Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Effect of freeze-thaw cycles on concrete reinforced with basalt-fiber

reinforced polymers (BFRP) bars
Mohamed-Akram Khanfour, Ahmed El Refai
Department of Civil and Water Engineering, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec G1V 0A6, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines the performance of concrete beams internally reinforced with basalt fiber-
Received 30 November 2016 reinforced polymers (BFRP) bars after being subjected to freeze-thaw (FT) cycles. Prior to beam testing,
Received in revised form 23 March 2017 pullout specimens were tested after being exposed to 100 and 200 FT cycles and to a freezing tempera-
Accepted 30 March 2017
ture of
20 C. The pullout test results showed that FT cycles had a slight effect on the bond strength of
the BFRP bars. Both unconditioned and conditioned specimens showed similar bond stress-slip relation-
ships and comparable bond strengths. Exposing the pullout specimens to low temperature resulted in a
Keywords:
decrease of 10% in their bond strength. In the beam tests, half of the beams were subjected to 200 FT
Basalt fiber-reinforced polymers
Concrete beams
cycles prior to testing whereas the remaining beams were tested at room temperature. The test param-
Bond eters included the reinforcement ratio, the shear span-to-depth ratios, a/d, and the environmental
Cold regions conditioning. It was observed that conditioning changed the mode of failure of some of the tested beams
Concrete as compared to that of their unconditioned counterparts. The effect of conditioning on the failure
Conditioning mode was less pronounced in the over-reinforced beams with a/d > 2.5. Conditioning under- and
Durability over-reinforced beams with a/d = 2.5 resulted in reductions of 7.4 and 13.4%, respectively, in their load
Flexure carrying capacities. FT conditioning had a slight effect on the ductility of the tested beams regardless
Freeze-thaw
of their a/d ratio or their internal reinforcement.
Pullout
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Tensile

1. Introduction and background
Concrete structures reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) bars may suffer severe degradation when exposed to harsh
environments. Concerns about the durability of FRP-reinforced
structures are legitimate with the development of new types of
resins and composites that have not been tested in the field.
Recently, basalt fibers have emerged as alternatives to the conven-
tional, wide-spread, glass fibers to form a new type of bars, the
basalt FRP (BFRP) bars. Following this evolution, several studies
have reported on the feasibility of use and the durability of the
BFRP bars [10,11,14,12,16,18,20]. El Refai et al. [10] reported on
the bond durability of different types of BFRP bars after being con-
ditioned with tap water, seawater, elevated temperature, and a
combination of these environments. It was reported that the bond
stress-slip response was governed by the surface treatment of the
bar and its manufacturing quality. The authors concluded that
moister environments had a detrimental effect on the bond
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mohamed-akram.khanfour.1@ulaval.ca (M.-A. Khanfour),
ahmed.elrefai@gci.ulaval.ca (A. El Refai).
strength depending on the absorption characteristics of the com-
posite whereas the exposure to elevated temperatures insignifi-
cantly affected the bond strength of the bars. In another study,
Altalmas et al. [2] reported on the bond strength of BFRP bars
exposed to acid, saline, and alkaline environments for 30, 60, and
90 days. It was reported that the pullout specimens immersed in
saline and alkaline solutions for 90 days exhibited 25% reduction
in their bond strength compared to 14% for specimens immersed
in acid solution. The inter-laminar shear between the FRP layers
governed the failure of both unconditioned and conditioned spec-
imens rather than the shear stress between the bar and concrete.
On the other hand, the effect of freeze-thaw (FT) environment
on the durability of FRP-reinforced structures have received little
attention in the literature. When subjected to FT cycles, concrete
is saturated with water during the thawing phase. When water
freezes, it expands and develops high pressure in the concrete
pores. The induced stresses may exceed the tensile strength of con-
crete leading to the formation of surface and internal cracks. War-
deh et al. [21] reported on the effect of FT cycles on concrete.
Concrete cylinders (160  320 mm) were exposed to FT cycles
between
20 C and 10 C. It was reported that the number of
cracks recorded on the concrete surface significantly increased

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.237
0950-0618/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
136 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146

