Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2012, Article ID 635176, 20 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/635176

Research Article
Shear Strengthening of RC Beams Using Sprayed Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer

Sayed Mohamad Soleimani1 and Nemkumar Banthia2

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch, Ahar 5451116714, Iran
2 Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4

Correspondence should be addressed to Nemkumar Banthia, banthia@civil.ubc.ca

Received 11 December 2011; Accepted 5 February 2012

Academic Editor: Dawn E. Lehman

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.

1. Introduction This paper deals with shear strengthening of RC beams

Many concrete structures such as bridges that are in use today
have exceeded their design life. In the USA alone, about 25%
of their 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete [1]. On the other hand, code require-
ments have been changed, the shear requirements have
become more stringent for concrete girders and especially
for bridges, and allowable traffic loads have been increased.
Some elements of these structures have also been weakened
due to corrosion of steel rebars containing longitudinal (ten-
sion and compression) and vertical (shear) reinforcements.
Therefore, rehabilitation and strengthening of these concrete
structures is one of the priorities for engineers today. In fact,
this new challenge necessitates a close collaboration between
structural and materials experts. Advantages of FRP compos-
ites have encouraged researchers around the world to focus
on the externally bonded FRP composites for strengthen-
ing of concrete slabs, columns, and beams.
using sprayed glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) com-
posites. This technique and relevant materials properties
(glass fiber and polymer) have been discussed in detail else-
where [2]. This technique, as compared to externally bonded
FRP fabrics and laminates, is quite new for strengthening of
RC structures. Hence, a limited number of publications are
available with respect to this technique. On the other hand,
externally bonded FRP including glass, carbon, and aramid
(e.g., Kevlar) fibers have been studied for flexural and shear
strengthening of RC beams and strengthening of RC columns
extensively. As a result, new guidelines are available to
design concrete structural elements strengthened with exter-
nally applied FRP such as the American ACI 440.2R-02 [3],
Canadian CSA-S802-02 [4], ISIS design manual [5], and
European fib-TG9.3-01 [6].
Two major failure modes for RC beams strengthened
in shear using externally bonded FRP have been reported:
(1) FRP has peeled off at the concrete-FRP interface (FRP
2 Advances in Civil Engineering

P Load

LVDT no. 1 LVDT no. 2 LVDT no. 3

4 × 200 = 800 mm

5 × 160 = 800 mm
100 mm 100 mm

150 mm

2 no.10 bars

Φ4.75 mm stirrup at 160 mm

d = 120 mm
h = 150 mm

where applicable
d = 20 mm

2 no. 20 bars

Figure 1: Load configuration and cross-sectional details of RC beams.

