CICE 2010 - The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering September 27-29, 2010, Beijing, China

Long-Term Durability of FRP Cables under Maritime Conditions

Itaru Nishizaki (nisizaki@pwri.go.jp) & Iwao Sasaki Advanced Materials Research Team, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

ABSTRACT Six types of FRP cables were subjected to an exposure test lasting more than fifteen years under maritime conditions, and the retrieved cables were evaluated mainly by SEM and FT-IR microscopy. Loss of surface resin was observed for all the tested FRP cables; however, deterioration between the fiber and matrix resin was not found by SEM. Observation by FT-IR microscopy detected surface deterioration of AFRP cables, and the feasibility of this method for evaluating the deterioration of some FRP cables was indicated. KEY WORDS

INTRODUCTION

2 METHODS
2.1 Exposure location The selected exposure site was a platform steel deck facility located in Suruga Bay, Shizuoka prefecture, Japan, facing the Pacific Ocean. The distance from the platform to the coast is about 250 m. Figure 1 shows a view of the platform. The platform is of square dimensions (1515 m) and has three decks.

The application of FRP cables such as carbon (CFRP) and aramid (AFRP) to the tendons of prestressed concrete members has been studied since the early 1980s. Their application has also spread to ground anchors and rebars (Benmokrane et al. 1989). Design methods and codes have been established for applying FRP cables to tendons, but actual application is limited to less than two hundred examples, and most of these were trial construction. The main reasons for this are the lack of evaluation of (1) cost-benefit effects and (2) durability. The main application of FRP cables in construction today is for PC tendons, but other applications, such as for external reinforcing cables or suspension cables for bridges, also seem promising. FRP cables applied to PC tendons are exposed to strong alkalis present in the concrete under tensile load conditions, and there are many studies on the durability of FRP cables under these conditions (Nanni et al. 1992; Takewaka et al. 1996). When considering the application of FRP cables for external reinforcing cables or suspension cables for a bridge, the main deterioration factor is the outdoor environment including maritime conditions. To evaluate the durability of FRP cables under these conditions, outdoor exposure tests are indispensable. Several studies have focused on this area (Uomoto et al. 1996; Tomosawa et al. 1997); however, the reported data is not sufficient for evaluating the durability of this material. We conducted a series of outdoor exposure tests on FRP cables mainly under maritime conditions, and obtained durability data on the materials (Katawaki et al. 1992; Sasaki et al. 1997). This report presents some of the results on the chemical deterioration of FRP cables based on the tests.

Figure 1 Platform used for the exposure test

The top (first) deck is 13.9 m in height from the tidal point, the middle (second) deck is 8.9 m in height and the bottom (third) deck is 1.9 m in height. The climate of the location is moderate, but there is high exposure to corrosion from sea salt. 2.2 Tested materials We tested six types of FRP cables: CFRP (two), AFRP (two), glass (GFRP) (one) and vinylon (VFRP) (one). Although the GFRP and VFRP cables were not considered for application to tendons at this time, they were included in the study to acquire knowledge on their durability. Table 1 shows the details of each type of cable tested in this study. The values for tensile strength

L. Ye et al. (eds.), Advances in FRP Composites in Civil Engineering Tsinghua University Press, Beijing and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

September 2729, 2010, Beijing, China Table 1 Specifications of the FRP cables used in the test

373

and modulus were measured at the beginning of the exposure test using the anchor systems suggested by the manufacturers of the cables. 2.3 Exposure test The exposure test reported here was carried out on the second deck of the platform where the height is 8.9 m from the tidal point. We conducted the test under both loaded and unloaded conditions; however, the results reported here are only on the unloaded cables. Each FRP cable was cut to a length of 2000 mm, and then the six types of cables were set in a steel frame rack using rubber spacers. Figure 2 shows the placement of FRP cables in the steel frame for exposure. Nine sets of steel frames were prepared. In order to evaluate the effect of the difference in environment on the deterioration of the FRP cables, two different places were selected on the second deck of the platform. One was at the handrail well exposed to sunshine (Figure 3 a)), and the other was under a large concrete beam where there is less sunshine (Figure 3 b)). We labeled these as place-W (well exposed) and place-L (less exposed) respectively. Five steel frames with FRP cables were set at place-W and four were set at place-L in March 1994.

