Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Article
Shear Strengthening of RC Beams Using Sprayed Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer
Copyright © 2012 S. M. Soleimani and N. Banthia. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
The effectiveness of externally bonded sprayed glass fiber reinforced polymer (Sprayed GFRP) in shear strengthening of RC beams
under quasi-static loading is investigated. Different techniques were utilized to enhance the bond between concrete and Sprayed
GFRP, involving the use of through bolts and nuts paired with concrete surface preparation through sandblasting and through the
use of a pneumatic chisel prior to Sprayed GFRP application. It was found that roughening the concrete surface using a pneumatic
chisel and using through bolts and nuts were the most effective techniques. Also, Sprayed GFRP applied on 3 sides (U-shaped) was
found to be more effective than 2-sided Sprayed GFRP in shear strengthening. Sprayed GFRP increased the shear load-carrying
capacity and energy absorption capacities of RC beams. It was found that the load-carrying capacity of strengthened RC beams was
related to an effective strain of applied Sprayed GFRP. This strain was related to Sprayed GFRP configuration and the technique
used to enhance the concrete-FRP bond. Finally, an equation was proposed to calculate the contribution of Sprayed GFRP in the
shear strength of an RC beam.
P Load
4 × 200 = 800 mm
5 × 160 = 800 mm
100 mm 100 mm
150 mm
2 no.10 bars
where applicable
d = 20 mm
2 no. 20 bars
debonding) and (2) FRP has fractured in tension. Due to Table 1: Properties of RC beams.
stress concentrations at debonded areas or at the corners,
FRP fracture in tension may occur at a stress lower than the Parameter Definition Value Unit
FRP tensile strength. Clearly, shear capacity of RC members b Width of compression face of member 150 mm
strengthened in shear with externally bonded FRP depends h Overall depth of beam 150 mm
on the mode of failure. Distance from extreme compression fiber
d 120 mm
RC beams with deficiency in their shear strength (i.e., ex- to centroid of tension reinforcement
pected to fail in shear) were retrofitted using Sprayed GFRP. Distance from extreme compression fiber
d 20 mm
Different thicknesses and schemes were used, and their ef- to centroid of compression reinforcement
fectiveness was evaluated under quasi-static loading. Specified compressive strength of
fc 44 MPa
concrete
Specified yield strength of tension
2. Beam Design and Testing Procedure fy
reinforcement
440 MPa
A total of 29 RC beams were cast to investigate the shear Specified yield strength of compression
f yc 474 MPa
strengthening using Sprayed GFRP under quasi-static load- reinforcement
ing. These beams contained flexural reinforcement, but none Specified yield strength of shear
f ys 600 MPa
or less than the required stirrups. The total length of these reinforcement
beams was 1 m, and they were tested over an 800 mm span. As Area of tension reinforcement 600 mm2
Load configuration and cross-sectional details are shown in As Area of compression reinforcement 200 mm2
Figure 1. Av Area of shear reinforcement 35.4 mm2
The parameters needed for calculating the load-carrying
capacity of the beam shown in Figure 1 are tabulated in
Table 1. Since not enough shear reinforcement was provided,
the maximum strength of the beam would be governed by reinforcement is provided for shear. At this point, tension
the shear strength of concrete as well as the shear strength reinforcement would start yielding. It is also worth noting
provided by the steel stirrups where applicable. Calculations that the beam was designed to produce a typical shear failure
show that if resistance factors are not considered, the capacity mode since not enough stirrups were provided and the shear
of this beam under quasi-static loading is 131 kN if enough strength of the concrete was far below the flexural strength of
Advances in Civil Engineering 3
180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 120
110 110 P
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Figure 3: Load versus midspan deflection of control RC beam Figure 5: Load versus midspan deflection of control RC beam
C-NS. C-S-2.
