Journal Pre-proof

Evaluation of cracking and deflection of GFRP bar reinforced recycled concrete

beams with seawater and sea sand

Xiaolong Hu, Jianzhuang Xiao, Kaijian Zhang, Qingtian Zhang

PII: S2352-7102(23)02272-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108092
Reference: JOBE 108092

To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering

Received Date: 18 July 2023

Revised Date: 12 October 2023
Accepted Date: 24 October 2023

Please cite this article as: X. Hu, J. Xiao, K. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Evaluation of cracking and deflection
of GFRP bar reinforced recycled concrete beams with seawater and sea sand, Journal of Building
Engineering (2023), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108092.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Credit Author Statement

Xiaolong Hu: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.

Jianzhuang Xiao: Conceptualization, Writing - review& editing, Funding

acquisition.

Kaijian Zhang: Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing.

Qingtian Zhang: Writing - review& editing.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

Evaluation of cracking and deflection of GFRP bar reinforced recycled

concrete beams with seawater and sea sand

Xiaolong Hua, Jianzhuang Xiaoa,b,c, *, Kaijian Zhangd, Qingtian Zhangd
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
b
3 College of Civil Eng. and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China
c
Institute of Science and Technology for Carbon Peak & Neutrality, Guangxi University, 530004,
Nanning, China
d
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, China
Abstract:
In this paper, the feasibility of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bar reinforced

f
oo
recycled concrete beams with seawater sea sand was investigated. A four-point flexural

r
test was carried out, and the Digital Image Correlation (DIC) technique was applied to
-p
measure strain and deflection of beam at the same time. The cracking load was
re
calculated and compared with the test data, and the deformability and instantaneous
lP

stiffness were also calculated as a further supplement to the evaluation of the service
performance of the beams. The test results showed that the crack development and
na

failure pattern of the GFRP bar reinforced recycled concrete beams with seawater and
sea sand (SSRAC beams) did not change significantly compared with the steel
ur

reinforced concrete beams, but became more ductile due to sea sand. The overall
Jo

deflection of the beam reinforced with GFRP bars increased but was still within the
allowable range of the current code (ACI 318-05 and GB 50010-2010), but the cracking
load decreased significantly. There was no significant difference in the performance of
beams using various fine aggregates in most cases. However, the excessive amount of
shell particles had the potential to change the failure patterns and deformability factors
of the beams. Overall, there was no significant degradation in the serviceability of
SSRAC beams reinforced by GFRP bars.
Keywords: Seawater and sea sand, GFRP bar, recycled concrete beams, cracking,
deflection

*
Corresponding author. Tel: +86-21-65982787; Fax: +86-21-65986345.
E-mail address: jzx@tongji.edu.cn, jzxiao@gxu.edu.cn

1
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

1. Introduction

Massive infrastructure has brought about rapid, massive construction and demolition

wastes, most of which have not been properly disposed of, causing environmental

pollution that is difficult to eliminate and consuming a large amount of natural resources

[1-4]. The shortage of river sand calls for substitutes. The very abundant sea sand [5]

and natural river sand have the same formation process [6], which means that they have

similar properties, and sea sand is an acceptable potential fine aggregate for concrete

f
oo
extensively verified [7-10]. However, there is a lot of evidence to show that the

r
-p
disadvantage of sea sand is the salt in it, which may promote the rusting of steel bars
re
[11]. Fortunately, the development of materials has diversified the choice of
lP

reinforcement materials in construction [12,13]. Teng et al. [14] proposed seawater sea

sand concrete beams reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP), which has higher
na

tensile strength, lower density, more brittleness, and lower modulus of elasticity than
ur

steel bars. Most importantly, it is almost immune to corrosion by salt in seawater [15].
Jo

It gives the possibility of using sea sand as a fine aggregate instead of river sand. On

the other hand, replacing natural coarse aggregate (NCA) with recycled coarse

aggregate (RCA) can not only reduce the pressure on resources shortages, but also

dispose of some of the waste concrete [16,17]. The feasibility of using RAC has been

confirmed [18].

Many researchers have studied the feasibility of SSRAC [19-21]. Limeira et al. [22]

investigated the mechanical properties of sea sand concrete, and the results showed that

the physical properties of sea sand concrete such as density, water absorption, and

2
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

permeability were reduced compared to ordinary concrete, but the compressive strength

and tensile strength were unchanged. Early strength of sea sand concrete is 13%-60%

higher than that of ordinary concrete [7] . Overall, replacing ordinary concrete with sea

sand concrete is feasible without a decrease in strength [23]. The addition of RCA

resulted in more deterioration to the properties of concrete than sea sand, which reduced

28-day compressive strength by about 5%, and 180-day compressive strength by about

18%-29%, while the modulus of elasticity also showed a maximum reduction of 14%.

f
oo
Thus, the effect of RCA on the mechanical properties of concrete is greater than that of

r
sea sand [24]. -p
re
FRP reinforced concrete beams have also been researched for a long time [25].
lP

Through the bond behavior test between FRP reinforcement and concrete, Lees et al.

[26] found that the chemical adhesive force had a small effect on the bond force
na

between FRP reinforcement and concrete, the bond stress was mainly provided by the
ur

frictional and mechanical interlock forces, and the bond force between FRP
Jo

reinforcement and concrete was smaller compared with that between steel

reinforcement and concrete.

In terms of deformation capacity, the study by El-Nemr et al. [27] showed that the

GFRP bars reinforced concrete beam showed a linear behavior in both load-strain and

load-deflection curves until failure. El-Nemr et al. [28] pointed out that the diameter of

FRP bars had a significant effect on the crack width of the beam, but not on the

deflection, while the increase of reinforcement ratios or concrete strength increased the

number of cracks and decreased the distance between cracks. For FRP reinforced

3
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

concrete members, the service limit state should be used as a criterion for their structural

design. Goldston et al. [29] investigated the failure pattern of GFRP bars reinforced

concrete beams and found that beams with higher reinforcement ratios had a higher

cracking flexural stiffness. The effect of concrete strength was evident in reducing the

mid-span deflection and increasing post-cracking flexural stiffness.

FRP bars could be used as an alternative to steel bars to reinforce recycled concrete

components due to excellent durability, but the safety performance may be degraded,

f
oo
especially the bonding performance [30]. Baena et al. [31] investigated the bond

r
-p
strength of FRP-reinforced recycled concrete, and the results showed that the bonding
re
performance and deterioration process of FRP bar reinforced recycled concrete were
lP

similar to those between FRP bars and natural aggregate concrete.

In general, there are many limitations in the current research. In terms of materials,
na

there are few studies on SSRAC beam reinforced with GFRP bars. Most of the existing
ur

researches focus on durability or load bearing capacity. To evaluate the service

Jo

performance of FRP-SSRAC beams this paper focuses on the development of cracks

and deflection of GFRP bar reinforced SSRAC beams.

