure time; s
is the fitted parameter; and Y1 is the strength
retention (%) at exposure time of infinity.
Furthermore, based on the basic assumptions of
Arrhenius’s theory, Eq. (3) can be transformed into
Eqs. (16) and (17), which can be used to determine the
activation energy. Then the formula for calculating
the time shift factor (TSF) in the range from high
temperature (T2) to low temperature (T1) can be
proposed, as shown in Eq. (18):
1 1
¼ expðEd =RTÞ ð16Þ
k A
 
1 Ed 1
ln ¼  ln A ð17Þ
k RT
  
Ed 1 1
TSF ¼ exp  ð18Þ
R T 2 T1
Model 1 was proposed by Bank et al. [128], which
could calculate the accelerated aging data of FRP
composites and plot the curve trend on a logarithmic
scale with a linear scale over time. However, this
model has also been successfully used to predict the
long-term mechanical properties of FRP bars in con-
crete and never provides any hypothesis about the
degradation mechanism [45, 123]. In addition, the
strength retention of FRP bars approaches infinity at
aging time zero, which is contradictory to the real test
data [122]. Model 2 and Model 3 were proposed by
Phani and Bose [125, 126], and the degradation
mechanism of these two models was assumed to be
debonding at the fiber-matrix interface, which was
also confirmed with the SEM images by Wu et al.
[129] and Kamal et al. [69]. It should be emphasized
that the above three models are used to predict the
long-term shear and tensile properties of FRP bars.
Through the analysis of the above three models,
the long-term shear behavior of FRP bars can be
predicted at any given temperature by using Model 2,
respectively. The predicted master curve is shown in
Fig. 14. Furthermore, there is a need to compare the
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
Figure 13 Schematic of three models for long-term life prediction of FRP bars. Adapted with permission from reference [60]. Copyright
(2017), (Elsevier).
field results with the long-term prediction results
using short-term test data, and the results are sum-
marized in Table 4. Wang et al. [8] predicted the time
to reach 70% apparent ILSS retention of FRP bars in
five different bridge structures in Canada. The results
depicted that it took 2.7–5.7 years, 7.0–13.6 years, and
3.8–7.5 years for the ILSS retention of B-, G-, and
CFRP bars to reach 70 in N-SSC pore solution,
respectively. It showed that GFRP bars were more
durable than B- and CFRP bars in the N-SSC pore
solution, which was consistent with the short-term
test conclusions. Mufti et al. [130] found that there are
no changes in the microstructures of GFRP bars after
5–8 years of service [130], that is to say, the ILSS
retentions of GFRP bars in five bridges were consid-
ered to keep 100% level after 5–8 years in this study.
It can be seen that the indoor accelerated simulation
test considers a single factor and the long-term pre-
diction results were too conservative compared with
the field test results. Furthermore, Yi et al. [70] BFRP
bars embedded in normal alkalinity (PH [ 13) and
low-alkalinity (PH = 10.1 to 12.3) SSMs and exposed
them to 12.3, 20.1, and 23.8 °C (representing the
annual average temperature in Qingdao, Fuzhou,
and Haikou, China), respectively; the lifetime pre-
diction was carried out using Eq. (15). The results
showed that the ILSS retention of BFRP bars
embedded in normal SSMs decreased to less than
70% within 2 years, but that of BFRP bars embedded
in low-alkalinity SSMs were always more than 80%
(see Fig. 14d), but comparison with field test results is
lacking.
9877
Tensile strength
The tensile strength of FRP bars has been extensively
studied by researchers, mainly including the tests of
BFRP [59, 70], GFRP [2, 60], CFRP [49, 131], and
hybrid FRP (HyFRP) [67, 100]. Tensile properties are
the most critical parameter for designing FRP-rein-
forced concrete, which can maximize the tensile
modulus, load-bearing capacity, and reference ser-
vice limit state of the structure [31, 132]. The follow-
ing is a review of the degradation behavior of FRP
bars in terms of both accelerated degradation tests
and long-term tensile properties.
Residual tensile strength
Generally under the effects of water-based solutions
and stress levels, the tensile properties of FRP bars
exhibit different degrees of deterioration with
increasing exposure temperature and time, as shown
in Fig. 15. For example, the average retention after
immersion in alkaline solution, or embedment in
concrete and immersing in seawater decreased from
89.3% in the temperature range of 25–4 °C to 81.6%
and 63.1% in the temperature range of 40–50 °C and
50–6 °C, respectively [45, 133–136].
Specifically, the study by Chen et al. [119] identi-
fied that the tensile strength of GFRP bars immersed
in seawater all steadily decreased with increasing
immersion time, and the higher the immersion tem-
peratures and the higher thermal aging temperatures,
the lower retention of the tensile strength was
reached. The same results were also reported in the
studies by Lu et al. [36]. Wu et al. [129] compared the
degradation development of BFRP bars in deionized
water and salt solutions at 40 °C. The strength loss
9878
Figure 14 Predictions for 6-mm-diameter FRP bars at given
temperatures (3.9–9.9 °C): a BFRP. Adapted with permission from
reference [10]. Copyright (2017), (Elsevier). b GFRP. Adapted
with permission from reference [10]. Copyright (2017), (Elsevier).
was the same in both water-based solutions after
exposure 42 days. Nevertheless, Heshmati et al. [137]
believed that at a fixed temperature, the tensile
strength damage of short-term immersion in deion-
ized/distilled water was more serious than that in
the salt solution. The reason for this was due to the
moisture-diffusion characteristics that would result
in a higher near-surface moisture concentration of the
specimens immersed in deionized/distilled water
compared with a salt solution at the same tempera-
ture. Compared with the data studied by Wu et al.
[129] and Chen et al. [119], it was found that with
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
c CFRP. Adapted with permission from reference [10]. Copyright
(2017), (Elsevier). d BFRP. Adapted with permission from
reference [70]. Copyright (2022), (Elsevier).
longer exposure and higher solution concentrations,
salt water caused more degradation compared with
tap water or deionized water. Hence, the more
damaging effects of salt water compared with tap
water or deionized water on the tensile strength of
FRPs, are mainly due to the fiber–resin interface
damage. Dong et al. [138] studied the short-term
tensile properties of BFRP bars immersed in an
alkaline solution of pH = 13. The test results showed
that the tensile strength retention of bars was 70.4%
after 45-day immersion. Subsequently, Wang et al.
[60] used SSC pore solution with pH = 13.4 to
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893 9879

Table 4 Comparison between field results and long-term prediction results of 6-mm-diameter FRP bars [10, 130]

Structures Mean annual Predicted and field Serviced years by Calculated ILSS Retention of field
T (°C) years at which ILSS 2007 strength retention of GFRP (%)
retention of FRP bars FRP bars after the
reaches 70% in N-SSC given serviced years
pore solutions (%)

BFRP GFRP CFRP BFRP GFRP CFRP

Hall’s Harbor 7.6 3.5 9.0 5.0 5 60.5 82.0 69.8 100
Wharf
Waterloo Creek 9.9 2.7 7.0 3.8 6 44.7 73.6 57.3 100
Bridge
Joffre Bridge 4.1 5.6 13.3 7.4 7 63.8 82.9 71.2 100
Crowchild Trail 3.9 5.7 13.6 7.5 8 60.7 81.1 68.4 100
Bridge
Chatham Bridge 4.6 5.2 12.6 6.9 8 57.8 79.7 66.3 100

Figure 15 Tensile strength

retention of FRP bars under
different environmental
conditions (note: C—CFRP
bars).

