Effects of Seawater Exposure for One Year on Hollow-core

Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Confined Concrete Cylinders

Subjected to Severe Environmental Conditions
Mohamed ElGawady

Song Wang

Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering,

Missouri University of Science and Technology, USA

1
Introduction
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reported in 2017:

Structurally Deficient Bridges

9%
Repairment Cost
$32 billion
2
Introduction

3
Introduction

4
5
Introduction
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Confined Concrete Column !!!

Concrete Filled FRP Hollow-Core FRP-

Tube (CFFT) Concrete-Steel (HC-FCS)

Confinement

Protection

Durability
6
Self-consolidating concrete (SCC)

SCC mix proportions

▪ average 28th day compressive

strength: 46.5 MPa (6.7 ksi)

7
Introduction
ACI 440.2R

8
Research Significance

Here are the gaps…

▪ Sustained load during conditioning

▪ Polyester-based FRP

▪ Self-consolidating concrete (SCC)

▪ Combined freeze/thaw, heating/cooling, and wet/dry cycles

▪ HC-FCS
9
Research Plan

Poly. Epoxy
3 UV Chamber
Envr. Chamber
w/ Water

2
Epoxy
Seawater CFFT
Immersion

4
Poly.
CFFT
Poly.
HC-FCS
Envr. Chamber
1 Poly.
CFFT
Poly.
HC-FCS

10
1.1. Specimen preparation

Test matrix for all the specimens (Both CFFT and HC-FCS)

Specimens Height (in.) Quantity Conditioning Loaded Post-conditioned tests

12 3
Unconditioned
No No
Unloaded (UU)
9 1
12 in. height:
Compression
12 3
Conditioned Unloaded
Yes No
(CU) 9 in. height: Split-disk
9 1
tensile, SEM, EDX,
FTIR, and DSC
12 3
Conditioned Loaded
Yes Yes
(CL)
9 1
11
 ▪ Epoxy coating

▪ Concrete core properties

12
1.2. Load frame setup
Dywidag rods
nut
anchor triangle plate

load cell

hydraulic jack

nut
top triangle plate

four cylinders in series

middle round plate

HC-FCS CFFT
nut

▪ Sustained load: 10% of the compressive strength of the cylinder 13

2.1. Test matrix

Cylinder Sustained Water Post-conditioned

Specimen Quantity Stored location
height (in.) load immersion test(s)
12 3
UC Laboratory No No
9 1

12 3
NLNW No No
9 1 12 in. high -
compression test
12 3
NLW No Yes
9 1 9 in. high - split-disk
Environmental tensile, SEM, EDX,
12 3 Chamber and FTIR tests
LNW Yes No
9 1

12 3
LW Yes Yes
9 1
14
2.2. Load frame setups

LNW

NLW
NLNW

LW
LW

15
1.3. Environmental Exposure Regime (72 days)

Condition Type Freeze/Thaw Heating/Cooling 1st Wet/Dry 2nd Wet/Dry 3rd Wet/Dry
-20°C 20°C 60% RH 60% RH 60% RH
Temperature/
to 10°C to 45°C to 95% RH to 95% RH to 95% RH
RH Range
@ 40% RH @ 40% RH @ 20°C @ 25°C @ 40°C 16
Seawater Immersion

Cylinder Height Temperature

Specimens Quantity Post-conditioned tests
(in.) (°F)
12 3
UC NA
9 1
12 12 12 in. height:
T1 73 Compression
9 4
9 in. height: Split-disk
12 12 tensile, SEM, EDX,
T2 95
9 4 FTIR, and DSC
12 12
T3 140
9 4

