MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722

Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11

Corrosion Reduction in Lightweight Concrete

with Fiber Reinforced Polymer Wrapping
Eric Goucher, Engineer-in-Training at Innovative Engineering Associates, egouchher09@yahoo.com
Nur Yazdani, Ph.D., P.E, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Texas at Arlington,
yazdani@uta.edu

Abstract- Lightweight concrete is being increasingly used in exposed environments such as bridge decks, to reduce the
dead load. The literature on externally bonded FRP application on lightweight concrete is sparse, especially in the
durability aspects. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrap on
reducing corrosion of steel rebars in lightweight concrete. Forty two concrete cylinders were subjected to electricity
induced accelerated testing in a saline solution for 50 days. Samples were removed from the immersion tank after specific
failures and analyzed for rebar mass loss and failure modes. The results indicated that both lightweight (LW) and normal
weight (NW) concrete greatly benefited from FRP wrapping in terms of increased time to failure and reduced rebar mass
loss. LW concrete generally performed better with Carbon FRP wrapping, and NW concrete with Glass FRP. Multiple
wraps were more effective at reducing corrosion than single wraps. LW concrete may have greater chloride permeability
reductions, whereas NW concrete may have benefited more from confinement effects of the FRP. The majority of failures
were cracking in the concrete substrate. The study showed that FRP wrapping can significantly reduce steel corrosion in
LW concrete, thereby increasing the long-term durability.
I. INTRODUCTION
The 2013 edition of American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) Report Card for America's Infrastructure
graded the overall state of America's infrastructure as a D+ [1]. According to this report, one in nine of America's
bridges are rated as structurally deficient, and the average age of the bridges is 42 years. Fiber reinforced polymer
(FRP) wrapping can improve flexural, shear, axial, and torsional strengths, and also the serviceability of existing or
damaged bridges. FRP materials are very strong, light, and durable, making them a viable alternative to other
traditional methods of repair [2]. Several studies have demonstrated their capabilities in upgrading the durability of
concrete structures, such as those exposed to corrosive elements. Most of these studies have focused normal weight
(NW) concrete. One area that has not received as much attention is structural lightweight (LW) concrete
strengthened with FRP.
LW concrete has become a viable alternative construction material to NW concrete, used in bridge elements such
as decks, girders, and piers, in parking garages, for office buildings, and for offshore platforms [3, 4]. It contains
lighter aggregates than NW concrete, which can lead to reduced dead load on structures. The National Cooperative
Highway Research Program released Report 733 for high-performance/high-strength LW concrete for bridges [5].
This report suggested changes to parts of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications in aspects such as creep and
shrinkage losses of LW concrete, as well as equations to predict the modulus of elasticity and modulus of rupture,
demonstrating the interest in using LW concrete as an alternative material to NW concrete [6]. Poor practices and
inexperience with the use of new materials can lead to cracking and problems with rebar corrosion in LW concrete,
where repair may be needed. This makes it necessary to research strengthening materials such as FRP application on
LW concrete, with regard to the aspect of enhanced durability when exposed to aggressive elements.
Structural LW concrete is made with LW aggregates conforming to the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) C330 specifications, has a compressive strength in excess of 17.2 MPa at 28 days of age when