with the increasing number of cycles. The cracks became visible
after 60 cycles. Concrete cylinders lost 20% and 60% of their com-
pressive strength after 30 cycles and 240 cycles, respectively.
FT cycles may have detrimental effects on the mechanical prop-
erties of the FRP bars. When the bars are subjected to moisture
during FT cycles, water diffuses through the FRP matrix. Depending
on the resin type, the manufacturing quality, and the surrounding
temperature, deterioration in the resin may occur [19,13]. Bank
et al. [4] observed that the absorbed water molecules expanded
during the freezing phase. The increase in volume resulted in radial
and circumferential cracks and consequently, additional water was
absorbed inside the matrix. With the subsequent cycles of FT,
cracks increased in number and width and the expansion process
continued, which resulted in a failure phenomenon whereby the
core of unidirectional fibers was debonded from the outer surface
of the bars causing part of the bar to be pulled out of concrete
under low applied forces [4].
Moreover, FRP bars have a higher coefficient of thermal expan-
sion (CTE) than that of concrete. When subjected to FT cycles, the
FRP bar is exposed to an elongated period of freezing temperature
that causes higher contraction in the bar than in concrete. The
developed gaps between the bar and concrete resulted in loss of
bond between the two materials [15,5].
In an attempt to evaluate the bond durability of FRP bars,
Alvarez [3] exposed 50 cylinders (150  300 mm) to 100 and 200
FT cycles (2 cycles/day between
20 C and 20 C at 70% relative
humidity). The author reported that FT cycles had no effect on
the bond strength values except for the glass FRP (GFRP) bar of
19.1 mm diameter that showed a reduction in bond strength of
15% after 200 FT cycles. Davalos et al. [9] exposed 12 cylinders
(100  200 mm) to 30 FT cycles (1 cycle/day between
20 and
60 C) reinforced with GFRP and Carbon FRP (CFRP) bars. The
authors concluded that the free-end slip of the pullout test speci-
mens increased and the bond strength reduced by about 18% after
exposure. In another study, Saiedi et al. [17] tested five CFRP-
prestressed concrete beams (300  500  4400 mm) under fatigue
loading at
28 C. All specimens were monotonically loaded to
failure after being cycled. The results showed that low temperature
caused an initial slip between the bars and concrete, which
occurred at loads ranging between 70% and 90% of the ultimate
capacity of the beams. The authors concluded that the initial slip
caused by low temperature could initiate bond failure in structures
subjected to long periods of low temperature.
This paper reports on the bond durability of BFRP bars after
being exposed to cold environments (FT cycles and low tempera-
ture). It also reports on the performance of BFRP-reinforced con-
crete beams exposed to FT cycles and monotonically tested up to
failure. In the first fold, pullout tests were carried out on uncondi-
tioned and conditioned concrete cylinders reinforced with BFRP
bars. Failure mechanism and bond-slip relationships are presented.
In the second fold, the failure modes, the ultimate capacities, and
the ductility of the tested beams are presented.
2. Bond test program
The matrix of the bond test program is shown in Table 1. Thirty-
six pullout specimens were prepared according to ACI 440.3R-04
provisions [1]. The specimens consisted of standard concrete cylin-
ders of 150  300 mm concentrically reinforced with BFRP bars of
8, 10, and 12 mm diameters. All of the test specimens had a bond
length, Ld, equal to 7 times the bar diameter, db, to ensure bond fail-
ure between the BFRP bar and the surrounding concrete. Plastic
tubes were placed at the top of the embedded portion of the bar
to act as bond breakers.
The test matrix comprised four groups of specimens that were
categorized based on the exposure environment prior to testing.
Group A consisted of nine unconditioned specimens that served
as controls. Groups B and C included eighteen specimens (nine
specimens each) that were subjected to 100 and 200 FT cycles,
respectively, at a rate of 2 cycles per day as shown in Fig. 1a. Each
FT cycle consisted of a freezing phase at
25 C and a thawing
phase at 15 C. The freezing temperature was attained in 2 h
approximately and lasted for 5 h while the thawing temperature
was attained in 2 h and remained constant for 3 h. The humidity
of the environmental chamber was maintained at 50% during the
FT period. Group D included nine conditioned specimens that were
exposed to a constant freezing temperature of
20 C for 240 h.
The specimens were tested under uniaxial pullout force as
shown in Fig. 2. All specimens were instrumented with three linear
variable displacement transducers (LVDT) during testing. Two
LVDTs were used to record the bar slip relative to the concrete

Table 1
Bond test matrix and results.

Specimena No. of specimens db, ld, smax smax,fe smax,le sa, le

mm mm (MPa) (mm) (mm) MPa
Group A Unconditioned pullout specimens
B8 3b 8 56 16.6 0.1 0.6 0.6
B10 3 10 70 16.6 0.2 0.7 0.4
B12 3 12 84 14.7 0.1 0.8 0.1
Group B Pullout specimens conditioned under 100 FT cycles
B8-FT100 3 8 56 17.2 0.2 0.8 0.3
B10-FT100 3 10 70 18.2 0.1 0.8 0.3
B12-FT100 3c 12 84 19.7 0.2 1.0 0.1
Group C Pullout specimens conditioned under 200 FT cycles
B8-FT200 3 8 56 18.7 0.1 0.9 0.4
B10-FT200 3 10 70 16.8 0.1 0.6 0.3
B12-FT200 3 12 84 15.3 0.1 0.7 0.2
Group D Pullout specimens conditioned under low temperature
B8-LT 3 8 56 15.6 0.2 1.0 0.1
B10-LT 3 10 70 15 0.4 0.9 0.1
B12-LT 3 12 84 16 0.2 1.3 0.1

smax = maximum bond stress, smax,N = normalized maximum bond stress, smax,le and smax,fe = slip corresponding at maximum stress at loaded and unloaded ends, respectively.
a
FT = freeze-thaw; 100 and 200 = number of FT cycles; LT = low temperature.
b
One specimen failed by concrete splitting.
c
Two specimens failed by concrete splitting.
 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146 137

Table 2
Concrete mix constituents.

