polymers

Article
A Seismic Strengthening Technique for Reinforced
Concrete Columns Using Sprayed FRP
Kang Seok Lee 1 , Bang Yeon Lee 1, * and Soo Yeon Seo 2
1 School of Architecture, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea; kslnist@jnu.ac.kr
2 Departmrnt of Architectural Engineering, Korea National University of Transpotation,
Chungju 27469, Korea; syseo@ut.ac.kr
* Correspondence: bylee@jnu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-62-530-1648; Fax: +82-62-530-1639

Academic Editors: Alper Ilki and Masoud Motavalli

Received: 10 February 2016; Accepted: 18 March 2016; Published: 24 March 2016

Abstract: Conventional methods for seismic retrofitting of concrete columns include reinforcement
with steel plates or steel frame braces, as well as cross-sectional increments and in-filled walls.
However, these methods have some disadvantages, such as the increase in mass and the need for
precise construction. Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) sheets for seismic strengthening of concrete
columns using new light-weight composite materials, such as carbon fiber or glass fiber, have been
developed, have excellent durability and performance, and are being widely applied to overcome
the shortcomings of conventional seismic strengthening methods. Nonetheless, the FRP-sheet
reinforcement method also has some drawbacks, such as the need for prior surface treatment,
problems at joints, and relatively expensive material costs. In the current research, the structural and
material properties associated with a new method for seismic strengthening of concrete columns
using FRP were investigated. The new technique is a sprayed FRP system, achieved by mixing
chopped glass and carbon fibers with epoxy and vinyl ester resin in the open air and randomly
spraying the resulting mixture onto the uneven surface of the concrete columns. This paper reports
on the seismic resistance of reinforced concrete columns controlled by shear strengthening using
the sprayed FRP system. Five shear column specimens were designed, and then strengthened with
sprayed FRP by using different combinations of short carbon or glass fibers and epoxy or vinyl ester
resins. There was also a non-strengthened control specimen. Cyclic loading tests were carried out,
and the ultimate load carrying capacity and deformation were investigated, as well as hysteresis in
the lateral load-drift relationship. The results showed that shear strengths and deformation capacities
of shear columns strengthened using sprayed FRP improved markedly, compared with those of
the control column. The spraying FRP technique developed in this study can be practically and
effectively used for the seismic strengthening of existing concrete columns.

Keywords: carbon fiber; concrete columns; epoxy; glass fiber; strengthening; sprayed FRP; vinyl ester

1. Introduction
Rapid progress in seismic design has resulted in new reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with
improved prospects of satisfactory behavior during an earthquake. However, innovations in seismic
design methodologies have simultaneously created some doubts regarding the adequacy of the seismic
behavior of existing RC buildings, as shown by the 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Japan, the 1999 Chi-Chi
Earthquake in Taiwan, the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake in China, the 2010 Chile Earthquake, the 2011
Christchurch Earthquake in New Zealand, the 2012 Great East Japan Earthquake, and the 2013 Lushan
Earthquake in China.
Over the last two decades, rehabilitation procedures have been promoted, and many seismic
strengthening techniques have been developed to improve the seismic performance of existing concrete

Polymers 2016, 8, 107; doi:10.3390/polym8040107 www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2016, 8, 107 2 of 21

buildings, especially their columns [1–5]. Conventional methods for seismic retrofitting of concrete
columns include reinforcement with steel plates or steel frame braces, as well as cross-sectional
increments and in-filled walls. However, these methods have some disadvantages, such as the increase
in mass and the requirement for precise construction. Others methods, such as fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) sheets for seismic strengthening of concrete columns using new light-weight composite
materials, including carbon fiber and glass fiber, have excellent durability and performance and have
been used widely to overcome the shortcomings of conventional seismic strengthening methods [6–8].
Nonetheless, the FRP-sheet reinforcement method still has some drawbacks, such as the need for prior
surface treatment, problems at joints, and relatively expensive material costs. Recently, to overcome
the weakness of FRP, a new class of cement-based composites was introduced in the civil engineering
field [9–16]. Thus, there is a continuing need for the development of new strengthening techniques
with better workability and reduced costs for concrete columns.
In the current research, the structural effectiveness of a new type for seismic strengthening of
concrete columns with FRP is investigated. The proposed technique is a sprayed FRP system, achieved
by mixing chopped glass and carbon fibers with epoxy and vinyl ester resin in the open air and
randomly spraying the resulting mixture onto the uneven surface of the concrete columns. There
has been little research on sprayed FRP [17–23]. Furthermore, the use of sprayed FRP for seismic
strengthening on columns using epoxy or vinyl ester resins has not been fully investigated.
The main purpose of this study was to develop a new technique for seismic strengthening of
existing RC columns. This study first involved tensile testing of the composed material, with the length
of the chopped glass and carbon fibers as well as the mix ratio of the fibers, epoxy, and vinyl ester resin,
all serving as test variables to determine the optimum properties for sprayed FRP on concrete columns.
The optimum sprayed FRP, based on the results of this material testing, was used to strengthen RC
columns controlled by shear (shear columns). Five specimens of shear columns were prepared and
strengthened by sprayed FRP with different combinations of short carbon or glass fibers and epoxy or
vinyl ester resins, including a non-strengthened control specimen. Cyclic loading tests were carried
out, and the ultimate shear load carrying capacity and deformation were investigated, as well as
hysteresis in the lateral load-drift relationship.
Although vinyl ester resin is generally used for sprayed FRP because it hardens rapidly after
being applied, this study considered a mixture of stronger epoxy resin and vinyl ester resin to reduce
the viscosity of the spray, resulting in an improvement in the overall workability of the sprayed
FRP technique. Material properties and cyclic loading tests were conducted to assess the seismic
strengthening performance, as well as the practical design equation, of sprayed FRP on RC columns,
and to determine the optimal chopped fiber length and fiber-resin mix ratio to achieve the same
strength as one layer of the currently used FRP sheets.