 
1
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
tested in accordance with ASTM C 330, and has an equilibrium density not exceeding 1842 kg/m3 [7]. Most LW
concrete has densities in the range of 1680 – 1920 kg/m3. Corrosion of steel is a major concern in reinforced
concrete structures, and especially in LW concrete. LW aggregates are porous; therefore, the permeability of LW
concretes could be higher than for similarly proportioned NW concrete. However, the American Concrete Institute
(ACI) Report 213R notes several studies showing that LW concrete has equal or lesser permeability than its NW
counterpart [3]. LW concrete, due to their porous nature, will contain water. This creates a balance between the
water in cement matrix and the water in the aggregate, reducing bleeding and voids.
Accelerated concrete corrosion tests have been used to produce results in a reasonable amount of time. The
quickest method of inducing corrosion is by using impressed current [9]. This involves placing concrete into a salt
solution and passing a direct current with a power supply through the rebar. Detwiler looked at the effects that
curing concrete at different temperatures had on resistance to chloride intrusion [10]. Various mixes with different
water cement ratios were utilized with different curing temperatures. The penetration was found using an accelerated
corrosion test and induced current. Concrete cured at higher temperatures were less durable than at lower
temperatures. Spainhour and Yazdani investigated the use of carbon FRP (CFRP) wraps to reduce the intrusion of
chloride ions into steel reinforced concrete [11]. Large reinforced column samples were wrapped with CFRP and
durability studies with heated wet/dry cycles for up to 2.5 years were conducted. The test variables included wrap
orientation (radially, axially, or at a 45 degree angle), epoxy type, and number of CFRP layers. All wrapped
specimens took longer to reach a 90% probability of corrosion, had reduced chloride content, and less rebar mass
loss. The type of epoxy had a large influence on the corrosion resistance, whereas the use of epoxy alone was not as
effective as confinement with FRP wraps. Two layers of FRP were shown to have greater effect than one layer, but
three layers were not necessarily more effective. FRP wrapped radially showed the best results in terms of corrosion
resistance due to confinement. Gadve and Mukherjee [9] investigated the use of FRP wraps in providing active and
passive protection to steel reinforcement in concrete already damaged by corrosion. Initially, the specimens were
placed in a 3.5% sodium chloride solution and impressed with a 100 mA current for up to eight days. After cracking,
the cylinders were wrapped and the experiment continued for 24 days. Wrapping dramatically decreased the rate of
corrosion and mass loss in the reinforcing bars, while increases were observed in pullout strength and corrosion
current. Glass FRP (GFRP) appeared to impede corrosion more than CFRP. A possible explanation is that glass has
higher electrical resistance than carbon. Another explanation is that GFRP sheets are typically thicker than CFRP
sheets. Maaddawy subjected 35 concrete cylinders to accelerated corrosion, while varying the level of applied
potential, FRP wraps, and rebar diameter [12]. Normal strength concrete was used, with 3% sodium chloride by
weight of cement added to the mixture. Under the same applied fixed potential, CFRP wraps reduced current and
rebar mass loss, with mass loss on average 36% lower than unwrapped specimens. For the same applied potential
and cathodic surface area, reducing bar diameter increased current density levels. CFRP delayed the time from
corrosion initiation to initial cracking by about 20 times than that for unwrapped specimens.

 
2
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of FRP wrapping of LW concrete in regards to possible
effect on corrosion of rebars. An accelerated corrosion testing procedure of FRP and concrete degradation was
applied, with an anode, cathode, electrolyte and a contact between the anode and cathode.
The focus of this paper is not on the cost/benefit of FRP wrapping versus unwrapping of concrete members.
Rather, it focuses on the durability enhancement of light weight concrete with FRP wrapping. For both bigger and
smaller columns, with the same clear cover, the durability issues for embedded rebars will be similar.
Light weight concrete is becoming more popular in exposed environments such as bridge decks. Various issues,
such as cracking and rebar corrosion, are being investigated. This paper looks at both carbon and glass fabrics in
concrete applications.

III. SPECIMENS AND MATERIALS

A total of 42 cylinder specimens were used, each 50 by 100 mm with a single #13 (12 mm diameter) rebar at the
center. The sample dimensions were chosen in order to ensure that corrosion would occur in a short period of time.
Two concrete mixes were utilized: a LW concrete, and a similarly proportioned NW concrete. The mix for the LW
concrete was determined first, after which a NW concrete mix was produced by exchanging the coarse LW
aggregates for NW aggregates. The LW aggregate used was Streetman type with 19 mm maximum size, typically
used in many lightweight concrete bridge components. The NW aggregate was crushed stone already available at the
University of Texas at Arlington.
Three different FRP systems were utilized. System 1 was a GFRP from one manufacturer, a custom weave,
unidirectional glass fabric. The second system was also a uni-directional CFRP from the same manufacturer, also
with the dedicated epoxy. The third was a uni-directional CFRP from another manufacturer. In bridge applications,
various state highway departments currently allow only unidirectional FRPs, and that is the focus of this study. All
selected FRPs utilize a two component epoxy system.