Constituent Quantity (kg/m3)

Portland cement 474
Water 211
Coarse aggregate (14 mm) 381.5
Coarse aggregate (10 mm) 230.5
Fine aggregates 912
Air entraining agent 85.5
Super-plasticizer 94.7

Table 3
Nominal and actual diameters of BFRP bars.

Nominal diameter (mm)a Bar diameter

8.00 10.00 12.00
Measured diameter (mm)b 8.63 10.20 12.42
a
Reported by the manufacturer.
b
Measured using the Archimedes method.

Table 4
Mechanical properties of BFRP bars as reported by the manufacturers.

Average tensile strength (MPa) Ultimate strain (%) Elastic modulus (GPa)
1150 2.39 48

2.1. Materials

The concrete mix used to cast the pullout specimens is given in

Fig. 1. (a) Freeze-thaw cycles adopted in this study and (b) thermocouple readings
during one day of freeze-thaw conditioning (2 cycles).
surface at the unloaded (free) end while the other LVDT recorded
the slip at the loaded ends. A data acquisition system was used
to record the applied load and the corresponding slip at a rate of
5 readings per second.
Table 2. The mix had a maximum aggregate size of 14 mm and a
water-cement ratio of 0.45. Commercial admixture was used to
increase the workability and to minimize the water-cement ratio
in the mix. The measured slump during casting was 110 mm. After
de-moulding, the cylinder specimens were stored into a curing
room at a temperature of 20 C 2 C and a humidity of about
95% for 28 days. Concrete compressive strength of 49 MPa was
achieved after 28 days of curing.
Table 3 shows the nominal and actual diameters of the BFRP
bars used. The mechanical properties of the bars as reported by
the manufacturers are given in Table 4. The BFRP bars used were

Test setup Free end

BFRP bar
Lower
Loaded end LVDTs

Loaded end

Top
Free end LVDT

Fig. 2. Pullout test setup.