Each of the two sets was retrieved in November 1996, and the results on the FRP cables exposed for 2 years and 8 months have already been reported (Sasaki et al. 1997). The remaining steel frames with FRP cables, three at place-W and two at place-L, were retrieved in July 2009. The exposure time for these FRP cables was 15 years and 4 months. This report presents the results on these cables. 2.4 Retrieval and evaluation Evaluation for the retrieved FRP cables was carried out by appearance check, surface and cross-section observation by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), cross-section observation by Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) microscopy and chemical analysis by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) on the material obtained from the surface and interior of the cables. We will also evaluate the mechanical properties in future.

3 RESULTS
3.1 Appearance All of the retrieved FRP cables showed a decrease in the original surface gloss exhibited by the unexposed cables. Even in the case of CFRP2, where the initial unexposed cable did not have much surface gloss, the retrieved CFRP2 showed less gloss. GFRP cables showed remarkable change in color to brown whereas the unexposed cable was white. GFRP cable also showed fiber blooming on the cable surface. There was no clear difference between place-W and place-L for CFRP1 and AFRP2; however, VFRP and GFRP showed more remarkable deterioration at place-W than at place-L. CFRP2 and AFRP1 at place-W showed slightly yellowed surfaces, but it is not clear whether this discoloration was due to deterioration or to rust from the steel frame used for the exposure test. 3.2 SEM Resin loss and fiber blooming on the cable surface was also observed from SEM images. Figure 4 shows an example of AFRP2. CFRP1 has a protective layer of polyester fiber; the carbon fiber does not appear on the surface, but fiber blooming of the polyester fiber was observed. On the other hand, the carbon fiber of CFRP2 is exposed on the surface of the cable. Figure 5 is SEM

Figure 2 Steel frames for exposure test using six FRP cables

(a) Place-W (at the handrail)

(b) Place-L (below the beam)

Figure 3 Placement of cables for exposure test

374

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering

images of the CFRP2 surface, which shows the degradation of surface resin to small particles on the surface of the retrieved cable. These changes seem to be the reason for the reduced gloss in the appearance evaluation.

3.3

FT-IR microscopy

(a) Unexposed

(b) Exposed at place-W

Figure 4 Observation by SEM (AFRP2, 30)

(a) Unexposed

(b) Exposed at place-W

Figure 5 Observation by SEM (CFRP2, 500)

Figures 6 and 7 show examples of SEM images of cross sections of the cables. We searched for deterioration between the fiber and matrix resin of small cracks that were not present in the unexposed cables; however, we did not find any clear difference between the unexposed and retrieved cables.

FT-IR microscopy was applied to three types of the unexposed and place-W cables. CFRP2, AFRP1 and AFRP2 were selected for the three types. Figure 8 shows the results for AFRP1. Figure 8a) is a photograph of the cross section of AFRP1 (place-W) using the optical microscope, which shows the evaluation part of the cable (inside the white lines). Figure 8d) shows the IR spectra at two points in the evaluation part: the surface region and the interior region. A new peak at 1715 cm1 was observed in the spectra for the surface region (shown with an arrow in the figure). This peak was not observed in the spectra for the interior region, and is considered to indicate the presence of a CO double bond, according to the wavenumbers. Details of the chemical reaction behind this peak are not yet clarified, but it is likely related to the oxidation of resin or fiber. The peak at 1656 cm-1 (CC double bond) was used as the interior reference. The peak area ratio (1715/1656 cm-1) of each point (0.1 mm mesh) in the evaluation was measured by FT-IR microscopy. Figure 8b) shows the results for place-W. The results suggest a large peak area ratio region around the surface area of the cross section. Figure 8c) shows the same observation for the unexposed AFRP1. There was no specific region on the surface that suggested a large peak area ratio for the unexposed AFRP1.