180
180 170
170 160
160 150
150 140
140 130
130 120 P
120 110 Load
Load (kN)
110 P 100
Load (kN)
100 Load 90
90 80
80 70
70 60
60 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
50
50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm 40
40 30
30 20
20 10
10 0
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm)
Midspan deflection (mm)
Figure 6: Load versus midspan deflection of control RC beam C-SS.
Figure 4: Load versus midspan deflection of control RC beam
C-S-1.
800 mm
100 mm 100 mm
150 mm
2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm
2 no. 20 bars
P Load
Plate 50 × 50 × 10 mm
800 mm
100 mm 100 mm
150 mm
2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm
h = 150 mm
2 no. 20 bars
180 2600 min−1 , rated air pressure of 0.59 MPa, and rated air con-
170
160 sumption of about 3 m3 /min.
150 One beam (beam B2-NS-SB) was tested while Sprayed
140
130 GFRP was applied after preparing the surface using the sand-
120 blast technique. The beam contained no stirrups, and its
110
Load (kN)
100 P details can be found in Table 2. Figure 12 shows the test result
Load
90 of this beam while the test result of its control beam (beam
80
70 C-NS) is also included.
60
50 It is clear that sandblasting technique was not an effective
40 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
way to enhance the Sprayed GFRP-concrete bond. This bond
30
20 failed before having any contribution to the enhancement of
10 shear strength of this RC beam. As a result, the load-carrying
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 capacity was unchanged due to premature bond failure as
Midspan deflection (mm) shown in Figure 12.
Two beams (beam B2-NS-EP and beam B2-S-EP) were
Figure 10: Load versus midspan deflection of control RC beam
C-NS-6B. tested while Sprayed GFRP was applied over the cured primer
and putty (Wabo MBrace). The purpose of these tests was
to identify the effectiveness of this technique in providing
a better Sprayed GFRP-concrete bond. Figure 13 shows the
(3) The concrete surface was sandblasted and then test result of beam B2-NS-EP (beam with no stirrups; details
washed by a high-pressure washer. After the surface are tabulated in Table 2). The test result of its control beam
dried, primer and putty (Wabo MBrace-surface pre- (beam C-NS) is also included in Figure 13 for comparison.
paration for fabric GFRP system) were applied to the The test result of beam B2-S-EP (beam with Φ4.75 stir-
concrete surface prior to Sprayed GFRP application. rups at 160 mm with tabulated details in Table 2) is shown
in Figure 14 while the test result of its control beam (beam
Figure 11 shows the prepared surface before Sprayed C-S-2) is also included in the same figure.
GFRP application using pneumatic concrete chisel. This pne- From these test results, one can conclude that the
umatic tool weighs around 1.7 kg with a stroke speed of Sprayed GFRP-concrete bond showed an improvement by
8 Advances in Civil Engineering
180
170
160 B2-NS-EP
B2-NS-EP
150
140
130
120
110
Load (kN)
P
100 Load
90
80
70
60
50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm)
B2-NS-EP
C-NS (control)
180
170
160 B2-S-EP B2-S-EP
150 B2-S-EP B2-S-EP
Figure 11: Surface preparation using pneumatic concrete chisel. 140
130
120
Load (kN)
180 110 P
P 100 Load
170 Load
160 90
150 80
140 70
130 60
120 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm 50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
40
Load (kN)
110
100 30
90 20
80 10
70 0
60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
50 Midspan deflection (mm)
40
30 B2-S-EP
20 C-S-2 (control)
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Figure 14: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-S-EP.
Midspan deflection (mm)
B2-NS-SB (sandblasting)
C-NS (conrol) 180
170 P
Load
Figure 12: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-NS-SB. 160
150
140
130
introducing an intermediate layer of Wabo MBrace primer 120 800 mm 100 mm
110 100 mm
Load (kN)
180 180
170 170
160 B2-S-1 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 120
P 110 P Load
110
Load (kN)
Load
Load (kN)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70
70 60
60
100 mm 800 mm 100 mm 50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
50 40
40 30
30 20
20 10
10 0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm)
Midspan deflection (mm)
B2-S-3
B2-S-1 C-S-2 (control)
C-S-2 (control)
Figure 16: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-S-1. Figure 18: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-S-3.