2. Experimental program

2.1 Materials

The materials selected for this test included mixing water, fine aggregate, coarse

aggregate, cement, and reinforcement. The mixing water was freshwater and seawater.

According to ASTM D1141-98 [32], the seawater was prepared. The composition and

dosages are listed in Table 1. The physical properties and chemical compositions of the

4
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

sea sand are shown in Table 2. The physical properties of coarse aggregates are

described in Table 3. The particle size of both coarse aggregates was 5-15 mm, and the

water absorption rate of RCA was 6.60%, while that of NCA was only 1.03%. In order

not to affect the water-cement ratio, the mixing water of concrete with RCA was

increased in the form of additional water corresponding to the water absorption of RCA.

Portland P.O. 42.5 cement was chosen for the cement. Steel and GFRP bars were chosen

as reinforcements, and the details of the two bars are as shown in Table 4. GFRP bars

f
oo
were chosen due to their good corrosion resistance, excellent mechanical properties,

r
and availability. -p
re
lP
na

(a) River sand (b) Sea sand (c) NCA (d) RCA
Fig. 1 Fine and coarse aggregates
ur

Table 1 Chemical composition of artificial seawater

Compound NaCl MgCl2 Na2SO4 CaCl2 KCl NaHCO3 KBr
Jo

Concentration (g/L) 24.53 5.20 4.09 1.16 0.695 0.201 0.101

Table 2 Physical properties of fine aggregates
Fine Apparent density Fineness SO3 content Cl- content Shell particle
aggregate (kg/m )3
modulus (%) (%) content (%)
River sand 2610 2.1 0.109 0.001 1.10
Sea sand 2660 2.7 0.123 0.057 2.31
Shell sand 2620 3.3 0.180 0.001 99.43
Table 3 Physical properties of coarse aggregates
Apparent Water Water
Coarse Bulk density Crushing Clay content
density content absorption
aggregate (kg/m3) 3
index (%) (%)
(kg/m ) (%) (%)
NCA 1440 2660 5.1 0.80 0.4 1.03
RCA 1280 2590 11.0 0.71 3.87 6.60

5
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

Table 4 Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars

D Ef fy ffu εfu Surface Reinforcement
Type
(mm) (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) texture configuration
Steel-
6 219 336 420 10 Plain round Stirrup@100mm
HPB300
Steel- Ribbed- Auxiliary
10 190 428 546 7.6
HRB400 deformed reinforcement
Steel- Ribbed-
14 191 436 540 7.5 Tensile reinforcement
HRB400 deformed
Ribbed-
GFRP 8 56.2 —— 1281.4 2.28 Stirrup@100mm
deformed
Ribbed- Auxiliary

f
GFRP 10 55.3 —— 1174.1 2.08

oo
deformed reinforcement
Ribbed-
GFRP 14 52.9 —— 978.6 1.85 Tensile reinforcement

r
deformed

2.2 Specimen design

-p
re
Considering the actual application scenarios, seawater and sea sand were recommended
lP

to be used at the same time. The shell particle content of sea sand from different sea
na

areas varies greatly. To investigate whether the shell particle content may have an
ur

impact on the use of sea sand, beams with more shell particles were cast. The material
Jo

types and dosages for the eight beams are illustrated in Table 5. The naming rule is G/S-

N0/100-R/S/SH. Here G/S stands for the type of reinforcement, G stands for GFRP bars,

and S stands for steel bars. N0/100 stands for the use rate of 0 and 100% of NCA,

R/S/SH represents river sand, sea sand, and sea sand with higher shell particle content

(shell particle mass fraction of 20%) used for fine aggregates respectively. Beams were

cast according to the mix ratios in Table 5.

Table 5 Mix proportions of concrete (kg/m3)

Coarse
Mixing water Fine aggregate
Beams Cement aggregate
Fresh Sea River Sea Shell NCA RCA

6
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

water water sand sand particle

S-N100-R 100 0 212.8 552.7 0 0 732.6 0
S-N0-R 100+20 0 212.8 552.7 0 0 0 732.6
G-N100-R 100 0 212.8 552.7 0 0 732.6 0
G-N0-R 100+20 0 212.8 552.7 0 0 0 732.6
G-N100-S 0 100 212.8 0 552.7 0 732.6 0
G-N0-S 0 100+20 212.8 0 552.7 0 0 732.6
G-N100-SH 0 100 212.8 0 442.2 110.5 732.6 0
G-N0-SH 0 100+20 212.8 0 442.2 110.5 0 732.6

Note: 100+20 indicates the mass of free water plus additional water.

f
2.3 Testing set and procedure

oo
The 150 mm concrete cube specimens of the corresponding mix proportion were

r
-p
produced while the beams were cast. Both of them were cured under a natural
re
environment for 28d. The four-point flexural tests were carried out on the beams. At the
lP

same time, the cube concrete specimens were tested for the compressive strength and
na

modulus of elasticity, and the tests results are summarized in Table 6.

ur

The test apparatus and section of beam were respectively demonstrated in Fig. 2(a)
Jo

and Fig. 2(b). Due to the limitation of the equipment, the loading procedure was a

displacement-controlled loading method with a rate of 0.2 mm/min. Three linear

variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were arranged at the mid-span and the two

supports of the beam.

The strain gauges were attached to the midpoint of the tensile and compressive bars

before casting to measure the strains of the reinforcement. After casting, five strain

gauges were evenly arranged from top to bottom on the mid-span side of the beam to

measure the concrete strains. The locations of the concrete strain gauges are indicated

in Fig. 2. The data of each strain gauge was monitored in real time at a frequency of 5

7
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

Hz. Meanwhile, the concrete beam surface was photographed during the loading

process, and the photos were processed by the DIC technology to obtain the

development of beam deflection, cracks, etc. Each photo is taken at an interval of 5

seconds, and the resolution of the photo is 3840×2160. DIC is a non-contact, high-

precision measurement technique based on photoelectric imaging and automatic or

semi-automatic computer processing. A large number of observation points are marked

on the surface of the specimen before the test, and the observation points in the pictures

f
oo
at different moments will be compared with the initial state in order to obtain the

r
-p
mechanical behavior of the beam. The method obtained information on the deformation
re
(displacement and strain) of the measured object surface by analyzing digital images of
lP

the object surface before and after deformation.