▪ HC-FCS: 51 specimens
▪ CFFT: 51 specimens
17
4.1. Tank setup
5.5
nut 20.0 20.0
anchor plate
6.75 HSS 6.0 8.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 8.0 6.0
load cell steel plate hole for Dywidag bar
Dywidag
18.0
bar hydraulic jack 2.5
2.5

steel plate 8.0 HC-FCS CFFT

5.75
3.0 concrete
4.0 block
11.0
12.0
40.038.0 40.0 50.0
plastic tank
114.75 11.0 12.3 R3.3
12.0 HC-FCS
and CFFT
8.0 4.4
12.0
2.5
steel plate plastic tank 2.5
13.0 HSS
coil spring
steel plate 6.0 5.5 5.5 12.0 5.5 5.5 6.0
HSS
46.0
17.25 steel beam
48.0

anchor plate
5.5 nut Top View
Front View 18
19
20
Task 1: Envr. Chamber (Phase I)
140% 280

120% 240
Target load 200 kN
Load Retention 100% 200

Axial Load (kN)

80% 160

60% 120

40% 80

20% 40

0% 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (days)

Load relaxation and reloading process

21
▪ Three replicated tanks
▪ Seawater temperatures: 73ºF
(23ºC), 95ºF (35ºC) and 140ºF
(60ºC). (T1, T2, T3)
▪ Simulated seawater: 3.5% NaCl by
mass with pH=8.2 per ASTM D1141
▪ Duration: 90, 200, 300 and 450
days. (P1, P2, P3, P4)

▪ Sustained load: 10% of the

cylinders’ compressive strength
22
▪ UV chamber: 6 epoxy, 6 polyester;
▪ Control: 6 epoxy, 6 polyester. 23
3.3. Surface detection results

Epoxy
▪ Epoxy yellowing
▪ Lost of gloss

Polyester
▪ Nothing

24
1.4. Compression test setup

LVDT-3
SG-3
Concrete FRP tube

SG-4 SG-2

LVDT-1 LVDT-2
SG-1
25
1.5. Split-disk tensile test setup

groove
sections
strain
gauge

strain strain
gauge gauge

26
1.6. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
and Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX)

27
1.7. Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy
& Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

FTIR transmission 28
 UU CU
Concrete

75 um
Concrete 73 um
FRP

FRP

CL

FRP
Concrete
34 um

29
 T1P2

unfilled resin holes

30
 T2P2

fiber/resin
interphase
debonding

31
 T3P2

fiber cracks

resin cracks

32
 T1P4
resin cracks

fiber crack
fiber/resin
interphase
debonding

fiber/resin interphase
debonding

33
 T2P4

fiber cracks resin cracks

resin cracks

34
 T3P4
resin cracks
fiber/resin
interphase
debonding

fiber cracks
35
1.10. EDX results
▪ Possible reaction for glass fibers at the outer surface (leaching)

Si-O-Na + H 2O → Si-OH + Na + OH + -

2+
Ca
Mg 2+
3+
Al

▪ Contents of Na, Ca, Mg, Al are reduced if reaction occurred

36
MFR outer fiber UU outer fiber
C 2.99% C 12.49%
O 34.11% O 35.36%
Si 32.48% Si 25.23%
Na 0.58% Na 1.19%
Mg 1.38% Mg 1.84%
Al 9.55% Al 7.72%
Ca 18.20% Ca 16.17%

CU outer fiber CL outer fiber

C 10.05% C 3.50%
O 32.27% O 39.74%
Si 28.07% Si 30.08%
Na 1.08% Na 0.48%
Mg 1.58% Mg 1.17%
Al 8.93% Al 8.74%
Ca 18.04% Ca 16.30%

37
 0.5

0.4
Absorbance

0.3
OH CH

0.2 OH/CH
MFR 1.01 MFR outer resin
UU 0.99 UU outer resin
0.1
CU 1.02 CU outer resin
CL 1.00 CL outer resin
0
4000 3700 3400 3100 2800 2500
Wavenumbers (cm-1)
38
1.12. DSC Results
-1.6 -1.4
UU CU
-1.65 -1.45
Heat Flow (W/g)

Heat Flow (W/g)

-1.7 -1.5

-1.75 -1.55
1st Run Tg=133.2°C 1st Run Tg=132.9°C
2nd Run Tg=134.2°C 2nd Run Tg=133.7°C
-1.8 -1.6
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Exo Up Temperature ( C) Exo Up Temperature ( C)
-2.7
CL
-2.75 Tg (°C)
Sample
Heat Flow (W/g)