138 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146
8 mm
10 mm
12 mm
Fig. 3. BFRP bars used in this study.
sand-coated on their surfaces and had shallow spiral indentations
spaced at 2.75 mm along their length as shown in Fig. 3.
Concrete cylinders were subjected to the same environmental
conditioning as the pullout specimens to assess the effect of FT
cycles and the freezing temperature on the compressive strength
0
of concrete, f c. Some cylinders were internally instrumented with
thermocouples to measure the variation in concrete temperature
during the FT cycles. Readings of the thermocouples during a rep-
resentative day (2 cycles/day) can be depicted in Fig. 1b. An
increase of 7.5 and 11.5% in fc was observed after exposure to
100 and 200 FT cycles, respectively. This increase in strength was
attributed to the further curing during conditioning. Concrete
cylinders subjected to constant freezing temperature showed no
variation in their compressive strengths. Table 5 shows the
0
recorded values of fc before and after conditioning.
3. Bond test results
The bond test results are listed in Table 1. Each listed value rep-
resent the average result of three tested specimens in each set. The
following subsections report on the main bond characteristics
observed during the tests.
3.1. Failure modes
All unconditioned and conditioned bars failed in pullout mode
except three specimens of the sets B8-FT100 (1 specimen) and
B12-FT100 (2 specimens) that failed due to splitting of the concrete
cylinder. These specimens were disregarded from subsequent bond
calculations.
At the end of each test, specimens were split to visually assess
the condition of the bar and the surrounding concrete. In all of the
tested specimens that failed in pullout mode, it was observed that
the BFRP bar surface was significantly damaged and the outer layer
of the bar was partially peeled off (delaminated) from the
subsequent bar layers. Fig. 4 shows this mode of failure for
specimen B10-FT100. White powder was detected along the whole
embedded length of the bar indicating traces of crushed resin.
Table 5
Variation in the concrete compressive strength after conditioning.
0 0
Cylinder f c , MPa (before conditioning) f c , MPa (100 FT cycles)
1 49.6 52.9
2 49.0 53.0
3 49.4 53.1
Average 49.3 53.0
Delamination of the
outer layer
Traces of resin
Fig. 4. Typical mode of failure of unconditioned and conditioned specimens
(specimen B10-FT100).
No apparent damage to concrete surrounding the bar was
observed. These findings suggest that bond failure took place along
the interfacial shear surface between the grained layer and the
subsequent core layers of the bar. Failure was therefore governed
by the shear strength along the fibres interface rather than the
shear strength between the bar and concrete. This finding indicates
the negligible effect of conditioning on the bond mechanism and
the mode of failure of the tested specimens.
3.2. Bond stress-slip response
The plots in Figs. 5 and 6 show the bond stress-slip curves of
unconditioned and conditioned sample specimens at their
unloaded and loaded ends, respectively. It is important to note that
these plots do not show the average results listed in Table 1 and
therefore are not intended to be used in comparing the bond
parameters of the tested specimens.
Similar patterns of bond-slip curves are noticed for both uncon-
ditioned and conditioned specimens indicating that conditioning
had a slight effect on the bond-slip response of the specimens.
These findings confirmed those of Chen et al. [8] who reported sim-
ilar results for GFRP and CFRP-reinforced pullout specimens sub-
jected to FT cycles. Regardless of the bar diameter, the unloaded
ends of both unconditioned and conditioned specimens showed
almost zero slip until the maximum bond stress was attained
(Fig. 5). A load drop was then observed and the bar slipped until
a fraction of the peak load was attained before slippage continued
with little or no change in the load applied. All unconditioned and
conditioned specimens showed similar responses at their loaded
ends (Fig. 6). No variation in the stiffness of the bars were observed
after conditioning. This was indicated by the similar slopes of the
bond stress-slip curves obtained.
3.3. Bond strength
Table 1 lists the bond strengths of the tested specimens. The
BFRP bars of 8 mm diameter showed a slight increase in their bond
0 0
f c , MPa (200 FT cycles) f c , MPa (Low temperature)
54.8 50.2
55.3 49.7
54.9 49.6
55.0 49.8
 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146
Fig. 5. Bond stress-slip curves of representative samples at unloaded ends. (Note: values of bond stress and slippage are not the average values listed in Table 1).
strengths after conditioning to 100 and 200 FT cycles. BFRP bars of
10 and 12 mm also showed an increase in their bond strengths
after 100 FT cycles. After 200 cycles, however, their bond strengths
reduced. On the other hand, BFRP bars of 8 and 10 mm diameters
conditioned in low temperature showed a slight decrease in their
bond strengths whereas those of 12 mm diameter showed a slight
increase.
Normalized bond strengths were calculated to offset the varia-
tion in the concrete compressive strength after conditioning. The
normalized strengths were calculated by dividing the obtained
strengths by the square root of the corresponding compressive
0
strength, fc. Fig. 7 shows the normalized strengths of all of the
tested specimens.
It can be noticed that slight variations occurred in the bond
strengths after conditioning. Discrepancies in the test results was
indicated by the non-uniform pattern of the data obtained. A max-
imum loss of bond strength of 10% was observed in specimens B10-
LT of group D.
3.4. Bar slippage
Table 1 gives the slip of the unconditioned and conditioned bars
at peak stresses. Insignificant slip values were encountered at the
unloaded ends of all of the tested specimens. At the loaded ends,
the 8 mm diameter bar exposed to 200 FT cycles exhibited
139
0.9 mm slip compared to 0.6 mm for the unconditioned ones. BFRP
bars of 10 mm and 12 mm diameter showed that specimens sub-
jected to 100 cycles of FT encountered an increase in slip of about
14% while those exposed to 200 FT cycles showed 20% decrease in
slip occurred. These findings were consistent with the slight
increase/decrease in the bond strengths of the conditioned speci-
mens as compared to the bond strengths of their unconditioned
counterparts. They also indicated the insignificant effect of the FT
cycles on the slip of the bars.
On the other hand, BFRP bars of group D having 8, 10, and
12 mm diameters showed 67, 29, and 63% increase in average slip-
page at their loaded ends, respectively, compared to their uncondi-
tioned counterparts. This increase in slippage in the conditioned
specimens was associated with a decrease in the corresponding
bond strengths.
3.5. Bar adhesion
Adhesion of the BFRP bar to concrete is defined as the bond
stress at onset of slip at the loaded end, that is the stress threshold
at which the adhesion breaks between the bar and concrete. Table 1
summarizes the average adhesion stresses obtained for the uncon-
ditioned and conditioned specimens.
It can be observed that unconditioned BFRP bars of small diam-
eters developed greater adhesion to concrete than those with large
140 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146
Fig. 6. Bond stress-slip curves of representative samples at loaded ends. (Note: values of bond stress and slippage are not the average values listed in Table 1).
Fig. 7. Effect of conditioning on the normalized bond strengths of the tested
specimens.
diameters. The 8, 10, and 12 mm diameter BFRP bars showed adhe-
sion stresses of 0.6, 0.4, and 0.1 MPa, respectively (Table 1). Condi-
tioning with FT cycles resulted in a decrease in the adhesion stress
in all of the tested specimens. The 8 mm bar showed a 50%
decrease in the adhesion stress after 100 FT cycles while the 10
and 12 mm bars showed insignificant changes in their adhesion
stresses. On the other hand, the 8 and 10 mm bars subjected to
low temperature showed decrease in their adhesion stresses of
83 and 75% of those of their unconditioned counterparts.
4. Beam test program
The beam test program consisted of 12 beams of 1800 mm long
each and a cross section of 152  254 mm as shown in Fig. 8. The
beams were categorized in two groups according to their reinforce-
ment ratios. Group 1 consisted of six beams that were reinforced in
tension with two BFRP bars of 8 mm diameter representing a rein-
forcement ratio of 0.28% (under-reinforced beams) whereas those
of group 2 were reinforced with two BFRP bars of 10 mm diameter
representing a reinforcement ratio of 0.45% (over-reinforced
beams). Half of the beams in each group were exposed to 200
cycles of FT whereas the other half acted as controls. Table 6 shows
the beams test matrix.
All beams were simply supported and tested in a four-point
loading configuration. Three shear span-to-depth ratios, a/d, of
3.1, 2.8, and 2.5 were investigated. The mid-span deflections were
measured by means of a LVDT that was placed at the soffit of the
beam during testing. All of the tested beams were instrumented
by strain gauges at midspan of the BFRP bars and concrete. A data
acquisition was used to record the strain and LVDT readings at a
rate of 5 readings per second.
 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146 141

Fig. 8. Details of the beam specimens.