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
Figure 2: Beam test setup under quasi-static loading.
the beam. The RC beam with no stirrups and with stirrups
(Φ4.75 at 160 mm) is predicted to have a capacity of about
80 kN and 100.2 kN, respectively.
In quasi-static loading conditions, all of the beams were
tested in 3-point loading using a Baldwin 400 kips universal
testing machine. Three linear variable differential transform-
ers (LVDTs) were used to capture the deflection at the mid-
span as well as two more points along the beam as shown
in Figure 1. The test setup for quasi-static loading is shown
in Figure 2. Applied load and deflections were constantly
monitored and recorded using a data acquisition system
based on a PC.
3. Specimen Preparation
All specimens were identical in dimensions. Casting was
done on a vibrating table to ensure proper consolidation of
the concrete. Specimens were demolded after one day and
immersed in lime-saturated water. At the age of 28 days, the
beams were removed from the curing tank and set out to
dry under normal laboratory conditions. A minimum of one
week of drying was allowed prior to any testing, surface pre-
paration, or spraying.
Surface preparation is the key to successful strengthening
using externally bonded FRP. The surface must be dry, clean,
and free of oil, debris, and loose materials. Different techni-
ques were used for surface treatment before applying Sprayed
GFRP; they are discussed later.
4. Retrofit Schemes
Different configurations can be used for shear strengthening
of RC beams using externally bonded GFRP. In general, the
number of surfaces around the beam and the thickness of
strengthening materials are of greatest interest. Throughout
this investigation, different retrofit schemes with different
thicknesses (with and without mechanical fasteners) were
studied.
In FRP wrap systems, FRPs are bonded on the lateral
faces of the beam with the fibers perpendicular or inclined to
the longitudinal axis of the beam. The FRPs can also be plac-
ed on both lateral faces in a continuous way underneath the
beam web resembling U-shaped external stirrups. The per-
formance of the U-shaped bands can be further improved by
3
adding additional longitudinal FRP strips over the ends of
the U-shaped bands.
Sprayed GFRP was applied either on both lateral faces
or on three faces excluding the top (i.e., compression face).
Boyd [7] reported a difficulty involving the inability of the
fibers to stay in place when bent around sharp corners during
the retrofit process. To overcome this problem and to avoid
possible failure of the FRP due to stress concentrations at the
corners of the beam section, when sprayed or fabric GFRP
was applied on three sides of the beam, the corners of the
beam section were rounded to a radius of 35 mm. This was
also recommended by ISIS Canada [5].
Different thicknesses of Sprayed GFRP were applied and
studied in this project. For surface preparation, different
techniques such as sandblasting, epoxy glue, and hammering
the surface were investigated. Through bolts and nuts were
also tried with emphasis on concrete-GFRP bond strength
enhancement.
5. Results and Discussion
A total of 29 RC beams were tested under quasi-static load-
ing. Beam designations and details are tabulated in Table 2.
The following notations are used for beam designations:
C: control,
NS: no stirrups,
S: stirrups (Φ4.75 at 160 mm),
SS: stirrups (3Φ4.75 at 50 mm),
B2: sprayed GFRP on 2 lateral sides of the beam,
B3: sprayed GFRP on 3 sides of the beam,
SB: sandblasted (i.e., concrete surface),
EP: epoxy was used before spraying the GFRP (i.e.,
primer and putty, Wabo MBrace system, details about
this system is available in [2]),
4B: 4 through bolts,
6B: 6 through bolts,
6H: 6 through holes.
5.1. Control Beams with No GFRP. Six beams were tested
under quasi-static loading without the GFRP coating. Results
are reported here and will be used later as bench marks for
comparison.
5.1.1. Control Beam with No GFRP and No Stirrups. One
beam (beam C-NS in Table 2) was tested under quasi-static
loading with no stirrups and no GFRP. The result of this test
is shown in Figure 3. A typical shear failure was observed in
this beam with a crack of about 45◦ . This shear crack became
flatter at the load point as shown in Figure 3. Load carrying
capacity was in good agreement with the predicted value.
5.1.2. Control Beams with No GFRP and Stirrups at 160 mm.
Two beams (beams C-S-1 and C-S-2 in Table 2) were tested
under quasi-static loading with no GFRP and Φ4.75 stirrups
 4

Table 2: RC beams designations and details.

Number of sides with GFRP and GFRP
dimensions
Through bolts and Epoxy glue (Putty) Concrete surface
Concrete surface
Beam designation Number of stirrups No sides 2 Sides 3 Sides, nuts as mechanical was used to increase was hammered to
was sandblasted
(control) thickness fasteners bond strength increase bond
No Φ4.75 mm 3Φ4.75 mm Thickness Width (mm) strength
4 bolts 6 bolts
Stirrups at 160 mm at 50 mm (mm) (mm)
√ √
C-NS
√ √
C-S-1
√ √
C-S-2
√ √
C-SS
√ √
C-S-6H
√ √ √
C-NS-6B
√ √
B2-NS-SB 3 100
√ √ √
B2-NS-EP 2.2 100
√ √ √
B2-S-EP 6 150
√ √
B2-NS 4 100
√ √
B2-S-1 3.5 150
√ √
B2-S-2 4.5 150
√ √
B2-S-3 5.6 150
√ √
B2-S-4 6 150
√ √
B2-S-5 7 150
√ √ √
B2-4B-NS-1 1.8 100
√ √ √
B2-4B-NS-2 2.5 100
√ √ √
B2-4B-NS-3 4 100
√ √ √
B2-4B-S-1 3.5 150
√ √ √
B2-4B-S-2 4.2 150
√ √ √
B2-4B-S-3 4.5 150
√ √ √
B2-6B-NS-1 3.5 100
√ √ √
B2-6B-NS-2 4 100
√ √ √
B2-6B-NS-3 4.5 100
√ √ √
B2-6B-S-1 4 100
√ √
B3-S-1 3.2
√ √
B3-S-2 4
√ √
B3-S-3 7
√ √
B3-S-4 8
Advances in Civil Engineering
Advances in Civil Engineering 5

180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 120
110 110 P

Load (kN)
Load (kN)

100 P 100 Load

Load 90
90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm
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)

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.