-2.8
1st Run 2nd Run
-2.85
UU 133.2 134.2
-2.9

-2.95 1st Run Tg=133.3°C CU 132.9 133.7

2nd Run Tg=133.8°C
-3 CL 133.3 133.8
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 39
Exo Up
Temperature ( C)
1.13. Compression test results

CL
▪ Concrete: one major crack relatively high compressive strength (8 ksi)
▪ Conditioned specimens: abrupt and larger acoustic emission at the time
of failure freeze/thaw cycles embrittled FRP tubes 40
 140%
Norm. Max Stress
120% Max Axial Strain
Max Hoop Strain
100%
Retention

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
UU CU CL 41
1.14. Split-disk tensile test results
140%
Max Stress
120%
Max Strain
Retention 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
UU CU CL
42
2.3. FTIR test results

43
 Specimen OH CH OH/CH
UC 1.057 1.007 1.050
NLNW 0.944 0.921 1.025
LNW 1.041 1.014 1.027
NLW 0.767 0.633 1.212
LW 0.602 0.437 1.378

▪ Bonded water formed during water immersion

▪ Additional load caused micro-cracks, attracted more water

44
2.4. Compression test results

▪ Lamina delamination, compared to abrupt rupture, provides CFFT extra strain capacity
45
 Max f'cc f'c Max normalized stress Max axial strain
Specimen
(ksi) (ksi) (f'cc/f'c) (%)
Average 1.107 2.652
UC COV 10.241 9.254 5% 6%
Retention 100% 100%
Average 1.058 2.622
NLNW COV 10.604 10.022 2% 7%
Retention 96% 99%
Average 1.044 2.604
LNW COV 10.467 10.022 3% 10%
Retention 94% 98%
Average 1.020 2.484
NLW COV 10.477 10.268 6% 4%
Retention 92% 94%
Average 1.004 2.439
LW COV 10.309 10.268 7% 10%
Retention 91% 92%

▪ Both water immersion and sustained load further deteriorate

stress and strain capacities slightly 46
 Epoxy

Before UV After UV
47
Task 3: UV Chamber

Polyester

Before UV After UV
48
3.4. Split-disk tensile results

epoxy max stress (ksi) max strain (%)

Average 45.2 1.3
MFR COV 0% 11%
Retention 100% 100%
Average 44.8 1.2
UV COV 1% 13%
Retention 99% 98%

polyester max stress (ksi) max strain (%)

Average 30.8 1.0
MFR COV 3% 6%
Retention 100% 100%
Average 30.5 1.0
UV COV 4% 7%
Retention 99% 100%
49
4.3. Compression test results

UC

50
51
Local buckling Elephant footing
52
 110%
Normalized Strength
100%

90%
Retention

80%

70% Tank 1 (73 F)

Tank 2 (95 F)
60%
Tank 3 (140 F)
50%
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (days)
53
 110%
Axial Strain
100%

90%
Retention

80%

70%
Tank 1 (73 F)
60% Tank 2 (95 F)
Tank 3 (140 F)
50%
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (days)
54
4.4. Long-term performance prediction

Arrhenius model
1
▪ conditioned 0.95
in an aqueous environment with at least three

Normalized Strength Retention

y = -0.122ln(x) + 1.4845
0.9
elevated temperatures; R² = 0.9767
0.85
▪ mechanical property
0.8 of the material mush be obtained at a
0.75
minimum of three
0.7 time periods during conditioning;
y = -0.163ln(x) + 1.6616
R² = 0.974
0.65
y = -0.181ln(x) + 1.722
▪ elevated temperatures
0.6
cannot approach the glass
R² = 0.9825
transition
temperature0.55
of the material;
0.5
▪ regression lines
10 100
of property retention
Time (days)
1000
vs. log 10000
time must have an
R-squared value no smaller than 0.8.
55
Task 3: Seawater Immersion