accelerate the degradation of GFRP bars. Bars could
maintain more than 80% of its original tensile
strength after 60-day degrading, indicating that
GFRP bars are more resistant to alkali than BFRP
bars. Similar results were also reported in the studies
by Chen et al. [124]. In addition, reinforcing fibers
hybrid can also affect the tensile properties of FRP
bars. Guo et al. [67] compared BFRP bars with car-
bon/basalt hybrid reinforced polymer (CBFRP bars)
embedded in SSC and then exposed to seawater
environment. The results showed that the tensile
strength retention of CBFRP bars was about 80% after
being exposed to 55 °C for 180 days, while the
retention of CBFRP bars reached 73.8% after being
9880
exposed to the same temperature for only 90 days. It
is suggested that carbon fiber replacing a part of
basalt fiber processed into hybrid FRP bars is a
promising approach to improve the durability of
BFRP bars. However, to date, few studies on the
durability of CBFRP bars have been reported. It is
worth noting that at the higher temperature, the
tensile strength retention of FRP bars embedded in
SSC is significantly greater than that directly
immersed in an alkaline solution. The main reason is
that the thermal aging of the resin improves the cat-
alytic effect of the alkali solution on the fibers
[36, 137]. In addition, the final tensile properties of
FRP bars subjected to continuous stress levels in
exposed environments have been less studied than
those of FRP bars not subjected to continuous stress
levels. However, according to the experimental data
of Wang et al. [96], higher stress levels could promote
the degradation rate of FRP bars, resulting in lower
durability performance. This result is in agreement
with the conclusion reached by Tu et al. [139]. Fur-
thermore, according to the literature [139] and [140] it
can be concluded that GFRP bars are more durable
than BFRP bars as the stress level and exposure time
increase.
Long-term tensile behavior
To further predict the service life of FRP bars, using
model 3 to predict the tensile strength retention of B-
and GFRP bars in different environments, the master
Figure 16 Master curves for predicting tensile strength retention
of 6-mm-diameter BFRP bars in simulated SSC pore solutions
environment: a unstressed level in HP-SSC pore solution. Adapted
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
curve of the prediction is shown in Fig. 16, and the
long-term prediction results are shown in Table 5.
Based on the data of Wu et al. [141] and Robertthe
et al. [45], Wang et al. [58] predicted the service life of
B- and GFRP bars in five bridge structures in Canada,
where the mean annual temperature was in the range
of 3.9–9.9 °C. The results showed that it took
8.3–15.3 years for the tensile strength retention of
BFRP bars to reach 70% in an alkaline solution. When
GFRP bars were embedded in concrete and
immersed in an alkaline solution for a long time, it
took 17.8–20.4 years for the retention to reach 70%.
Subsequently, a further study by Wang et al. [60, 96]
predicted the service life of 6-mm-diameter BFRP
bars immersed in HP-SSC and N-SSC pore solutions.
The results showed that the tensile strength retention
of BFRP bars in both concrete decreased by 30%
during the period of 33.4–68.5 years and
14.6–35.3 years. However, the service life of BFRP
bars in HP-SSC pore solution under 20% stress level
was 5.1–10.0 years, which was about 80% lower than
that of BFRP bars without stress effect. Besides that,
Bazli et al. [121] performed service life predictions for
4-mm and 8-mm GFRP laminates in five bridge
structures in Canada. The results showed that the
strength retention of 4-mm laminates reached 70% in
only 0.2 years, while the retention of 8-mm laminates
was still higher than 70% after more than 20 years of
service. The results are consistent with the view
drawn by Benmokrane et al. [62] that the larger the
with permission from reference [60]. Copyright (2017), (Elsevier).
b 20% stress level in N-SSC pore solution. Adapted with
permission from reference [96]. Copyright (2018), (Elsevier).
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893 9881

Table 5 Long-term prediction results of FRP bars at different locations

Structures Mean Time in years to reach 70% tensile retention of FRP bars using model 3
annual
BFRP in GFRP in concrete BFRP in HP- BFRP in Stressed BFRP in GFRP in
T (°C)
alkaline and in saline solution SSC solution N-SSC HP-SSC solution N-SSC
solution [141] [45] [60] solution [60] [96] solution [121]

Hall’s 7.6 10.4 18.8 43.8 20.4 6.6 0.19

Harbor
Wharf
Waterloo 9.9 8.3 17.8 33.4 14.6 5.1 0.18
Creek
Bridge
Joffre 4.1 15.0 20.3 66.8 34.3 9.8 –
Bridge
Crowchild 3.9 15.3 20.4 68.5 35.3 10.0 0.21
Trail
Bridge
Chatham 4.6 14.2 20.1 62.9 31.8 9.2 0.21
Bridge

diameter of the FRP bars, the smaller the corrosion
thickness.
According to the research of Mufti et al. [130], FRP
bars hardly experienced any deterioration behavior
after 8 years of service in field concrete structures. It
showed that the long-term prediction results of FRP
bars are too conservative. The same conclusion was
also reached in the long-term shear behavior predic-
tion of FRP bars in SSC pore solution. This difference
may originate from the difference between the labo-
ratory testing and field exposure environment,
mainly including exposure to humidity and temper-
ature. In addition, the ambient temperature of FRP
bars during service is a dynamic process and not
constant as used in the prediction model. Therefore,
in future research, it is necessary to compare and
validate laboratory test results through the field ser-
vice environments, to obtain the optimal laboratory
test protocols, and to establish a more accurate
degradation model of FRP composites in marine
environments.
Bond strength
The synergistic effect between reinforcing bars and
concrete mainly depends on the effective bond per-
formance between the two. Its bond strength has a
significant effect on crack control and tensile strength
of concrete and the effective anchoring force of
structural bars. The bond failure mechanism between
steel bars and concrete is slightly different from that
of FRP bars. Studies have found that when the com-
pressive strength of concrete is greater than 30 MPa,
the interface damage between the two generally
occurs on the surface of FRP bars, i.e., the ribs on the
surface of FRP bars are shear damaged by concrete
[142–144]. The interface damage between ordinary
bar and concrete is generally due to shear damage to
the concrete caused by the ribs on the surface of the
bar [145].
Residual bond strength
The factors that generally affect the bond perfor-
mance between FRP bars and concrete are the com-
pressive strength of the concrete, the resin, and fiber
type that make up the FRP bars, and the surface
characteristics and diameter of the bars. In addition,
the dry humidity, salt-alkalinity, temperature, and
service time of the surrounding environment should
not be ignored, and the relevant research data are
summarized in Table 6. Dong et al. [148] compared
the bond properties of FRP bars with epoxy resin and
vinyl ester resin as the matrix to concrete. The results
showed the maximum bond strength reduction of
approximately 13% for FRP bars with vinyl ester
resin after immersion in seawater at 40 °C for
60 days, while the bond strength of the epoxy resin
FRP bars did not change. To compare the effect of
fiber types on bonding properties, Wang et al. [110]
9882 J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893

Table 6 Bond strength of FRP bars under different conditions

Fiber/matrix/ Environmental conditions Bond Retention References

D strength (%)
Aging effect T (°C) Time
(MPa)
(day)