2. Material Tests

2.1. Test Specimens

Sprayed FRP is a new research field with a limited body of experimental data, and no standard
for FRP material has yet been established. Thus, in this study the existing JIS K7054 [24] specification
for tensile testing of glass fiber-reinforced plastic was used. The strengthening material used for
the material test included roving-type glass fiber (ERS 2310-233/C; Central Glass Co., Yamaguchi,
Japan) [25], roving-type carbon fiber (TR330-50K; Mitsubishi Rayon Co., Tokyo, Japan) [26], as shown
in Figure 1, and epoxy and vinyl ester resins (Conclinic Co., Seoul, Korea) [27]. As can be seen in the
photograph in Figure 2, spraying equipment, together with guns for chopping carbon and glass fibers
(Binks Polycraft, Inc., Franklin Park, IL, USA) [28], were used in the experiments.
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 3 of 21
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 3 of 21
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 3 of 21

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Glass
Glassand
andcarbon fibers
carbon used
fibers in the
used experiments:
in the (a) Glass
experiments: fiber and
(a) Glass fiber(b) carbon
and fiber; fiber;
(b) carbon
Figure
(c) 1. Glass
chopped and
glass carbon
and (d) fibers fibers.
carbon used in the experiments: (a) Glass fiber and (b) carbon fiber;
(c) chopped glass and (d) carbon fibers.
(c) chopped glass and (d) carbon fibers.

(b) (c)
(b) (c)

(a) (d)
(a) (d)
Figure 2. Equipment used for sprayed fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP): (a) Spraying equipment; (b)
Figure 2. Equipment
Chop-sprayed used
guns for for and
epoxy sprayed fiber-reinforced
(c) for vinyl polymer
ester resins; (FRP): (a) of
(d) Installation Spraying type-fiber.
equipment; (b)
Figure 2. Equipment used for sprayed fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP): (a)roving
Spraying equipment;
Chop-sprayed guns
(b) Chop-sprayed for for
guns epoxy andand
epoxy (c) for vinyl
(c) for ester
vinyl resins;
ester (d) (d)
resins; Installation of roving
Installation type-fiber.
of roving type-fiber.
In our previous research [23], the material properties for repair and strengthening of RC beams
withInIn
theour
our previous
previous
sprayed FRPresearch
system[23],
research [23],
were the material
material properties
theinvestigated.properties for
for repair
The followingrepair and
and strengthening
material tests in thisof
strengthening RC
RC beams
ofstudy beams
were
with
with the
the sprayed
sprayed FRPFRP system
system were
were investigated.
investigated. The The following
following material
material
carried out in more detail, based on the tests conducted in the previous research [23]. tests tests
in thisin this
study study
were were
carried
carried out in
out inExperimental
more morebased
detail, detail,on
variables based
the on the
for tests
the tests conducted
conducted
material testinwere in the
the previous
the previous
of theresearch
research
length [23].
chopped [23].
fibers and the mix
Experimental
ratio Experimental
of the resin and variables
variables for the
for thewas
fibers, which material
material test
basedtest were
on were the length
theFigure
weight. of the
length3ofdepictschopped
a fiber fibers
the chopped fibers
materialand
and the
the mix
mix
specimen
ratio
ratio of
of the
the resin
resin and
and fibers,
fibers, which
which was
was based
based onon weight.
weight. Figure
Figure 3 3 depicts
depicts a a fiber
fiber
for tensile testing, and Tables 1 and 2 list the material test variables for glass and carbon fibers, material
material specimen
specimen for
for tensile
tensile testing,
testing, and and
Tables Tables
1 and 1
2 and
list 2
the list the
material material
test test
variables variables
for glass for
and
respectively. Figure 4 shows specimen samples fabricated based on the experimental variables. glass
carbon and carbon
fibers, fibers,
respectively.
respectively.
Figure 4 shows Figure 4 shows
specimen specimen
samples samples
fabricated fabricated
based based on the experimental
on the experimental variables. variables.
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 4 of 21
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 4 of 21

Figure 3. Specimen detail of material test: the unit is mm and thickness is 4 mm.
Figure 3. Specimen detail of material test: the unit is mm and thickness is 4 mm.

Table 1. Material test variables for glass fiber.

Specimen Materials Length (mm) Ratio of mixture (Weight) Fiber (g) Resin (g)
G14:VE = 1:4 14 1:4 5.66 22.63
G28:VE = 1:4 28 1:4 5.66 22.63
G38:VE = 1:4 38 1:4 5.66 22.63
G56:VE = 1:4 56 1:4 5.66 22.63
G14:VE = 1:3 14 1:3 7.30 21.89
G28:VE = 1:3 28 1:3 7.30 21.89
Glass fiber + Vinyl ester
G38:VE = 1:3 38 1:3 7.30 21.89
G56:VE = 1:3 56 1:3 7.30 21.89
G14:VE = 1:2 (a) 14 1:2 (b) 10.27 20.54
G28:VE = 1:2 28 1:2 10.27 20.54
G38:VE = 1:2 38 1:2 10.27 20.54
G56:VE = 1:2 56 1:2 10.27 20.54
G14:E = 1:3.0 14 1:3 7.35 22
G28:E = 1:3.0 28 1:3 7.35 22
G38:E = 1:3.0 38 1:3 7.35 22
G56:E = 1:3.0 56 1:3 7.35 22
G14:E = 1:2.5 14 1:2.5 8.60 21.5
G28:E = 1:2.5 28 1:2.5 8.60 21.5
Glass fiber + Epoxy
G38:E = 1:2.5 38 1:2.5 8.60 21.5
G56:E = 1:2.5 56 1:2.5 8.60 21.5
G14:E = 1:2.0 14 1:2 10.35 20.7
G28:E = 1:2.0 28 1:2 10.35 20.7
G38:E = 1:2.0 (c) 38 1:2 (d) 10.35 20.7
G56:E = 1:2.0 56 1:2 10.35 20.7
Figure 4. Specimen samples fabricated based on the experimental variables: (a) glass fiber + vinyl
ester; (b) glass fiber + epoxy; (c) carbon fiber + vinyl ester; and (d) carbon fiber + epoxy specimens.
Table 2. Material test variables for carbon fiber.