IV. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

To determine proportions for the mix design, ACI 211.2-98 was consulted. It suggests a water/cement (w/c) ratio
of no more than 0.4 for concrete cover of less than 25 mm when exposed to sea water or sulfates, whereas the
maximum cover in this study was 19 mm [13]. Table I shows the designs for the concrete mixes used herein.

TABLE I
CONCRETE MIXES
Units in kg, Mixes for 0.76 m3 Lightweight Concrete Normal Weight Concrete

Water 141 141

Cement (Type I/II) 317 317

19 mm size Limestone (NW) or Streetman (LW) Coarse Aggregate 408 726

Concrete Sand 610 599

 
3
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
A. CONCRETE PROPERTIES
LW aggregates were submerged and then allowed to dry in the sun for 20 to 30 minutes to reach a Saturated
Surface Dry (SSD) condition. The NW aggregates were not soaked beforehand. Fresh concrete properties included
ASTM C138/138M for the density, ASTM C143/143M for the slump, and ASTM C173/173 for the air content by
the volumetric method [15, 16, 17]. Table II shows the properties of both mixes. The oven dry and equilibrium
densities were approximated using the approach from ASTM C567 [18].

TABLE II
CONCRETE PROPERTIES
Concrete Type 28-day compressive Density, Equilibrium Density, Slump, Air content,
strength, kg/m3 kg/m3 mm (%)
MPa
LW 26.3 1947 1870 66 2.6

NW 28.9 2314 N/A 61 3.1

B. SAMPLE PREPARATION
Reinforcing bars (rebars) were inserted into the cylinders for the accelerated testing. One rebar was placed in each
of the 42 cylinders. Due to the small size of the cylinders, the rebars were placed as close to the center of the
cylinder as possible, producing a 19 mm concrete cover. Each rebar sample was weighed. The concrete molds were
placed in a curing chamber for 28 days at an approximate temperature of 29o C and 100% relative humidity. Six 100
by 200 mm cylinders were cast to determine the compressive strength of concrete. The molds were removed after 48
hours. After curing, they were removed from the curing chamber for FRP application.
C. FRP PROPERTIES AND APPLICATION
Several FRP configurations were utilized for this study. Three cylinders were used for each configuration. The
variables included the type of concrete (LW or NW), the type of FRP (GFRP or CFRP, manufacturer 1 or 2), and the
number of FRP layers (one or two). A labeling system was used to refer to specific samples, as shown in Table III.
The FRP wrapping followed a wet lay-up method recommended by the manufacturers. The mixed epoxy was
applied to the bottom of the samples for additional protection without any FRP. The wrapped samples were left
undisturbed for at least 48 hours.
D. ACCELERATED TEST
The accelerated corrosion test was initiated after samples were wrapped and cured. The samples were placed in a
plastic tank, as shown in Fig. 1. The specimens were submerged up to approximately 83 mm height in a 5% by
weight salt solution, allowing the top portion of the samples to be unsubmerged. This concentration was stronger
than seawater (about 3.5%), but would ensure a steady flow of electrons to the samples. A DC power supply with a
maximum capacity of 15 volts and 3 amps was used to provide direct current.