5.1.4. Control Beam with No GFRP, Stirrups at 160 mm and

at 160 mm. The results of these tests are shown in Figures 4
and 5. The presence of stirrups produced multiple cracks as
compared to one large crack in the RC beam with no stir-
rups (compare Figure 3 with Figures 4 and 5). Load-carrying
capacity was about 10% less than the expected value.
5.1.3. Control Beam with No GFRP and Stirrups at 50 mm.
One beam (beam C-SS in Table 2) was tested under quasi-
static loading with no GFRP and 3Φ4.75 stirrups at 50 mm.
The result of this test is shown in Figure 6. Flexural and shear
cracks were observed during the test and the beam ultimately
failed in shear after reaching its flexural capacity. Since the
amount of tension reinforcement (600 mm2 ) was about 2.7%
of the concrete cross-sectional area (150 mm × 150 mm),
undeformed reinforcing bars for shear (i.e., 3Φ4.75 at 50 mm
stirrups) were not too effective in capturing shear cracks after
yielding tension reinforcement. As a result, when tension
reinforcement started yielding, the shear cracks propagated
towards the concrete compression zone. Failure took place
when the shear cracks entered the concrete compression
region, which also showed some crushing. This can be seen
in the pictures illustrated in Figure 6.
6 through Holes. One beam (beam C-S-6H in Table 2) was
tested under quasi-static loading with Φ4.75 stirrups at
160 mm, no GFRP, and 6 through holes with a diameter of
12.5 mm (1/2 in.). The location of these holes is illustrated in
Figure 7, and the result of this test is shown in Figure 8.
The purpose of this test was to determine the magnitude
by which the load-carrying capacity of the beam would
decrease if through holes were created for GFRP bond en-
hancement. It was observed that only 4% of the load-carry-
ing capacity of this beam was lost due to the presence of the
through holes. The load-carrying capacity of beam C-S-6H
was 87.7 kN which was about 3.9 kN less than that of beams
C-S-1 and C-S-2.
5.1.5. Control Beam with No GFRP, No Stirrups, and 6
through Bolts and Nuts. One beam (beam C-NS-6B in
Table 2) was tested under quasi-static loading with no stir-
rups, no GFRP, and 6 through bolts and nuts. The location
of these bolts and their details are illustrated in Figure 9, and
the result of this test is shown in Figure 10.
A torque of 67.8 N·m (50 lb·ft) was applied to tighten
the nuts on both sides of the beam, as shown in Figure 9.
6 Advances in Civil Engineering

12.5 mm through hole P

Load

150 mm 150 mm 200 mm 150 mm 150 mm

800 mm
100 mm 100 mm

150 mm

2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm

12.5 mm through hole

h = 150 mm

Φ4.75 mm stirrup at 160 mm

d = 20 mm

2 no. 20 bars

Figure 7: Cross-sectional details of RC beam C-S-6H.

180 used up during the beam’s failure compared to beam C-NS

170
160 with no bolts.
150
140
130 5.2. Sprayed GFRP on Two Sides. Nineteen beams in total
120
110 P were strengthened by Sprayed GFRP on their lateral sides.
Load
Load (kN)