Specimen Table 1. Material

Materials Length test variables
(mm) forofglass
Ratio fiber.
mixture (Weight) Fiber (g) Resin (g)
C28:VE = 1:3 28 1:3 mixture
Length Ratio of 6.97
Fiber 20.90
Resin
Specimen
C38:VE = 1:3 Materials 38 1:3 6.97 20.90
C28:VE = 1:2
Carbon fiber + Vinyl ester
28
(mm) (Weight)
1:2
(g)
9.63
(g)
19.26
G14:VE
C38:VE = 1:2 = 1:4 38 14 1:4
1:2 5.66
9.63 22.63
19.26
G28:VE
C28:E = 1:2.5 = 1:4 28 28 1:4
1:2.5 5.66
8.14 22.63
20.36
C38:E = 1:2.5 = 1:4
G38:VE 38 38 1:2.5
1:4 8.14
5.66 20.36
22.63
Carbon fiber + Epoxy
C28:E = 1:2 28 1:2 9.70 19.39
G56:VE = 1:4
C38:E = 1:2 38
56 1:4
1:2
5.66
9.70
22.63
19.39
G14:VE = 1:3 14 1:3 7.30 21.89
G28:VE = 1:3 28 1:3 7.30 21.89
Chopped glass fibers Glass(lengths of 14ester
fiber + Vinyl and 56 mm) were used as 24 test variables in different mix
G38:VE = 1:3 38 1:3 7.30 21.89
ratios with vinyl ester or epoxy resins; 120 test specimens having five equal specimens for each variable
G56:VE = 1:3 56 1:3 7.30 21.89
were fabricated. Eight variables for chopped carbon fibers (lengths of 28 and 38 mm) were set to test,
G14:VE = 1:2 14 1:2 10.27 20.54
and 40 test specimens having five equal specimens for each variable were fabricated to evaluate the
G28:VE = 1:2 28 1:2 10.27 20.54
construction workability and performance. In total 160 specimens of glass and carbon fibers were
G38:VE = 1:2 38 1:2 10.27 20.54
fabricated and tested, respectively.
G56:VE = 1:2 56 1:2 10.27 20.54
G14:E = 1:3.0 14 1:3 7.35 22
Glass fiber + Epoxy
G28:E = 1:3.0 28 1:3 7.35 22
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 4 of 21

Polymers 2016, 8, 107 5 of 21

G38:E = 1:3.0 38 1:3 7.35 22

Polymers 2016, 8, 107
G56:E = 1:3.0 56 1:3 7.35 22 5 of 21
G14:E = 1:2.5 14 1:2.5 8.60 21.5
The test specimens were cured for 7 days in the open air at 25 C, after which they were21.5
G28:E = 1:2.5 28 1:2.5
˝ 8.60 assumed
to be G38:E = 1:2.5hard. A strain gauge was installed
completely 38 at the center 1:2.5 of each type
8.60of test 21.5
specimen.
G56:Estress
The tensile = 1:2.5and strain was measured by a miniature
56 1:2.5 test machine.
5-t universal 8.60 Figure 21.5
5 shows
G14:E = 1:2.0 14 1:2 10.35
the experimental test setup. The test speed was set to speed type A (1 ˘ 0.5 mm/min), as specified 20.7 by
JIS K G28:E = 1:2.0
7054 [24]. 28 1:2 10.35
Figure 3. Specimen detail of material test: the unit is mm and thickness is 4 mm.
20.7
G38:E = 1:2.0 38 1:2 10.35 20.7
G56:E = 1:2.0 56 1:2 10.35 20.7

Table 2. Material test variables for carbon fiber.

Length Ratio of mixture Fiber Resin

Specimen Materials
(mm) (Weight) (g) (g)
C28:VE = 1:3 28 1:3 6.97 20.90
C38:VE = 1:3 38 1:3 6.97 20.90
Carbon fiber + Vinyl ester
C28:VE = 1:2 28 1:2 9.63 19.26
C38:VE = 1:2 38 1:2 9.63 19.26
C28:E = 1:2.5 (a) 28 1:2.5
(b) 8.14 20.36
C38:E = 1:2.5 38 1:2.5 8.14 20.36
Carbon fiber + Epoxy
C28:E = 1:2 28 1:2 9.70 19.39
C38:E = 1:2 38 1:2 9.70 19.39

Chopped glass fibers (lengths of 14 and 56 mm) were used as 24 test variables in different mix
ratios with vinyl ester or epoxy resins; 120 test specimens having five equal specimens for each
variable were fabricated. Eight variables for chopped carbon fibers (lengths of 28 and 38 mm) were
set to test, and 40 test specimens having five equal specimens for each variable were fabricated to
evaluate the construction workability and performance. In total 160 specimens of glass and carbon
fibers were fabricated and tested, respectively.
The test specimens were cured (c) for 7 days in the open air at 25 °C, (d)after which they were assumed
to be completely hard. A strain gauge was installed at the center of each type of test specimen. The
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Specimen
Specimensamples
samplesfabricated
fabricated based
based on on
thethe experimental
experimental variables:
variables: (a) glass
(a) glass fiber fiber
+ vinyl+ vinyl
ester; the
tensile stress and strain was measured by a miniature 5-t universal test machine. Figure 5 shows
ester;
(b) (b)fiber
glass glass+fiber + epoxy;
epoxy; (c) (c) carbon
carbon fiber +fiber
vinyl+ ester;
vinyl and
ester;(d)
and (d) carbon
carbon fiber +fiber
epoxy + epoxy specimens.
specimens.
experimental test setup. The test speed was set to speed type A (1 ± 0.5 mm/min), as specified by JIS
K 7054 [24].
Table 1. Material test variables for glass fiber.