B/V/13 Ribbed BFRP embedded in SSC (PH = 12.9) and dry–wet 40 90 9.5 87 [146]
(seawater) cycling
40 180 11.4 105
40 270 10.1 92
B/V/13 Ribbed BFRP embedded in SSC (PH = 12.9) and immersed in 40 90 10.0 92 [146]
seawater
40 180 8.7 80
40 270 8.6 78
G/E/6 Ribbed BFRP embedded in coral concrete (embedment length was 60 60 7.2 80.5 [147]
48 mm, cover thickness was 30 mm) and immersed in seawater
60 120 4.1 45.9
30 120 9.7 93.4
60 120 8.5 82.6
G/E/10 Sand-coated GFRP embedded in normal concrete (PH = 12.9) and 40 60 18.4 100 [147]
immersed in seawater
Helical wrap GFRP
Lugs GFRP
60 120 15.9 86.4
23 60 16.3 86.9
60 120 19.9 89.3
B/V/12 Sand-coated BFRP with shallow spiral indentations embedded in 60 30 24.4 87.8 [112]
normal concrete (PH = 12.5) and immersed in artificial seawater
60 60 25.7 92.3
60 90 23.9 85.9
G/V/12 Ribbed GFRP embedded in normal concrete (PH = 12.5) and 60 30 18.5 100 [112]
immersed in artificial seawater
60 60 18.2 99.1
60 90 17.7 96.0
B/V/8 Ribbed and sand-coated BFRP embedded in normal concrete 40 45 19.6 94.1 [148]
(embedment length was 40 mm, cover thickness was 46 mm,
PH = 12.9) and immersed in artificial seawater
55 45 18.2 87.5
55 60 18.1 87.1
B/E/8 40 45 18.8 103.3
40 60 18.4 101.4
G/V/8 Ribbed GFRP embedded in normal concrete (PH = 12.9) and 40 45 24.6 107.1 [148]
immersed in artificial seawater
40 60 21.3 92.9
C/E/8 Ribbed CFRP embedded in normal concrete (PH = 12.9) and 25 45 26.7 110.0 [148]
immersed in artificial seawater
40 30 29.2 120.4
55 45 24.5 101.2
B/V/12 Deformed BFRP embedded in normal concrete and immersed in 40 45 14.8 95.6 [149]
alkaline solution (PH = 12.9)
40 90 13.3 86.0
50 90 18.4 118.7
50 180 18.0 116.3
60 180 18.4 118.7
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893 9883

Table 6 continued

Fiber/matrix/ Environmental conditions Bond Retention References

D strength (%)
Aging effect T (°C) Time
(MPa)
(day)

B/V/12 Sand-coated BFRP with shallow spiral indentations embedded in 60 30 26.2 94.1 [112]
normal concrete (PH = 12.5) and immersed in artificial seawater
60 60 26.5 95.3
60 90 24.3 87.3
G/V/12 Ribbed GFRP embedded in normal concrete (PH = 12.5) and 60 30 18.7 101.8
immersed in artificial seawater
60 60 18.3 99.4
60 90 18.2 98.6
*B—BFRP bar, G—GFRP bar, C—CFRP bar, V—vinyl resin, E—epoxy resin, D—diameter (mm)

embedded G- and CFRP bars with almost the same
surface roughness in SSC, respectively. When the two
types of bars were not subjected to any corrosion, the
bond strength of the former was smaller than that of
the latter. This may be related to the stiffness of the
reinforced fiber. The same results were also reported
in the studies by Aiello et al. [150] and Baena et al.
[151]. When it was exposed to seawater at 60 °C for
120 days, the bond strength retention of GFRP bars
was only 45.9%, while CFRP bars could maintain
more than 80% of their original bond strength. It
indicates that the long-term synergistic effect of CFRP
bars and SSC is better than that of GFRP bars under
the influence of seawater and alkaline solution. For
the surface characteristics of FRP bars, the rougher
the surface, the greater the chemical adhesion, fric-
tion, and mechanical interlocking forces between FRP
bars and concrete [152]. Altalmas et al. [112] com-
pared the long-term bond strength of ribbed GFRP
bars and sand-coated BFRP bars. The results showed
that the bond strength of sand-coated BFRP bars was
greater than that of ribbed GFRP bars. In this regard,
Emparanza et al. [147] further investigated the effect
of GFRP bars with sand-coated, helically grooved,
and surface lugs on the bond performance. It was
found that the bond strength of GFRP bars with
surface lugs was highest after the specimens were
immersed in seawater at 60 °C for 120 days. Fur-
thermore, according to the data analysis of Dong
et al. [146] and Emparanza et al. [147], long-term
immersion has a significantly greater impact on the
bond properties than the dry–wet cycle. This may be
related to the permeability of concrete and the
moisture absorption of FRP bars [149]. Dong et al.
[148] further studied the influence of humid and hot
environments on the bond performance of CFRP
bars. Exposure tests were carried out in seawater at
40 °C and 55 °C, respectively. The results showed
that the bond strength appeared to increase and then
decrease after exposure for 30 days and 45 days, and
the maximum bond strength retention was greater
than 100%. This is attributed to the fact that the
transverse expansion coefficient of CFRP bars (about
22 9 10–6/K) is larger than that of concrete
(14.5 9 10–6/K). This means that when the tempera-
ture rises, the CFRP bars produce an extrusion effect
on the concrete in the ring direction, thus improving
the bond strength between them. However, when the
extrusion force was greater than the maximum tensile
stress of the concrete, the bond strength was reduced
instead. Similar results were also reported in the
studies by Hassan et al. [149] and Taha et al. [144].
Currently, the exposure tests of FRP bars embed-
ded in SSC are quite limited. Further studies are
needed to fully understand the bond behavior of FRP
bars after being exposed to a marine engineering
environment.
Long-term bond behavior
At present, the research on the long-term prediction
of bond properties of FRP bars is relatively limited.
Researchers predicted the long-term bond-strength
retention of FRP bars was performed according to the
method in fib Bulletin 40 [153]. The method includes a
safety factor (genv.b) for bond strength that takes into
9884 J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893

Table 7 Predicted bond stress retention of BFRP bars embedded in normal concrete and SSC after 50-year service life

Moisture condition nmo MAT ( °C) nT n Deformed BFRP (6 mm) bars embedded Ribbed BFRP embedded in SSC
in normal concrete and dry-moist (PH = 12.9) and dry-moist (seawater)
(seawater) [149] [146]

genv.b 1/genv.b (%) genv.b 1/genv.b (%)

Dry - 1 \5 - 0.5 1.2 1.09 92 1.21 83

5–15 0 1.7 1.13 88 1.31 76
15–25 0.5 2.2 1.18 85 1.42 70
25–35 1 2.7 1.22 82 1.54 65
Moist 0 \5 - 0.5 2.2 1.18 85 1.42 70
5–15 0 2.7 1.22 82 1.54 65
15–25 0.5 3.2 1.26 79 1.67 60
25–35 1 3.7 1.31 76 1.81 55
Moisture saturated 1 \5 - 0.5 3.2 1.26 79 1.67 60
5–15 0 3.7 1.31 76 1.81 55
15–25 0.5 4.2 1.36 73 1.96 51
25–35 1 4.7 1.41 71 2.12 47