Table 6
Beam test matrix and results.

Beama a (m) a/d FT cycles Pexp (kN) 0 q Mtheo (kN m) Ptheo (kN) Pexp Failure mode
f c (MPa) qbal Ptheo

Group 1: Under-reinforced beams

U8-3.1 0.68 3.1 77 49.3 0.88 24.3 71.3 1.07 Bar rupture
U8-2.8 0.61 2.8 83 49.3 0.88 24.3 79.5 1.04 Bar rupture /concrete crushing
U8-2.5 0.55 2.5 95 49.3 0.88 24.3 88.2 1.07 Bar rupture
C8-3.1 0.68 3.1 200 76 55 0.8 24.4 71.7 1.05 Concrete crushing
C8-2.8 0.61 2.8 200 86 55 0.8 24.4 80 1.07 Concrete crushing
C8-2.5 0.55 2.5 200 87 55 0.8 24.4 88.6 0.98 Concrete crushing
Group 2: Over-reinforced beams
U10-3.1 0.68 3.1 100 49.3 1.38 31.7 93.2 1.07 Shear-flexure
U10-2.8 0.61 2.8 103 49.3 1.38 31.7 104 0.99 Shear-flexure
U10-2.5 0.55 2.5 136 49.3 1.38 31.7 115 1.17 Concrete crushing
C10-3.1 0.68 3.1 200 100 55 1.25 33.5 98.6 1.01 Concrete crushing
C10-2.8 0.61 2.8 200 107 55 1.25 33.5 110 0.97 Concrete crushing
C10-2.5 0.55 2.5 200 118 55 1.25 33.5 122 0.96 Shear-flexure
a
U = Unconditioned; C = Conditioned; 8 and 10 = diameters of the BFRP bars; 3.1, 2.8, and 2.5 = span-to-depth ratio, a/d, of the tested beams.