Table 6 Compressive strengths and moduli of elasticity

na

Specimen N100-R N0-R N100-S N0-S N100-SH N0-SH

ur

Compressive strength (MPa) 25.02 19.90 23.11 23.09 17.42 23.17

Jo

Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 33.5 22.4 27.5 22.4 28.0 20.2

(a) Test apparatus

8
 LVDTs

Manuscript submitted a
to = 575ofmm
Journal Lb = 500
Building Engineering mm a
(a)

Steel, d = 10 mm GFRP, d = 10 mm

300
300

Steel, d = 6 mm GFRP, d = 8 mm

150 Steel, d = 14 mm 150 GFRP, d = 14 mm

(b)
(b) Cross sections (unit: mm)
Beam dimensions and reinforcement details: (a) Setting up and (b) cross sections (unit: mm)
Fig. 2 Beam dimensions and reinforcement details

f
oo
3. Test results

3.1 Analysis of strain in reinforcement and concrete

r
-p
The measured concrete strains at different heights in the purely bending section of the
re
beam are shown in Fig. 3. The horizontal axis is the strain (με) and the vertical axis is
lP

the height of the strain gauge from the bottom surface of the beam (mm).
na

The different curves represent the strain versus strain gauge position relationships for
ur

different loads. The strains of concrete showed a significant linear correlation with the
Jo

height of the strain gauge, indicating that the GFRP bars reinforced seawater sea sand

recycled concrete (SSRAC) beams could satisfy the plane-section assumption before

and after the cracking. The traditional theoretical design method of steel reinforced

beams is also applicable to GFRP bars reinforced SSRAC beams. However, it should

be noted that, although the plane-section assumption is satisfied, the neutral axis height

of the beams reinforced with the GFRP bars rise up rapidly once cracked due to worse

bonding between FRP bars and concrete, whereas this phenomenon was almost absent

in the steel reinforced beams, and the neutral axis height rose uniformly and slowly.

The most significant difference between GFRP-reinforced SSRAC and steel-

9
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

reinforced concrete was the co-working between the bar and the concrete. The strains

of bars and concrete at the top and bottom of the beams at the mid-span were selected

and plotted in Fig. 4. Since many factors affected the performances of different beams,

the ratio of the load at the end of co-working to the ultimate load (η represents this ratio)

was used as the criterion for evaluating the co-working between reinforcement and

concrete.

In the tensile zone, η has been marked in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the steel bars work

f
oo
well with the concrete, while the GFRP bars do not work with the concrete almost at all

r
-p
the time and there are obvious gaps in strains between GFRP bars and concrete, which
re
are likely to lead to earlier development of cracks in GFRP bars reinforced beams.
lP

In the compression zone, the strains of the reinforcement and concrete are almost

identical, while the GFRP bar strain differs significantly from the concrete strain from
na

the beginning of loading, which indicates that the co-deformation capability between
ur

GFRP bars and concrete is worse than that of steel and concrete, which is confirmed by
Jo

the scanning electron microscope micrograph on the bonding properties between FRP

bar and concrete [33]. It is recommended that methods such as the treatment of the

surface of GFRP bars can be considered to improve the bond force between GFRP bars

and concrete. It is worth mentioning that the concrete type has little influence on the

bonding force between the reinforcement and concrete, so the SSRAC can be directly

applied to the structure without special treatment.

10
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

300 300

250 250

Height ( mm )
200
Height ( mm )

200

150 150
50kN 20 kN
100 100kN 100 40 kN
150kN 60 kN
50 200kN 50 80 kN
250kN 100 kN
0 0
-1500 -500 500 1500 2500 3500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Strain ( µε ) Strain ( µε )

(a) S-N100-R (b) S-N0-R

300
300

250 250

200

Height ( mm )

f
Height ( mm )

200

oo
150 150
25 kN 30 kN
100 50 kN 100 40 kN

r
75 kN 50 kN
50 50 80 kN

0
-1000
100 kN
125 kN
-500 0
Strain ( µε )
500
-p 1000
0
-1000
100 kN
-500 0 500
Strain ( µε )
1000 1500 2000
re
(c) G-N100-R (d) G-N100-S
lP

300 300

250 250
na

200
Height (mm )
Height ( mm )

200

150 20 kN 150
20 kN
40 kN
ur

100 100 40 kN
60 kN 60 kN
50 80 kN 50 80 kN
Jo

100 kN 100 kN
0 0
-800 -300 200 700 1200 1700 -1600 400 2400 4400
Strain ( µε ) Strain ( µε )

(e) (G-N100-SH) (f) G-N0-SH

Fig. 3 Strains in concrete at midspan for different loading

(a) S-N100-R (b) S-N0-R

11
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

(c) G-N100-R (d) G-N0-SH

Fig. 4 Comparisons of concrete and reinforcement strains at the midspan

3.2 Failure patterns and crack development

f
oo
3.2.1 Failure patterns

r
The failure patterns of the beams are shown in Table 7, and the appearances of the
-p
damaged beams and the crack development are shown in Fig. 5, where the red lines
re
represent diagonal cracks and the blue lines represent vertical cracks in pure bending
lP

zones. It is clear that the reinforcement materials have a significant influence on the
na

failure patterns of the beams. Most of the failure patterns of the steel reinforced beams
ur

are concrete crushing, with obvious yielding stages and good deformation capacities.
Jo

As for the GFRP bars reinforced beams, under the same test conditions as the steel

reinforced beams, the main failure patterns are flexural failures, which are manifested

by the fracture of the reinforcement. In general, the use of GFRP bars did not

significantly change the failure patterns.

In addition, the type of concrete also has a significant effect on the failure patterns.

The use of sea sand makes the GFRP bars reinforced beams more ductile, regardless of

the amount of sea sand used. Cracks of sea sand beams develop uniformly and densely,

and the phenomenon of concrete crushing occurs. The reason for this phenomenon may

12
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

be that the elastic modulus and brittle characteristics of the SSRAC better matches those

of the GFRP bars.

It is worth mentioning that one beam (G-N0-SH) showed shear compression failure

after loading. Combined with the data from other beams and the formula for shear

bearing capacity, it can be concluded that the simultaneous use of large amounts of shell

particles and RCA may result in a substantial decrease in the contribution of concrete

strength to the shear bearing capacity. Therefore, the replacement of sea sand has no

f
oo
significant effect on the failure pattern of the beams. However, it should be noted that

r
-p
if the sea sand is mixed with a large amount of shell particles with the simultaneous
re
application of RAC, the deformation performance of the beams may substantially
lP

deteriorate, so the content of shell sand needs to be strictly limited in the practical

application design.
na

Table 7 Failure patterns of the beams

ur

Beams Failure patterns

S-N100-R Flexural failure
Jo

S-N0-R Flexural failure

G-N100-R Flexural failure
G-N100-S Flexural failure
G-N100-SH Flexural failure
G-N0-R Flexural failure
G-N0-S Flexural failure
G-N0-SH Shear compression failure

(a) S-N100-R (b) S-N0-R

(c) G-N100-R (d) G-N100-S

13
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

(e) G-N100-SH (f) G-N0-R

(g) G-N0-S (h) G-N0-SH

Fig. 5 Failure patterns and crack distributions of the beams

3.2.2 Cracking load

f
The relationship between the cracking load and reinforcement type is shown in Fig.

oo
6(a). Reinforced beams showed excellent ductility. The observed cracking moments of

r
-p
S-N100-R and S-N0-R reached 189% and 196% of the calculated values, respectively.
re
When the reinforcement was replaced by GFRP bars, the cracking moments were
lP

significantly reduced, and the observed cracking moments for G-N100-R, G-N0-R, G-
na

N100-S, G-N0-S, G-N100-SH, and G-N0-SH were 68.4%, 86.1%, 108.3%, 72.1%,

77.1%, and 78.8% of the calculated values, respectively. Obviously, in the existing
ur
Jo

calculation formula, the influence of materials is not fully considered, and the bonding

force of the GFRP bars and concrete is overestimated.