 
4
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
TABLE III
SAMPLE DESIGNATION
Sample No. Sample Designation Sample No. Sample Designation

1 LW Control 1 22 NW Control 1
2 LW Control 2 23 NW Control 2
3 LW Control 3 24 NW Control 3
4 LW - G- M1- 1L – 1 25 NW - G – M1- 1L – 1
5 LW - G – M1- 1L – 2 26 NW - G – M1- 1L – 2
6 LW - G – M1- 1L – 3 27 NW - G – M1- 1L – 3
7 LW - G – M1- 2L – 1 28 NW - G – M1- 2L – 1
8 LW - G – M1- 2L- 2 29 NW - G – M1- 2L – 2
9 LW - G – M1- 2L – 3 30 NW - G – M1- 2L – 3
10 LW - C – M1- 1L – 1 31 NW - C – M1- 1L – 1
11 LW - C – M1- 1L – 2 32 NW - C – M1- 1L – 2
12 LW - C – M1- 1L – 3 33 NW - C – M1- 1L – 3
13 LW - C – M1- 2L – 1 34 NW - C – M1- 2L – 1
14 LW - C – M1- 2L – 2 35 NW - C – M1 - 2L -2
15 LW - C – M1- 2L – 3 36 NW - C – M1- 2L – 3
16 LW - C –M2- 1L – 1 37 NW - C – M2- 1L – 1
17 LW - C – M2- 1L – 2 38 NW - C – M2- 1L – 2
18 LW - C – M2- 1L – 3 39 NW - C – M2- 1L – 3
19 LW - C – M2- 2L – 1 40 NW - C – M2- 2L – 1
20 LW - C – M2- 2L – 2 41 NW - C – M2- 2L – 2
21 LW - C – M2- 2L – 2 42 NW - C – M2- 2L – 3
1
This system utilizes a LW or NW for lightweight concrete or normal weight concrete, respectively; G or C for glass or carbon FRP; M1 or M2
for manufacturer 1 or 2; 1L or 2L for the number of wraps used; and 1, 2, or 3 for the sample number. For example, LW-G-M2-1L-1 is the first
sample of a lightweight concrete cylinder wrapped with 1 layer of manufacturer 1 GFRP. For the control samples, they are simply labeled as LW
or NW Control 1, 2, or 3.

Figure 1. Experiment Setup

The samples were wired in a parallel configuration so that the current flow would not be interrupted as individual
samples failed. Stainless steel blanks were used as cathodes that were placed at the bottom of the tank. Light
switches enabled individual electric paths to be opened or closed based on the position of the switch. A constant

 
5
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
voltage of 12 volts was applied to each sample for the test duration. This voltage is not likely to cause heating of the
specimens, which could affect the rate of chloride diffusion [10]. The variable current measurements were taken
every day. Samples were checked for failures. The failure criteria were: cracking in the concrete substrate,
delamination of the FRP, rupture of FRP and excessive localized current. As samples failed, they were removed
from the tank. At the end of 50 days, any samples that did not fail were removed from the tank and also tested.
E. CURRENT MEASUREMENTS
The applied voltage was constant across the parallel components of the circuit created. However, the associated
current would vary from sample to sample. High current measurements indicated active corrosion, while lower
current levels would indicate effective FRP protection and lower corrosion activity. Therefore, current
measurements were taken every day with an ammeter connected in series. As cracks in the concrete substrate
propagated, current readings correspondingly increased as more paths opened for the electrolyte to flow to the rebar.
Thus, a rapid increase or spike in current was followed by visible cracking in the specimen.
F. REBAR MASS LOSS
Each rebar was checked for mass loss to determine the corrosion extent. The samples were carefully broken, and
the rebar was removed and submerged in an acid solution to remove the corrosion products. After removal from the
acid, each rebar was washed, dried and weighed. A typical corroded rebar is shown in Fig. 2.

(a) Before corrosion removal (b) After cleaning

Figure 2. Sample Corroded Rebar

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. LENGTH OF TIME UNTIL SAMPLE REMOVAL (TEST LIFE)
Figs. 3 and 4 show sample test lives. The NW samples performed better than the LW ones with GFRP wraps,
whereas the LW concrete generally performed better with CFRP wraps. The NW control samples lasted longer than
the LW samples, as expected. However, LW concrete benefits from several time dependent enhancements. These
include an enhanced transition zone and similar elastic properties between the cement matrix and aggregate, internal
curing and pozzolanic reactions. The FRP may have formed a barrier to reduce and delay the ingress of chlorides,
allowing the LW concrete time to benefit from these enhancements.