5. Beam test results in a balanced failure where concrete in compression crushed

The beam test results are listed in Table 6. The following sub-
sections report on the beam results observed during the tests.
5.1. Failure modes and load-carrying capacities
The modes of failure of the tested beams are summarized in
Table 6 and are shown in Figs. 9 and 10 for the under- and over-
reinforced beams, respectively. The unconditioned beams rein-
forced with 28 mm BFRP bars failed in an explosive mode due
to the rupture of the BFRP bars except the beam U8-2.8 that failed
simultaneously with the rupture of the bars. This different mode
of failure was attributed to the discrepancy in the properties of
the concrete mix and/or of the BFRP bars.
On the other hand, different modes of failure were observed in
the over-reinforced unconditioned beams (group 2). Beams with
a/d > 2.5 (i.e., U10-3.1 and U10-2.8) failed in a compression
shear-flexure failure mode in which concrete in compression
crushed under the point load (Fig. 10). As the applied load
increased, flexural cracks were formed in the constant moment
zone. Close to ultimate, a large crack was formed in the shear span
and propagated towards the point load. The depth of concrete in
the compression zone gradually decreased at the cracks tip until
142 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146
a) Beam U8-3.1
Bar rupture
c) Beam U8-2.8
Concrete
crushing
Bar rupture
e) Beam U8-2.5
Concrete
Bar rupture crushing
Fig. 9. Modes of failure of the unconditioned and conditioned under-reinforced beams.
compression failure occurred. At failure, the inclined crack
made an angle of 55. Beam U10-2.5, having span-to-depth ratio
a/d = 2.5, failed by concrete crushing between the two point loads.
This mode of failure was attributed to the arch action developed,
which increased the shear resistance of the beam due to its small
a/d ratio. Close to ultimate, diagonal cracks forming a compression
strut were clearly distinguished indicating the typical mode of
failure of a short-span beam.
Prior to testing, all of the conditioned beams showed multiple
fine cracks that were developed in the tension zone. This was
attributed to the volume expansion of water during the freezing
phase, which resulted in tensile stresses that caused concrete
cracking. During the test, these fine cracks expanded rapidly with
the increase of the applied load. In fact, these cracks played the role
of crack initiators as the load increased.
The mode of failure observed for the conditioned beams of
group 1 (under-reinforced specimens) differed from that of the
unconditioned ones. While the unconditioned beams in this group
failed by the bar rupture as previously noted, all of their condi-
tioned counterparts failed by concrete crushing between the two
point loads regardless of their a/d ratio. No rupture in the BFRP bars
was observed in these specimens. Beam C8-3.1 exhibited concrete
crushing to a height equal to 40% of the beams depth (approxi-
mately 100 mm) measured from the lower fiber of the beam. Beam
C8-2.5 failed after the propagation of two major cracks that
b) Beam C8-3.1
Concrete
crushing
d) Beam C8-2.8
Concrete
crushing
f) Beam C8-2.5
Concrete
crushing
extended from the bottom fibers of the beam leading to the reduc-
tion in the compression depth until failure occurred.
On the other hand, all of the conditioned beams of group 2
failed by concrete crushing between or below one of the point
loads. Unlike their unconditioned counterparts, failure due to con-
crete crushing in beams C10-3.1 and C10-2.8 was more ductile and
the beams showed a progressive collapse of concrete layers in their
compression zone. Beam C10-2.5 failed in a compression shear-
flexure mode outside the constant moment where concrete crush-
ing was observed below the loading point.
Insignificant change occurred in the load-carrying capacities of
the tested beams having a/d > 2.5 after conditioning. This can be
depicted from the capacities listed in Table 6 for both uncondi-
tioned and conditioned beams. However, strength reduction was
observed in beams having a/d = 2.5 after exposure to FT cycles. This
reduction was more pronounced in the over-reinforced beam C10-
2.5 of group 2 due to the brittle mode of failure observed. Beams
C8-2.5 and C10-2.5 showed reductions of 7.4 and 13.4%, respec-
tively, in their load carrying capacities compared to their uncondi-
tioned counterparts.
5.2. Load-deflection relationships
Load-deflection (P-D) relationships of the tested beams are
shown in Fig. 11. Similar patterns of the P-D curves were observed
 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146
a) Beam U10-3.1
Shear-flexure
failure
c) Beam U10-2.8
Shear-flexure
failure
e) Beam U10-2.5
Concrete
crushing
Fig. 10. Modes of failure of the unconditioned and conditioned over-reinforced beams.
at mid-span for both unconditioned and conditioned specimens.
For all of the tested beams, the P-D curves consisted of three seg-
ments namely, (a) linear uncracked stage, which extended from
the onset of loading until the first crack appeared, (b) service stage,
in which the slope of the P-D curve decreased sharply indicating
the loss of stiffness of the beam and significant increases in deflec-
tion occurred. This was associated with the expansion of the exist-
ing cracks and the development of new cracks along the beams,
and finally (c) the ultimate stage, which was characterized by fur-
ther reduction in the beam stiffness and the formation of diagonal
shear cracks. The beam deflections excessively increased at this
stage until failure occurred.
Conditioning did not change the pattern of the P-D curves of the
beam. However, under-reinforced beams with a/d > 2.5 showed
various levels of increase in their post-cracking stiffness after con-
ditioning. This increase in stiffness can be depicted from the slopes
of the P-D curves of the unconditioned beams U8-3.1 and U8-2.8
and those of their conditioned counterparts C8-3.1 and C8-2.8. This
increase was attributed to the increase in the compressive strength
of concrete after conditioning due to the long curing exposure. The
increase in stiffness was also accompanied by a decrease in the
measured deflections at midspan of the conditioned beams. For
instance, the midspan deflections of beams U8-3.1 and C8-3.1 were
51 and 36 mm, respectively, corresponding to ultimate loads of 77
and 76 kN. Similarly, beams U8-2.8 and C8-2.8 showed midspan
deflections of 53 and 42 mm, respectively, corresponding to
143
b) Beam C10-3.1
Concrete
crushing
d) Beam C10-2.8
Concrete
crushing
f) Beam C10-2.5
Shear-flexure
failure
ultimate loads of 83 and 86 kN. On the other hand, the uncondi-
tioned and conditioned beams U8-2.5 and C8-2.5 showed almost
similar post-cracking stiffness with a slight variation in their
midspan deflections.
On the other hand, the variation in the P-D relationship after
conditioning was less pronounced in the over-reinforced beams.
Beams C10-3.1 showed higher stiffness and less deflections than
its counterpart U10-3.1 with no variation in its load-carrying
capacity after conditioning. Beams C10-2.8 and C10-2.5 showed
minor changes in their stiffness after conditioning and negligible
changes in their midspan deflections were observed. These find-
ings can be depicted from the load-deflection curves of both beams
in Fig. 11.
5.3. Strain measurements
Fig. 12 shows the load-strain curves of the under- and over-
reinforced beams. As can be noticed, the load-strain curves con-
sisted of three segments with two turning points that indicated
the concrete cracking and the ultimate stage. Prior to cracking,
all specimens showed an increase in strains in both concrete and
BFRP reinforcement as the applied load increased. The post-
cracking stage was characterized by a noticeable increase in con-
crete strains, which occurred at different rates depending on the
reinforcement ratio and the a/d ratio of the tested specimen. Short
beams having a/d = 2.5 showed the highest rate of increase in their
144 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146

Fig. 11. Load-deflection relationships for (a) under-reinforced and (b) over-reinforced beams.