The relationship between the cracking load and concrete type is shown in Fig. 6(b).

It is obvious that there is barely any difference in the cracking loads between the beams

with different materials, so the cracking loads of the recycled concrete beams with

seawater and sea sand are comparable to those of the ordinary concrete.

14
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

30 30
28.12
14 Cracking moment
24.73
25 Concrete strength 25
Cracking moment ( kN.M ) 12

Concrete strength（ MPa ）

Cracking moment ( kN.m )
20 10 20

8
15
15
6
10
10 8.53 8.08 8.07 7.85 4
7.50 7.61
5
2
5

0 0
0

(a) Effect of reinforcement types (b) Effect of concrete types

Fig. 6 Factors influencing the cracking load

3.2.3 Crack development

f
oo
Cracks directly determine the performance of the structure, allowing a more intuitive

r
judgment of the safety of the structure, and therefore it is necessary to analyze the -p
re
cracking loads as well as the crack developments in concrete beams. To better analyze
lP

the cracks of beams, it is necessary to measure as much and as often as possible, and it

is difficult to capture the key time points accurately by manual scribing measurement.
na

In contrast, the DIC processing method can accurately analyze the real-time strains at
ur

various points on the surface of the beams, so the qualitative situation of the crack
Jo

development can be characterized by the strain analysis with the DIC processing

method [34-36]. The crack developments analyzed by the DIC and the width of main

cracks are shown in Fig. 7.

At the beginning of loading, the crack development patterns of the steel bars

reinforced beams and the GFRP bars reinforced beams were similar, with tiny vertical

cracks appearing first at the bottom of the mid-span. With the increasing load, diagonal

cracks appeared in the bending shear zone, and then the diagonal cracks in the bending

shear zone extended toward the support points and the loading points at the same time,

15
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

eventually forming a diagonal crack connecting the support points and the loading

points.

In the steel reinforced beams, the main diagonal crack first appeared in the centers

of the loading point and support point. Subsequently, the locations where the cracks

appear gradually move towards the purely bending zone. After cracks appeared, large

numbers of tiny cracks are formed transversely at the same time, and eventually, the

cracks are distributed widely and densely which are obvious signs before failure.

f
oo
The main diagonal cracks of GFRP bars reinforced beams are mostly formed near

r
-p
the bottom of the beam and are closer to the loading point. With the increase of the load,
re
the cracks appeared at the location of the support, and the cracks developments of the
lP

3
GFRP bars reinforced beams were faster than steel reinforced beams, but there were

also enough warning signs before the failure.

na
ur

1
1.2

1
Jo

0.8
2 1
0.6

0.4

2 1 3 ①
0.2
②
③
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mid-span deflection (mm)

(a) S-N100-R

16
 6

Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

1 2
1.2

0.8
1
3 2 0.6

0.4

①
1 0.2 ②
③
3 2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Mid-span deflection (mm)

7

(b) S-N0-R

f
1

oo
1.2

r
0.8
2 1
-p 0.6
re
0.4

2 1 3 ①
0.2
②
lP

③
9 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mid-span deflection (mm)
na

(c) G-N100-R

1
ur

1.2

1
Jo

1 0.8

0.6

0.4

1
0.2
①
②
2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mid-span deflection (mm)

(d) G-N100-S

17
 12
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

1
1.2

1 0.8

2
0.6

0.4

1
0.2
①
2
②
0
14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mid-span deflection (mm)

(e) G-N100-SH

f
1

oo
1.2

r
0.8
2 1 3
-p0.6
re
0.4

①
2 1 3 0.2
②
lP

③
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
18 Mid-span deflection (mm)
na

(f) G-N0-R

1
ur

1.2

1
Jo

0.8
1
0.6

0.4

1 0.2
①
②
2 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Mid-span deflection (mm)

(g) G-N0-S

18
 21
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

1 2 1.2

0.8
1 2
0.6

0.4

1 2 0.2
①
②
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mid-span deflection (mm)

(h) G-N0-SH

Fig. 7 Crack developments

f
oo
Note: The numbers in Fig. 7 indicate the order of appearances of the major cracks.

3.3 Deflection

r
3.3.1 Mid-span deflection
-p
re
As shown in Fig. 8, the deflection-load curves of the steel reinforced beams are smooth,
lP

while the ones of the GFRP bars reinforced beams have many jagged fluctuations
na

during the loading process. The reason may be that the bond behavior between the
ur

GFRP bars and the concrete is poorer and the bars slip out of the concrete during loading.
Jo

In the damage phase, there are obvious differences between the two kinds of beams, as

the GFRP bars reinforced beams show brittle damage and there are sudden falls in the

load-deflection curves, while the ones of the steel reinforced beam are slow and smooth

in the falling section, with obvious and long enough plateau phases, which mean

excellent ductility.

The effects of aggregates and reinforcement on the bearing capacities of the beams are

respectively demonstrated in Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 9(b). As shown in figure 9(a), in the

NCA groups, the ultimate bearing capacities of G-N100-S and G-N100-SH were 119%

and 95.5% compared with that of G-N100-R. In the RCA groups, the ultimate bearing

19
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

capacities of G-N0-S and G-N0-SH were 94.9% and 91.1% compared with that of G-

N0-R, which showed that the effect of fine aggregate on the ultimate load is not

significant. At the same time, the RCA did not cause significant reductions in the load

carrying capacities of the beams.