 
6
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
 
 

Control Samples
S M
M1 GFRP Sa
amples
M1 CFRP
P Samples M
M2 CFRP Sa
amples

Figuree 3. Normal Weighht Sample Test Lives

Control Samples
S M
M1 GFRP Sa
amples

M1 CFRP
P Samples M
M2 CFRP Sa
amples

Figurre 4. Lightweightt Sample Test Livves

Table IV shows thee impressive pprotection thaat FRP providdes. The life iincrease (in comparison to the control
samples) ranges betweeen 3 to about 9 times. In alm
most all casess, the LW test lives were siggnificantly greeater than in
the NW ssamples. A staatistical analyysis in the form
m of a pooledd t-test at a 5%
% level of signnificance show
wed that the
average teest lives and tthe average rebbar mass loss data sets betw
ween the LW aand the NW cooncrete were ssignificantly
different. The CFRP w
wrapping perfoormed much better than the GFRP wrappiing, increasingg the LW sam
mple lives by
three foldds over the NW
W samples. Thhe effect of muultiple FRP layyers was insiggnificant in sam
mple life extennsion.

 
7
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
TABLE IV
AVERAGE TEST LIVES AND REBAR MASS LOSSES
Sample Average Test Life (Days) Average Rebar Mass Loss (g)

LW NW LW NW

Control 5.3 8.00 16.51 8.13

G-M1-1L 28.3 47.0 9.71 5.52

G-M1-2L 36.0 50.0 7.54 4.7

C-M1-1L 47.7 24.3 1.216 18.72

C-M1-2L 48.3 27.0 1.206 16.77

C-M2-1L 50.0 35.7 1.126 6.24

C-M2-2L 48.0 50.0 1.453 0.513

VI. TYPES OF SAMPLE FAILURES

Four types of failures were observed: concrete cracking accompanied by a rise in current, delamination of the
outermost layer of FRP, FRP rupture and excessive localized current.
A. CRACKING IN CONCRETE SUBSTRATE
The majority of the failures (17 or 40%) occurred due to concrete cracking from the pressure of the corrosion by-
products (Fig. 5a). This was observed at the top of the specimen, beginning near the rebar and propagating towards
the sides.
B. DELAMINATION OF THE FRP
FRP delamination can be caused by the presence of voids or irregularities on the concrete surface or epoxy
failure. This failure was found in two of the samples (Fig. 5b). Approximately 15-20% of the FRP delaminated from
the concrete near the cylinder bottom.

(a) Cracking in concrete substrate (b) Delamination of the FRP

(c) FRP rupture (d) Localized corrosion at concrete-rebar interface

Figure 5. Types of Sample Failures

 
8
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
C. FRP RUPTURE
Only one sample, No. 21 LW, with two layers of manufacturer B CFRP wrap, had this failure. The FRP ruptured
towards the bottom of the sample (Fig. 5c).
D. EXCESSIVE LOCALIZED CURRENT
NW samples 32-36 showed a failure in which the samples had not cracked, but the electric wire corroded,
resulting in the wire separation from the rebar (Fig. 5d). It has been demonstrated that the FRP confinement effects
are less for LW concrete than for NW concrete, which may explain why this was not seen in the LW samples [19].
E. UN-FAILED SAMPLES
Seventeen samples lasted until the end of the test (50 days). Nine of these were LW and eight were NW. Most of
these samples showed little or no signs of degradation.

VII. REBAR MASS LOSS

With the exception of the rebars that failed due to excessive localized current, all the other rebars demonstrated a
decrease in the percentage of mass loss when compared to the control samples. The mass loss percentage correlates
well with the specimen test life (Table IV). Specimens that lasted longer experienced lower levels of rebar mass loss
and corrosion rate. The rebar mass loss was very low in almost all of the LW samples with CFRP wrapping. The
effect of GFRP wrapping was less effective. The effect of multiple wraps was again found to be insignificant. As
mentioned previously, samples 32-36 experienced excessive localized current that corroded the rebar at the concrete
interface. This created extensive mass loss in one location that was greater than that in the control samples. It is
likely that these samples would have cracked without the FRP confining effect, rather than the leaching at the
concrete-rebar interface. FRP wrapping can be beneficial once corrosion has initiated and corrosion products are
forming.