account bond deterioration with time, determined
according to Eq. (19) [146, 149].
genv;b ¼ 1=½ð100  R10 Þ=100n ð19Þ
n ¼ nmo þ nT þ nSL ð20Þ
where R10 is standard reduction value in percent per
decade (logarithmic decade) based on the test data.
nmo, nT, and nSL are the influence terms for
Figure 17 Master curves for predicting bond strength retention of
6-mm-diameter BFRP bars embedded in normal concrete and
immersed in alkaline solution. Adapted with permission from
reference [149]. Copyright (2016), (Elsevier).
environmental moisture, temperature, and service
life, respectively.
Based on the above theory, Hassan et al. [149]
predicted the long-term bond strength retention of
BFRP bars embedded in normal concrete, as shown in
Fig. 17. According to fib Bulletin 40 [153], assuming a
moisture-saturated condition, nmo = 1 and nSL = 2.7
at a service life of 50 years. As the nT used by Ser-
bescu [154] was 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 at 40 °C, 50 °C, and
60 °C, respectively. All R10 could be determined by
the average slope of the degradation lines. For
example, the R10 value of BFRP bars at 50 °C was
7.1%, predicting bond stress retention (1/genv.b) after
50 years was 66%. Table 7 shows the calculation
results of other 1/genv.b values. The values of nmo, nT,
and nSL are all recommended by fib Bulletin 40.
The bond strength retentions of BFRP bars after
50 years of exposure in dry, moist, and moisture-
saturated environments ranged from 71 to 92%.
Subsequently, based on the same method, Dong et al.
[146] predicted the bond strength retention of BFRP
bars embedded in SSC. The results showed that the
bond strength retention of BFRP bars after 50 years of
service life in dry, moist, and moisture-saturated
environments ranged from 47 to 83% (see Table 7). To
verify the accuracy of the model, further work is
needed with longer exposure tests in different
environments.
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
Conclusions
To better understand the degradation behavior of
FRP bars under the long-term marine environments,
this paper mainly reviews the degradation mecha-
nism of FRP bars under simulated seawater, SSC pore
solution, alkaline solution, and SSC exposure condi-
tions and analyzes the mechanical properties based
on the existing experimental data. Furthermore, the
long-term mechanical properties of FRP bars are
predicted in this paper. Based on the literature
review above, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. The degradation of FRP bars by seawater is
mainly caused by water molecules and aggres-
sive ions from seawater entering the internal
structure in the form of diffusion and capillarity,
resulting in degradation of the resin, deteriora-
tion of the fiber–resin interfacial region, and
corrosion of the fiber. At high temperatures, the
resin also absorbs a large amount of water and
swells and microcracks, which promotes more
aggressive substances to enter the interface area,
destroying the original morphology and chemical
properties of the area, and finally leading to the
degradation of the overall performance of the
FRP bars.
2. With the higher alkalinity in concrete, the degra-
dation rate of FRP bars is greater. This is mainly
manifested by the reaction of OH- with the ester
bond in the resin, SiO2, and Al2O3 in the
basalt/glass fiber, respectively. The use of con-
crete with low alkalinity and high compactness
can slow down the degradation rate of FRP bars
and thus improve their long-term durability
performance.
3. The combined action of stress and environment
has a significant influence on the degradation of
FRP bars. At low-stress levels (0–20% of ultimate
strength), the diffusion of corrosive substances
and capillary action are the main causes of
damage. At moderate stress levels (20–40% of
ultimate strength), the degradation of FRP bars is
mainly due to new microcracks created by resin
and interfacial defects under stress. The failure
mode becomes a brittle fracture when the stress
level exceeds 40% of the ultimate strength.
4. The interlaminar shear and tensile properties of
FRP bars decrease with immersion time and
9885
water-based solution concentration, and the
degradation rate can be accelerated with higher
exposure temperature. The mechanical properties
of GFRP bars are greater than that of BFRP bars in
alkali solution and seawater/salt solution, due to
the former’s greater resistance to alkali and salt
than the latter. The deterioration of bond perfor-
mance is the result of the joint action of FRP bars
and concrete, where the surface characteristics of
FRP bars have a relatively large impact on their
performance.
5. The long-term properties for interlaminar shear
and tensile of FRP bars in different environments
were predicted using Arrhenius theory, and the
prediction result is more conservative than the
field data. Compared with the field environment
test data, the current existing prediction models
are still conservative. For the prediction of long-
term bond performance, there is a lack of field
test data to verify the accuracy of the model. All
the above models need further modification
studies by considering more realistic moisture
content and internal temperature distribution of
SSC/normal concrete under real marine environ-
ment, and the degradation mechanism of FRP
bars under the combined effect of stresses and
corrosive environment.
Future research goals
To promote the application and promotion of FRP
bars in coastal and marine environments, the fol-
lowing research needs to be carried out:
1. Most existing studies have focused on the effects
of aggressive ions and different temperatures on
fibers, resins, and fiber–resin interfaces, but there
is very limited research on the molecular dynam-
ics and diffusion coefficients using OH-, Cl-, and
H2O in FRP bars at different temperatures. In
addition, the transport mechanism of water-
based solution in resin matrix and fiber–resin
interfacial region should be emphasized in future
works. Many studies have shown that the resin
matrix and the interface region are seriously
damaged during exposure to harsh environment
effects, and the interface region is also the
sensitive region for the deterioration of FRP bars.
Therefore, the in-depth study of micromechanics
9886
and mechanism is also used as the theoretical
basis for designing FRP bars.
2. The microchanges in the fiber–resin interfacial
health may manifest a substantial variation in
properties and performances of FRP bars. Micro-
scopic changes in the health of fiber–resin inter-
face may indicate substantial changes in the
properties and properties of FRP bars, which
are highly sensitive and easily affected by wet-
thermal environments. Therefore, future work
should systematically study the interface under
the action of thermal, chemical, thermochemical,
and mechanochemical degradation mechanisms.
3. The study of the mechanical properties of FRP
bars under continuous loading and environmen-
tal coupling is still relatively limited, especially
the dynamic mechanical properties, which are
still in a blank state. Previous studies on the
dynamic properties of FRP composites mainly
focus on the impact resistance and fatigue prop-
erties after exposure tests. However, the changes
of dynamic mechanical properties of FRP bars
under long-term continuous load were ignored.
4. The effects of fiber type, fiber volume ratio, resin
type, and material size should be taken into
account when predicting the long-term service
life of FRP bars. Different reinforcing fibers and
resins may exhibit different degradation
behaviors.
5. To accelerate the degradation tests of FRP bars,
longer exposure times are required. However,
based on the available research data, it can be
seen that most of the degradation environments
are simulated seawater sea sand concrete pore
solutions and artificially manufactured seawater,
and the exposure time is less than one year. With
such a short exposure time, significantly mislead-
ing results may be produced. Therefore, it is
recommended that an exposure time of at least
two years can be used in future studies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support
of this work by the Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant No. 51678111.
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
Author contributions
SW helped in data curation, writing—original draft,
formal analysis, visualization, writing—review &
editing. MC contributed to conceptualization, super-
vision, funding acquisition.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they
have no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Li YL, Zhao XL, Singh RKR (2016) Experimental study on
seawater and sea sand concrete filled GFRP and stainless
steel tubular stub columns. Thin-Walled Struct
106:390–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.05.014
[2] Li YL, Zhao XL, Singh RKR (2016) Tests on seawater and
sea sand concrete-filled CFRP, BFRP and stainless steel
tubular stub columns. Thin-Walled Struct 108:163–184. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.08.016