As shown in Fig. 9(b), the replacement of steel bars with GFRP bars will reduce the

ultimate bearing capacities of the beams more significantly. The ultimate bearing

capacities of N100-R and N0-R beams were reduced to 73% and 90.2% when the

f
oo
reinforcement was replaced by GFRP bars, and it is recommended that higher bearing

r
capacities should be designed in GFRP bars reinforced beams.
300
-p 300
re
250 S-N0-R 250 G-N0-SH
G-N0-S
S-N100-R
200 200
lP
Load ( kN )
Load ( kN )

G-N0-R
150 G-N100-R 150
G-N100-SH G-N100-S
100 S-N100-R 100 G-N100-S
na

G-N100-R G-N100-SH
50 G-N0-R 50 G-N0-S
S-N0-R G-N0-SH
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ur

Mid-span deflection ( mm ) Mid-span deflection ( mm )

Fig. 8 Load-deflection curves of the beams

Jo

300 300

250 250

200 200
Load ( mm )

Load (mm)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
G-N100-R G-N100-S G-N100-SH G-N0-R G-N0-S G-N0-SH S-N100-R G-N100-R S-N0-R G-N0-R

(a) Influence of fine aggregates (b) Influence of reinforcement

Fig. 9 Influencing factors for the ultimate loads

3.3.2 Deformations along the beams

For structures with high deflection requirements, it is necessary to study the overall

deformation patterns and developments of GFRP bars reinforced beams. Since the

20
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

damage process is usually slow during the testing, the criteria for evaluating whether

the beam reaches the ultimate state are sometimes subjective and difficult to determine

precisely. Therefore, the deformations of individual beams under the loads of 0.3Mu,

0.5Mu, 0.7Mu, and Mu, where Mu represents the bending moment corresponding to

the ultimate bearing capacity, loads are selected to characterize the deformation

capacity. The deflections along the beam at different load levels, obtained by the DIC

processing and LVDTs, are shown in Fig. 10.

f
oo
In Fig. 10, the horizontal coordinates represent the positions of the measurement

r
-p
points in the beam (mm), the vertical coordinates represent the deflections (mm), the
re
solid marker points represent the LVDTs data, and the hollow marker points represent
lP

the data obtained by the DIC measurement. The difference between the data obtained

by the DIC method and data measured by the LVDTs is small, which indicates that the
na

accuracy of the DIC method can meet the test requirements.

ur

To measure whether the deflections of the test beams can meet the actual use
Jo

requirements, this paper adopts the deflection limits for GFRP bars reinforced concrete

beams in the Chinese code (GB50608-2010) [37]. The deflection limits for flexural

members with a span less than 7000 mm are taken as 𝑙0 /200 , where 𝑙0 is the

calculated span, when considering the long-term effect of load. For building structures

requiring smaller deflections, it is necessary to take as 𝑙0 /250, and the two deflection

limits are marked with dashed lines in Fig. 10.

From the test results, it can be found that the deflections of steel reinforced beams

can meet the limit value of 𝑙0 /250 for loads of 0.7Mu and below, regardless of the kind

21
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

of aggregates. As for GFRP bars reinforced beams, the serviceability limit load of G-

N0-S is 0.3Mu, while that of G-N100-S is 0.5Mu. Therefore, to be conservative, the

normal serviceability limit load of GFRP bars reinforced seawater sea sand recycled

coarse aggregate beams is recommended to be taken as 0.3Mu, and this is also in line

with the research results of most researchers at present [28]. Therefore, the GFRP bars

reinforced recycled concrete beams with seawater and sea sand can meet the deflection

requirements in the of serviceability limit state.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na

(a) S-N100-R
(b) S-N0-R
ur
Jo

(c) G-N100-SH (d) G-N0-R

22
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

(e) G-N0-S
Fig. 10 Deflections along the beams for different loading levels

Note: Before the load of the S-N100-R beam reached the ultimate load, the LVDTs fell off and all the data could not

be measured, so there are only three curves.

The mid-span deflection increments of individuals beams are demonstrated in Fig 11.

In terms of material effects on deformation developments, compared with those of S-

N100-R, the deflection increments of S-N0-R at 0-0.3Mu, 0.3Mu-0.5Mu, and 0.5Mu-

0.7Mu were 149%, 128%, and 102%. Compared with those of G-N0-R, the deflection

f
oo
increments of G-N0-S at 0-0.3Mu, 0.3Mu-0.5Mu, and 0.5Mu-0.7Mu were 119%, 104%,

r
and 112%. Compared with those of S-N0-R, the deflection increments of G-N0-R at 0-
-p
0.3Mu, 0.3Mu-0.5Mu, and 0.5Mu-0.7Mu were 153%, 242%, and 328%. Overall, the
re
deflections of GFRP bars reinforced beams develop more rapidly than those of steel
lP

reinforced beams, and the deflections are much larger than those of steel reinforced
na

beams, while the effect of concrete type on deflection is relatively small.

ur

As far as the deflection development process is concerned, the percentage deflection

Jo

increments of individual beams deflection for 0.3Mu-0.5Mu, 0.5Mu-0.7Mu compared

to the increment for 0-0.3Mu are shown in Fig. 11. Before the load reaches 0.7Mu, the

deflection increments of S-N100-R and S-N0-R are basically the same, and the beam

deflections develop linearly, while the deflection increments of the GFRP bars

reinforced beam gradually increase, and the deflection developments show obvious

nonlinearities.

From the test results, it can be found that the deflections of steel reinforced beams

can meet the limit value of 𝑙0 /250 for the loads of 0.7Mu and below, regardless of the

23
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

kind of aggregates. As for GFRP bars reinforced beams, the serviceability limit load of

GFRP bars reinforced seawater sea sand recycled coarse aggregate beams is 0.3Mu,

while that of GFRP bars reinforced beams with seawater sea sand and natural coarse

aggregate is 0.5Mu. Therefore, to be conservative, the normal serviceability limit load

of GFRP bars reinforced SSRAC beam is recommended to be taken as 0.3Mu, and this

is also in line with the research results of most scholars at present [28]. Therefore, the

GFRP bars reinforced recycled concrete beams with seawater and sea sand can meet

f
oo
the deflection requirements in the limit state of serviceability limit.

r
20

18
0 - 0.3 Mu
-p
re
0.3 Mu - 0.5 Mu
16
Deflection increment ( mm )

0.5 Mu - 0.7 Mu
lP

14 0. 7 Mu - Mu
12
na

10

8
173%
183%
ur

6
138% 121%
178%
4 126% 86% 124%
Jo

102% 88%
2

0
S-N100-R S-N0-R G-N100-SH G-N0-R G-N0-S

Fig. 11 Deflection increments of the beams at the midspan

4. Discussion

4.1 Analysis on the cracking load

In the existing codes, the calculation of the cracking moment is based on the concept

that there is no direct relationship with the material used, and only the elastic moduli of

elasticity of concrete and reinforcement and the tensile strength (or compressive

strength) of concrete are considered. Hence it can be directly used to predict the

24
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

cracking load of GFRP bars reinforced concrete beams, but this method ignores the

difference in the bond behaviors between the concrete and different reinforcements.

The formulas for calculating the cracking load in the ACI code and Chinese code are

shown in Eqs. (1)-(4).