VIII. CURRENT MEASUREMENTS

The current measurements were correlated with the actual and the theoretical mass loss using Faraday's Law,
shown in (1) (12):
I  t  Aw
M  (1)
n F
Where: M = mass of metal dissolved or converted to oxide, grams
I = current, amps
Aw = atomic weight (56 for steel)
t = time, seconds
F = Faraday's constant (96,500 coulombs/equivalent mass)
n = valency (2)
Faraday's Law accurately predicts metal loss up to approximately 7.5%. Above this threshold, Eq. 1 tends to
overestimate the metal loss. Table V shows the actual and predicted rebar mass losses. For rebars that had high
actual mass losses, the predicted mass loss overestimated the actual mass losses by as much as 23.6%. For lower
mass losses, the theoretical prediction was quite accurate. The control samples showed much higher currents and
rebar mass loss than most of the FRP wrapped samples. The currents in the GFRP wrapped LW samples were about

 
9
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
10 times greater than that in the CFRP samples and the associated rebar mass losses are similar as well. CFRP
showed exceptional current and rebar mass loss resistance contribution, compared to the GFRP. This correlates well
with the sample life data, indicating that the M2 epoxy created a very strong barrier to the salt solution. A statistical
analysis in the form of a pooled t-test at a 5% level of significance showed that the actual and the predicted rebar
mass loss data sets for both the LW and the NW concrete samples were significantly different.

TABLE V
ACTUAL AND PREDICTED REBAR MASS LOSSES
LW Concrete NW Concrete
Samples
Actual Mass Loss Predicted Mass Loss (g) Actual Mass Loss (g) Predicted Mass Loss (g)
(g)
Control 17.2 22.6 14.6 17.6

G-M1 -1L 10.9 13.2 6.9 7.3

G-M1-2L 8.6 10.0 5.0 5.3

C-M1-1L 1.6 1.8 21.0 25.7

C-M1-2L 1.7 1.7 14.9 17.7

C-M2-1L 1.3 1.3 6.5 6.9

C-M2-2L 1.8 1.9 0.8 0.9

It is likely that some epoxy was absorbed by the surface LW aggregates. How the absorption affects the FRP
bond is a topic of future evaluation. The absorption could lead to less epoxy for bonding [21]. This may explain why
debonding failures were found in some LW samples. Some epoxy manufactures have recommended more than one
coat of epoxy for porous substrates such as LW concrete [22]. Other research has indicated that the effects of
confinement are not as pronounced for LW concrete as in NW concrete [19, 23, 24]. Several LW samples with
CFRP did not fail in this study during the 50 day duration. It is possible that the benefits of FRP confinement would
be more apparent for a longer time period.

IX. CONCLUSION
The following conclusions may be made based on the study performed herein:
 Both LW and NW concrete demonstrate increased durability and lower rebar mass loss with FRP
wrapping.
 CFRP wrapped LW concrete has longer durability than that in NW concrete, whereas NW concrete
wrapped with GFRP has longer durability than GFRP wrapped LW concrete. Previous research has
indicated that LW concrete benefits from several time dependent improvements that reduce permeability to
levels equal to or lower than that in NW concrete. The FRP wraps may provide an early barrier to the
ingress of chlorides, allowing the LW concrete to realize some of the improvements over time.
 The M2 FRP wrap produced the best overall results in terms of reduction of chloride ingress and increase
in test life, for both concrete types.
 Multiple layers of FRP wrap have more pronounced effect in chloride ingress reduction in NW concrete
than in LW concrete.