Length Ratio of mixture Fiber Resin

Specimen Materials
(mm) (Weight) (g) (g)
G14:VE = 1:4 14 1:4 5.66 22.63
G28:VE = 1:4 28 1:4 5.66 22.63
G38:VE = 1:4 38 1:4 5.66 22.63
G56:VE = 1:4 56 1:4 5.66 22.63
G14:VE = 1:3 14 1:3 7.30 21.89
G28:VE = 1:3 28 1:3 7.30 21.89
Glass fiber + Vinyl ester
G38:VE = 1:3 38 1:3 7.30 21.89
G56:VE = 1:3 56 1:3 7.30 21.89
G14:VE = 1:2 14 1:2 10.27 20.54
G28:VE = 1:2 28 1:2 10.27 20.54
G38:VE = 1:2 38 1:2 10.27 20.54
G56:VE = 1:2 56 1:2 10.27 20.54
G14:E = 1:3.0 14 1:3 7.35 22
Glass fiber + Epoxy
G28:E = 1:3.0 28 1:3 7.35 22

Figure 5. Loading apparatus for the material tests (universal test machine).
Figure 5. Loading apparatus for the material tests (universal test machine).
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 6 of 21

Polymers 2016, 8, 107 6 of 21

2.2. Test Results
2.2. Test Results
Tensile strength tests were carried out on five test specimens for each variable. The failure mode
Tensile strength
in this material test wastests were carried
fracturing at both out on five
sides, test specimens
40 mm away fromfor theeach variable.
center, The failure
and crushing of mode
the joint
in this material test was fracturing at both sides, 40 mm away from the center,
area. This study used the fracture mode at both sides as the final test result. The results of the material and crushing of the
joint area. This study used the fracture mode at both sides as the final test
tests, conducted to identify the optimum material properties for the sprayed FRP technique for seismic result. The results of the
material tests, conducted to identify the optimum material properties for the sprayed FRP technique
strengthening, indicated that the tensile strength increased with the length of chopped fibers under the
for seismic strengthening, indicated that the tensile strength increased with the length of chopped
condition that the quantity of the fibers in the mixture was greater than that of the resin. Based on the
fibers under the condition that the quantity of the fibers in the mixture was greater than that of the
performance and construction workability of the chopper gun, a fiber length of 38 mm and a resin mix
resin. Based on the performance and construction workability of the chopper gun, a fiber length of
ratio of 1:2 by weight produced the best strength with the least fiber tangling. This material property
38 mm and a resin mix ratio of 1:2 by weight produced the best strength with the least fiber tangling.
of the sprayed FRP was the same as estimated in previous research [23].
This material property of the sprayed FRP was the same as estimated in previous research [23].
The
The stress–strain
stress–strainrelationship
relationshipfor for the
the optimum materialcomposition,
optimum material composition,i.e., i.e.,that
that which
which yielded
yielded thethe
best strength,
best strength, is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 6 in6terms of the
in terms of average
the averagevalue, together
value, withwith
together the final fracture
the final shapes.
fracture
Theshapes. The test specimen with chopped glass fiber had a good elastic deformation but was not as as
test specimen with chopped glass fiber had a good elastic deformation but was not as strong
that madeaswith
strong that chopped
made with carbon
choppedfiber.carbon
Table fiber.
3 listsTable
the results
3 lists of
thethe material
results tests
of the and the
material spray
tests anddesign
the
thickness (tsf ) tothickness
spray design be used.(tThe design
sf) to be used. thickness was thickness
The design calculatedwas from Equationfrom
calculated (1) and compared
Equation (1) andwith
thecompared
properties of the
with theFRP sheets of
properties currently
the FRPused to currently
sheets strengthen existing
used RC structures
to strengthen existing in Korea, shown in
RC structures
Table 4, to compute
in Korea, shown inthe spray
Table 4, tothickness
computeyielding the spraythe same tensile
thickness yieldingstrength
the same as tensile
one layer of FRP
strength assheet.
one
layer of FRP sheet.
σt rFRP sheets
σ[ ℎ ] ¨t “ t (1)
σt rsprayed FRPs ∙ fs = sf (1)
σ[ ]
where σ is the tensile strength,
where σ is the tensile strength,
t t fs is the construction
is the constructionthickness of the
thickness FRPFRP
of the sheet, tsf is theisdesign
andand
sheet, the
thickness for the sprayed FRP.
design thickness for the sprayed FRP.

250

G38-VE1:2
200 G38-E1:2
C38-VE1:2
C38-E1:2
Stress, σ (MPa)

150

100

50

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Strain, ε (%)
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Stress–strain relationships for the optimum mixture and fracture shapes: (a) stress–strain
Figure 6. Stress–strain relationships for the optimum mixture and fracture shapes: (a) stress–strain
relationships of a fiber length of 38 mm and a resin mix ratio of 1:2 in terms of the average value; and
relationships of a fiber length of 38 mm and a resin mix ratio of 1:2 in terms of the average value; and
(b) final fracture shapes.
(b) final fracture shapes.
Table 3. Test results of the specimens including sprayed fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) design
Table 3.
thickness. Test results of the specimens including sprayed fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)
design thickness.
Strain *, Stress *, Design thickness
Specimen Fiber Resin
Specimen Fiber Resin Strain *,εεt t(%)
(%) Stress *, σt (MPa)
σt (MPa) Design
(mm)thickness (mm)
G38:VEG38:VE
= 1:2 = 1:2
Glass Glass VE VE 1.215
1.215 113.15
113.15 4.4 4.4
G38:E =G38:E
1:2 = 1:2
Glass GlassEpoxyEpoxy 1.036
1.036 119.31
119.31 4.2 4.2
C38:VE = 1:2 Carbon VE 0.540 179.1 3.3
C38:E C38:VE
= 1:2 = 1:2
CarbonCarbonEpoxy VE 0.540
0.550 179.1
198.1 3.3 3.0
C38:E = 1:2 Carbon Epoxy 0.550
* indicates the 198.1
average value. 3.0
* indicates the average value.
Polymers
Polymers 2016,
2016, 8,
8, 107
107 77 of
of 21
21

Table 4. Material properties of the FRP sheets used to strengthen existing concrete structures
Table
in 4. Material properties of the FRP sheets used to strengthen existing concrete structures in Korea.
Korea.