100 Different techniques were used to evaluate the effectiveness of

90
80 Sprayed GFRP in the shear strengthening of RC beams. In the
70 following sections, these techniques will be discussed, and
60
50 100 mm 800 mm 100 mm the results will be compared. Each result will also be com-
40 pared with its corresponding control specimen as described
30
20 in Section 5.1.1.
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 5.2.1. Beams with No Mechanical Fasteners. Nine beams were
Midspan deflection (mm) tested with Sprayed GFRP applied to their lateral sides and
Figure 8: Load versus midspan deflection of control RC beam no mechanical fasteners were used. The purpose of these
C-S-6H. tests was to find the best type of concrete surface to create
a stronger GFRP-concrete bond. Three different techniques
were employed as follows.
This torque was kept constant during experimentation and (1) The concrete surface was sandblasted and then
was applied to all beams containing through bolts and nuts. washed by a high-pressure washer. The beam was left
The purpose of this test was to determine the benefits, for a couple of days in the laboratory environment to
if any, of these bolts in increasing the shear capacity of the make sure that the surface was completely dried be-
beam. According to the obtained results, the use of these bolts fore applying the Sprayed GFRP.
and nuts overcame the weakness of having through holes in (2) The concrete surface was roughened using a small
the RC beam. In effect, the shear capacity of the RC beam pneumatic concrete chisel. This technique provided
maintained its original capacity (i.e., with no through holes). a rougher surface than sandblasting. Then, the con-
It was also noticed that the applied torque provided more crete surface was washed using a high-pressure wash-
confinement for concrete, and, as a result, more energy was er and dried before Sprayed GFRP application.
Advances in Civil Engineering 7

P Load
Plate 50 × 50 × 10 mm

150 mm 150 mm 200 mm 150 mm 150 mm

800 mm
100 mm 100 mm

150 mm

2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm
h = 150 mm

Bolt (threaded no. 10 bar)

d = 20 mm

2 no. 20 bars

Figure 9: Cross-sectional details of RC beam C-NS-6B.

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)

Figure 13: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-NS-EP.

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)

and putty compared to the sandblasting technique. Load- 100

carrying capacity of these beams increased in proportion 90
80
with the cross-sectional area of the applied Sprayed GFRP 70
on the lateral sides of the RC beam. 60
50
Six beams (beam B2-NS and beams B2-S-1, B2-S-2, 40
B2-S-3, B2-S-4, and B2-S-5) were tested while Sprayed 30
20
GFRP was applied on the lateral sides of the beam over a 10
roughened surface using the pneumatic concrete chisel. The 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
purpose of these tests was to identify the effectiveness of Midspan deflection (mm)
this technique in providing a better Sprayed GFRP-concrete
bond. Figure 15 shows the test result of beam B2-NS (beam B2-NS
C-NS (control)
with no stirrups; details are tabulated in Table 2). The test
result of its control beam (beam C-NS) is also included in Figure 15: Load versus midspan deflection of RC beam B2-NS.
Advances in Civil Engineering 9

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.

Figure 15 for comparison. Test results of beams B2-S-1, B2-

S-2, B2-S-3, B2-S-4, and B2-S-5 (beams with Φ4.75 stirrups 180
at 160 mm with tabulated details in Table 2) are shown in 170
160
Figures 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 while the test result of their 150
control beam (beam C-S-2) is also included in each figure. 140
130
Roughening the concrete surface using a pneumatic 120
P
Load (kN)

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
(a)
(c)
(e)
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
strengthening would be measured. It is obvious that since
Sprayed GFRP consists of randomly distributed chopped
fibers, unlike unidirectional FRP fabrics, any portion of this
composite material underneath the neutral axis of the RC
beam will increase the flexural capacity of the beam.
By cutting the cured Sprayed GFRP at the midspan and
underneath the neutral axis, the contribution of this compos-
ite material toward flexural strengthening is minimized, and,
therefore, the shear strengthening benefits of Sprayed GFRP
can be calculated and formulated based on its geometry and
properties.
5.2.2. Using through Bolts and Nuts as Mechanical Fasteners.
Ten beams were tested using through bolts and nuts as
mechanical fasteners to overcome the premature failure, if
any, due to FRP debonding and to observe FRP rupture at the
beam’s failure. There were either 4 or 6 bolts as mechanical
fasteners, and the test results of these two groups of tests are
discussed in this section.
Advances in Civil Engineering
(b)
(d)
(f)
Using 4 through Bolts as Mechanical Fasteners. Six beams
were tested using 4 bolts: 3 beams with no stirrups and
100 mm width Sprayed FRP on their lateral sides and 3 beams
with Φ4.75 stirrups at 160 mm and 150 mm width Sprayed
FRP on their lateral sides. Cross-sectional details and bolt
locations are shown in Figure 22.
Load versus midspan deflection curves of beams B2-
4B-NS-1, B2-4B-NS-2, and B2-4B-NS-3 with their control
specimen (beam C-NS-6B) are reported in Figures 23, 24,
and 25. Figures 26, 27, and 28 show load versus midspan
deflection curves for beams B2-4B-S-1, B2-4B-S-2, and B2-
4B-S-3 along with their control specimen (beam C-S-6H).
From the pictures illustrated in Figures 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, and 28, one can conclude that the presence of through
bolts as mechanical fasteners can certainly prevent premature
GFRP debonding failure.
Using 6 through Bolts as Mechanical Fasteners. Four beams
were tested using 6 bolts: 3 beams with no stirrups and
100 mm width Sprayed FRP on their lateral sides and one
Advances in Civil Engineering 11