concrete strains. This could be noticed from the steep load-strain
curves of beams U8-2.5 and U10-2.5. On the other hand, beams
with a/d > 2.5 (beams U8-2.8, U8-3.1, U10-2.8, and U10-3.1)
showed an increase in the concrete strains but at a lower rate.
It can be noticed that exposing the beams to FT cycles slightly
affected the measured strains in concrete, as shown in Fig. 12 for
both under- and over-reinforced beams. The effect of FT cycles
on the concrete strains was more pronounced in the under-
reinforced beams. The conditioned specimens in this group
recorded less strains at all stages of loading than their uncondi-
tioned counterparts. This finding was consistent with the load-
deflection pattern of such beams in which an increase in stiffness
was observed.
On the other hand, the post-cracking stage of all of the tested
beams was characterized by a significant increase in the reinforce-
ment strains indicated by the horizontal plateaus shown in Fig. 12.
These plateaus reflected the abrupt drop in the beam stiffness after
cracking and the large deflections recorded at this stage of loading.
Exposing the beams to FT cycles slightly decreased the strains in
the BFRP bars at all stages of loading. This decrease was more pro-
nounced in under-reinforced beams with a/d > 2.5, which was con-
sisted with the observed stiffness and the measured mid span
deflections.
6. Theoretical investigation
6.1. Load-carrying capacities
The provisions of the Canadian codes CSA-806-12 [7] and the
CSA-S6-10 [6] were used to predict the ultimate moment and the
load-carrying capacities of the unconditioned and conditioned
beams. Predicted and experimental values are listed in Table 6.
The variation in concrete compressive strength after conditioning
was taken into account during the analysis of the conditioned
 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146 145

Fig. 12. Load-strain relationships for (a) under-reinforced and (b) over-reinforced beams.

beams. It is worth noting that the increase in the concrete com-
pressive strength after conditioning has led to a slight decrease
in the ratio q=qbal , where q is the reinforcement ratio of the tested
beam and qbal is the balanced reinforcement ratio [7]. A good cor-
relation between the predicted and experimental capacities was
observed.
6.2. Effect of conditioning on ductility
The CSA-S6-10 [6] recommends the use of the deformability
factor, DF, to determine the ductility of the FRP-reinforced beams
as given by Eq. (1):
Mu wu
DF
Ms ws
where Mu and Ms are the ultimate and service moments, respec-
tively, and wu and ws are the corresponding curvatures of the
beam. The CSA-S6-10 code [6] recommends that Ms and ws be
taken as the moment and curvature corresponding to a maxi-
mum compressive concrete strain, ecs , of 0.001. It also recom-
mends that DF should not be less than 4 for FRP-reinforced
beams.
The theoretical ultimate and service moments were used to
calculate the deformation factor of both unconditioned and
conditioned beams. These moments, in addition to the depths of
the theoretical neutral axis at both ultimate and service stages
(cu and cs, respectively) are given in Table 7. It can be noticed that
conditioning slightly increased the ductility of the beams, which
1 was attributed to the increase in the concrete compressive
strength after conditioning.
146 M.-A. Khanfour, A. El Refai / Construction and Building Materials 145 (2017) 135146

Table 7
Ductility factors for unconditioned and conditioned beams.

Beam At ultimate At service DF

0
fc (MPa) Mu (kN m) ecu cu, (mm) wu  10
5
(1/mm) Ms (kN m) ecs cs, (mm) ws  10
5
(1/mm)

Under-reinforced beams
Unconditioned 49 24.3 0.003 21.4 14 10.1 0.001 20 5 6.73
Conditioned 55 24.4 0.003 19.6 15.4 10.5 0.001 19.4 5.2 6.85
Over-reinforced beams
Unconditioned 49 31.8 0.003 28.4 10.5 12.5 0.001 24.8 4 6.68
Conditioned 55 33.5 0.003 27.2 11.1 13 0.001 24.1 4.2 6.78

