Durability of GFRP and CFRP Bars in the Pore Solution of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement Concrete Made with Fresh or Seawater
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calcium sulfoaluminate cement concrete (CSAC) reinforced by fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars, termed bars for brevity, is a good alternative to steel-reinforced concrete in marine environments due to the corrosion resistance of FRP and the lower pH of CSAC. For the first time, multi-mechanical tests are conducted to compare the durability of glass FRP (GFRP) to that of carbon FRP (CFRP) after exposure to CSAC pore solution. The bars were immersed in a simulated pore solution of CSAC made with either fresh water and river sand or with seawater and sea sand. Solution temperature was held constant at 30 °C, 45 °C or 60 °C for 30, 60, 90 and 180 days of immersion. Tensile, horizontal and transverse shear tests, as well as detailed microstructural analyses, were conducted to determine the level and mechanisms of degradation for each type of bar. Sea salt increases the degradation of both bars, but it degrades GFRP more than CFRP. The bars' retained tensile strength is a reliable indicator of their durability, while their post-exposure horizontal and transverse shear strengths are found inconsistent and counter intuitive. In the GFRP, the fiber, the epoxy matrix and their interface suffered damage, but in the CFRP, the carbon fiber was not damaged. Under the test conditions in this study, the maximum reduction in the tensile strength of the GFRP was 56.9% while that of CFRP was 15.1%. Based on the relevant ASTM standard, the CFRP bar satisfies the alkaline resistance requirement of the standard in the CSAC pore solution with and without salt, whereas the GFRP bar does not meet the same requirement in the above pore solution with salt.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".