Plate 50 × 50 × 10 mm P
Load

200 mm 175 mm 125 mm

800 mm
100 mm 100 mm

150 mm

2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm

Bolt (threaded no. 10 bar)

h = 150 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

Bolt (threaded no. 10 bar)

d = 20 mm

Φ4.75 mm stirrup at 160 mm

Sprayed FRP

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
width Sprayed FRP on its lateral sides. Cross-sectional details
and bolt locations are shown in Figure 29.
Load versus midspan deflection curves of beams B2-6B-
NS-1, B2-6B-NS-2, and B2-6B-NS-3 with their control spec-
imen’s test result (beam C-NS-6B) are reported in Figures 30,
31, and 32. Figure 33 shows load versus midspan deflection
curve for beam B2-6B-S-1 while its control specimen’s load-
deflection response (beam C-S-6H) is also included.
Again, from the pictures in Figures 30, 31, 32, and 33,
one can conclude that the presence of through bolts as
mechanical fasteners can certainly prevent premature GFRP
debonding failure. In all cases GFRP rupture was observed.
Depending on GFRP thickness, this rupture can occur before
(i.e., at the same time of) or after shear failure of RC beam.
Contribution of GFRP in shear strengthening, which was
proportional to its cross-sectional area to a certain point, will
be addressed later.
5.3. Sprayed GFRP on Three Sides. Four beams, all with
Φ4.75 stirrups at 160 mm, were strengthened using Sprayed
GFRP on their 3 sides (i.e., U-shaped). As mentioned earlier,
since shear strengthening was the primary focus of this
research, the GFRP was cut at the midspan of the beam
underneath the neutral axis of the beam’s cross-section to
minimize its contribution in flexural strengthening (see the
top right picture in Figure 36 for example). In this way, the
contribution of GFRP to the shear strength of an RC beam,
if any, would be explored. Load versus midspan deflection
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)

P Load 110 Load

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

150 mm 150 mm 200 mm 150 mm 150 mm

800 mm
100 mm 100 mm

150 mm

2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm

Bolt (threaded no. 10 bar)

h = 150 mm

100 mm

Sprayed FRP
d = 20 mm

2 no. 20 bars

(a)

150 mm

2 no. 10 bars
75 mm
d = 120 mm

Bolt (threaded no. 10 bar)

h = 150 mm

100 mm

Φ4.75 mm stirrup at 160 mm

d = 20 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.

Area under the load versus midspan deflection curve (N·m)

Beam name Peak load (kN)
Up to 10 mm deflection Up to 15 mm deflection Up to 20 mm deflection
C-NS 79 559 735 883
C-NS-6B 77.2 612 825 1000
C-S-6H 87.7 690 996 1262
C-SS 131.9 1024 1465 1757
C-S-1 91.6 647 934 1168
C-S-2 91.6 659 926 1157
B2-NS-SB 79 526 728 904
B2-NS-EP 96.8 474 625 760
B2-S-EP 144.9 1033 1261 1454
B2-NS 105.5 599 786 935
B2-S-1 117.2 809 1020 1190
B2-S-2 128.9 843 1129 1363
B2-S-3 129.3 962 1265 1529
B2-S-4 132.1 1051 1285 1461
B2-S-5 133.2 1005 1246 1460
B2-4B-NS-1 92 734 1005 1196
B2-4B-NS-2 99.4 722 1019 1223
B2-4B-NS-3 111.5 782 1056 1270
B2-4B-S-1 122.4 893 1282 1623
B2-4B-S-2 129.8 1016 1590 2053
B2-4B-S-3 132.8 1033 1591 2024
B2-6B-NS-1 108.1 733 1011 1269
B2-6B-NS-2 117.2 717 895 1069
B2-6B-NS-3 121.9 773 1025 1263
B2-6B-S-1 126.7 976 1440 1812
B3-S-1 128.5 1030 1544 1898
B3-S-2 135.4 1050 1503 1817
B3-S-3 157.1 1192 1839 2249
B3-S-4 166 1423 2121 2491

