Durability of GFRP and BFRP Bars in Sulfoaluminate Cement Concrete Made with Seawater and Sea Sand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the large carbon footprint of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and the rapid corrosion of steel rebars in certain environments, the search for greener, sustainable and more durable reinforced concrete structures is ongoing. In this study, the alkali resistance of basalt- and glass-fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP/GFRP) bars in sulfoaluminate cement (SAC) concrete made with seawater and sea sand is investigated for the first time. Production of SAC involves lower energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission compared to OPC while SAC concrete provides a lower pH environment, which favors the durability of FRP bars. Following ASTM D 7705-D7705M-12 Procedure A, the bars were immersed for three months in simulated pore solution of concrete made with SAC, river sand and fresh water, termed Solution A, and compared their durability to that of companion bars immersed in simulated pore solution of concrete made with SAC, seawater, and sea sand, termed Solution B. Both solutions had the same pH, and their temperature was maintained at 60℃ for the duration of the test. The post-immersion or retained tensile strength of GFRP bars in Solution A and B was 83.0% and 73.6%, respectively, while the corresponding values for the BFRP bars were 52.5% and 67.9%, respectively. It appears that due to the presence of sea salt, Solution B is less damaging to BFRP than Solution A while the opposite is true in the case of GFRP. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) results are utilized to explain the damage mechanisms. Based on image analysis, it is shown that the deteriorated zone within the bar cross-section is not a uniform ring, but its cross-sectional area correlates with the reduction in tensile strength.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".