HC-FCS
1.2
San Francisco (55 F)
1.0

Strength Retention
0.8

0.6

0.4 y = -0.071ln(x) + 0.872

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200
Time (years)

x=50 y=0.59
x=100 y=0.55
56
Task 3: Seawater Immersion

CFFT
1.1
San Francisco (55 F)
1.0

Strength Retention
0.9

0.8
y = -0.02ln(x) + 0.9532
0.7

0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (years)

x=50 y=0.88
x=100 y=0.86
57
4.6. Conclusions
▪ Seawater immersion did not affect the GFRP tube chemically. However, the
absorbed moisture caused micro-cracks in the resin and debonding between
fiber/resin interphase due to swelling stresses
▪ As seawater immersion time passed, the maximum normalized strength and
maximum axial strain capacity of the CFFT and HC-FCS cylinders were degraded
continuously. The elevated temperature increased the moisture absorption rate of
the GFRP and cracks and debondings appeared earlier in the GFRP tube.
▪ CFFT bridge columns built in marine environment at San Francisco, USA, are
estimated to be degraded by 12% and 14% at 50-year and 100-year, respectively, in
normalized strength. The HC-FCS cylinders built in the same area are degraded by
41% and 45% for 50 and 100 years, respectively.
58
2.5. Conclusions
▪ Combined freeze/thaw, wet/dry and heating/cooling cycles barely degrade the
strength and axial strain of the epoxy-based CFFT.
▪ Both water immersion and sustained load further deteriorate stress and strain
capacities of epoxy-based CFFTs slightly.
▪ The conditioned CFFTs dissipate more energy than the unconditioned ones under
cyclic compression, due to the repeated opening and closing of the micro-cracks
among the epoxy of the GFRP tubes.
▪ In consideration of cost and especially when the CFFT is used in a regular non-
seismic area where high ductility and energy dissipation capacity are not
necessarily desired, the polyester-based GFRP tube could be a better option.

59
3.5. Conclusions

▪ Epoxy resin are more vulnerable to UV exposure than polyester resin, causing
yellowing and chalking.
▪ UV exposure barely affect the mechanical properties of both epoxy-based and
polyester-based GFRP

60
Thank you!

61
Fiber Matrix General View

62
Task 1: Literature Review

Fiber (Glass, Aramid, Carbon)

➢ Glass Fiber
▪ Most widely used due to high strength-to-cost ratio
▪ Dissolve in water due to hydrolysis (leaching) very slow process

▪ Alkali break the silicone bond (etching)

➢ Aramid fiber
▪ Susceptible to moisture absorption

➢ Carbon Fiber
▪ Inert to chemical solutions and do not absorb water
63
Task 1: Literature Review

Resin (Polyester, Vinylester, Epoxy)

➢ What’s in common?

▪ Moisture
• plasticization reduced modulus (reversible)
• reduce glass transition temperature (Tg)
• induce swelling stress upon moisture sorption micro-cracks

▪ Temperature
• Large differences in coefficients of thermal expansion (CTEs)
upon temperature change induce residual stress micro-
cracks
• High temperature reduced modulus
• Sub-zero temperature stiffer but brittle

64
Task 1: Literature Review

Resin (Polyester, Vinylester, Epoxy)

➢ Polyester
▪ Susceptible to hydrolysis, very slow process but can be catalyzed at
the presence of acid or alkali (not reversible)

➢ Vinylester
▪ Less vulnerable to hydrolysis due to fewer ester groups and covered
with methyl functional groups, which do not react with water.

➢ Epoxy
▪ No hydrolysis since no ester group, but can adsorb up to 7%
moisture by weight due to large amount of hydrophilic hydroxyl
groups that attract water molecules plasticization (reversible)

65
Task 1: Literature Review

Fiber/Resin Interphase
▪ Inhomogeneous anisotropic region with thickness of one micron

▪ Transfer loads between fiber and resin

▪ Bonding mechanisms:
• chemical bonds
• Van der Waals forces
• interdifussion
• residual stresses
• mechanical interlocking

▪ Readily damaged by concentrated stresses due to

moisture/temperature change

▪ Moisture wick through hydrolysis osmotic cracks and

interphase debonding
66
Task 2: Environmental Chamber

PHASE I: POLYESTER-BASED GFRP TUBE

2.1. Materials properties
2.1.1. GFRP
▪ Filament winding process using isothalic polyester thermosetting
resins and E-glass fibers at + 53° winding angles
Dimensions and mechanical properties of the GFRP tube

▪ Coupon and split-disk tensile tests

▪ Laboratory: ASTM D3039 and ASTM D2290
▪ Manufacturer: ASTM D2105 and ASTM D1599

67
Task 2: Environmental Chamber

2.1.3. Steel Tube

▪ outer diameter of 102 mm (4 in.) and wall thickness of 1.9 mm
(0.075 in.)
▪ Compression tests on steel tubes
▪ Tensile tests on steel coupons

Mechanical properties of the steel tube

68
Task 2: Environmental Chamber
2.2. Specimen Preparation
Specimen Preparation Matrix

unconditioned unloaded (control) conditioned unloaded conditioned loaded

Number of Speciems
(UC) (FT) (FT+S)

12 in. high 3 3 3
CFFT
9 in. high 1 1 1
12 in. high 3 3 3
HC-FCS
9 in. high 1 1 1
▪ 12 in. high specimens: compression tests

▪ 9 in. high specimens: split-disk tensile tests, scanning electron

microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX), fourier-
transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and differential scanning
calorimetry (DSC)

▪ Cured in room temperature and covered with plastic cloth only

▪ Coated with a thin layer of epoxy.on top and bottom surfaces

▪ At least three 4 in. × 8 in. unconfined concrete cylinders were prepared

for each scenario and went through the same condition 69
Task 2: Environmental Chamber
2.7. Stress-Strain Curve
1.4 1.4

▪ Three
2nd branch

1.2 1.2

piecewise 1.0
3rd branch
1.0

Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c)

Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c)

branches 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
1st branch

▪ Axial stiffness 0.4

CFFT_UC_1
0.4

CFFT_FT+S_1

did not change 0.2 CFFT_UC_2

CFFT_UC_3
0.2
CFFT_FT+S_2

significantly 0.0
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Hoop Strain (%) Axial Strain (%) Hoop Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

▪ Stiffness of the 1.4 1.4

GFRP tube in 1.2 1.2

hoop direction

Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c)

1.0 1.0
Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c)

were barely 0.8 0.8

affected by the 0.6 0.6

environmental 0.4 0.4

CFFT_UC
CFFT_FT_1
conditioning 0.2 CFFT_FT_2
CFFT_FT_3
0.2 CFFT_FT
CFFT_FT+S

0.0 0.0
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Hoop Strain (%) Axial Strain (%) Hoop Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

70
Task 2: Environmental Chamber
2.9. Cyclic Compression and Energy Dissipation
1.4 1.4

▪ Dissipated energy 1.2 1.2

was calculated as

Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c)

Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c)
1.0 1.0

the area included 0.8 0.8

by each loop 0.6 0.6

cycle, and the 0.4 0.4

CFFT_UC_3 CFFT_FT_3
value from every 0.2
CFFT_FT_3
0.2
CFFT_FT+S_2

first loop were 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0
Axial Strain (%)
1.5 2.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0
Axial Strain (%)
1.5 2.0

taken accordingly

▪ Control specimen 1.4 7000

dissipated most Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c) 1.2 6000

Dissipated Energy (lb * in)

1.0 5000
energy while the
0.8 4000
conditioned loaded 0.6 3000

performed the 0.4 2000

worst 0.2
CFFT_UC_3
1000
CFFT_UC_3
CFFT_FT_3
CFFT_FT+S_2 CFFT_FT+S_2
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

71
Task 1: Envr. Chamber (Phase I)

1.4
2nd branch
1.2

Normalized Stress (f'cc/f'c) 1.0

3rd branch
0.8

0.6
1st branch
0.4

0.2
CFFT_UC
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Axial Strain (%)

72
Task 3: Seawater Immersion

2.4
2.2

Steel Tube Local Axial Strain (%)

2
1.8
T1
1.6
1.4
M2
1.2
1
B1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 B2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Cylinder Global Axial Strain (%)

73
Background

Temp. &
FRP Low
High Temp. Moisture Moisture UV
Components Temp.
Cycles
plasticization: absorb 7% chalking
Epoxy elastic modulus reduce elastic mositure by and
stiffer
reduced; modulus and Tg weight yellowing
Resin but micro-cracks
degraded if swelling: micro- hydrolysis
Poly- brittle high
exceed Tg cracks due to by hydroxyl
ester resistance
swelling stress (OH) ions
leaching, molecule weight
fiber
Glass Fiber NA NA loss and properties NA
blooming
degradation
debonding
due to
Fiber/Resin incompatible
NA NA osmotic cracks NA
Interphase deformation
between fiber
and resin

74
Task 4: Seawater Immersion
20 20
Tank 1 (73 F) Tank 2 (95 F)

Dissipated Energy (kip * in)

Dissipated Energy (kip * in)
16 16

UC UC
12 12
T1P1 T2P1
8 T1P2 8 T2P2
T1P3 T2P3
4 4
T1P4
T2P4
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Axial Strain (%) Axial Strain (%)

20
Tank 3 (140 F)

Dissipated Energy (kip * in)

16

UC
12
T3P1
8 T3P2
T3P3
4
T3P4
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Axial Strain (%)
75
Task 4: Seawater Immersion

2.0

T1

Steel Tube Axial Strain (%)

1.5

B1
1.0

M2
0.5
B2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Cylinder Axial Strain (%)

76
Task 2: Envir. Chamber w/ Water
2.2. Temperature in Air and Water

Condition Type Freeze/Thaw Heating/Cooling 1st Wet/Dry 2nd Wet/Dry 3rd Wet/Dry
-20°C 20°C 60% RH 60% RH 60% RH
Temperature/
to 20°C to 45°C to 95% RH to 95% RH to 95% RH
RH Range
@ 40% RH @ 40% RH @ 20°C @ 25°C @ 40°C

25 50
20
Freeze/Thaw Air Heating/Cooling Air
Water 45 Water
15
Temperature (ºC)

Temperature (ºC)
10 40
5
35
0
-5 30

-10 25
-15
20
-20
-25 15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (hours) Time (hours)

-5°C to 4°C 27°C to 33°C

77
Literature Review
CFFT
▪ Dry freeze/thaw cycles: insignificant (Fam et al. 2008).
▪ Wet freeze/thaw cycles: up to 10% reduction in strength and up to
20% reduction in strain (El-Zefzafy et al. 2013; Boumarafi et al. 2015).
▪ Salt solution immersion: up to 21% reduction in strength (Robert and
Fam 2012).

HC-FCS - Nothing

78
1.15. Conclusions
▪ Combined freeze/thaw, wet/dry and heating/cooling cycles barely affect
the strengths and stiffnesses of CFFT and HC-FCS, and deteriorate the
axial and hoop strains insignificantly.
▪ The sustained axial load further deteriorate the strain capacities of
CFFT and HC-FCS, due to the micro-cracks generated among the
resin. However, the sustained axial load does not affect the strengths of
the cylinders significantly.
▪ Combined environmental conditions barely affect the FRP/Concrete
interface, but the sustained load on CFFT and HC-FCS help improve
the interface contact.
79
Conclusions

▪ Epoxy-based CFFT cylinders demonstrate best durability when

subjected to combined environmental conditions, on both strength and
strain capacities.
▪ Polyester-based CFFT and HC-FCS cylinders subjected to the same
aggressive environment are also durable in strength, but are degraded
significantly in strain capacity. Considering the cost and in case
seismic resistance is not in high demand, both polyester-based CFFT
and HC-FCS are preferred because they are more economy
competitive, where HC-FCS is more advantageous in reducing the
seismic effect due to its reduced weight.
▪ For bridges built near marine area, polyester-based CFFT
demonstrates advantageous durability in strength for longer service
life period.
80