180 180
170 170
160 160
150 150
140 140
130 130
120 120
110 P 110
Load (kN)

P
Load (kN)

100 Load 100 Load

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)
B2-6B-NS-1 B2-6B-NS-2
C-NS-6B (control) C-NS-6B (control)

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)

100 Load 100

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)

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.

(4) U-shaped Sprayed GFRP was the most promising 90

way to gain the maximum possible benefits in shear 80 y = 0.003x

GFRP in shear strength (kN)

strengthening from these advanced materials. Ten- 70 R2 = 0.9267
(B3-S-4)

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.

7. Modeling and Proposed Equation

In all tests performed in this study, the Sprayed GFRP 60
fracture occurred after the peak load (shear capacity) was
50
reached. This shows that after a certain strain is placed on y = 0.002x
GFRP in shear strength (kN)

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)

shear strength of RC beams. 30 (B2-NS)

If we consider a single shear crack in an RC beam with a (B2-S-1)
45◦ angle with respect to the horizontal axis, the horizontal 20
projection of the crack can be taken as dfrp , which is shown
in Figure 38. 10
Therefore, for Sprayed GFRP applied continuously on
both sides of an RC beam with a thickness of tfrp on each side 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
and modulus of elasticity of Efrp , the product of 2 × tfrp × 2t frp·Efrp·dfrp (kN)
dfrp × Efrp × εfrp will give the shear resisted by the Sprayed
GFRP. Series 1
Strengthened beams can be divided into four groups: Linear (series 1)

(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
(3) Sprayed GFRP on 3 sides (U-shaped),
(4) Sprayed GFRP on two sides with no mechanical fas-
teners or epoxy interlayer.
The shear contribution of Sprayed GFRP for different
beams tested in this study as well as the product of 2 × tfrp ×
dfrp × Efrp are tabulated in Table 4.
Contribution of Sprayed GFRP to shear strength (i.e.,
column (4) in Table 4) versus 2 × tfrp × dfrp × Efrp product
(i.e., column (8) in Table 4) is drawn in Figures 39 and 40.
Figure 39 shows the results for RC beams strengthened by
Sprayed GFRP on three sides, two sides with mechanical
fasteners, and two sides with epoxy, while Figure 40 demon-
strates the results for those strengthened on two sides with
no mechanical fasteners and no epoxy.
From the first set of specimens shown in Figure 39, a
value of 0.003 will be achieved for εfrp , while a value of 0.002
is attained for εfrp from Figure 40.
Based on the results reported in Figures 39 and 40, the
following equation is proposed to calculate the contribution
of Sprayed GFRP composites in the shear strength of RC
beams:
Vfrp = 2tfrp dfrp Efrp εfrp , (1)
where, Vfrp = contribution of Sprayed GFRP in shear strength
of RC beam [N], tfrp = average thickness of the Sprayed
GFRP [mm], dfrp = depth of FRP shear reinforcement as
shown in Figure 38 [mm], Efrp = modulus of elasticity of FRP
composite, εfrp = {0.002, for side bonding to the web when no
mechanical fasteners/epoxy are used, 0.003, for side bonding
to the web when mechanical fasteners are used, 0.003, for side
bonding to the web when an interlayer of epoxy is used, and
0.003, for continuous U-shaped around the bottom of the
web}.
The validity of this equation is shown in Table 5. It is clear
that the calculated values for Vfrp are very close to their exper-
imental values. The proposed equation (1) is very similar to
Equation (11.5) of CSA S-806-02 [4]. As a result, this pro-
posed equation can easily be implemented in the Canadian
Standard Code for shear-strengthening design using Spray-
ed GFRP composites.
8. Conclusions
There are some important things that should be mentioned
here.
(1) In Sprayed GFRP application, since U-shaped wrap-
ping will always be applied continuously in practice, the
spacing of FRP shear reinforcement (i.e., sfrp ) has been left
out of the proposed equation. This makes the proposed equa-
tion simple to apply.
(2) CSA S-806-02 [4] restricts the summation of shear
resistance provided by steel stirrups (Vs ) and FRP composite
(Vfrp ) to a certain value (Clause 11.3.2.2 Equation (11.2)) as
follows:

Vs + Vfrp ≤ 0.6λφc fc bw d, (2)
where it λ = factor to account for low-density concrete,
φc = resistance factor of concrete, fc = specified compressive
19
strength of concrete [MPa], bw = width of the web of a beam
[mm], and d = distance from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of tension reinforcement [mm].
It is equally important to keep this restriction in mind
while designing shear strengthened RC beams using Sprayed
GFRP. In other words, when the Sprayed GFRP coating ex-
ceeds a certain thickness, equation (2) will rightly put an up-
per limit for FRP contribution in the shear strength of an RC
beam.
(3) While εfrp is either 0.002 or 0.004 for fabric FRP
(Equation (11.5) of CSA-S806-02) and 0.002 or 0.003 for
Sprayed GFRP (1), in shear strengthening of RC beams there
is no major benefit in using ultra-high-strength fabric FRP,
and Sprayed GFRP with its strain at rupture of 0.63% can be
considered a more economical product compared to fabric
FRP with a strain to rupture of about 2.1% (i.e., 5 to 10 times
more than 0.004 and 0.002, resp.). It is necessary to mention
that all these limits are actually derived from FRP-concrete
bond limitations.
(4) It is worth noting that εfrp , effective strain of FRP in
(1), is governed by the compressive strength of concrete. εfrp
can be assumed as a maximum strain of GFRP at which the
integrity of concrete and secure activation of the aggregate
interlock mechanism are maintained. Since in this study the
compressive strength of concrete was constant, the relation-
ship between the effective strain of Sprayed GFRP and the
compressive strength of concrete could not be established.
In general, if we consider a relationship such as the one
proposed by ISIS Canada (Equation 2.40) for wrap GFRP, the
following equation (or an equation with similar format) can
be used to predict the effective strain of Sprayed GFRP for an
RC beam with a different concrete compressive strength:
 0.31
fc
εfrp, fc = , (3)
44
where it εfrp, fc = effective strain of Sprayed GFRP correspond-
ing to compressive strength of concrete used in RC beam and
fc = compressive strength of concrete in RC beam (MPa).
(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
resistance factor of FRP composites, and this value can also
be applied in (1) as a safety factor.
Implementing φfrp into (1), it can be written as:
Vfrp = 2φfrp tfrp dfrp Efrp εfrp , (4)
where it φfrp is the resistance factor for Sprayed GFRP com-
posite, and a value of 0.75, based on CSA S806-02 [4], is re-
commended.
References
[1] U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States,
“Table 1090: Bridge Inventory—Total Deficient and Obsolete:
1996 to 2010, and by State 2010,” Transportation, vol. 2012, p.
685, 2012.
20 Advances in Civil Engineering

[2] S. M. Soleimani, Sprayed glass fiber reinforced polymers in shear

strengthening and enhancement of impact resistance of rein-
forced concrete beams, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2006.
[3] ACI Committee 440, “Guide for the design and construction
of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening con-
crete structures,” ACI 440.2R-08, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich, USA, 2008.
[4] CSA-S806-02 (R2007), “Design and construction of building
components with fibre-reinforced polymer,” Tech. Rep., Cana-
dian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 2007.
[5] “Strengthening Reinforced Concrete Structures with External-
ly-Bonded Fiber Reinforced Polymers,” September 2001, ISIS
Canada Design Manual no. 4.
[6] fib-TG9.3, “Design and Use of Externally Bonded Fiber Poly-
mer Reinforcement (FRP EBR) for Reinforced Concrete Struc-
tures,” Bulletin 14, July 2001.
[7] A. J. Boyd, Rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beams with spray-
ed glass fiber reinforced polymers, Ph.D. thesis, The University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2000.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
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

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

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

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
Chemical Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
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