Tensilestrength
Tensile strength Modulus
Modulus of of Construction
Construction thickness currentlyused
thickness currently usedtoto
Material
Material (MPa)
(MPa) elasticity (MPa)
elasticity (MPa) strengthen
strengthen RC
RC structure inKorea
structure in Korea(mm)
(mm)
Glass fiber (CAF
Glass fiber (CAF GL1000; 500 2.5 × 104
FRP
GL1000; Conclinic) 500 2.5 ˆ 104 11
FRP
sheet Conclinic) [27] [27]
sheet Carbon fiber (SK-N300;
type
type Carbon fiber (SK-N300; 3,550 2.35 × 105 0.167
SKChemicals)
Chemicals)[29]
[29] 3,550 2.35 ˆ 105 0.167
SK

3. Structure Tests
3. Structure Tests
3.1.
3.1. Specimen
Specimen Design
Design and
and Test Variables
Test Variables
RC
RC column
column specimens
specimens controlled
controlled by
by shear
shear were
were designed
designed and
and fabricated
fabricated for
for cyclic
cyclicloading
loadingtests.
tests.
Figure
Figure 7 shows details of the control shear column specimens. The purpose of these tests
7 shows details of the control shear column specimens. The purpose of these tests was
was to
to
determine the seismic behavior, that is, the ultimate shear and deformation capacities,
determine the seismic behavior, that is, the ultimate shear and deformation capacities, as well as as well as
hysteresis
hysteresis in
in the
the lateral
lateral load-drift
load-drift relationship
relationship of
of shear
shear columns,
columns, all
all of
of which
which were
were strengthened
strengthened with
with
the
the sprayed FRP technique using the design thickness of material with an equivalent strength of one
sprayed FRP technique using the design thickness of material with an equivalent strength of one
FRP
FRP sheet.
sheet. U-D22

1500
540
150 300 600 300 150
240
700

615
A B
D16
U-D22

50 100 100 100 50

D10 D10
D10@250

400
2800
1400

30
D22
D22

[A-B Section]
U-D22

Unit: mm
D16
700

400
450
250 1000 250

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Details
Details of
of the
the control
control specimens
specimens (dimensions are in mm).

The
The column
column specimens
specimens werewere designed
designed according
according to to the
the guidelines
guidelines for
for load-carrying
load-carrying capacity
capacity
specified by the Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA) [30]. Table
specified by the Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA) [30]. Table 5 gives the specific 5 gives the
specific details of each specimen tested. In total, five test shear failure-type column specimens
details of each specimen tested. In total, five test shear failure-type column specimens were prepared. were
prepared. Theyofconsisted
They consisted of aspecimen
a control test control (non-strengthened,
test specimen (non-strengthened, SC-N),strengthened
SC-N), a test specimen a test specimen
with
strengthened with the sprayed FRP using a glass fiber and vinyl ester resin (SC-S-GV), a
the sprayed FRP using a glass fiber and vinyl ester resin (SC-S-GV), a test specimen strengthened with test specimen
strengthened with
a glass fiber and a glass
epoxy fiber
resin and epoxy
(SC-S-GE), resin
a test (SC-S-GE),
specimen a test specimen
strengthened strengthened
with a carbon fiber andwith
vinyla
carbon fiber and vinyl ester resin (SC-S-CV), and a test specimen strengthened with
ester resin (SC-S-CV), and a test specimen strengthened with a carbon fiber and epoxy resin (SC-S-CE).a carbon fiber
and epoxy resin (SC-S-CE).
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 8 of 21

Table 5. Summary of the specimens.

Strengthening types
Column clear Column Tensile reinforcement Shear reinforcement
Specimens ho /D Fiber Resin
height ho (mm) depth D (mm) ratio ρf (%) ratio ρs (%)
type type
SC-N 1,400 400 3.5 0.97 0.14 – –
Vinyl
SC-S-GV 1,400 400 3.5 0.97 0.14 Glass
ester
SC-S-GE 1400 400 3.5 0.97 0.14 Glass Epoxy
vinyl
SC-S-CV 1,400 400 3.5 0.97 0.14 Carbon
ester
SC-S-CE 1,400 400 3.5 0.97 0.14 Carbon Epoxy

All specimens had identical dimensions and rebar arrangements. The cross-section of the columns
was 400 mm ˆ 400 mm, and the ratio of column clear height to depth (ho /D) = 3.5. Each specimen
was prepared with a 12-D22-type SD40 main rebar, reinforced with shear reinforcement D10 steel bars
at 250-mm intervals. A sub, with high stiffness, was installed at the top of each specimen to provide
confinement for the columns. The average vertical load on columns was ~3 MPa, which is 10% of
the nominal compressive strength of the concrete. Table 6 lists the load-carrying capacity, calculated
according to the JBDPA [30].

Table 6. Load-carrying capacity of the columns calculated according to JBDPA [30].

Ultimate lateral
Axial force Ultimate flexural Shear force at ultimate Ultimate shear
Specimens load-carrying capacity
N (kN) strength Mu (kN¨ m) flexural failure V mu (kN) strength V su (kN)
V u (kN)
SC-N 480.0 284.6 406.6 280.0 280.0

3.2. Material Properties of Concrete, Steel Rebar, and Resins

The normal compressive strength of the concrete was f c = 30 MPa, and cylindrical compression
tests resulted in a compressive strength of 33.0 ˘ 1.2 MPa. The nominal tensile strength of the steel
reinforcing bar (rebar) was 400 MPa. Two different diameter rebars were used: D10 for the shear
reinforcement and D22 for the main rebar of the specimens (see Section 3.1 for further details).
The uniform building code [31] pertains to RC design in earthquake zones and specifies that the
ratio of the tensile stress to the yield stress of the rebar should not be less than 1.25, to ensure adequate
ductility under simulated earthquake loading. From tensile testing of the rebar, this ratio was 1.35
for the D10 rebar and 1.28 for the D22 rebar. The tensile strength of the steel rebar was measured
using a universal testing machine (UTM); there were obtained 509.9 ˘ 1.15 MPa for the D10 rebar and
547.6 ˘ 2.17 MPa for the D22 rebar, where the error margins correspond to the standard deviation of
the measurement results.
The sprayed FRP technique involves mixing chopped glass and carbon fibers with epoxy and
vinyl ester resin in the open air and randomly spraying the resulting mixture onto the uneven surface of
the concrete columns. The strengthening material for the sprayed FRP (Figure 1) was roving-type glass
fiber (ERS 2310-233/C; Central Glass Co.) [25], and roving-type carbon fiber (TR330-50K; Mitsubishi
Rayon Co.) [26]. Vinyl ester and epoxy resins (Conclinic Co.) [27], with 30 and 45 MPa of flexural
strength, were used. Table 7 lists the material properties of the vinyl ester and epoxy resins.