1) ACI code [38]

𝑓𝑟 𝐼𝑔
𝑀𝑐𝑟 = (1.)
𝑦𝑡
𝑓𝑟 = 0.62√𝑓𝑐 (2.)

f
oo
𝒄𝒓 ——Cracking load,

r
𝑰𝒈 ——Moment of inertia (mm4), -p
re
𝒚𝒕 ——Distance from the tensile edge of the section to centroidal axis of gross
lP

section (mm),

𝒇𝒓 ——Modulus of rupture (MPa),

na

𝒇𝒄 ——Compressive strength of concrete.

ur

2) Chinese code [37]

Jo

ℎ − 𝑥𝑐𝑟 2𝑥𝑐𝑟 𝑥𝑐𝑟

𝑀𝑐𝑟 = 𝑓𝑡 𝑏(ℎ − 𝑥𝑐𝑟 ) ( + ) + 2𝛼𝐸 𝑓𝑡 𝐴𝑠 (ℎ0 − ) (3.)
2 3 3
2𝛼𝐸 𝐴𝑠
1+
𝑥𝑐𝑟 = 𝑏ℎ ∙ ℎ (4.)
𝛼 𝐴
1+ 𝐸 𝑠 2
𝑏ℎ
𝒙𝒄𝒓 ——Distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis,
𝑬𝒄 ——Modulus of elasticity,

𝑨𝟎 ——Equivalent cross-sectional area,

𝜶𝑬 ——Ratio of reinforcement modulus of elasticity to the concrete modulus of

elasticity,

𝒇𝒕 ——Concrete tensile strength,

25
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

𝒃——Concrete beam section width,

𝒉——Height of concrete beam section,

𝒉𝟎 ——Effective height of the concrete beam,

𝑨𝒔 ——Reinforcement area.

The calculated and tested values of the cracking moments of the beams are compared

in Table 8. In the existing ACI and GB codes, the cracking loads are calculated for

different codes without considering the effects of reinforcement material and concrete,

f
oo
but it can be seen that for the reinforced concrete beams, the cracking loads reach more

r
-p
than three times the cracking loads for the beams reinforced with GFRP bars. As the
re
replacement rates of sea sand (shell particle) and RCA become higher, the cracking load
lP

also decreases to a certain extent, so it is necessary to consider the influences of

different aggregates and reinforcement on the cracking load.

na

The calculated values based on the ACI code are lower than the test values, and the
ur

cracking loads of GFRP bars reinforced SSRAC beams also meet the requirements of
Jo

ACI code. As for Chinese code, the calculated values of steel reinforced beams are

lower than the test values, while the calculated values of GFRP bars reinforced beams

are almost higher than the test values. This indicates the Chinese code overestimates

the cracking loads of GFRP bars reinforced beams, and it is suggested to take different

materials into account in form of material coefficients.

Table 8 Comparisons of the predicted cracking load with the experimental data

Calculated value Test Calculated value/test value

Beams
ACI GB value ACI GB
S-N100-R 7.10 13.09 24.73 0.29 0.53
S-N0-R 7.06 14.33 28.12 0.25 0.51

26
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

G-N100-R 7.10 10.96 7.50 0.95 1.46

G-N100-S 6.71 9.91 8.53 0.79 1.16
G-N100-SH 5.82 7.46 8.08 0.72 0.92
G-N0-R 7.06 11.19 8.07 0.88 1.39
G-N0-S 6.74 10.19 7.85 0.86 1.30
G-N0-SH 6.53 9.65 7.61 0.86 1.27

4.2 Deformability

Ductility is defined as the ability of a structure to absorb energy before failure, and this

concept is generally applied to linear steel structures, so the deformability factor [39,40]

f
oo
is introduced to evaluate the deformability of significant nonlinear GFRP bars

reinforced beams and to ensure the safety of the structure in use by comparing it with

r
-p
the limit value. The deformability was calculated using Eqs. (5)-(7), and for rectangular
re
section beams, the lower limit of deformability is 4. The deformability factors of beams
lP

in this experiment are shown in Table 9.

na

The results show that the replacement of the GFRP bars in the N100-R beam does
ur

not cause a significant reduction in deformability. However, deformability and concrete

Jo

material show an obvious correlation, and the deformability factor of the beams using

NCA and river sand far exceeds the requirement. However, the deformability factors of

the G-N100-SH and G-N0-R groups cannot meet the requirements and need to be

considered in the design. This may be due to the fact that in the beams with GFRP bars

and NCA, when river sand, sea sand, and sea sand with high shell particle contents are

used for fine aggregates respectively, the deformability factors decrease in order. While

in the beams with GFRP bars and RCA, the deformability factors show the exact

opposite trends, probably because the modulus of elasticity and other properties of

recycled concrete with sea sand or sea sand with high particles shell contents decreased.

27
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

Although the bearing capacity decreased, it was more suitable with the low modulus of

elasticity and brittle deformation characteristics of GFRP bars.

𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝜓𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝐽= (5.)
𝑀𝑐 𝜓𝑐
2𝛿
𝜓= (6.)
𝑙 2
( 𝑏) + 𝛿2
2
𝛿𝑙 + 𝛿𝑟
𝛿 = 𝛿𝑚 − (7.)
2
𝑱——Deformability factor,

𝒍𝒕 ——Ultimate moment (kN·m),

f
oo
𝒄 —— Moment corresponding to a maximum compressive concrete strain in the
section of 0.001 (kN·m),

r
𝝍 𝒍𝒕 ——Curvature at 𝒍𝒕 , -p
𝝍𝒄 —— Curvature at 𝒄,
re
𝝍——Mean curvature,
lP

𝜹——Mean deflection,
𝜹𝒎 —— Deflection in the span,
na

𝜹𝒍 ——Deflection at left loading point,

ur

𝜹𝒓 —— Deflection at right loading point,

𝒍𝒃 ——Purely curved section.
Jo

Table 9 Deformability factors of the beams

Beam S-N100-R S-N0-R G-N100-R G-N100-S G-N100-SH G-N0-R G-N0-S G-N0-SH

𝐽 11.34 4.68 13.52 4.35 3.73 2.91 5.74 7.90

4.3 Analysis on the instantaneous stiffness

The instantaneous stiffness of the beam is calculated by using Eq. (8). The stiffness

calculations for individual beams are shown in Fig. 12. Influence of reinforcement,

coarse aggregate, fine aggregate on instantaneous stiffness are respectively

demonstrated in Fig. 12(a)-(c). The vertical dashed lines in Fig. 12(a) show the cracking

loads, and the reason why they are not shown in Figs. 12(b) and (c) is that they are too