180
170
160 B2-S-2 180
150 170
140 160
130 150 B2-S-4
120 140
110 P 130
Load
Load (kN)
100 120
P Load
Load (kN)
90 110
80 100
70 90
60 80
50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm 70
60
40
50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
30
20 40
10 30
0 20
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0
Midspan deflection (mm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
B2-S-2 Midspan deflection (mm)
C-S-2 (control) B2-S-4
C-S-2 (control)
Figure 17: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-S-2.
Figure 19: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-S-4.
chisel, as shown in Figures 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, appears 110 Load
100
to be a promising technique in enhancing the bond between 90
concrete and GFRP. It was also noticed that load carrying 80
70
capacity was proportional to the cross-sectional area of GFRP 60
50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
material to a certain point, beyond which increasing this area 40
did not increase the load-carrying capacity. 30
20
Figures 21(a)–21(e) show crack development in beam 10
B2-S-1 under 3-point quasi-static loading, and Figure 21(f) 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
shows the strong bond between GFRP and concrete, which
Midspan deflection (mm)
was clearly greater than tensile/shear strength of concrete and
B2-S-5
concrete-rebar bond strength. It is worth mentioning that all C-S-2 (control)
Sprayed GFRP plates were cut at the midspan of the beam
(both cases: Sprayed GFRP on 2 lateral sides and on 3 sides) Figure 20: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-S-5.
10 Advances in Civil Engineering
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 21: Beam B2-S-1. (a) to (e) Crack development under 3-point loading; (f) strong sprayed GFRP-concrete bond.
to make sure that the GFRP contribution only in shear Using 4 through Bolts as Mechanical Fasteners. Six beams
strengthening would be measured. It is obvious that since were tested using 4 bolts: 3 beams with no stirrups and
Sprayed GFRP consists of randomly distributed chopped 100 mm width Sprayed FRP on their lateral sides and 3 beams
fibers, unlike unidirectional FRP fabrics, any portion of this with Φ4.75 stirrups at 160 mm and 150 mm width Sprayed
composite material underneath the neutral axis of the RC FRP on their lateral sides. Cross-sectional details and bolt
beam will increase the flexural capacity of the beam. locations are shown in Figure 22.
By cutting the cured Sprayed GFRP at the midspan and Load versus midspan deflection curves of beams B2-
underneath the neutral axis, the contribution of this compos- 4B-NS-1, B2-4B-NS-2, and B2-4B-NS-3 with their control
ite material toward flexural strengthening is minimized, and, specimen (beam C-NS-6B) are reported in Figures 23, 24,
therefore, the shear strengthening benefits of Sprayed GFRP and 25. Figures 26, 27, and 28 show load versus midspan
can be calculated and formulated based on its geometry and deflection curves for beams B2-4B-S-1, B2-4B-S-2, and B2-
properties. 4B-S-3 along with their control specimen (beam C-S-6H).
From the pictures illustrated in Figures 23, 24, 25, 26,
5.2.2. Using through Bolts and Nuts as Mechanical Fasteners. 27, and 28, one can conclude that the presence of through
Ten beams were tested using through bolts and nuts as bolts as mechanical fasteners can certainly prevent premature
mechanical fasteners to overcome the premature failure, if GFRP debonding failure.
any, due to FRP debonding and to observe FRP rupture at the
beam’s failure. There were either 4 or 6 bolts as mechanical Using 6 through Bolts as Mechanical Fasteners. Four beams
fasteners, and the test results of these two groups of tests are were tested using 6 bolts: 3 beams with no stirrups and
discussed in this section. 100 mm width Sprayed FRP on their lateral sides and one
Advances in Civil Engineering 11
Plate 50 × 50 × 10 mm P
Load
800 mm
100 mm 100 mm
150 mm
2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm
100 mm
d = 20 mm
Sprayed FRP
2 no. 20 bars
(a)
150 mm
2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm
h = 150 mm
2 no. 20 bars
(b)
Figure 22: Cross-sectional details of RC beams; (a) B2-4B-NS-1 to B2-4B-NS-3; (b) B2-4B-S-1 to B2-4B-S-3.