[3] Kaushik SK, Islam S (1995) Suitability of sea water for
mixing structural concrete exposed to a marine environ-
ment. Cem Concr Compos 17(3):177–185. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0958-9465(95)00015-5
[4] Huang Y, Zhang Y, Xiao J (2020) Study on bond between
seawater sea sand recycle concrete and epoxy-coated steel
bars. J Build Struct 41(S1):390–398. https://doi.org/10.14
006/j.jzjgxb.2020.S1.044. (in Chinese)
[5] Mariam Z, Amira T, Ahmed S (2021) Potential advantages
of basalt FRP bars compared to carbon FRP bars & con-
ventional steel. Aust J Civ Eng 19(1):107–122. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14488353.2020.1816638
[6] Subramanian N, Solaiyan E (2020) Study on bond strength
of geopolymer and control concrete between fiber-rein-
forced polymer and steel bars. Struct Concr 22(1):146–153.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900506
[7] Penghui W, Hongxia Q, Yunsheng Z (2020) Meso-damage
evolution analysis of magnesium oxychloride cement con-
crete based on X-CT and grey-level co-occurrence matrix.
Constr Build Mater 255:1193731–11937316. https://doi.or
g/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119373
[8] Dong Z, Wu G, Xu Y (2016) Experimental study on the
bond durability between steel-FRP composite bars (SFCBs)
and sea sand concrete in ocean environment. Constr Build
Mater 115(15):277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuild
mat.2016.04.052
[9] Younis A, Ebead U, Judd S (2018) Life cycle cost analysis
of structural concrete using seawater, recycled concrete
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
aggregate, and GFRP reinforcement. Constr Build Mater
175:152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.0
4.183
[10] Wang Z, Zhao X, Xian G (2017) Durability study on
interlaminar shear behaviour of basalt-, glass- and carbon-
fibre reinforced polymer (B/G/CFRP) bars in seawater sea
sand concrete environment. Constr Build Mater
156:985–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.
09.045
[11] ACI440.1R-15 (2015) Guide for the design and construc-
tion of structural concrete reinforced with fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) bars. ACI Committee 440, Farmington Hills
Farmington Hills. https://www.doc88.com/p-97245536415
48.html
[12] Gu Y, Li M, Wang J (2010) Characterization of the inter-
phase in carbon fiber/polymer composites using a nanoscale
dynamic mechanical imaging technique. Carbon
48(11):3229–3235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2010.0
5.008
[13] Dai Z, Zhang B, Shi F (2011) Effect of heat treatment on
carbon fiber surface properties and fibers/epoxy interfacial
adhesion. Appl Surf Sci 257(20):8457–8461. https://doi.or
g/10.1016/j.apsusc.2011.04.129
[14] Liu J, Ge H, Chen J (2012) The preparation of emulsion
type sizing agent for carbon fiber and the properties of
carbon fiber/vinyl ester resin composites. J Appl Polym Sci
124(1):864–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.35126
[15] Ahmed A, Guo S, Zhang Z (2020) A review on durability
of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars reinforced seawater
sea sand concrete. Constr Build Mater 256:119484.1-
119484.18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.
119484
[16] Bakis CE, Bank LC, Brown VL (2002) Fiber-reinforced
polymer composites for construction state-of-the-art review.
J Compos Constr 6(2):73–87. https://doi.org/10.1061/(AS
CE)1090-0268(2002)6:2(73)
[17] Grace NF, Sayed GA, Soliman AK (1999) Strengthening
reinforced concrete beams using fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) laminates. Struct J 96(5):865–874. https://doi.org/10.
14359/741
[18] Schué F (2004) FRP: strengthened RC structures. JG Teng,
JF Chen, ST Smith and L Lam. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Chichester, UK. pp 245, ISBN 0-471-48706-6. Polym Int
53(2): 232–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.1312
[19] Liu T, Liu X, Feng P (2020) A comprehensive review on
mechanical properties of pultruded FRP composites sub-
jected to long-term environmental effects. Compos B
191:107958–107958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.composites
b.2020.107958
9887
[20] Nkurunziza G, Debaiky A, Cousin P (2005) Durability of
GFRP bars: a critical review of the literature. Prog Stuct
Eng Mater 7(4):194–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.205
[21] GB 50608—2010 Technical code for infrastructure appli-
cation of FRP composites. Beijing; 2010. (in Chinese). h
ttps://www.doc88.com/p-88561506213080.html
[22] ISIS Canada Reinforcing concrete structures with fiber
reinforced polymers (2001) Winnipeg, Canada: University
of Winnipeg. https://www.doc88.com/p-3814863910945.h
tml
[23] Zhejiang GBF Basalt Fiber Co., Ltd. Basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer (BFRP). http://www.chinagbf.com/product/cpflsd
ab/.
[24] Feng GY, Zhu DJ, Guo SC, Rahman MZ, Jin ZQ, Shi CJ
(2022) A review on mechanical properties and deterioration
mechanisms of FRP bars under severe environmental and
loading conditions. Cem Concr Compos 134:104758. http
s://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEMCONCOMP.2022.104758
[25] Emparanza AR, Kampmann R, De Caso F, Morales C,
Nanni A (2022) Durability assessment of GFRP rebars in
marine environments. Constr Build Mater 329:127028. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2022.127028
[26] Karbhari VM (2002) Effect of concrete based alkali solu-
tions on short-term durability of E-glass/vinylester com-
posites. J Compos Mater 36(17):2101–2121. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0021998302036017977
[27] Yan F, Lin Z, Zhang D (2016) Experimental study on bond
durability of glass fiber reinforced polymer bars in concrete
exposed to harsh environmental agents: freeze-thaw cycles
and alkaline-saline solution. Compos B 116:406–421. http
s://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.10.083
[28] Benmokrane B, Ali AH, Mohamed HM (2017) Laboratory
assessment and durability performance of vinyl-ester,
polyester, and epoxy glass-FRP bars for concrete structures.
Compos B 114:163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compo
sitesb.2017.02.002
[29] Sherif ESM (2011) Corrosion and corrosion inhibition of
aluminum in Arabian Gulf seawater and sodium chloride
solutions by 3-amino-5-mercapto-1, 2, 4-triazole. Int J
Electrochem Sci 6(5):1479–1492
[30] Sheng L, Deju Z, Shuaicheng G (2022) Static and dynamic
tensile behaviors of BFRP bars embedded in seawater sea
sand concrete under marine environment. Compos Part B
242:110051. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.20
22.110051
[31] Elgabbas F, Ahmed EA, Benmokrane B (2015) Physical
and mechanical characteristics of new basalt-FRP bars for
reinforcing concrete structures. Constr Build Mater
95:623–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07
.036
9888
[32] Benmokrane B, Elgabbas F, Ahmed EA (2015) Charac-
terization and comparative durability study of glass/viny-
lester, basalt/vinylester, and basalt/epoxy FRP bars.
J Compos Constr 19(6):4015008. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.07.036
[33] Rocha IBCM, Raijmaekers S, Nijssen RPL (2017)
Hygrothermal ageing behaviour of a glass/epoxy composite
used in wind turbine blades. Compos Struct 174:110–122. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.04.028
[34] Mikols WJSJAA (1982) Evaluation of structural changes in
epoxy systems by moisture sorption-desorption and
dynamic mechanical studies. Polym Compos 3(3):118–124.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.750030304
[35] Tam L, Zhou A, Wu C (2019) Nanomechanical behavior of
carbon fiber/epoxy interface in hygrothermal conditioning:
A molecular dynamics study. Materials Today Communi-
cations, 19(C): 495–505. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.mtcomm.2019.04.002
[36] Lu Z, Xian G, Li H (2015) Effects of exposure to elevated
temperatures and subsequent immersion in water or alka-
line solution on the mechanical properties of pultruded
BFRP plates. Compos Part B Eng 77B:421–430. https://d
oi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.03.066
[37] Kumar KR, Achutha KP (2012) Investigation of the long
term effects of moisture on carbon fibre and epoxy matrix
composites. Compos Sci Technol 72(6):656–666. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/00207450390162290
[38] Hong B, Xian G, Wang Z (2018) Durability study of pul-
truded carbon fiber reinforced polymer plates subjected to
water immersion. Adv Struct Eng 21(4):571–579. https://d
oi.org/10.1177/1369433217732664
[39] Boukhoulda BF, Adda-Bedia E, Madani K (2005) The
effect of fiber orientation angle in composite materials on
moisture absorption and material degradation after
hygrothermal ageing. Compos Struct 74(4):406–418. http
s://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.04.032
[40] Du R, Wu K, Xu D (2016) A modified Arrhenius equation
to predict the reaction rate constant of Anyuan pulverized-
coal pyrolysis at different heating rates. Fuel Process
Technol 148:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.201
6.03.011
[41] Foster SK, Bisby LA (2008) Fire survivability of externally
bonded FRP strengthening systems. J Compos Constr
12(5):553–561. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(
2008)12:5(553)
[42] Leone M, Matthys S, Aiello MA (2009) Effect of elevated
service temperature on bond between FRP EBR systems
and concrete. Compos Part B Eng 40B(1):85–93. https://d
oi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2008.06.004
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
[43] Bonniau P (1981) A comparative study of water absorption
theories applied to glass epoxy composites. J Compos
Mater 15(3):272–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002199838101500306
[44] Huang G, Sun H (2007) Effect of water absorption on the
mechanical properties of glass/polyester composites. Mater
Des 28(5):1647–1650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.20
06.03.014
[45] Robert M, Benmokrane B (2013) Combined effects of
saline solution and moist concrete on long-term durability
of GFRP reinforcing bars. Constr Build Mater 38:274–284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.08.021
[46] Guigon M, Klinklin E (1994) The interface and interphase
in carbon fibre-reinforced composites. Composites
25(7):534–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4361(94)901
81-3
[47] Cech V, Palesch E, Lukes J (2013) The glass fiber-polymer
matrix interface/interphase characterized by nanoscale
imaging techniques. Compos Sci Technol 83:22–26. http
s://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2013.04.014
[48] Sethi S, Ray BC (2015) Environmental effects on fibre
reinforced polymeric composites: evolving reasons and
remarks on interfacial strength and stability. Adv Coll
Interface Sci 217:43–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2014.
12.005
[49] Wang Z, Huang X, Xian G (2016) Effects of surface
treatment of carbon fiber: tensile property, surface charac-
teristics, and bonding to epoxy. Polym Compos
37(10):2921–2932. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.23489
[50] Tsenoglou CJ, Sylvia P, Papaspyrides Constantine D (2006)
Evaluation of interfacial relaxation due to water absorption
in fiber–polymer composites. Compos Sci Technol
66(15):2855–2864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2
006.02.022
[51] Sanghamitra S, Bankim CR (2015) Environmental effects
on fibre reinforced polymeric composites: evolving reasons
and remarks on interfacial strength and stability. Adv Coll
Interface Sci 217:43–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2014.
12.005
[52] Shulan Y, Weiqing L, Yuan F (2019) Influence of
hygrothermal aging on the durability and interfacial per-
formance of pultruded glass fiber-reinforced polymer
composites. J Mater Sci 54(3):2102–2121. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10853-018-2944-6
[53] Tanaka K, Hosoo N, Katayama T (2016) Effect of tem-
perature on the fiber/matrix interfacial strength of carbon
fiber reinforced polyamide model composites. Mec Eng J
3(6):16–00158. https://doi.org/10.1299/mej.16-00158
[54] Dickson AG, Goyet C (1994) Handbook of methods for the
analysis of the various parameters of the carbon dioxide
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
system in sea water. Version 2. Seawater. https://doi.org/10.
2172/10107773
[55] Teng J, Xiang Y, Yu T (2019) Development and mechanical
behaviour of ultra-high-performance seawater sea-sand
concrete. Adv Struct Eng 22(14):3100–3120. https://doi.or
g/10.1177/1369433219858291
[56] Christian K, Andreas H, Holger S (2013) Influence of the
polymeric interphase design on the interfacial properties of
(fiber-reinforced) composites. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces
5(7):2469–2478. https://doi.org/10.1021/am302694h
[57] Bazli M, Li Y, Zhao X (2020) Durability of seawater and
sea sand concrete filled filament wound FRP tubes under
seawater environments. Compos Part B Eng
202:108401–108409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.composites
b.2020.108409
[58] Ray BC (2020) Effects of changing environment and
loading speed on mechanical behavior of FRP composites.
J Reinf Plast Compos 202:108409.1-108409.23. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0731684406059783
[59] Wang Y, Zhu W, Zhang X, Cai G, Wan B (2020) Influence
of thickness on water absorption and tensile strength of
BFRP Laminates in water or alkaline solution and a
thickness-dependent accelerated ageing method for BFRP
laminates. Appl Sci 10(10):3618. https://doi.org/10.3390/a
pp10103618
[60] Wang Z, Zhao X, Xian G (2017) Long-term durability of
basalt- and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP/GFRP)
bars in seawater and sea sand concrete environment. Constr
Build Mater 139:467–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbui
ldmat.2017.02.038
[61] Fan XJ, Lee SWR, Han Q (2009) Experimental investiga-
tions and model study of moisture behaviors in polymeric
materials. Microelectron Reliab 49(8):861–871. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.microrel.2009.03.006
[62] Ali AH, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B (2020) Bar size
effect on long-term durability of sand-coated basalt-FRP
composite bars. Compos Part B Eng 195:108051–108059.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108059
[63] Earl JS, Shenoi RA (2004) Hygrothermal ageing effects on
FRP laminate and structural foam materials. Compos A
35(11):1237–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2
004.04.007
[64] Miyano Y, Nakada M (2020) Accelerated testing method-
ology for durability of CFRP. Compos Part B Eng
191:107971–107977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.composites
b.2020.107977
[65] Younis A, Ebead U, Suraneni P (2018) Fresh and hardened
properties of seawater-mixed concrete. Constr Build Mater
190:276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.0
9.126
9889
[66] Cheng S, Shui Z, Sun T (2018) Effects of seawater and
supplementary cementitious materials on the durability and
microstructure of lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr
Build Mater 190:1081–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb
uildmat.2018.09.178
[67] Xiangke G, Zuquan J, Chuansheng X (2022) Deterioration
of mechanical properties of basalt/carbon hybrid FRP bars
in SWSC under seawater corrosive environment. Constr
Build Mater 317:125979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuild
mat.2021.125979
[68] Song Y, Xiang H, Yifan Z (2022) Research on durability of
glass fiber textile reinforced seawater sea-sand concrete
exposed to simulated marine environment. Mater Rep
36(09):93–101 (in Chinese)
[69] Kamal ASM, Boulfiza M (2011) Durability of GFRP rebars
in simulated concrete solutions under accelerated aging
conditions. J Compos Constr 15(4):473–481. https://doi.or
g/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000168
[70] Yong Y, Deju Z, Guo S (2011) Mitigating the deterioration
of BFRP bars in seawater sea sand mortar by reducing
alkalinity. Constr Build Mater 15(4):473–481. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2021.125885
[71] Zike W (2018) Study on the durability performances of
fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars exposed to simulated
seawater and sea sand concrete pore solution. Harbin
Institute of Technology, (degree thesis, China)
[72] Ali AH, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B (2018) Durability
performance and long-term prediction models of sand-
coated basalt FRP bars. Compos B 157:248–258. https://d
oi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.08.065
[73] Dehui W, Qingnan G, Qiang Y (2021) Review of the
properties of fiber-reinforced polymer-reinforced seawater-
sea sand concrete. J Mater Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003894
[74] Scheffler C, Förster T, Mäder E (2009) Aging of alkali-
resistant glass and basalt fibers in alkaline solutions: eval-
uation of the failure stress by Weibull distribution function.
J Non-Cryst Solids 355(52):2588–2595. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jnoncrysol.2009.09.018
[75] Tjaronge MW, Irmawaty R, Adisasmita SA (2014) Com-
pressive strength and hydration process of self compacting
concrete (SCC) mixed with sea water, marine sand and
Portland composite cement. Adv Mater Res
3144(935–935):242–246. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scie
ntific.net/AMR.935.242
[76] Erniati TMW, Sampebulu V (2015) Porosity and
microstructure phase of self compacting concrete using sea
water as mixing water and curing. Adv Mater Res
4080(1119–1119):647–651. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.s
cientific.net/AMR.1119.647
9890
[77] Cui M, Mao JZ, Jia DG (2014) Experimental study on
mechanical properties of marine sand and seawater con-
crete. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/ICMCE-14.20
14.19
[78] Zhang ZH, Sang ZQ, Zhang LY (2013) Experimental
research on durability of concrete made by seawater and
sea-sand. Adv Mater Res 2216(641–642):385–388. http
s://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.641-642.385
[79] Etxeberria M, Gonzalez-Corominas A, Pardo P (2016)
Influence of seawater and blast furnace cement employment
on recycled aggregate concretes’ properties. Constr Build
Mater 115:496–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2016.04.064
[80] Etxeberria M, Fernandez JM, Limeira J (2016) Secondary
aggregates and seawater employment for sustainable con-
crete dyke blocks production: case study. Constr Build
Mater 113:586–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2016.03.097
[81] Etxeberria M, Corominas AG (2018) Properties of plain
concrete produced employing recycled aggregates and sea
water. Int J Civ Eng 16(9):993–1003. https://doi.org/10.10
07/s40999-017-0229-0
[82] Katano K, Takeda N, Ishizeki Y (2013) Properties and
application of concrete made with sea water and un-washed
sea sand. http://www.claisse.info/2013%20papers/data/e17
2.pdf
[83] Li P, Li W, Yu T (2020) Investigation on early-age hydra-
tion, mechanical properties and microstructure of seawater
sea sand cement mortar. Constr Build Mater 249:118776. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118776
[84] Yifan Z, Xiang H, Caijun S (2021) A review on seawater
sea-sand concrete: mixture proportion, hydration,
microstructure and properties. Constr Build Mater
295:123602.1-123602.19. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CON
BUILDMAT.2021.123602
[85] Li G, Zhang A, Song Z (2017) Study on the resistance to
seawater corrosion of the cementitious systems containing
ordinary Portland cement or/and calcium aluminate cement.
Constr Build Mater 157:852–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2017.09.175
[86] Li H, Farzadnia N, Shi C (2018) The role of seawater in
interaction of slag and silica fume with cement in low
water-to-binder ratio pastes at the early age of hydration.
Constr Build Mater 185:508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.07.091
[87] Shicai L, Zuquan J, Yong Y (2021) Chloride binding by
calcined layered double hydroxides and alumina-rich
cementitious materials in mortar mixed with seawater and
sea sand. Constr Build Mater 293:123493.1-123493.11. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2021.123493
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
[88] Li Q, Geng H, Shui Z (2015) Effect of metakaolin addition
and seawater mixing on the properties and hydration of
concrete. Appl Clay Sci 115:51–60. https://doi.org/10.101
6/j.clay.2015.06.043
[89] Song L (2021) Experimental study on sea sand and basalt
fiber ultra high strength concrete. Liaoning University of
Science and Technology, (Degree thesis, China)
[90] Juan L (2013) Study on high belite–sulphoaluminate
cement. Wuhan University of Technology, (Degree thesis,
China)
[91] Singh NB, Kumar M, Rai S (2020) Geopolymer cement
and concrete: properties. Mater Today Proc 29(Pt
3):743–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.513
[92] Singh A, Kumar R, Goel P (2021) Factors influencing
strength of magnesium oxychloride cement. Constr Build
Mater 303:124571. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILD
MAT.2021.124571
[93] Yufei C, Yanlei W, Mifeng W (2021) Bond durability and
degradation mechanism of GFRP bars in seawater sea-sand
concrete under the coupling effect of seawater immersion
and sustained load. Constr Build Mater 307:124878. http
s://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2021.124878
[94] Felice R, Antonio N, Fausto T (2020) Marine application of
fiber reinforced composites: a review. J Mar Sci Eng
8(1):26–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8010026
[95] Nkurunziza G, Benmokrane B, Debaiky AS (2005) Effect
of sustained load and environment on long-term tensile
properties of glass fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcing
bars. Struct J 102(4):615–621. https://doi.org/10.14359/
14566
[96] Wang Z, Zhao X, Xian G (2018) Effect of sustained load
and seawater and sea sand concrete environment on dura-
bility of basalt- and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (B/
GFRP) bars. Corros Sci 138:200–218. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.corsci.2018.04.002
[97] Deng ZC, Gao WN, Shen F (2017) Experimental and
theoretical study on compressive strength of FRP rebars
under different stress levels in alkaline and salt solution.
Acta Mater Compos Sin 34(10):2220–2231. https://doi.org/
10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20170106.001. (in Chinese)
[98] Zhang X, Deng Z (2019) Durability of GFRP bars in the
simulated marine environment and concrete environment
under sustained compressive stress. Constr Build Mater
223:299–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.0
6.212
[99] Wan YZ, Wang YL, Huang Y (2005) Moisture absorption
in a three-dimensional braided carbon/Kevlar/epoxy hybrid
composite for orthopaedic usage and its influence on
mechanical performance. Compos A 37(9):1480–1484. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.09.009
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
[100] Tsai YI, Bosze EJ, Barjasteh E (2013) Influence of
hygrothermal environment on thermal and mechanical
properties of carbon fiber/fiberglass hybrid composites.
Compos Sci Technol 69(3):432–437. https://doi.org/10.10
16/j.compscitech.2008.11.012
[101] ASTM D4475–02 (2016) Standard Test Method for
Apparent Horizontal ShearStrength of Pultruded Rein-
forced Plastic Rods By the Short-Beam Method, ASTM
2016 International, West Conshohocken. https://www.doc
88.com/p-0039125958661.html
[102] CAN/CSA-S807–10 (2015) Specification for fibre-rein-
forced polymers. Rexdale, Ontario, Canada: Canadian
Standards Association (CSA). https://www.doc88.com/p-6
963506914874.html
[103] ASTM D7617/D7617M–11 (2017) Standard Test Method
for Transverse Shear Strength of Fiber-reinforced Polymer
Matrix Composite Bars, ASTM 2017 International, West
Conshohocken. https://www.doc88.com/p-6611323955212
.html
[104] ASTM D7205/D7205M–06 (2016) Standard Test Method
for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix
Composite Bars, ASTM 2016 International, West Con-
shohocken. https://www.doc88.com/p-4347660969240.h
tml
[105] ASTM D4476/D4476M–14 (2014) Standard Test Method
for Flexural Properties of Fiber Reinforced Pultruded
Plastic Rods ASTM 2014 International, ASTM 2014
International, West Conshohocken. https://www.astm.org/d
4476_d4476m-14.html
[106] GB/T 1448–2005 (2005) Fiber-reinforced plastics com-
posites—determination of compresssive properties. China
National Standardization Administration Committee. http
s://www.doc88.com/p-4475270043548.html
[107] ASTM D7913/D7913M–14 (2020) Standard test method
for bond strength of fiber-reinforced polymer matrix com-
posite bars to concrete by pullout testing, ASTM 2016
International, West Conshohocken. https://compass.astm.o
rg/implicit/callback
[108] Xu X, Rawat P, Shi Y (2019) Tensile mechanical properties
of basalt fiber reinforced polymer tendons at low to inter-
mediate strain rates. Compos Part B 177:107442. https://d
oi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107442
[109] JinJing L, Jun-Jie Z, Yu-Lei B (2022) Bond strength of
GFRP bars to high strength and ultra-high strength fiber
reinforced seawater sea-sand concrete (SSC). Compos
Struct 281:115013. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMP
STRUCT.2021.115013
[110] Wang L, Mao Y, Lv H (2018) Bond properties between
FRP bars and coral concrete under seawater conditions at
9891
30, 60, and 80 degrees C. Constr Build Mater 162:442–449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.058
[111] Zhongyu L, Lizhu S, Jiawei L (2021) Bond durability of
BFRP bars embedded in concrete with fly ash in aggressive
environments. Compos Struct 271:114121.1-114121.12. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.114121
[112] Altalmas A, Refai AE, Abed F (2015) Bond degradation of
basalt fiber-reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars exposed to
accelerated aging conditions. Constr Build Mater
81:162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02
.036
[113] Guo X, Xiong C, Jin Z, Pang B (2022) A review on
mechanical properties of FRP bars subjected to seawater
sea sand concrete environmental effects. J Build Eng
58:105038. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2022.105038
[114] Wu G, Wang X, Wu Z (2015) Degradation of basalt FRP
bars in alkaline environment. Sci Eng Compos Mater
22(6):649–657. https://doi.org/10.1515/secm-2014-0040
[115] Sawpan MA, Mamun AA, Holdsworth PG (2014) Long
term durability of pultruded polymer composite rebar in
concrete environment. Mater Des 57:616–624. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.01.049
[116] Rifai MA, El-Hassan H, El-Maaddawy T (2020) Durability
of basalt FRP reinforcing bars in alkaline solution and
moist concrete environments. Constr Build Mater
243:118258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.
118258
[117] Yong Y, Shuaicheng G, Sheng L (2021) Effect of alkalinity
on the shear performance degradation of basalt fiber-rein-
forced polymer bars in simulated seawater sea sand con-
crete environment. Constr Build Mater 299:123957. h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2021.123957
[118] Sawpan MA (2019) Shear properties and durability of
GFRP reinforcement bar aged in seawater. Polym Testing
75:312–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.
02.033
[119] Chen Y, Davalos JF, Ray I (2005) Accelerated aging tests
for evaluations of durability performance of FRP reinforc-
ing bars for concrete structures. Compos Struct
78(1):101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.
08.015
[120] Kim H, Park Y, You Y (2007) Short-term durability test for
GFRP rods under various environmental conditions.
Compos Struct 83(1):37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp
struct.2007.03.005
[121] Bazli M, Zhao X, Bai Y (2020) Durability of pultruded
GFRP tubes subjected to seawater sea sand concrete and
seawater environments. Constr Build Mater
245:1183991–11839923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuild
mat.2020.118399
9892
[122] Davalos JF, Chen Y, Ray I (2012) Long-term durability
prediction models for GFRP bars in concrete environment.
J Compos Mater 46(16):1899–1914. https://doi.org/10.101
6/j.conbuildmat.2020.118399
[123] Robert M, Cousin P, Benmokrane B (2009) Durability of
GFRP reinforcing bars embedded in moist concrete.
J Compos Constr 13(2):66–73. https://doi.org/10.1061/(A
SCE)1090-0268(2009)13:2(66)
[124] Chen Y, Davalos JF, Ray I (2006) Durability prediction for
GFRP reinforcing bars using short-term data of accelerated
aging tests. J Compos Constr 10(4):1899–1914. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2006)10:4(279)
[125] Phani KK, Bose NR (1987) Temperature dependence of
hydrothermal ageing of CSM-laminate during water
immersion. Compos Sci Technol 29(2):79–87. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0266-3538(87)90050-9
[126] Phani KK, Bose NR (1986) Hydrothermal ageing of CSM-
laminate during water immersion—an acousto-ultrasonic
study. J Mater Sci 21(10):3633–3637
[127] Huang J, Aboutaha R (2010) Environmental reduction
factors for GFRP bars used as concrete reinforcement: new
scientific approach. J Compos Constr 14(5):479–486. http
s://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000122
[128] Bank LC, Gentry TR, Thompson BP (2003) A model
specification for FRP composites for civil engineering
structures. Constr Build Mater 17(6):405–437. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0950-0618(03)00041-2
[129] Wu G et al (2015) Prediction of long-term performance and
durability of BFRP bars under the combined effect of
sustained load and corrosive solutions. J Compos Constr
19(3):4014058.1-4014058.9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASC
E)CC.1943-5614.0000517
[130] Mufti AA, Banthia N, Benmokrane B (2017) Durability of
GFRP composite rods. Concr Int 29(2):37–42
[131] Bai N, Lan C, Li H, Spencer BF Jr (2022) Mechanistic
model for prediction of the residual tensile strength of FRP
wires. Compos Struct 15(282):115094. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.115094
[132] Sheng L, Shuaicheng G, Yiming Y (2021) The effects of
aging in seawater and SWSSC and strain rate on the tensile
performance of GFRP/BFRP composites: a critical review.
Constr Build Mater 282:122534.1-122534.23. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2021.122534
[133] Won J, Lee S, Kim Y (2007) The effect of exposure to
alkaline solution and water on the strength–porosity rela-
tionship of GFRP rebar. Compos B 39(5):764–772. http
s://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.11.002
[134] Ceroni F, Cosenza E, Gaetano M (2006) Durability issues
of FRP rebars in reinforced concrete members. Cement
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
Concr Compos 28(10):857–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2006.07.004
[135] Al-Salloum YA, El-Gamal S, Almusallam TH (2013) Effect
of harsh environmental conditions on the tensile properties
of GFRP bars. Compos B 45(1):835–844. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.05.004
[136] Benmokrane B, Robert M, Mohamed HM (2016) Dura-
bility assessment of glass FRP solid and hollow bars (rock
bolts) for application in ground control of Jurong Rock
Caverns in Singapore. J Compos Constr
21(3):06016002–06016002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASC
E)CC.1943-5614.0000775
[137] Heshmati M, Haghani R, Al-Emrani M (2017) Durability of
bonded FRP-to-steel joints: effects of moisture, de-icing
salt solution, temperature and FRP type. Compos B
119:153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.0
3.049
[138] Zhiqiang D (2018) Study on the durability of FRP bars
reinforced concrete structures and its design method.
Southeast University, (Degree Thesis, China)
[139] Tu J, Xie H, Gao K (2020) Prediction of the long-term
performance and durability of GFRP bars under the com-
bined effect of a sustained load and severe environments.
Materials 13(10):2341–2341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma
13102341
[140] Wang D, Gong Q, Yuan Q, Luo S (2021) Review of the
properties of fiber-reinforced polymer-reinforced seawater–
sea sand concrete. J Mater Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003894
[141] Wu G, Dong Z, Wang X (2014) Prediction of long-term
performance and durability of BFRP bars under the com-
bined effect of sustained load and corrosive solutions.
J Compos Constr 19(3):4014058.1-4014058.9. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000517
[142] Hua Y, Yin S, Wang Z (2020) Analysis of influence factors
on interfacial bond between BFRP bars and seawater sea-
sand concrete. J Reinf Plast Compos 40:16–28. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0731684420941608
[143] Ahangarnazhad BH, Pourbaba M, Afkar A (2020) Bond
behavior between steel and glass fiber reinforced polymer
(GFRP) bars and ultra high performance concrete rein-
forced by multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT). Steel
Compos Struct 35(4):463–474. https://doi.org/10.12989/sc
s.2020.35.4.463
[144] Taha A, Alnahhal W, Alnuaimi N (2020) Bond durability of
basalt FRP bars to fiber reinforced concrete in a saline
environment. Compos Struct 243:112277–112277. https://d
oi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112277
[145] Li Q (2018) Improvement of bond behaviour between steel
bar and concrete subjected to elevated temperature at early
J Mater Sci (2023) 58:9861–9893
age. Mag Concr Res 70(17):885–893. https://doi.org/10.1
680/jmacr.17.00065
[146] Dong Z, Wu G, Zhao X (2018) Long-term bond durability
of fiber-reinforced polymer bars embedded in seawater sea-
sand concrete under ocean environments. J Compos Constr
22(5):4018042.1-4018042.12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(AS
CE)CC.1943-5614.0000876
[147] Emparanza AR, Francisco De Caso Y, Basalo RK, Usabi-
aga IA (2018) Evaluation of the bond-to-concrete proper-
ties of GFRP rebars in marine environments. Infrastructures
3(4):44. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures3040044
[148] Dong Z, Wu G, Xu B (2016) Bond durability of BFRP bars
embedded in concrete under seawater conditions and the
long-term bond strength prediction. Mater Des
106:262–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.066
[149] Hassan M, Benmokrane B, ElSafty A (2016) Bond dura-
bility of basalt-fiber-reinforced-polymer (BFRP) bars
embedded in concrete in aggressive environments. Compos
B 106:262–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.201
6.09.039
[150] Aiello MA, Leone M, Pecce M (2007) Bond performances
of FRP rebars-reinforced concrete. J Mater Civ Eng
19(3):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(
2007)19:3(205)
[151] Baena M, Torres L, Turon A (2009) Experimental study of
bond behaviour between concrete and FRP bars using a
pull-out test. Compos B 40(8):784–797. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compositesb.2009.07.003
9893
[152] Zhe X, Wei W, Shaohua H (2021) Dynamic bond behaviour
of fibre-wrapped basalt fibre-reinforced polymer bars
embedded in sea sand and recycled aggregate concrete
under high-strain rate pull-out tests. Constr Build Mater
276:122195. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONBUILDMAT.2
020.122195
[153] Fib Bulletin 40 (2007) FRP reinforcement in RC structures.
In: International federation for structural concrete. Lau-
sanne, Switzerland. https://www.doc88.com/p-196212039
6141.html
[154] Serbescu A, Guadagnini M, Pilakoutas K (1998) Mechan-
ical characterization of basalt FRP rebars and long-term
strength predictive model. J Compos Constr
32(22):2042–2059. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.194
3-5614.0000497
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other
partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a
publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsh-
older(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript
version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.