28
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

close to be meaningful. After the beams crack, the stiffnesses of all beams decrease

significantly, the degree of involvement of the bars in the work of the beam is

strengthened, and the cross-sectional stiffness is more dependent on the performance of

the tensile bars. The stiffnesses of GFRP bars reinforced beams after cracking are much

lower than those of steel reinforced concrete beams under the same conditions, the

residual stiffnesses of steel reinforced beams can still be maintained at about 1/3 of

those before cracking, the residual stiffnesses of GFRP bars reinforced beams are less

f
oo
than 1/10 of those before cracking.

r
Before cracking, the use of NCA could improve the stiffness of the concrete. Once -p
re
cracked, the coarse aggregate had little effect on the instantaneous stiffnesses of the
lP

beams. It could be concluded that the type of fine aggregate had no significant effect

on the stiffnesses of the concrete beams as shown in Fig. 12(c).

na

𝑃𝑖+1 − 𝑃𝑖
𝑘= (8.)
ur

𝛿𝑖+1 − 𝛿𝑖
𝑷𝒊+𝟏 —— Load at the i+1st moment,
Jo

𝑷𝒊 ——Load at the i-th moment,

𝜹𝒊+𝟏 —— Deflection at the i+1st moment,

𝜹𝒊 —— Deflection at the i-th moment.

G-N100-R S-N100-R G-N0-R S-N0-R

140 S-N100-R 140
140 S-N0-R
Instantaneous stiffness (kN/mm)
(kN/mm)

G-N0-R
(kM/mm)

120 G-N100-R 120

120
Instantaneous stiffness (kM/mm)

100 100
100
stiffness
stiffness

80 80
80

60 60
Instantaneous

60
Instantaneous

40 40
40

20 20
20

00 00
0 50
50 100 150
150 200 250 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250250
Load
Load(kN)
(kN) Load
Load(kN)
(kN)

29
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

(a) Influences of reinforcement on the instantaneous stiffnesses of the beams

140 G-N100-R 140

140 S-N100-R
140

Instantaneous stiffness (kN/mm)

Instantaneous stiffness (kN/mm)
G-N0-R S-N0-R
120 120
120 120

Instantaneous stiffness (kM/mm)

Instantaneous stiffness (kM/mm)

100
100 100
100

80
80 80
80

60
60 60
60

40
40 40
40
20
20 20
20

00 00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250
Load Load (kN)
Load(kN)
(kN) Load (kN)

(b) Influences of coarse aggregate on the instantaneous stiffnesses of the beams

140
140 G-N100-R 140 G-N0-R
140

f
Instantaneous stiffness (kN/mm)

Instantaneous stiffness (kN/mm)

120 G-N100-S G-N0-S

oo
120 120
120
Instantaneous stiffness (kM/mm)

G-N100-SH

Instantaneous stiffness (kM/mm)

G-N0-SH
100
100 100
100
80
80 80
80

r
60
60 60
60
40
40
20
20
-p 40
40
20
20
re
00 00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250250 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250250
Load (kN) Load (kN)
Load (kN)
lP

Load (kN)

(c) Influences of fine aggregate on the instantaneous stiffnesses of the beams

na

Fig. 12 Influencing factors for the instantaneous stiffnesses

5. Conclusions
ur

In this paper, an experimental study on the serviceability of GFRP bars reinforced

Jo

SSRAC beams was conducted to obtain the strain developments, cracking loads, failure

patterns, load-span deflection curves, and deflection distributions along the beams. The

experimental results were compared with ACI code and Chinese code to calculate and

predict the cracking loads, and the deformability and instantaneous stiffness of the beam

were analyzed. The following main conclusions can be drawn:

(1) GFRP bars reinforced SSRAC beams still meet the plane-section assumption, but

the co-working of GFRP bars with concrete is significantly inferior to that of steel with

concrete. However, the reinforcement will not significantly change the failure patterns

30
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

of the beams in the four-point flexural tests under the same conditions.

(2) GFRP bars significantly decreased the cracking loads of concrete beams, while

the type of fine aggregates had a slight effect on the cracking load. The crack

development patterns of both types of beams were similar. However, the differences are

the locations, directions, and degrees of crack developments. However, there were

enough warning signs before the failure in GFRP or steel bars reinforced beams.

(3) The deflection-load curves of the steel reinforced beams are smooth overall,

f
oo
whereas the load-deflection curves of the GFRP bars reinforced beams have many

r
-p
jagged fluctuations. The serviceability limit loads for steel reinforced beams, GFRP
re
bars reinforced SSRAC beams and GFRP bars reinforced seawater sea sand natural
lP

concrete beams are recommended to be 0.7Mu, 0.3Mu, and 0.5Mu, respectively.

(4) GFRP bars did not cause a significant decrease in deformability. The
na

deformability showed a significant correlation with concrete material, and most of the
ur

groups could meet the deformability requirements of CSA S6-10.

Jo

(5) After cracking, the stiffnesses of GFRP bars reinforced beams were much lower

than those of steel reinforced concrete members under the same conditions. The use of

natural coarse aggregates could increase the stiffnesses of concrete beams before

cracking, while the type of fine aggregates had no significant effect on the stiffnesses

of concrete beams.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC, No. 52078358, 52008304) and National Key
R&D Program of China (2022YFC3803400).
REFERENCES

31
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

[1] M. Bendixen, J. Best, C. Hackney, L. L. Iversen, Time is running out for sand, Nature. 571 (7763)
(2019) 29-31.
[2] P. Pascal, Sand, rarer than one thinks, Environ. Dev. 11 (2014) 208-218.
[3] A. Torres, J. Brandt, K. Lear, J. Liu, A looming tragedy of the sand commons, Science. 357
(6355) (2017) 970-971.
[4] M. Gavriletea, Environmental impacts of sand exploitation analysis of sand market,
Sustainability. 9 (7) (2017) 1118.
[5] M. Bendixen, I. Overeem, M. T. Rosing, A. A. Bjørk, K. H. Kjær, A. Kroon, G. Zeitz, L. L.
Iversen, Promises and perils of sand exploitation in Greenland, Nat. Sustain. 2 (2) (2019) 98-
104.
[6] British Marine Aggregate Production Association (BMAPA). Aggregate from the sea, 1995.
[7] J. Xiao, C. Qiang, A. Nanni, Use of sea-sand and seawater in concrete construction- Current status
and future opportunities, Constr. Build. Mater. 155 (2017) 1101-1111.

f
[8] J. Zeng, W. Gao, Z. Duan, Y. Bai, Y. Guo, L. Ouyang, Axial compressive behavior of

oo
polyethylene terephthalate/carbon FRP-confined seawater sea-sand concrete in circular
columns, Constr. Build. Mater. 234 (2020) 117383.

r
[9] M. Lai, K. Wu, X. Ou, M. Zeng, C. Li, J. C. M. Ho, Effect of concrete wet packing density on the
-p
uni‐axial strength of manufactured sand CFST columns, Structural concrete: Journal of the
FIB. 23 (4) (2022) 2615-2629.
re
[10] Z. Wang, X. Zhao, G. Xian, G. Wu, R. K. Singh Raman, S. Al-Saadi, A. Haque, Long-term
durability of basalt- and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP/GFRP) bars in seawater and sea
lP

sand concrete environment, Constr. Build. Mater. 139 (2017) 467-489.