beam with Φ4.75 stirrups at 160 mm spacing and 100 mm Contribution of GFRP in shear strengthening, which was
width Sprayed FRP on its lateral sides. Cross-sectional details proportional to its cross-sectional area to a certain point, will
and bolt locations are shown in Figure 29. be addressed later.
Load versus midspan deflection curves of beams B2-6B-
NS-1, B2-6B-NS-2, and B2-6B-NS-3 with their control spec- 5.3. Sprayed GFRP on Three Sides. Four beams, all with
imen’s test result (beam C-NS-6B) are reported in Figures 30, Φ4.75 stirrups at 160 mm, were strengthened using Sprayed
31, and 32. Figure 33 shows load versus midspan deflection GFRP on their 3 sides (i.e., U-shaped). As mentioned earlier,
curve for beam B2-6B-S-1 while its control specimen’s load- since shear strengthening was the primary focus of this
deflection response (beam C-S-6H) is also included. research, the GFRP was cut at the midspan of the beam
Again, from the pictures in Figures 30, 31, 32, and 33, underneath the neutral axis of the beam’s cross-section to
one can conclude that the presence of through bolts as minimize its contribution in flexural strengthening (see the
mechanical fasteners can certainly prevent premature GFRP top right picture in Figure 36 for example). In this way, the
debonding failure. In all cases GFRP rupture was observed. contribution of GFRP to the shear strength of an RC beam,
Depending on GFRP thickness, this rupture can occur before if any, would be explored. Load versus midspan deflection
(i.e., at the same time of) or after shear failure of RC beam. curves are shown in Figures 34, 35, 36, and 37 for beams
12 Advances in Civil Engineering
180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130 P
120 120 Load
110 110
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
P
100 Load 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
50 50
40 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm) Midspan deflection (mm)
B2-4B-NS-1 B2-4B-S-1
C-NS-6B (control) C-S-6H (control)
Figure 23: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-4B-NS- Figure 26: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-4B-S-1.
1.
180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 120
110 P
Load (kN)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50
100 mm
800 mm
100 mm 50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm) Midspan deflection (mm)
B2-4B-NS-2
B2-4B-S-2
C-NS-6B (control)
C-S-6H (control)
Figure 24: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-4B-NS- Figure 27: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-4B-S-2.
2.
180
170 180
160 170
150 160
140 150
130 140
120 130
110 P
Load (kN)
P 120 Load
100 Load 110
Load (kN)
90 100
80 90
70 80
60 70
50 800 mm 100 mm 60 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
40 100 mm
50
30 40
20 30
10 20
0 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0
Midspan deflection (mm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm)
B2-4B-NS-3
C-NS-6B (control) B2-4B-S-3
C-S-6H (control)
Figure 25: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-4B-NS-
3. Figure 28: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-4B-S-3.
Advances in Civil Engineering 13
Plate 50 × 50 × 10 mm P
Load
800 mm
100 mm 100 mm
150 mm
2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm
100 mm
Sprayed FRP
d = 20 mm
2 no. 20 bars
(a)
150 mm
2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm
100 mm
Sprayed FRP
2 no. 20 bars
(b)
Figure 29: Cross-sectional details of RC beams; (a) B2-6B-NS-1 to B2-6B-NS-3; (b) B2-6B-S-1.
B3-S-1 to B3-S-4, respectively. To show the benefits of this GFRP (beams B2-NS-EP and B2-S-EP) increased the
technique, the test result of beam C-S-2 (control beam) is load-carrying capacity, the energy absorption capaci-
also included in each figure. Notice that beams B3-S-3 and ty was not increased as much as the load carrying ca-
B3-S-4 showed significant increases in their load-carrying pacity (it even decreased for beam B2-NS-EP).
capacities, and a clear tension-steel yielding was observed in
these two beams. In all 4 beams, the mode of failure was (2) Roughening the concrete surface using a pneumatic
changed from shear to flexure. concrete chisel was an effective way to increase the
concrete-FRP bond. This, in turn, increased the
energy absorption capacity of strengthened beams as
6. Energy Evaluation well.
Peak loads and absorbed energy up to 10 mm, 15 mm, and
20 mm midspan deflections of the tested RC beams are pro- (3) Using through bolts and nuts effectively increased
vided in Table 3. Based on the information provided in both the load-carrying capacity and the energy
Table 3, one can draw the following conclusions. absorption capacity in strengthened beams. Either
sandblasting or roughening the concrete surface by a
(1) Although using primer and putty (Wabo MBrace) as chisel can be employed when this type of mechanical
an intermediate layer between concrete and Sprayed fastener is used.
14 Advances in Civil Engineering
Table 3: Peak loads and area under the load versus midspan deflection curves of RC beams.
180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 120
110 P 110
Load (kN)
P
Load (kN)
Figure 30: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-6B-NS- Figure 31: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-6B-NS-
1. 2.
Advances in Civil Engineering 15
180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 120 PLoad
110 110
Load (kN)
P
Load (kN)
B2-6B-NS-3 B3-S-2
C-NS-6B (control) C-S-2 (control)
Figure 32: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-6B-NS- Figure 35: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B3-S-2.
3.
180 180
170
170 160
160 150
150 140
140 130
130 120 P
120 Load
110
Load (kN)
110 P 100
Load (kN)
100 Load 90
90 80
80 70
70 60 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
60 50
50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm 40
40 30
30 20
20 10
10 0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm)
Midspan deflection (mm)
B2-6B-S-1 B3-S-3
C-S-6H (control) C-S-2 (control)
Figure 33: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-6B-S-1. Figure 36: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B3-S-3.
180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 P 120 P
Load Load
110 110
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm 60 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Midspan deflection (mm) Midspan deflection (mm)
B3-S-1 B3-S-4
C-S-2 (control) C-S-2 (control)
Figure 34: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B3-S-1. Figure 37: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B3-S-4.
16 Advances in Civil Engineering
150 mm 150 mm
Sprayed FRP
dfrp
dfrp
Figure 38: Depth of FRP Shear Reinforcement.
Contribution of Sprayed
sion steel yielding was observed in a flexural failure (B3-S-3)
60
type in beams B3-S-3 and B3-S-4. The confinement (B2-S-EP)
50 (B3-S-2)
provided by U-shaped Sprayed GFRP also effectively (B2-4B-S-3)
(B2-6B-NS-2) (B2-6B-NS-3) (B2-4B-S-2)
increased the energy absorption capacity of these 40 (B2-6B-S-1) (B3-S-1)
(B2-4B-S-1)
strengthened beams. As a result, it should always 30 (B2-6B-NS-1)
(B2-4B-NS-3)
be recommended to apply the U-shaped Sprayed 20 (B2-4B-NS-2)
(B2-NS-EP)
GFRP configuration for shear strengthening, where (B2-4B-NS-1)
10
possible.
0
(5) The presence of steel stirrups was effective in 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
increasing the load-carrying and energy absorption 2t frp·Efrp·dfrp (kN)
capacities of strengthened RC beams. This is a benefit
Series 1
because, in practice, RC beams contain steel stirrups,
Linear (series 1)
and adding Sprayed GFRP as external shear rein-
forcement can more effectively increase the beams’
Figure 39: Contribution of Sprayed GFRP in shear strength versus
performance under large loads compared to those 2 × tfrp × Efrp for RC beams strengthened by Sprayed GFRP on three
with no stirrups. sides, two sides with mechanical fasteners, and two sides with epoxy.
R2 = 0.5991
Contribution of Sprayed
(B2-S-5)
Sprayed GFRP, which would clearly be less than its strain at 40 (B2-S-4)
rupture, there would be no contribution of the FRP to the (B2-S-2) (B2-S-3)
(1) Sprayed GFRP on two sides with mechanical fasten- Figure 40: Contribution of Sprayed GFRP in shear strength versus
ers, 2 × tfrp × Efrp for RC beams strengthened by Sprayed GFRP on two
(2) Sprayed GFRP on two sides with epoxy interlayer, sides with no mechanical fasteners and no epoxy.
Table 4: Product of (2 × tfrp × dfrp × Efrp ) for different configurations of sprayed GFRP.
Advances in Civil Engineering
Contribution of
Peak load of
GFRP in shear dfrp , FRP width tfrp , FRP Efrp tensile modulus of Efrp · 2tfrp · dfrp (2 ×
Sprayed GFRP Beam name Peak load (kN) control beam
strength (kN) (mm) thickness (mm) elasticity of FRP (MPa) (6) × (7) × (5))
configuration (kN)
((2)-(3))
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Sprayed FRP on two B2-NS-EP 96.8 79 17.8 100 2.2 14000 6160
sides with epoxy B2-S-EP 144.9 91.6 53.3 120 6 14000 20160
B2-4B-NS-1 92 77.2 14.8 100 1.8 14000 5040
B2-4B-NS-2 99.4 77.2 22.2 100 2.5 14000 7000
B2-4B-NS-3 111.5 77.2 34.3 100 4 14000 11200
Sprayed FRP on B2-4B-S-1 122.4 87.7 34.7 120 3.5 14000 11760
two sides with B2-4B-S-2 129.8 87.7 42.1 120 4.2 14000 14112
mechanical fasteners B2-4B-S-3 132.8 87.7 45.1 120 4.5 14000 15120
B2-6B-NS-1 108.1 77.2 30.9 100 3.5 14000 9800
B2-6B-NS-2 117.2 77.2 40 100 4 14000 11200
B2-6B-NS-3 121.9 77.2 44.7 100 4.5 14000 12600
B2-6B-S-1 126.7 87.7 39 100 4 14000 11200
B3-S-1 128.5 91.6 36.9 120 3.2 14000 10752
Sprayed FRP on B3-S-2 135.4 91.6 43.8 120 4 14000 13440
three sides B3-S-3 157.1 91.6 65.5 120 7 14000 23520
B3-S-4 166 91.6 74.4 120 8 14000 26880
B2-NS 105.5 79 26.5 100 4 14000 11200
B2-S-1 117.2 91.6 25.6 120 3.5 14000 11760
Sprayed FRP on two
sides (no epoxy, no B2-S-2 128.9 91.6 37.3 120 4.5 14000 15120
mechanical fasteners) B2-S-3 129.3 91.6 37.7 120 5.6 14000 18816
B2-S-4 132.1 91.6 40.5 120 6 14000 20160
B2-S-5 133.2 91.6 41.6 120 7 14000 23520
17
18
Table 5: Validity of proposed equation to calculate the contribution of sprayed GFRP in shear strength of RC beam.