Table 7. Material properties of the vinyl ester and epoxy resins.

Flexural Compressive Hardening Viscosity Density

Classification
strength (MPa) strength (MPa) time (h) (cps) (g/cm3 )
Vinyl ester resin 30 90 24 250 1.04
Epoxy resin 45 100 24 630 1.10
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 9 of 21

3.3. Fabrication
Polymers 2016,of
8, Test
107 Specimens Strengthened by Sprayed FRP 9 of 21

To
3.3.investigate
Fabrication ofthe seismic
Test resistance,
Specimens column
Strengthened specimens
by Sprayed FRP were designed as controls to exhibit shear
failure modes (SC-N). The reinforcement ratios of the SC series were designed so that the structures
To investigate the seismic resistance, column specimens were designed as controls to exhibit
would exhibit shear failure modes. These structures were then modified, i.e., strengthened using the
shear failure modes (SC-N). The reinforcement ratios of the SC series were designed so that the
sprayed FRP, according to different combinations of chopped glass or carbon fibers and vinyl ester or
structures would exhibit shear failure modes. These structures were then modified, i.e., strengthened
epoxyusing
resins,
thecreating
sprayed a total
FRP, of five specimens
according to differenton which cyclic
combinations of loading
choppedexperiments
glass or carbonwere carried
fibers and out.
All ofvinyl
the specimens hadresins,
ester or epoxy identical dimensions,
creating a total of and
five aspecimens
stub withona which
high stiffness value experiments
cyclic loading was installed at
the top of carried
were each specimen
out. All oftotheprovide
specimensconfinement
had identicalfordimensions,
the columns. and a stub with a high stiffness value
Figure 8 illustrates
was installed theofconstruction
at the top each specimen details of theconfinement
to provide specimens.for Following completion of the control
the columns.
specimens, Figure
FRP8were
illustrates the construction
randomly sprayed details
on theofuneven
the specimens.
surfaceFollowing completion
of the concrete of the control
columns by mixing
specimens,
chopped glass orFRP were randomly
carbon fibers with sprayed
epoxyonorthe uneven
vinyl surface
ester resinsofinthethe
concrete
open aircolumns
usingbythe mixing
spraying
chopped glass or carbon fibers with epoxy or vinyl ester resins in the open air
equipment, as previously shown in Figure 2. The spraying was continued to reach the design thickness using the spraying
equipment, as previously shown in Figure 2. The spraying was continued to reach the design
calculated in Table 3, which corresponds to the same tensile strength as one layer of FRP sheet, based
thickness calculated in Table 3, which corresponds to the same tensile strength as one layer of FRP
on the results of material tests. Finally, to enhance the bonding, the sprayed surfaces were treated
sheet, based on the results of material tests. Finally, to enhance the bonding, the sprayed surfaces
usingwere
a roll-type
treated brush.
using a roll-type brush.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 8. Preparation procedure of the specimens: (a) Installation of reinforcing bar; (b) control
Figure 8. Preparation procedure of the specimens: (a) Installation of reinforcing bar; (b) control
specimens; (c) a specimen strengthened using the sprayed FRP with chopped glass fiber; (d) surface
specimens; (c) a specimen strengthened using the sprayed FRP with chopped glass fiber; (d) surface
treatment of sprayed glass fiber; (e) a specimen strengthened using the sprayed FRP with chopped
treatment of sprayed glass fiber; (e) a specimen strengthened using the sprayed FRP with chopped
carbon fiber; (f) surface treatment of sprayed carbon fiber.
carbon fiber; (f) surface treatment of sprayed carbon fiber.
3.4. Test Procedure
3.4. Test Procedure
The main purpose of the tests was to investigate the seismic resistance of the RC shear columns
strengthened
The using of
main purpose thethe
sprayed FRPtosystem
tests was in terms
investigate the of the maximum
seismic resistanceload-carrying capacity,
of the RC shear columns
strengthened using the sprayed FRP system in terms of the maximum load-carrying capacity,
deformation, and hysteresis of the lateral load-drift relationship. Figure 9 shows the test set-up for the
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 10
10of
of21
21

deformation, and hysteresis of the lateral load-drift relationship. Figure 9 shows the test set-up for
cyclic loading
the cyclic loadingtest.test.
The The
test test
set-up was was
set-up originally developed
originally developedby the byBuilding
the BuildingResearch Institute
Research [32],
Institute
and has been frequently used to evaluate the seismic behavior of columns.
[32], and has been frequently used to evaluate the seismic behavior of columns. Using this set-up, Using this set-up, shear
force
shearisforce
effectively appliedapplied
is effectively to the specimens because the
to the specimens actionthe
because lineaction
of lateral
lineload passesload
of lateral the center
passespart
the
of the column specimen by the L-shaped steel frame installed at the top of the
center part of the column specimen by the L-shaped steel frame installed at the top of the specimen. specimen. The column
was
The subjected
column was to asubjected
constant vertical load ofvertical
to a constant 480 kN load
during of cyclic
480 kN lateral
duringloading
cyclicusing theloading
lateral two 1000 kN
using
actuators.
the two 1000 The kNvertical loadThe
actuators. on vertical
the columnload was 3 MPa,
on the column which
was is 10% of
3 MPa, the nominal
which is 10% ofcompressive
the nominal
strength of the concrete [32]. A 2000-kN actuator was used to apply the later
compressive strength of the concrete [32]. A 2000-kN actuator was used to apply the later load. load.
The
The load
load cycles
cycles were
were repeated
repeated three
three times
times at
at lateral
lateral rotation
rotation angles
angles (R)(R) of
of 0.08%, 0.1%, 0.12%,
0.08%, 0.1%, 0.12%,
0.15%, 0.2%, 0.25%, 0.31%, 0.4%, 0.49%, 1%, 1.24%, 1.54%, 2%, 3%, and 5%. The
0.15%, 0.2%, 0.25%, 0.31%, 0.4%, 0.49%, 1%, 1.24%, 1.54%, 2%, 3%, and 5%. The lateral rotation angle lateral rotation angle is
defined as the relative end displacement at each loading step divided by the clear
is defined as the relative end displacement at each loading step divided by the clear length of column. length of column.
Table
Table 88 lists
lists the
the loading
loading cycles
cycles applied
applied toto each
each specimen.
specimen.