 
10
 MAYFEB Journal of Materials Science - ISSN 2371-8722
Vol 1 (2018) - Pages 1-11
     
 
 The expected mode of failure is cracking in the concrete substrate, the majority of the failures encountered
in this study. Failure in the FRP itself is not preferred as this may exhibit a brittle behavior.
 Two layers of the M2 FRP produced the best overall results in terms of mass loss reduction and increase in
test life. The M1 GFRP and M2 CFRP both performed well for the NW concrete, whereas the M1 CFRP
and M2 CFRP performed well for the LW concrete.
 FRP Wrapping results in decreased mass loss, with the exception of NW concrete wrapped with M1 CFRP.
These samples showed localized corrosion, likely occurring due to confinement from the CFRP wraps.
 Statistical sampling clearly showed the durability benefits of FRP wrapping on LW and NW concrete.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was performed under an internal research grant from UT Arlington.

REFERENCES
[1] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ASCE (2013) [Online]. Available: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org.
[2] V. Gangarao, N. Taly, and P. Vijay, Reinforced Concrete Design With FRP Composites, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, F.L.,
2007, pp.53-54, 87.
[3] American Concrete Institute Committee 213 (ACI), “Guide for Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” Amer Conc I, 2003,
213R-03.
[4] G. Murugesh, Concrete Bridge Views, 2008, 49, 1.
[5] National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), “Transportation Research Board of the National Academies," High-
Performance/High-Strength Lightweight Concrete for Bridge Girders and Decks, NCHRP Report 733, 2013.
[6] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), “LRFD Bridge Design Specification,” AASHTO
Sixth Edition, Washington, D.C., 2012.
[7] American Society for Standard Testing and Materials (ASTM), “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens,” ASTM, C39/39M, West Conshohocken, P.A., 2011, 23.
[8] S. Chandra, L. Berntsson, Lightweight Aggregate Concrete, Noyes Publications/William Andrew Pub, Nowrich, New York, 2003,
134.
[9] S. Gadve, A. Mukherjee, ProQuest Science Journals, Vol. 67, No. 2, 2008, 1.
[10] R. Detwiler, K. Kjellsen, O.E. Gjorv, ACI Mater. J. 1991, 88, 19.
[11] L. Spainhour, N. Yazdani, National Science Foundation, Final Report: 9504193, 2002.
[12] E. Maaddawy, A. Tamer, A. Charhrou, K. Soudki, J. Compos. Constr. 2006, 139, 10.
[13] American Concrete Institute Committee 211 (ACI), “Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Structural Lightweight
Concrete,” ACI 211.2-98, 1998.
[14] J. Wall, C. Freeman, Carolina Stalite Company Research Lab, Gold Hill, NC, 2003.
[15] American Society for Standard Testing and Materials (ASTM), “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air
Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete,” ASTM, C138/138M, West Conshohocken, P.A., 2011, 100.
[16] American Society for Standard Testing and Materials (ASTM), “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,”
ASTM, C143/143M, West Conshohocken, P. A., 2011, 106.
[17] American Society for Standard Testing and Materials (ASTM), “Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by
the Pressure Method,” ASTM, West Conshohocken, P.A., 2011, 162.
[18] American Society for Standard Testing and Materials (ASTM), “Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural
Concrete,” ASTM, C330/300M-09, West Conshohocken, P.A., 2011, 318.
[19] D. Axson, Master's Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, V.A., 2008.
[20] A. Gharachorlou, A. Ramezanianpour, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 35, Number 1B, 2009, 141.
[21] Sherwin Williams (2005) [Online]. Available: https://protective.sherwin-williams.com/pdf/conc_surf_prep.pdf,.
[22] ChemCo Systems, “Bonding Old-To-New Concrete” [Online]. Available: http://chemcosystems.com/tech_bondingcon.html.
[23] S. Shah, A. Naaman, J. Moreno, Int. J. Cem. Compos. Lightweight Concr, 1983, 5, 15.
[24] Z. Fu, B. Ji, L. Lv, M. Yang, Design, Construction, Rehabilitation, and Maintenance of Bridges, ASCE, China, Hunan, 2011, 33.

 
11