Contribution of
Peak load of tfrp , FRP Efrp , tensile modulus Vfrp [kN] = 2tfrp ·
Peak load GFRP in shear dfrp , FRP εfrp , effective Vcalc /Vexp
Sprayed GFRP Beam name control beam thickness of elasticity of FRP dfrp · Efrp · εfrp (2 ×
(kN) strength (kN) width (mm) strain of FRP (9)/(4)
configuration (kN) (mm) (MPa) (6) × (5) × (7) × (8))
((2)-(3))
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Sprayed FRP on two B2-NS-EP 96.8 79 17.8 100 2.2 14000 0.003 18.5 1.04
sides with epoxy B2-S-EP 144.9 91.6 53.3 120 6 14000 0.003 60.5 1.13
B2-4B-NS-1 92 77.2 14.8 100 1.8 14000 0.003 15.1 1.02
B2-4B-NS-2 99.4 77.2 22.2 100 2.5 14000 0.003 21.0 0.95
B2-4B-NS-3 111.5 77.2 34.3 100 4 14000 0.003 33.6 0.98
Sprayed FRP on B2-4B-S-1 122.4 87.7 34.7 120 3.5 14000 0.003 35.3 1.02
two sides with B2-4B-S-2 129.8 87.7 42.1 120 4.2 14000 0.003 42.3 1.01
mechanical fasteners B2-4B-S-3 132.8 87.7 45.1 120 4.5 14000 0.003 45.4 1.01
B2-6B-NS-1 108.1 77.2 30.9 100 3.5 14000 0.003 29.4 0.95
B2-6B-NS-2 117.2 77.2 40 100 4 14000 0.003 33.6 0.84
B2-6B-NS-3 121.9 77.2 44.7 100 4.5 14000 0.003 37.8 0.85
B2-6B-S-1 126.7 87.7 39 100 4 14000 0.003 33.6 0.86
B3-S-1 128.5 91.6 36.9 120 3.2 14000 0.003 32.3 0.87
Sprayed FRP on B3-S-2 135.4 91.6 43.8 120 4 14000 0.003 40.3 0.92
three sides B3-S-3 157.1 91.6 65.5 120 7 14000 0.003 70.6 1.08
B3-S-4 166 91.6 74.4 120 8 14000 0.003 80.6 1.08
B2-NS 105.5 79 26.5 100 4 14000 0.002 22.4 0.85
B2-S-1 117.2 91.6 25.6 120 3.5 14000 0.002 23.5 0.92
Sprayed FRP on two
sides (no epoxy, no B2-S-2 128.9 91.6 37.3 120 4.5 14000 0.002 30.2 0.81
mechanical fasteners) B2-S-3 129.3 91.6 37.7 120 5.6 14000 0.002 37.6 1.00
B2-S-4 132.1 91.6 40.5 120 6 14000 0.002 40.3 1.00
B2-S-5 133.2 91.6 41.6 120 7 14000 0.002 47.0 1.13
Advances in Civil Engineering
Advances in Civil Engineering 19
(3) Sprayed GFRP on 3 sides (U-shaped), strength of concrete [MPa], bw = width of the web of a beam
(4) Sprayed GFRP on two sides with no mechanical fas- [mm], and d = distance from extreme compression fiber to
teners or epoxy interlayer. centroid of tension reinforcement [mm].
It is equally important to keep this restriction in mind
The shear contribution of Sprayed GFRP for different while designing shear strengthened RC beams using Sprayed
beams tested in this study as well as the product of 2 × tfrp × GFRP. In other words, when the Sprayed GFRP coating ex-
dfrp × Efrp are tabulated in Table 4. ceeds a certain thickness, equation (2) will rightly put an up-
Contribution of Sprayed GFRP to shear strength (i.e., per limit for FRP contribution in the shear strength of an RC
column (4) in Table 4) versus 2 × tfrp × dfrp × Efrp product beam.
(i.e., column (8) in Table 4) is drawn in Figures 39 and 40. (3) While εfrp is either 0.002 or 0.004 for fabric FRP
Figure 39 shows the results for RC beams strengthened by (Equation (11.5) of CSA-S806-02) and 0.002 or 0.003 for
Sprayed GFRP on three sides, two sides with mechanical Sprayed GFRP (1), in shear strengthening of RC beams there
fasteners, and two sides with epoxy, while Figure 40 demon- is no major benefit in using ultra-high-strength fabric FRP,
strates the results for those strengthened on two sides with and Sprayed GFRP with its strain at rupture of 0.63% can be
no mechanical fasteners and no epoxy. considered a more economical product compared to fabric
From the first set of specimens shown in Figure 39, a FRP with a strain to rupture of about 2.1% (i.e., 5 to 10 times
value of 0.003 will be achieved for εfrp , while a value of 0.002 more than 0.004 and 0.002, resp.). It is necessary to mention
is attained for εfrp from Figure 40. that all these limits are actually derived from FRP-concrete
Based on the results reported in Figures 39 and 40, the bond limitations.
following equation is proposed to calculate the contribution (4) It is worth noting that εfrp , effective strain of FRP in
of Sprayed GFRP composites in the shear strength of RC (1), is governed by the compressive strength of concrete. εfrp
beams: can be assumed as a maximum strain of GFRP at which the
Vfrp = 2tfrp dfrp Efrp εfrp , (1) integrity of concrete and secure activation of the aggregate
interlock mechanism are maintained. Since in this study the
where, Vfrp = contribution of Sprayed GFRP in shear strength compressive strength of concrete was constant, the relation-
of RC beam [N], tfrp = average thickness of the Sprayed ship between the effective strain of Sprayed GFRP and the
GFRP [mm], dfrp = depth of FRP shear reinforcement as compressive strength of concrete could not be established.
shown in Figure 38 [mm], Efrp = modulus of elasticity of FRP In general, if we consider a relationship such as the one
composite, εfrp = {0.002, for side bonding to the web when no proposed by ISIS Canada (Equation 2.40) for wrap GFRP, the
mechanical fasteners/epoxy are used, 0.003, for side bonding following equation (or an equation with similar format) can
to the web when mechanical fasteners are used, 0.003, for side be used to predict the effective strain of Sprayed GFRP for an
bonding to the web when an interlayer of epoxy is used, and RC beam with a different concrete compressive strength:
0.003, for continuous U-shaped around the bottom of the
web}. 0.31
The validity of this equation is shown in Table 5. It is clear fc
εfrp, fc = , (3)
that the calculated values for Vfrp are very close to their exper- 44
imental values. The proposed equation (1) is very similar to
Equation (11.5) of CSA S-806-02 [4]. As a result, this pro- where it εfrp, fc = effective strain of Sprayed GFRP correspond-
posed equation can easily be implemented in the Canadian ing to compressive strength of concrete used in RC beam and
Standard Code for shear-strengthening design using Spray- fc = compressive strength of concrete in RC beam (MPa).
ed GFRP composites. (5) Note that resistance factor of FRP composites, φfrp ,
has not been introduced into the proposed equation (1).
In CSA S806-02 a value of 0.75 is recommended as the
8. Conclusions resistance factor of FRP composites, and this value can also
There are some important things that should be mentioned be applied in (1) as a safety factor.
here. Implementing φfrp into (1), it can be written as:
(1) In Sprayed GFRP application, since U-shaped wrap-
ping will always be applied continuously in practice, the Vfrp = 2φfrp tfrp dfrp Efrp εfrp , (4)
spacing of FRP shear reinforcement (i.e., sfrp ) has been left
out of the proposed equation. This makes the proposed equa- where it φfrp is the resistance factor for Sprayed GFRP com-
tion simple to apply. posite, and a value of 0.75, based on CSA S806-02 [4], is re-
(2) CSA S-806-02 [4] restricts the summation of shear commended.
resistance provided by steel stirrups (Vs ) and FRP composite
(Vfrp ) to a certain value (Clause 11.3.2.2 Equation (11.2)) as
follows: References
Vs + Vfrp ≤ 0.6λφc fc bw d, (2) [1] U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States,
“Table 1090: Bridge Inventory—Total Deficient and Obsolete:
where it λ = factor to account for low-density concrete, 1996 to 2010, and by State 2010,” Transportation, vol. 2012, p.
φc = resistance factor of concrete, fc = specified compressive 685, 2012.
20 Advances in Civil Engineering
Rotating
Machinery
International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of
Journal of
Control Science
and Engineering
Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of
International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2010
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014