[11] W. Jung, Y. Yoon, Y. Sohn, Predicting the remaining service life of land concrete by steel
na

corrosion, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (5) (2003) 663-677.

[12] X. Hu, J. Xiao, K. Zhang, Q. Zhang, The state-of-the-art study on durability of FRP reinforced
ur

concrete with seawater and sea sand, J. Build. Eng. 51 (2022) 104294.
[13] K. Zhang, J. Xiao, Y. Hou, Q. Zhang, Experimental study on carbonation behavior of seawater
Jo

sea sand recycled aggregate concrete, Adv. Struct. Eng. 25 (5) (2022) 927-938.
[14] J. Teng, FRP composites in new construction current status and opportunities, In: Proceedings of
the 7th National Conference on FRP Composites in Infrastructure, 2011 (Hangzhou, Zhejiang).
[15] X. Z. Zike Wang, G. W. Guijun Xian, A. S. R. K. Singh Raman, 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 (2017).
[16] J. Xiao, K. Zhang, A. Akbarnezhad, Variability of stress-strain relationship for recycled aggregate
concrete under uniaxial compression loading, J. Clean. Prod. 181 (2018) 753-771.
[17] K. Zhang, J. Xiao, X. Hu, Q. Zhang, Bearing capacity of seawater sea sand recycled aggregate
concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer bars, Adv. Struct. Eng. 0 (0)
(2023) 1-16.
[18] C. Wang, J. Xiao, C. Zhang, X. Xiao, Structural health monitoring and performance analysis of a
12-story recycled aggregate concrete structure, Eng. Struct. 205 (2020) 110102.
[19] J. Sun, Z. Ding, X. Li, Z. Wang, Bond behavior between BFRP bar and basalt fiber reinforced
seawater sea-sand recycled aggregate concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 285 (2021) 122951.
[20] Z. Xiong, W. Wei, S. He, F. Liu, H. Luo, L. Li, Dynamic bond behaviour of fibre-wrapped basalt
fibre-reinforced polymer bars embedded in sea sand and recycled aggregate concrete under

32
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

high-strain rate pull-out tests, Construction Building Materials. 276 (2021) 122195.
[21] K. Zhang, Q. Zhang, J. Xiao, Durability of FRP bars and FRP bar reinforced seawater sea sand
concrete structures in marine environments, Constr. Build. Mater. 350 (2022) 128898.
[22] J. Limeira, M. Etxeberria, L. Agulló, D. Molina, Mechanical and durability properties of concrete
made with dredged marine sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (11) (2011) 4165-4174.
[23] M. Guo, B. Hu, F. Xing, X. Zhou, M. Sun, L. Sui, Y. Zhou, Characterization of the mechanical
properties of eco-friendly concrete made with untreated sea sand and seawater based on
statistical analysis, Constr. Build. Mater. 234 (2020) 117339.
[24] J. Xiao, P. Zhang, Q. Zhang, J. Shen, Y. Li, Y. Zhou, Basic mechanical properties of seawater
sea-sand recycled concrete, Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering. 35 (2) (2018) 16-22.
[25] J. Xiao, Q. Zhang, P. Zhang, L. Shen, C. Qiang, Mechanical behavior of concrete using seawater
and sea‐sand with recycled coarse aggregates, Struct. Concr. 20 (5) (2019) 1634-1643.
[26] J. M. Lees, C. J. Burgoyne, Transfer bound stresses generated between FRP tendons and concrete,

f
Mag. Concr. Res. 51 (4) (1999) 229-239.

oo
[27] A. El-Nemr, E. A. Ahmed, A. El-Safty, B. Benmokrane, Evaluation of the flexural strength and
serviceability of concrete beams reinforced with different types of GFRP bars, Eng. Struct. 173

r
(2018) 606-619.
-p
[28] A. El-Nemr, E. A. Ahmed, B. Benmokrane, Flexural behavior and serviceability of normal- and
high-strength concrete beams reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars, ACI Struct.
re
J. 110 (6) (2013) 1077-1087.
[29] M. Goldston, A. Remennikov, M. N. Sheikh, Experimental investigation of the behaviour of
lP

concrete beams reinforced with GFRP bars under static and impact loading, Eng. Struct. 113
(2016) 220-232.
na

[30] Z. Xiong, W. Wei, F. Liu, C. Cui, L. Li, R. Zou, Y. Zeng, Bond behaviour of recycled aggregate
concrete with basalt fibre-reinforced polymer bars, Compos. Struct. 256 (2021) 113078.
ur

[31] M. Baena, L. Torres, A. Turon, M. Llorens, C. Barris, Bond behaviour between recycled
aggregate concrete and glass fibre reinforced polymer bars, Constr. Build. Mater. 106 (2016)
Jo

449-460.
[32] American Society of Testing Materials, Materials, ASTM D1141-98: Standard practice for the
preparation of substitute ocean water. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2013.
[33] F. Shahidi, L. D. Wegner, B. F. Sparling, Investigation of bond between fibre-reinforced polymer
bars and concrete under sustained loads, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 33 (11) (2006) 1426-1437.
[34] Y. Tang, H. Chen, J. Xiao, Size effects on the characteristics of fracture process zone of plain
concrete under three-point bending, Constr. Build. Mater. 315 (2022) 125725.
[35] Y. Tang, H. Chen, Characterizations on fracture process zone of plain concrete, J. Civ. Eng.
Manag. 25 (8) (2019) 819-830.
[36] H. H. Chen, R. K. L. Su, Tension softening curves of plain concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 44
(2013) 440-451.
[37] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China, GB
50010-2010: Code for design of concrete structures. Beijing, China, 2015.
[38] American Concrete Institute, ACI 318-05: Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary. USA, 2018.
[39] C. Kassem, A. S. Farghaly, B. Benmokrane, Evaluation of flexural behavior and serviceability
performance of concrete beams reinforced with FRP bars, J. Compos. Constr. 15 (5) (2011)

33
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Building Engineering

682-695.
[40] Canadian Standards Association. CSA, Canadian highway bridge design code. Mississauga, 2010.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

34
Highlights:

➢ GFRP bar reinforced recycled concrete beams with seawater and sea sand are

tested and analyzed.

➢ Cooperation of GFRP bars with concrete, cracking, and deflection development

are analyzed.

➢ Deformability and instantaneous stiffness of beams are calculated and discussed.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or

personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this

paper.

f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo