Experimental Study on Sprayed FRP System for Strengthening

Reinforced Concrete Beams

Kang Seok Lee
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 10 ( 2012 ), pp. 219-230

Analysis of FRP-Strengthened RC Members with Varied Sheet Bond Stress-Slip Models

Yuichi Sato , HuneBum Ko

Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 2 ( 2004 ), pp. 317-326

Unified Analytical Approaches for Determining Shear Bond Characteristics of FRP-Concrete Interfaces
through Pullout Tests
Jianguo Dai, Tamon Ueda, Yasuhiko Sato
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 4 ( 2006 ), pp. 133-145

Concrete or FRP Jacketing of Columns with Lap Splices for Seismic Rehabilitation
Stathis N. Bousias, Alexis/ Spathis, Michael N. Fardis
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 4 ( 2006 ), pp. 431-444

Modeling of Reinforcement Buckling in RC Columns Confined with FRP

Yuichi Sato, HuneBum Ko
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 6 ( 2008 ), pp. 195-204

Experimental Behaviour of Carbon FRP Reinforced Concrete Beams at Ambient and Elevated
Temperatures
Muhamma Masood Rafi, Ali Nadjai
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, volume 6 ( 2008 ), pp. 431-441
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, June 2012 / Copyright © 2012 Japan Concrete Institute 219

Scientific paper

Experimental Study on Sprayed FRP System for Strengthening

Reinforced Concrete Beams
Kang Seok Lee1

Received 3 December 2012, accepted 23 May 2012 doi:10.3151/jact.10.219

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to develop a new technique for strengthening and repairing existing concrete structures with
sprayed fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) by mixing chopped carbon or glass fibers with epoxy or vinyl ester resins in
open air and randomly spraying the mixture onto the concrete surface with compressed air. The use of sprayed FRP for
repair and strengthening purposes using epoxy or vinyl ester resins has never been fully investigated. In this study, ten-
sile testing was conducted on material specimens to determine the optimum length of chopped carbon or glass fibers
and the mixture ratio of fiber, epoxy, and vinyl ester resin for sprayed FRP. These variables were adjusted to produce a
material strength equivalent to that of one FRP sheet. The optimal length of glass and carbon chopped fibers was deter-
mined to be 38 mm, and the optimal mixture ratio of chopped fiber to resin was found to be 1:2. The thickness of
sprayed FRP required to provide the same strengthening effect as one FRP sheet was also calculated. During this study,
experiments were conducted to evaluate the strengthening/repair effects of the sprayed FRP on flexural beams, shear
beams, and damaged beams. The results showed that the strengthening effect of sprayed FRP on the flexural and shear
specimens was similar to those of one FRP sheet. The maximum strength of the damaged beams reinforced by sprayed
FRP was approximately the same as that of the reinforced flexural and shear beams. Moreover, existing design equa-
tions for FRP sheets were found to be applicable to flexural beams reinforced with sprayed FRP. The shear beam speci-
mens could be safely designed using the coefficient of shear strength reduction α = 0.18, determined to result in com-
puted values that most closely approximate the experimental values. Overall, the sprayed FRP technique was found to
be suitable for strengthening existing reinforced concrete buildings.

1 Introduction has many drawbacks such as the requirement for prior

The structural performance of reinforced concrete (RC)
structures deteriorates with time due to various causes
such as environmental conditions, change in the design
load, deviations from the material properties and struc-
tural design errors, and defective construction. This re-
sults in a shortened service life and reduced structural
safety. When this occurs, the structure must be strength-
ened to restore the structural safety and prevent prob-
lems of inadequate bearing capacity caused by the dete-
rioration.
The conventional methods for repair and strengthen-
ing concrete structures include reinforcement with steel
plates or steel frame braces, as well as cross-sectional
increments and in-filled walls. However, these methods
incur other problems such as the increase of mass and
the requirement for precise construction methods. Other
methods, such as FRP sheet strengthening using new
lightweight composite materials such as carbon, glass,
and aramid fiber, have excellent durability and perform-
ance and are being widely used to circumvent the short-
comings of conventional repair and strengthening meth-
ods. Nonetheless, the FRP-sheet reinforcement method
1 Although vinyl ester resin is generally used for
Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Chonnam
National University, Gwangju, 500-757, South Korea.
E-mail: kslnist@jnu.ac.kr
surface treatment, problems at joints, and relatively ex-
pensive material cost. Thus, the development of a new
strengthening technique with better workability and
reduced cost is definitely needed.
The purpose of this study was to develop a new tech-
nique for strengthening existing concrete structures. The
proposed technique is sprayed FRP, achieved by mixing
chopped glass and carbon fibers with epoxy and vinyl
ester resin in open air and randomly spraying the result-
ing mixture onto the uneven surface of the concrete
structure. There has been little research on sprayed FRP
(Banthia et al. 2002; Harries and Young 2003; Furuta
2001a; Furuta 2001b), especially using epoxy resin.
This study involved tensile testing of the composed
material, with the length of chopped glass and carbon
fibers and the mix ratio of the fibers, epoxy, and vinyl
ester resin as test variables to determine the optimum
properties for sprayed FRP on concrete structures. The
optimum sprayed FRP based on the results of this mate-
rial testing was used to strengthen RC beams subject to
flexural failure (flexural beams) and shear failure (shear
beams). The sprayed FRP technique was also used for
the repair of damaged RC beams (the damaged beams).
The strengthening performance of sprayed FRP was
evaluated experimentally in these three cases.
sprayed FRP because it hardens rapidly after being ap-
plied, this study considered a mixture of stronger epoxy
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 220

resin and vinyl ester resin to reduce the viscosity of the spectively.
spray, resulting in the improvement of the overall Chopped carbon fiber in lengths of 28 and 38 mm
workability of the sprayed FRP technique. was added to 40 test specimens to evaluate the construc-
Material property and structural tests were conducted tion workability and performance. Chopped glass fiber
to examine the repair and strengthening effects as well of various lengths was added to 120 test specimens in
as the practical design equations of sprayed FRP on different mix ratios to produce five types of material.
concrete samples, and to determine the optimal chopped The test specimens were cured for seven days in the
fiber length and fiber–resin mix ratio to achieve the open air at 25°C, after which they were assumed to be
same strength as one layer of the currently used FRP completely hard. A strain gauge was installed at the cen-
sheets. The materials used were carbon and glass fibers ter of each type of test specimen. Figure 3 shows the
(Fig. 1), epoxy, and vinyl ester resin. Spraying equip- tensile strength and strain measured by a miniature 5-t
ment produced by Binks Polycraft, Inc. (Fig. 2) was universal test machine. The test speed was set to speed
used in the experiments. type A (1 ± 0.5 mm/min) as specified by KS M 3381
(2004) and JIS K7054 (2006).
2 Material tests
2.1 Test specimens
Sprayed FRP is a new research field with a still limited
body of experimental data, and no standard for FRP
material has yet been established. Therefore, this study
used the existing KS M 3381 (2004) and JIS K7054
(2006) specifications for tensile testing of glass fiber
reinforced plastic. The strengthening material used for
the material test included roving-type glass and carbon
fibers, sheet-type glass and carbon fibers for strength
comparison, and epoxy and vinyl ester resin. The ex-
perimental variables for the material test were the length
of the chopped fibers and the mix ratio of the resin and
fibers, which is based on weight. Tables 1 and 2 list the
material test variables and the material properties, re-

Fig. 2 Equipment used for sprayed FRP.

Table 1 Material test variables.

Length Ratio of mixture (weight)
Chopped fiber type
(mm) Epoxy Vinyl Ester
Glass 14, 28, 38, 56 1:3, 1:2.5, 1:2 1:4, 1:3, 1:2
Carbon 28, 38 1:2.5, 1:2 1:3, 1:2
(a) Glass fiber
Table 2 Material properties.
Modulus
Tensile Design
of
Material strength thickness
elasticity
(MPa) (mm)
(MPa)
Roving Carbon
3,920 2.35×105 -
Type [M Company]
Glass
Fiber 500 2.5×104 1
Sheet [C Company]
Type Carbon
3,550 2.35×105 0.167
[S Company]
Epoxy
45 - -
(b) Carbon fiber [J Company]
Resin
Vinyl Ester
30 - -
Fig. 1 Chopped glass and carbon fibers. [J Company]
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 221

200
C38E=1:2

150

σ-stress (MPa)
C38VE=1:2 G38E=1:2

100

G38VE=1:2

50

0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
ε-strain (%)

(a) Mixture producing best strength

200

C28E=1:2

(Front view) 150

Fig. 3 Loading and measurement apparatus for the ma-

terial tests. σ-stress (MPa) C28VE=1:2
100

G14E=1:2

50
2.2 Test results G14VE=1:2
The tensile strength test was carried out on five test
specimens for each variable. The failure mode in this
0
test was fracturing at both sides 40 mm away from the 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2

center and crushing of the joint area. This study used the ε-strain (%)

fracture mode at both sides as the final test result. The
result of the material test, conducted to identify the op-
timum material properties for the sprayed FRP tech-
nique, indicated that the tensile strength increases with
the length of chopped fibers under the condition that the
quantity of the fibers in the mixture is greater than that
of the resin. Based on the performance and construction
workability of the chopper gun in the sprayed FRP
equipment, a fiber length of 38 mm and a resin mix ratio
of 1:2 by weight produced the best strength with the
least fiber tangling.
The stress–strain relationship for the optimum mate-
rial composition, which yielded the best strength as
mentioned above, is shown in Fig. 4, together with an
example of the other mixture, in terms of the average
value. The test specimen with chopped glass fiber had a
good elastic deformation but was not as strong as that
made with chopped carbon fiber. Table 3 lists the re-
sults of the material tests and the spray design thickness
to be used. The design thickness was calculated from Eq.
(1) and compared with the properties of FRP sheets
shown in Table 2 to compute the spray thickness yield-
ing the same tensile strength as one layer of FRP sheet.
σ FRP
⋅ TFRP = TSprayed
σ Sprayed
FRP
FRP
where σ is the tensile strength and T is the design thick-
ness.
(b) Example of other mixture
Fig. 4 Stress–strain relationships of chopped glass and
carbon fibers, and epoxy and vinyl ester resins.
3. Structural tests
A structural test was conducted to determine the struc-
tural behavior of the RC flexural beams, shear beams,
and damaged beams of both types shown in Fig. 5, all
of which were strengthened/repaired with the sprayed
FRP technique using material with an equivalent
strength of one FRP sheet. Figure 6 shows a test speci-
men being strengthened using the sprayed FRP tech-
nique. In actual application, beams have to be sprayed
upward in order to strengthen them using the sprayed
FRP technique. However, since this study consisted of
laboratory tests and focused on the after-strengthening
effect of the technique, especially the maximum
strength, the direction of spraying to make both B- and
U-sprayed beam specimens was downward. In further
studies, spraying should be carried out in the upward
direction for actual construction. Tables 4 and 5 list the
material properties of the concrete and steel rebar, re-
spectively, used in the test specimens.
(1)
3.1 Flexural beam test specimens
The general form of the concrete flexural beam test
specimen with a design compressive strength of 24 MPa
is shown in the upper diagram of Fig. 5, and Table 6
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 222

Table 3 Test results of the specimens and sprayed FRP design thickness.
Design
εt σt
Specimen Fiber Resin thickness
(%) (MPa)
(mm)
0.833*1 119.31*1
*2 *2 *2
G38:E = 1:2 Glass EpoxyStd : 0.152 Min : 0.730 Max : Std : 2.93 Min*2: 115.30
*2
4.2
1.100 Max*2: 119.31
1.036*1 117.05*1
*2 *2
G38:VE = 1:2 Glass VE Std :0.301 Min :0.850 Std :2.55 Min*2: 113.00
*2
4.4
Max*2: 1.561 Max*2:119.99
0.488*1 182.39*1
*2 *2
C38:E = 1:2 Carbon Epoxy Std :0.110 Min :0.410 Std : 23.36Min*2: 165.00
*2
3.0
Max*2:0.980 Max*2:223.00
0.657*1 116.83*1
*2 *2
C38:VE = 1:2 Carbon VE Std : 0.079Min : 0.550 Std : 24.32Min*2: 100.19
*2
4.0
*2
Max :0.750 Max*2:158.88
*1
indicates the average value. *2 Std, Min, and Max show the standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values, respectively.

Table 4 Material properties of concrete.

Flexural Beam Shear Beam
Compressive strength Compressive strength
Specified concrete strength Specified concrete strength
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days
19.3 23.1 29.2 35.6
24 18.3 19.9 30 29.5 34.7
19.4 29.9 29.7 30.9
average 19.0 24.3 average 29.5 33.7

Table 5 Material properties of steel rebar.

Modulus of elasticity Yield strength Tensile strength Elongation
Type
ES (×106) (MPa) fy (MPa) fu (MPa) (%)
D10 1.86 471.4 536.6 17.9
SD40 D13 1.82 375.1 567.2 19.6
D22 1.75 380.8 499.7 19.9
SD30 D10 1.78 414.5 458.6 16.7

Table 6 Flexural beam specimen summary.

Specimen Strengthening material Spray Damage
BN - - -
B-GS-U Glass fiber sheet U -
B-EG-SB Epoxy and chopped glass fiber B -
B-EG-SU Epoxy and chopped glass fiber U -
BCR-EG-SB Epoxy and chopped glass fiber B III
B-VG-SB Vinyl ester and chopped glass fiber B -
B-VG-SU Vinyl ester and chopped glass fiber U -
Note: B: Bending, N: Normal, CR: Cracking, GS: Glass fiber sheet, E: Epoxy, V: Vinyl ester,
G: Chopped glass fiber, S: Spray, B: Bottom, U: Bottom and side

gives the specific details of each specimen tested. Each
flexural test specimen was prepared by laying out two
D10 and two D13 type SD40 rebars at the top and bot-
tom for flexural strength, reinforced with shear-
reinforcement D10 steel bars at 150-mm intervals near
the center and 100-mm intervals near the ends to pre-
vent shear failure. The strengthening materials were
roving- and sheet-type glass fibers, and epoxy and vinyl
ester resin; these were also used for the material tests
(Table 2). Seven test flexural failure-type specimens
were prepared. They consisted of a standard test speci-
men (non-strengthened), a test specimen strengthened
with a glass fiber sheet for comparison purposes, four
specimens strengthened with sprayed RFP (chopped
glass fiber, epoxy, and vinyl ester resin) applied in U-
and B- shapes on the bottom of the beam, and one dam-
aged test specimen.
The damaged test specimen was prepared from a
standard test specimen (non-strengthened) by applying
the maximum load for the standard test specimen to
Damage Class III (about 60 kN), as defined in Fig. 7
(JBDPA 2001). The bottom of the specimen was then
reinforced with glass fiber and epoxy resin. All speci-
mens were loaded at two points with a 250-kN actuator
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 223

Fig. 5 Detail of typical flexural and shear beams (unit: mm).

(a) Loading of glass fiber (b) Spraying of glass fiber (c) Spraying of carbon fiber
Fig. 6 Beam strengthening using sprayed FRP.

as shown in Fig. 8, and a 100-mm linear variable dis-

placement transducer (LVDT) was installed at the load-
ing point and at the center of the specimen to measure
the flexural displacement.

3.2 Shear beam test specimens

The shear span ratio (a/d) of the shear test specimens
was 3.0, and concrete with a design compressive
strength of 30 MPa was used as shown in the lower part
of Fig. 5. The shear beam test specimens were prepared
by laying out two D13 and two D22 SD40 rebars at the
top and bottom and reinforcing them with D10 SD30
shear-reinforcement bars at 250-mm intervals. The Fig. 7 Relationship between degree of damage and load
strengthening material (Table 2) was the same as for the displacement of flexural member (JBDPA 2001).
flexural beam test specimens. A total of 14 shear fail-
ure-type test specimens were prepared, as indicated in
Table 7. They consisted of one standard test specimen as shown in Fig. 10, and a 100-mm LVDT and 50-mm
with shear rebar and one without, one specimen rein- LVDT were installed at the loading point and the center
forced with glass and one with carbon fiber sheets of the specimen, respectively, to measure the displace-
(CFS) for comparison, eight specimens reinforced on ment.
the side in U- and I- shapes using sprayed FRP with
each of the strengthening materials, two damaged test 4 Results
specimens reinforced on the side with chopped glass
and carbon fibers, epoxy, and vinyl ester resin after be- 4.1 Failure mode
ing subjected to damage equivalent to Damage Class III Figure 11 shows the failure modes of typical specimens.
(Fig. 9) (JBDPA 2001) of up to 90% (about 225 kN) of The flexural beam test specimen started by fracturing
the maximum load on the standard specimen. All speci- and debonding at the center of the sprayed FRP rein-
mens were loaded at two points with 100-kN actuators, forcement and eventually completely fractured. The
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 224

Fig. 9 Relationship between degree of damage and load

displacement of shear member (JBDPA 2001).
Fig. 8 Loading and measurement apparatus for flexural
beam.

concrete and the reinforcement behaved together in the

damaged beam test specimen (BCR-EG-SB) shown in
Fig. 11(b), resulting in eventual fracture of both. Figure
11(a) shows test specimen B-VG-SB, which exhibited
partial incomplete hardening; in that specimen, debond-
ing started at the center and progressed rapidly to the
ends, resulting in total failure.
The SB-GS-U shear test beam specimens, which were
strengthened with glass fiber sheets, SB-EG-SI in Fig.
11(c) and SB-EC-SI in Fig 11(d), experienced diagonal
compression failure in the flexural area in the upper
concrete and debonding after the simultaneous move- Fig. 10 Loading and measurement of shear beam.
ment of the reinforcement and the concrete in the shear
area, resulting in a failure of the flexural-shear mode at
the end. The damage beam test specimen shown in Figs. shear region, resulting in a failure of the flexural-shear
11(e) and 11(f) also exhibited a flexural failure mode, mode at the end. All the other test specimens exhibited
along with the simultaneous movement of the concrete fractures and early debonding of the reinforcement, re-
and the reinforcement material. After the upper concrete sulting in shear failure at the end.
in the flexural area experienced diagonal compression
failure, the reinforcement fractured and debonded in the

Table 7 Shear beam specimen summary.

Specimen Strengthening material Spray Damage
SBN-NT (Test specimen without shear rebar) - -
SBN - - -
SB-GS-U Glass fiber sheet U -
SB-EG-SI Epoxy and chopped glass fiber I -
SB-EG-SU Epoxy and chopped glass fiber U -
SBCR-EG-SI Epoxy and chopped glass fiber I III
SB-VG-SI Vinyl ester and chopped glass fiber I -
SB-VG-SU Vinyl ester and chopped glass fiber U -
SB-CS-U Carbon fiber sheet U -
SB-EC-SI Epoxy and chopped carbon fiber I -
SB-EC-SU Epoxy and chopped carbon fiber U -
SBCR-EC-SI Epoxy and chopped carbon fiber I III
SB-VC-SI Vinyl ester and chopped carbon fiber I -
SB-VC-SU Vinyl ester and chopped carbon fiber U -
Note: SB: Shear beam, N: Normal, T: Tension, CR: Cracking, GS: Glass fiber sheet,
CS: Carbon fiber sheet,
E: Epoxy, V: Vinyl ester, G: Chopped glass fiber, C: Chopped carbon fiber, S: Spray, I: Side,
U: Bottom and side
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 225

(a) B-VG-SB (b) BCR-EG-SB (c) SB-EG-SI

(d) SB-EC-SI (e) SBCR-EG-SI (f) SBCR-EC-SI

Fig. 11 Specimen failure modes.

Table 8 Summary of test results (units: kN, mm).

Cracking Yield Maximum TSFRP
Specimen Failure Mode
Vcr δcr Vy δy Vu δu † ‡
BN 13.4 2.85 36.1 9.91 60.8 35.55 - -
B-GS-U - - 75.3 16.03 108.8 41.17 - -
B-EG-SB 11.2 1.95 74.5 20.4 82.4 31.23 4.9
B-EG-SU 13.4 2.25 82.1 32.72 83.0 35.45 4.2 3.2 F
BCR-EG-SB 12.3 2.08 58.3 17.61 74.5 31.68 3.6
B-VG-SB 11.2 1.61 68.9 17.51 73.0 27.57 3.5
4.4
B-VG-SU 12.8 1.78 76.0 17.43 90.9 32.90 2.9
SBN-NT 56.0 1.39 - - 145.3 5.89 - -
S
SBN 37.1 0.91 230.4 8.44 246.4 9.95 - -
SB-GS-U - - 256.7 8.24 311.4 21.34 - -
F+S
SB-EG-SI 76.4 1.76 304.9 9.76 335.7 15.89 4.7
SB-EG-SU 54.5 1.04 - - 306.8 9.40 4.2 4.4 S
SBCR-EG-SI 36.9 1.06 294.5 9.57 325.7 16.08 4.1 F+S
SB-VG-SI 61.3 1.55 229.1 7.04 297.1 11.71 3.8
4.4 S
SB-VG-SU 74.5 1.51 300.6 9.17 324.8 12.47 2.7
SB-CS-U - - 312.1 17.62 326.6 22.96 - -
F+S
SB-EC-SI 66.3 2.15 314.5 12.39 343.6 21.38 2.7
SB-EC-SU 66.0 1.84 264.7 9.44 304.2 12.21 3.0 2.7 S
SBCR-EC-SI 35.2 0.92 315.2 11.04 332.9 16.46 3.5 F+S
SB-VC-SI 26.5 0.44 - - 276.9 8.50 4.6
4.0 S
SB-VC-SU 69.9 1.62 - - 305.3 9.02 3.3
Note: †: Sprayed, FRP design thickness, ‡: Actual sprayed FRP thickness,
F: Flexural failure, S: Shear failure

4.2 Load-displacement relationship
The experimentally determined load–displacement rela-
tionship of the test specimens reinforced with sprayed
FRP is shown in Table 8 and Figs. 12-14. As shown in
Fig. 12, the test results of the flexural beam test speci-
men strengthened with sprayed FRP indicate a rein-
forcement effect (i.e., strength) greater than that of the
unreinforced standard test specimen (BN). However,
compared to the test specimen (B-GS-U) strengthened
with a glass fiber sheet, the maximum strength of U-
type specimens strengthened with sprayed FRP(B-EG-
SU, B-VG-SU ) is approximately 1.25 times lower. This
is due to the strength of the glass fiber sheet used in the
B-GS-U specimen, which was approximately 3.3 times
that of an ordinary glass fiber sheet.
The damaged test specimen (BCR-EG-SB) exhibited
a reinforcement effect greater than the standard test
specimen (BN) and almost equivalent to the undamaged
and reinforced test specimen (B-EG-SB). The test speci-
men reinforced in a U-shape with chopped glass fiber
and epoxy resin exhibited a reinforcement effect similar
to the case when reinforcement is applied only to the
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 226

120
specimens (SBCR-EG-SI and SBCR-EC-SI) and the
BN
B-GS-U undamaged reinforced test specimens (SB-EG-SI and
100 B-EG-SB
B-EG-SU
SB-EC-SI). All shear beam test specimens, with the
B-VG-SB exception of the test specimen reinforced with chopped
80 B-VG-SU
BCR-EG-SB
glass fiber (SB-VG-SI), exhibited strengths greater than
Load (kN)

that of the comparison test specimen (SB-GS-U) rein-

60
forced with a glass fiber sheet (Fig. 13). On the other
hand, the strength of the test specimen reinforced with
40
chopped carbon fiber was almost the same as that of the
comparison test specimen reinforced with CFS (SB-CS-
20
U), as shown in Fig. 14, although all four specimens
except SB-EC-SI behaved improperly with the concrete
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 member due to incomplete hardening, which resulted in
Displacement (mm) failure due to early debonding of the reinforcement.
Fig. 12 Load–displacement relationship of flexural
beams (chopped glass fiber). 4.3 Comparison of results of this research with
previous research results
400
SBN
To compare the reinforcement effect of FRP sheets cur-
SBN-NT rently used with those of sprayed FRP used in this study,
SB-GS-U
SB-EG-SI the test specimens of flexural and shear beams were
300
SB-EG-SU prepared in the same manner as in previous research
SB-VG-SI
SB-VG-SU (Nah 2001; Nam 1998), concentrating on the reinforce-
Load (kN)

200
SBCR-EG-SI ment effect of FRP sheets.
Figure 15 shows the result of an experiment con-
ducted to compare the reinforcement effect achieved in
100
this study with that of previous research. Whereas the
sprayed FRP with chopped glass fiber on the flexural
beam test specimens in this study had a strengthening
0 effect similar to that of the existing FRP sheet method
0 20 40 60 80 (i.e., CFS) in terms of the maximum bearing capacity,
Displacement (mm)
the displacement at the maximum bearing capacity us-
Fig. 13 Load–displacement relationship of shear beams
ing CFS was about 10 mm greater. The strengthening
(chopped glass fiber).
effect of sprayed FRP with chopped glass and carbon
400
fibers on the shear beam test specimens was generally
SBN
greater than or equal to the reinforcement effect of the
SBN-NT conventional FRP sheet method. Similarly, the damaged
SB-CS-U
300 SB-EC-SI test specimens for the flexural and shear failure modes
SB-EC-SU (Damage Class III) repaired with sprayed FRP had
SB-VC-SI
about the same strength as those repaired with conven-
Load (kN)

SB-VC-SU
SBCR-EC-SI
200 tional FRP sheets.

100
400
Shear Beams
SFRP (No damage)
0 SFRP (Damaged)
0 20 40 60 80 300 Flexural Beams
Displacement (mm) SFRP (No damage)
SFRP (Damaged)
Fig. 14 Load–displacement relationship of shear beams
Existing shear test results strengthened with CFS
Vu (kN)

(chopped carbon fiber). 200 (Nam 1998)

Existing flexural test results strengthened with CFS

bottom, due to the early debonding of the U-shaped (Nah 2001)
100
strengthening. The test specimen strengthened with vi-
nyl ester resin in a U-shape exhibited strength about
1.25 times that of the standard test specimen. 0
Note: CFS stands for Carbon Fiber Sheet.

The reinforced shear beam test specimens exhibited 0 10 20 30 40 50

δu (mm)
strength greater than that of the standard test specimen
(SBN), as shown in Figs. 13 and 14, and almost equiva- Fig. 15 Comparison of sprayed FRP (SFRP) and FRP
lent to the reinforcement effect of the damaged test sheet test results.
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012
5 Applicability of sheet reinforcement
design equations to sprayed FRP
5.1 Flexural strengthening design equation
Equations (2) through (6) are the existing equations for
the maximum bearing capacity for the flexural strength-
ening effect. The value computed from each equation is
compared with the test result.
(1) The ACI committee 440 (2000) equation is
β1c β1c (2)
M n = As f s (d − ) + ψ Af f fe ( h − )
2 2
where M n is the flexural strength considering the effect
of sheet strengthening, As is the total cross sectional
area of tensile reinforcing bars, f s is the yield strength
of reinforcing bars, d is the effective depth of the beam,
c is the distance of the neutral axis, β1 =0.425, Af is the
cross-sectional area of the reinforcement, f fe is the yield
strength of the reinforcement, h is the depth of the beam,
and coefficient of strength reduction ψ = 1 .
(2) Nah’s equation (Nah 2001) is
a from the distance of the compression end to the center
M n = Cc (d − ) + Af f yf (h − d ) (3)
2
where the strength of reinforcing bars Cc = As ⋅ f s ,
a=0.85c, and the coefficient of strength reduction
f yf = 0.7 f uf . h − d is the distance from the reinforce-
ment to the center of the tensile rebar.
(3) El-Mihilmy’s equation (El-Mihilmy 2000) is
a a
M n = As f y ( d − ) + A f f f ( d f − ) (4)
2 2
df −c
where f f = E f ε f , ε f = ε cu ⋅ , f f is the yield
c center of the tensile rebar, h-d) between the centers of
strength of the reinforcement, and d f is the distance
between centroids of the reinforcement from the com-
pressive end.
(4) Han’s equation (Han 1998) is
a a
M n = σ y ( As − As′ )(d − ) + σ y As′ (d − d ′) + σ f Af (hs − ) (5)
2 2
where σ y is the yield strength of reinforcing bars,
h −c
σ f = E f ε f , and ε f = ε cu ⋅ s .
c forced concrete beams specified by the ACI 318 (2005)
(5) Lee’s equation (Lee et al. 2001) is
(6)
M n = Ts (d − k ) + Tcfs (h − k ) ⋅ v
v = (0.23 + 0.58 X 1 + 0.69 X 2 ), X 2 ≤ 0.25
where Ts is the yield strength of reinforcing bars, Tcfs is
the yield strength of the reinforcement, X 1 is the ratio of
the length of reinforcement to the span, and X 2 is the
ratio of the width of the U-shaped reinforcement at the
227
60
Sprayed FRP B and U Type
ACI 440's equation (2)
Nah's equation (3)
50 El-Mihilmy's equation (4)
Han's equation (5)
Lee's equation (6)
Mn (kN.m)
40
(test)
30
20
20 30 40 50 60
(calculation) Mn (kN.m)
Fig. 16 Comparisons of M n and Mn .
( test )
( calculation )
end to the span.
In the above equations, Af is the cross-sectional area
of the reinforcement, and sprayed FRP uses
b ⋅ tsfrp where tsfrp is the thickness of the reinforcement.
The value of f f is the strength obtained from the mate-
rial test result of the mixture of chopped fibers and resin,
shown in Table 3. Parameters d f and hs are obtained
of the sprayed FRP and are used to compute the theo-
retical values from the existing equations. The com-
puted values of strength from the existing equation are
compared with the experimentally measured test values
in Fig. 16.
This figure shows that, although the results of the
values of coefficient of strength reduction and the strain
of the reinforcement computed from Eqs. (2), (4), (5),
and (6) are not the same, the differences are small and
these values agree closely with the test values. Because
Eq. (3) minimizes the reinforcement region for the dis-
tance (i.e., the distance from the reinforcement to the
stress (j·d), its computed theoretical values of strength
are lower than the test results using sprayed FRP. On
the other hand, because all the existing equations except
Eq. (6) considered the bottom reinforcement method
only, the strength of the U-shape reinforcement could
not be computed accurately.
5.2 Shear strength strengthening design equa-
tion
The current standard calculation for the shear of rein-
code is expressed in Eq. (7). The existing equations for
the maximum shear capacity (strength) with the shear
strengthening effect include the equation proposed by
Shin (1999) (revision of the shear capacity equation of
ACI 318 (2005) based on the coefficient of strength
reduction α of CFS), an equation proposed by Sin
(1999) (revision of the shear capacity equation for truss-
arch mechanism on the basis of the effective strain of
CFS based on the regression analysis of existing ex-
perimental data), and the equation of Lee (2000) (revi-
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 228

sion of the shear capacity equation proposed by ACI FRP behaves in tandem with the member. Because the
318 (2005) and Zsutty (1986)). actual behavior of sprayed FRP results in detachment
Baek et al. (2004) conducted a comparison study of and bonding failure at the region of maximum load,
theoretical values computed from existing equations and there is a need for a coefficient of shear strength reduc-
experimental test values of the specimens reinforced tion of the design strength for sprayed FRP just like for
with FRP sheets. The results indicated that the equation the existing FRP sheet strengthening method (Nam
proposed by Shin (1999) was the most reliable with the 1998; Shin 1999). Hence, the experimental values of
average comparison correlation of 0.92 (standard devia- Table 8 and the computed values from Eqs. (7) and (8)
tion of 0.07) achieved by setting the CFS coefficient of were compared to propose a coefficient of shear
strength reduction to 0.3 (i.e., α = 0.3) in Eq. (8). Thus, strength reduction, α, for sprayed FRP as shown in Eq. (9).
this study used a coefficient of strength reduction de- Figure 17 and Table 9 show the relationship between
termined by comparing the shear capacity equation of a the test values of (test )VSFRP and the theoretical values
shear beam strengthened with sprayed FRP based on of (calculation )VSFRP , which are computed by applying each of
Shin’s equation, Eq. (8), which itself is a revised version the values for α, the proposed coefficient of shear
of the ACI 318 equation, Eq. (7). strength reduction: α = 0.18 (average of α values in Ta-
ble 9), the minimum value of α = 0.11, and the maxi-
Vn d mum value of α = 0.3 (the same value proposed in pre-
Vn = (0.5 f c′ + 176 ρ d )bw d + Av f y (7)
Mu s vious research by Shin (1999)).

Vn d [ ( test )V − V − ( ACI )Vs ]

Vn = (0.5 f c′ + 176 ρ d )bw d + Av f y + Vcfs α= ( ACI ) c
(9)
Mu s V
(8) ( calculation ) SFRP
2tcfs s ' f cfs h
Vcfs = α The test result of using the sprayed FRP method
S
where fc′ is the compressive strength of concrete, d is against shear failure indicates that the coefficient of
the effective depth of beam, bw is the beam width, s is shear strength reduction in existing research tends to
the spacing of shear reinforcement, s ′ is the reinforce- overestimate α. The value of α = 0.18 proposed in this
ment length of CSF, fcfs is the design strength of CSF, study resulted in computed values most similar to the
h is the depth of the beam cross section, S is the spac- experimental values.
ing of the CFS reinforcement, and α is the coefficient
( test )Vcfs
of strength reduction given by α = . 600
V SFRP
( calculation )Vcfs α ave(0.18) x VSFRP
To use Eq. (8) with sprayed FRP, the property of the 500 α m in(0.11) x VSFRP
α max(0.3) x V SFRP
mixture of chopped fibers and resin was taken into ac-
α x(calculation)VSFRP (kN.m)

α (each value shown in Table 9) x V SFRP

count using the value of reinforcement design thickness 400

( t SFRP ) for tcfs and the reinforcement strength obtained

from the material test ( f SFRP ) for fcfs (cf. Table 3). Ad- 300

ditionally, the length of reinforcement ( s ′ ) and the rein- CFS shear strength reduction factor (α=0.3 )
forcement spacing ( S ) were the same in this study be- 200 (Shin 1999)
cause the reinforcement was applied over the complete
test specimens. When the shear strengthening capacity 100

of sprayed FRP was computed under these conditions

0
without considering the coefficient of strength reduction, 0 100 200
the shear capacity was overestimated because the com- (test)V SFRP (kN .m)

putation is based on the assumption that the sprayed Fig. 17 Comparison of VSFRP and ( calculation )VSFRP / α ⋅
( test )
VSFRP .
( calculation )

Table 9 Comparisons of V
( test ) SFRP
and V
( calculation ) SFRP
.

VSFRP (kN)
Specimen
Test Eq. (7) α
SB-EG-SI 89.3 300.6 0.30
SB-EG-SU 60.4 400.9 0.15
SB-VG-SI 50.7 309.0 0.16
SB-VG-SU 78.4 412.0 0.19
SB-EC-SI 97.2 328.3 0.30
SB-EC-SU 57.8 437.7 0.13
SB-VC-SI 30.5 400.4 0.08
SB-VC-SU 58.9 533.8 0.11
Average - - 0.18
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012
6 Concluding remarks
A material test and structural test were conducted in the
course of this study to determine the optimum properties
of sprayed FRP material for excellent construction
workability and field applicability. The material prop-
erty values to achieve strength equivalent to one layer of
existing FRP sheet were determined through this pre-
liminary research. The results of the material tests were
used in structural tests on flexural and shear beam
specimens to investigate the strengthening performance
of sprayed FRP. In addition, intentional damage was
inflicted on some test specimens, and the strengthening
effect of sprayed FRP on the damaged structure was
investigated. Finally, the possibility of using the exist-
ing FRP sheet strengthening design equations for
sprayed FRP calculations was investigated, and a design
equation for sprayed FRP reinforcement was proposed.
The results of this study are summarized below.
(1) The optimum material was found to be 38-mm
chopped glass and carbon fibers mixed with resin in
a ratio of 1:2.
(2) The optimum design thickness for sprayed FRP was
4.2 mm: 4.4 mm for chopped glass fiber, epoxy,
and vinyl ester resin; and 4.0 mm for chopped car-
bon fiber.
(3) The strengthening effect of sprayed FRP on flexural
and shear beam test specimens was similar to that
of FRP sheets, and the test result of the maximum
strength of the damaged beam test specimen was
equivalent to the strengthening effect exhibited by
reinforced beam test specimens.
(4) Existing FRP design equations are quite applicable
to flexural beam test specimens. The coefficient of
shear strength reduction, α = 0.18, resulted in com-
puted values most similar to the experimental val-
ues for shear beam test specimen.
(5) The influence of discrepancies between the design
thickness and the actual construction thickness, er-
rors in the hardening time, and early debonding due
to incomplete hardening of the strengthening mate-
rial require further investigation.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant (07-UR-B04)
from High-tech Urban Development Program funded
by Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs
and a grant of the Small & Medium Business Admini-
stration (2011 Cooperation R&D between Industry and
Universities and Research Institutes-No. 00045373-1).
References
American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 318-05,
(2005). “Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete and commentary.” Farmington Hills:
Michigan.
American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 440,
(2000). “Guide for the design and construction of
229
externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening
concrete structures.” Farmington Hills: Michigan.
Baek, S. M., Kim, U. S. and Kwak, Y. K., (2004).
“Experimental study of shear reinforcement effect on
a structurally damaged RC beam.” Journal of
Architectural Institute of Korea (Structure Series),
20(2), 47-54. (in Korean)
Banthia, N., Nandakumar, N. and Boyd, A., (2002).
“Sprayed fiber reinforced polymers: From laboratory
to a real bridge.” Concrete international: Design and
Construction, 24(11), 47-52.
El-Mihilmy, M. T. and Tedesco, J. W., (2000).
“Deflection of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)
plates.” ACI Structural Journal, 97(5), 679-688.
Furuta, T., Kanakubo, T., Nemoto, T., Takahashi, K.
and Fukuyama, H., (2001a). “Sprayed up FRP
strengthening for concrete structures.” In:
Proceedings of International Conference on FRP
Composites in Civil Engineering, 2, 1109-1116.
Furuta, T., Kanakubo, T., Nemoto, T., Takahashi, K.,
Itoh, K. and Minamihara, H., (2001b). “Sprayed up
FRP strengthening for reinforced concrete beams.”
In: International Conference on Composites in
Infrastructure, CD-ROM No. 094.
Han, M. Y., (1998). “Structural behavior of a beam in
response to the deformed bonding of the
reinforcement material.” Journal of Korea Concrete
Institute, 10(3), 129-147. (in Korean)
Harries, K. A. and Young, S. C., (2003). “Sprayed fiber
reinforced composite materials for infrastructure
rehabilitation.” Concrete international, 25(1), 47-51.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, JBDPA,
(2001). “Standard for damage level classification.”
Tokyo: Japan. (in Japanese)
Japanese Industrial Standards, JIS K 7054, (2006).
“Tensile test method for glass-fiber reinforced
plastic.” Japanese Standards Association. (in
Japanese)
Korean Industrial Standards, KS M 3381, (2004).
“Tensile test method for glass-fiber reinforced
plastic.” Korean Standards Association. (in Korean)
Lee, W. H., Im, J. Y. and Park, I. S., (2001). “Flexural
reinforcement effect of carbon fiber sheet on RC
beams.” Journal of Architectural Institute of Korea
(Structure Series), 17(1), 11-19. (in Korean).
Lee, Y. T. and Lee L. H., (2000). “Investigation of shear
strength of a RC beam reinforced with carbon fiber
sheet.” Journal of Architectural Institute of Korea
(Structure Series), 16(1), 11-17. (in Korean)
Nah, J. M., (2001). “Evaluation of structural
performance of a RC member reinforced with carbon
fiber.” PhD Dissertation, Hanyang University. (in
Korean)
Nam, J. H., (1998). “Experimental study of the shear
bearing capacity of a RC beam reinforced with
carbon fiber sheet.” Master’s Thesis, Hanyang
University. (in Korean)
K. S. Lee / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 10, 219-230, 2012 230

Shin, S. W., (1999). “Shear behavior of a RC beam
reinforced with carbon fiber sheet.” Journal of Korea
Structural Maintenance Institute, 2(3), 206-211. (in
Korean)
Sin, Y. S., (1999). “Shear reinforcement effect of
carbon fiber sheet on RC beams.” Journal of
Architectural Institute of Korea (Structure Series),
15(9), 11-18. (in Korean)
Zsutty, T. C., (1986). “Beam shear strength prediction
by analysis of existing data.” ACI Journal
Proceedings, 65(11), 943-951.