7. Conclusions extended to the Structures Laboratory technicians at Laval Univer-

An experimental program was carried out to investigate the
effect of FT cycles and low temperature on the performance of
the BFRP-reinforced concrete. Unconditioned and conditioned pull-
out and beam specimens were tested. The following conclusions
can be drawn:
1- Failure of pullout specimens was governed by the shear
strength along the bar-concrete interface. Exposure to FT
cycles and low temperature did not change the mode of fail-
ure of the conditioned specimens.
2- Exposure to low temperature resulted in a decrease in the
bond strength of 10% of the BFRP-reinforced pullout speci-
mens. FT cycles had negligible effect on the bond strength
of the BFRP bars to concrete.
3- BFRP bars of 8, 10, and 12 mm exhibited 67, 29, and 63%
increase in average slippage at their loaded ends, respec-
tively, compared to their unconditioned counterparts after
being exposed to low temperature. FT cycles had negligible
effect on the bar slippage.
4- Perfect bond was observed between the BFRP reinforcement
and the surrounding concrete during the beam tests. This
finding agrees well with the results of the pullout tests in
which bond strengths were slightly affected by FT cycles.
5- FT conditioning resulted in a more ductile failure in under-
reinforced beams that failed due to concrete crushing rather
than the bar rupture. This mode of failure was attributed to
the increase in the compressive strength of concrete after
conditioning.
6- The effect of FT cycles on the failure mode of the tested
beams was less pronounced in the over-reinforced speci-
mens with a/d > 2.5. However, under- and over-reinforced
beams with a/d = 2.5 resulted in reductions of 7.4 and
13.4%, respectively, in their load carrying capacities com-
pared to their unconditioned counterparts.
7- FT conditioning had a slight effect on the ductility of the
tested beams regardless of their a/d ratio or their internal
reinforcement.
It is important to note that, due to the complex action of FT con-
ditioning, more specimens should be tested to verify the effect of
FT cycles on the performance of BFRP-reinforced beams. Caution
should be paid when extending these conclusions to other types
of BFRP bars or when different concrete strengths are used. It is
also recommended to carry out further studies to investigate the
effect of other environmental conditions on the performance of
the BFRP-reinforced structures.
Acknowledgments
sity for their assistance during the tests.
References
[1] ACI (American Concrete Institute), Guide test methods for fiber- reinforced
polymers (FRPs) for reinforcing or strengthening concrete structures, ACI
440.3R-04, Farmington Hills, MI, 2004.
[2] A. Altalmas, A. El Refai, F. Abed, Bond degradation of basalt fiber-reinforced
polymer (BFRP) bars exposed to accelerated aging conditions, Constr. Build.
Mater. 81 (2015) 162171.
[3] V.A. Alvarez, Temperature effect on bond properties of fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) bars embedded in concrete M.Sc. thesis, Sherbrooke
University, 2004.
[4] L.C. Bank, M. Puterman, A. Katz, The effect of material degradation on bond
properties of fiber reinforced plastic reinforcing bars in concrete, ACI Mater. J.
95 (3) (1998) 232243.
[5] A. Belarbi, H. Wang, Bond durability of FRP bars embedded in fiber-reinforced
concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 16 (4) (2012) 371380.
[6] Canadian Standards Association CSA, Canadian highway bridge design code,
CSA-S6-10, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2010.
[7] Canadian Standards Association CSA, Design and construction of building
components with fiber-reinforced polymers, CSA-S806-12, Mississauga, ON,
Canada, 2012.
[8] Y. Chen, J.F. Davalos, I. Ray, H.Y. Kim, Accelerated aging tests for evaluations of
durability performance of FRP reinforcing bars for concrete structures,
Compos. Struct. 78 (2007) 101111.
[9] J.F. Davalos, Y. Chen, I. Ray, Effect of FRP bar degradation on interface bond
with high strength concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (2008) 722730.
[10] A. El Refai, F. Abed, A. Altalmas, Bond durability of basalt fiberreinforced
polymer bars embedded in concrete under direct pullout conditions, J.
Compos. Constr. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000544.
[11] A. El Refai, M.A. Ammar, R. Masmoudi, Bond performance of basalt fiber-
reinforced polymer bars to concrete, J. Compos. Constr. (2014), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE) CC.1943-5614.0000487.
[12] F. Elgabbas, E. Ahmed, B. Benmokrane, Flexural behaviour of concrete beams
reinforced with ribbed basalt-FRP bars under static loads, J. Compos. Constr.
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000752.
[13] V.M. Karbhari, Response of fiber reinforced polymer confined concrete
exposed to freeze and freeze-thaw regimes, J. Compos. Constr. 6 (1) (2002)
3540.
[14] M. Mahroug, A. Ashour, D. Lam, Experimental response and code modelling of
continuous concrete slabs reinforced with BFRP bars, Compos. Struct. 107
(2014) 664674.
[15] R. Masmoudi, A. Zaidi, P. Grard, Transverse thermal expansion of FRP bars
embedded in concrete, J. Compos. Constr. 9 (5) (2005) 377387.
[16] T. Ovitigala, M. Ibrahim, M. Issa, Serviceability and ultimate load behavior of
concrete beams reinforced with basalt fiber-reinforced polymer bars, ACI
Struct. J. 113 (04) (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.14359/51688752.
[17] R. Saiedi, A. Fam, M.F. Green, Behavior of CFRP-prestressed concrete beams
under high-cycle fatigue at low temperature, J. Compos. Constr. 15 (4) (2011)
482489.
[18] A. Serbescu, M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas, Mechanical characterization of
basalt FRP rebars and long-term strength predictive model, J. Compos. Constr.
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000497.
[19] E.A. Tannous, H. Saadatmanesh, Durability of AR glass fiber reinforced plastic
bars, J. Compos. Constr. 3 (1) (1999) 1219.
[20] D. Tomlinson, A. Fam, Performance of concrete beams reinforced with basalt
FRP for flexure and shear, J. Compos. Constr. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000491.
[21] G. Wardeh, A.S. Mohamed, E. Ghorbel, Analysis of concrete internal
deterioration due to frost action, J. Building Phys. 35 (1) (2011) 5482.

The authors would like to acknowledge Magmatech personnel

for providing the BFRP bars used in this study. Special thanks are