(a)
6000

500
200tonf Actuator Reaction wall
for lateral force
100tonf Actuator 3010
for axial force

φ 80mm
2800 Steel Bolt L

Reaction Slab

unit:mm

(b)
Figure 9.
Figure 9. Experimental
Experimentalconfiguration
configurationforfor
thethe cyclic
cyclic loading
loading tests:tests: (a) photograph
(a) photograph and
and (b) (b) diagram
diagram views.
views.
Table 8. Loading cycles.
Table 8. Loading cycles.
Loading step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Loading step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Loading
Loadingcycles
cycles 1–3
1–3 4-6
4-6 7–9
7–9 10–12
10–12 13–15 16–18
13–15 16–18 19–21
19–21 22–24
22–24
Drift angle (R) (%) 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.31 0.4
Drift angle
Lateral drift δ(R) (%)
(mm) 0.08
1.12 0.1
1.4 0.12
1.68 0.15
2.1 0.2
2.8 0.25
3.5 0.31
4.34 0.4
5.6
Loading
Lateral step
drift δ (mm) 9
1.12 10
1.4 11
1.68 12
2.1 13
2.8 14
3.5 15
4.34 5.6–
Loading cycles 25–27 28–30 31–33 34–36 37–39 40–42 43–45 –
Loading step 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 –
Drift angle (R) (%) 0.49 1 1.24 1.54 2 3 5 –
Loading
Lateral drift δcycles
(mm) 25–27 28–30
6.86 14.0 31–33
17.36 34–36
21.56 37–39
28.0 40–42
42.42 43–45
70 ––
Drift angle (R) (%) 0.49 1 1.24 1.54 2 3 5 –
Lateral drift δ (mm) 6.86 14.0 17.36 21.56 28.0 42.42 70 –
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 11 of 21

4. Failure Sequence and Lateral Load-Drift Curves

The lateral load-carrying capacity of the control and the sprayed FRP-strengthened specimens
differed significantly. Generally, all specimens strengthened using the sprayed FRP technique exhibited
similar evidence of failure mode, with similar fracture appearance and lateral load-drift relationships.
The strengthened specimens, with complete hardening after spraying, showed a shear failure mode,
along with the simultaneous movement of the concrete and the reinforcement material, resulting
in the eventual fracture of both. In the following discussion, the authors focus on the fracture and
failure patterns of the reinforcement materials on the concrete surface in terms of the lateral drift and
load-drift relationships during the final stages of the test. Each loading step was identical during the
three loading cycles. Table 9 lists the results in terms of maximum shear strength and displacement
with positive and negative loads for the five specimens.

Table 9. The maximum strengths and drifts of the specimens.

Positive Negative
Specimen a b a b Failure mode
V max (kN) δmax (mm) V max (kN) δmax (mm)
SC-N 325 14.38 314 14.48 Shear failure and collapse of the column
SC-S-GV 422 19.22 327 14.02
The simultaneous behavior of the
SC-S-GE 461 21.28 385 20.72
concrete and the reinforcement material
SC-S-CV 423 20.72 376 14.14
resulted in the eventual fracture of both
SC-S-CE 390 20.88 397 21.08
Abbreviations: same as Table 5. a V max , maximum shear strength; b δmax , drift at the maximum point.

4.1. Non-Strengthened Control Specimen (SC-N)

Figure 10 shows the failure pattern of the SC-N specimen following the final cyclic load test, as
well as the lateral load-drift curve for the SC-N specimen, which was designed to exhibit shear failure
as shown previously in Table 6. The first observed crack occurred at a negative load of 19.6 kN, and a
small flexural crack appeared in the bottom column faces after three cycles at the fourth loading step
(R = 0.15%). Cracking was not observed in the center of the column. Flexural cracks extended into the
middle of the column after step four. Following the seventh loading step (R = 0.31%), with a load of
both positive 225 kN and negative 219 kN, shear cracks were observed at the top faces of the columns,
and diagonal shear cracks appeared, some of which were more than 2 mm wide. When the applied
load reached 250 kN, at the ninth positive loading step (R = 0.46%), larger shear cracks were observed,
with increased widths. During the test, peeling failure due to shear forces from the concrete cover was
observed. This was likely the result of insufficient shear confinement.
Shear failure occurred at the bottom of the column following the application of a load of 100 kN,
with a lateral drift of 70.0 mm (R = 5%). The maximum load capacity of the column of the SC-N
specimen was a positive load of 325 kN, with a lateral drift of 14.38 mm (R = 1.03%; Table 9). The
maximum positive load capacity was similar to the maximum negative load capacity of 314 kN, with a
lateral drift of 14.48 mm.