(a) Region for analysis (Place-W, x150) (a) Unexposed (b) Exposed at place-L

(b) Place-W (c) Unexposed (Both for 1715/1656 cm-1 ratio)

Figure 6 Observation by SEM (AFRP1, 2000)

(d) IR spectra for surface and interior of cables at place-W

Figure 8 Results of FT-IR microscopy for AFRP1

(a) Unexposed (b) Exposed at place-L

Figure 7 Observation by SEM (VFRP, 500)

Figure 9 shows the results of FT-IR microscopy for AFRP2. Figure 9a) shows the evaluation area for

September 2729, 2010, Beijing, China

375

place-W. From the observation of IR spectra at several points in the evaluation region, we decided to measure the peak area ratio of 1747/1652 cm-1. Figure 9b) shows the results of mapping the peak area ratio of 1747/1652 cm1 inside the evaluation region. Figure 9c) shows the same measurement for the unexposed AFRP2. There was a large peak area ratio of 1747/1652 cm1 in the surface region of the cross section of place-W, which was not found in the unexposed cable. This result indicates that the surface region of the AFRP2 (place-W) cable was oxidized.

deterioration between the fiber and matrix resin was not found by SEM. Observation by FT-IR microscopy detected the deterioration on the surface of AFRP cables, and the feasibility of this method in evaluating the deterioration of some FRP cables was indicated. We plan to evaluate the mechanical properties of the retrieved cables in the future, and to clarify the relationship between the chemical deterioration and mechanical properties.

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (21360209), which is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also would like to acknowledge the support by the manufacturers of FRP cables and the Shizuoka River Office of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan (MLIT).

REFERENCES
Benmokrane, B. et al. 1997. Aramid and carbon fibre-reinforced plastic prestressed ground anchors and their field applications, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 968-985. Katawaki, K. et al. 1992. Evaluation of the Durability of Advanced Composites for Applications to Prestressed Concrete Bridges, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-1), 119-127. Nanni, A. et al. 1992. Durability of Braided Epoxy-Impregnated Aramid FRP Rods, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-1), 101-109. Sasaki, I. et al. 1997. Durability Evaluation of FRP Cables by Exposure Tests, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures, 131-137. Takewaka, K. & Khin, M. 1996. Deterioration and Stress-Rupture of FRP Rods in Alkaline Solution Simulating a Concrete Environment, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-2), 649-656. Tomosawa F. et al. 1997. Evaluation of the ACM Reinforcement Durability by Exposure Test, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (2), 139-146. Uomoto, T. & Ohga, H. 1996. Performance of Fiber Reinforced Plastics for Concrete Reinforcement, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures (ACMBS-2), 125-132.

(a) Region for analysis (Place-W, 150)

(b) Place-W (c) Unexposed (Both for 1747/1652 cm1 ratio)

Figure 9 Results of FT-IR microscopy for AFRP2

The same measurement was performed for CFRP2 (both unexposed and place-W); however, no specific deteriorated region was observed even for the CFRP2 place-W cable. 3.4 DSC DSC was performed for several cables. Small pieces were sampled from the surface and interior region of the cables, and the glass transition point for each sample was measured using DSC, and then compared with the initial values. The glass transition point of the exposed CFRP2 was 110.9 where the equivalent initial value was 94.6 . The exposed GFRP also showed a higher glass transition point (136.8 ) compared with the initial value (126.4 ).

4 CONCLUSIONS
An exposure test for six types of FRP cables was carried out for more than fifteen years under maritime conditions, and the retrieved cables were evaluated mainly by SEM and FT-IR microscopy. Loss of surface resin was observed for all the tested FRP cables; however,