4.2. Sprayed FRP-Strengthened Specimens Using Glass Fiber and Vinyl Ester Resin (SC-S-GV)
Figure 11a shows a photograph of the SC-S-GV specimen following the cyclic loading test, and
Figure 11b shows the lateral load-drift curves. The SC-S-GV specimen did not show surface cracks,
because the surface had the reinforcement material sprayed on it, with glass fiber and vinyl ester
resin. For the first time, a fracturing sound of the glass fiber in the inner part of reinforcement material
occurred in the top and bottom column faces following the first cycle of the tenth loading step (R = 1%).
At a load of 303.8 kN, with a positive loading after step 10, the specimen started fracturing after the
simultaneous movement of the reinforcement and the concrete at the edge of the bottom column face,
some of which were ~50 mm wide, resulting in eventual debonding.
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 12 of 21
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 12 of 21
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 12 of 21
400
400 SC-N specimen Maximum point Positive:
300 SC-N specimen Maximum point VPositive:
: 325 kN
max
300 δ Vmax : 325 mm
: 14.38
max
kN
200 δmax: 14.38 mm
200
100

Load (kN)
100

Load (kN)
0
0
-100
-100
-200
-200
Negative:
VNegative:
max
: 314kN
-300
-300 δ Vmax : 314kN
: 14.48 mm
Maximum point max
δmax: 14.48 mm
-400 Maximum point
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10
-400 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 (mm)
Displacement 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure10.
Figure 10. Non-strengthened
Non-strengthened control
control (SC-N)
(SC-N) specimen
specimen following
following the
the cyclic
cyclic loading
loading test:
test: (a)
(a) failure
failure
Figure
mode 10.(b)
and Non-strengthened control
load-displacement (SC-N) specimen following the cyclic loading test: (a) failure
relationship.
mode and (b) load-displacement relationship.
mode and (b) load-displacement relationship.
500
500 SC-S-GV specimen Maximum point
Positive:
400 SC-S-GV specimen Maximum point : 422 kN
VPositive:
max
400
δ Vmax : 422 mm
: 19.22 kN
300 max
δmax: 19.22 mm
300
200
200
Load (kN)

100
Load (kN)

100
0
0
-100
-100
-200 Negative:
-200 : 327 kN
VNegative:
max
-300
δ Vmax
max
: 327 mm
: 14.02 kN
-300 Maximum point δmax: 14.02 mm
-400 Maximum point
-400-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 (mm)
Displacement 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Specimen strengthened with the sprayed FRP using a glass fiber and vinyl ester resin (SC-
Figurefollowing
S-GV)
Figure 11.Specimen
11. Specimen strengthened
the cyclic with
loading test:
strengthened with(a)the sprayed
failure
the mode
sprayed FRP using
and
FRP (b) aload-displacement
using aglass fiber
glass and
fiber vinyl
and ester resin
relationship.
vinyl ester (SC-
resin
S-GV) following
(SC-S-GV) thethe
following cyclic loading
cyclic test:
loading (a)(a)
test: failure mode
failure modeand (b)(b)
and load-displacement
load-displacement relationship.
relationship.
The maximum load capacity of the SC-S-GV specimen was a positive load of 422 kN, with a
lateral The
Thedriftmaximum
of 19.22 load
maximum load(R
mm capacity
= 1.37%;
capacity ofof theSC-S-GV
Table
the SC-S-GV specimen
9, Figurespecimen
11). It shouldwasabe
was apositive
positive
noted thatload
load ofof
the 422kN,
concrete
422 kN,andwith
with aa
the
lateral drift
reinforcement
lateral of 19.22
behaved
drift of 19.22 mm
mm (R (R =
together1.37%;
= 1.37%; withTable
Table 9, Figure
complete 11).
9, Figurehardening. It should
11). It should Thebe be noted
sprayed that
FRPthe
noted that the concrete
system for and
concrete and the
the the
RC
reinforcement
column was therefore
reinforcement behaved
behaved togethertogether
an effective with complete
withreinforcement hardening.
technique
complete hardening. Thethat The sprayed
could
sprayed FRP
markedly
FRP system forsystem
increase for
the RCthe the RC
shear
column
column
strength.
was was therefore an effective reinforcement technique that could markedly
therefore an effective reinforcement technique that could markedly increase the shear strength. increase the shear
strength.
4.3.
4.3. Sprayed
Sprayed FRP-Strengthened
FRP-StrengthenedSpecimenSpecimenUsingUsingGlass
GlassFiber
Fiberand
andEpoxy
EpoxyResin
Resin(SC-S-GE)
(SC-S-GE)
4.3. Sprayed FRP-Strengthened Specimen Using Glass Fiber and Epoxy Resin (SC-S-GE)
The
TheSC-S-GE
SC-S-GEspecimen
specimenwas was strengthened
strengthened using
usingthe the
sprayed
sprayedFRPFRP withwith
glassglass
fiber and
fiberepoxy resin.
and epoxy
Surface The SC-S-GE
cracks were specimen
not seen was
because strengthened
of the using
externally the
sprayed sprayed
glass FRP
fiber with
and
resin. Surface cracks were not seen because of the externally sprayed glass fiber and epoxy resin. glass
epoxy fiber
resin. and
Figure epoxy
12a
resin.
shows
Figurethe Surface
12afailure cracks
showsmode were not
of themode
the failure seen
SC-S-GE because
specimen
of the of the externally
SC-S-GEfollowing
specimenthe sprayed glass
cyclic loading
following fiber and
test,loading
the cyclic epoxy
and Figure resin.
test, 12b
and
Figure
shows 12a
the shows
lateral the failure
load-displacement mode of the
curve. SC-S-GE
The specimen
lateral strength following
of the the
SC-S-GE
Figure 12b shows the lateral load-displacement curve. The lateral strength of the SC-S-GE specimen cyclic loading
specimen test,
did and
not
Figure
did not 12b
increase shows
at the
increase at the
34th the lateral
positive load-displacement
34th loading
positive cycle (12th
loading curve.
(12thThe
loading
cycle step,lateral
loading strength
R =step,
1.54%) of the
R =with
1.54%) SC-S-GE
a maximum specimen
load of
with a maximum
did
461
loadkN.not increase
of 461 kN. at the 34th positive loading cycle (12th loading step, R = 1.54%) with a maximum
load of 461 kN.
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 13 of 21
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 13 of 21

500
Maximum point
SC-S-GE specimen Positive:
400 Vmax: 461 kN
δmax: 21.28 mm
300

200

Load (kN)
100

-100

-200 Negative:
Vmax: 385 kN
-300
δmax: 20.72 mm
Maximum point
-400
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Displacement (mm)

(a) (b)
Figure 12.
Figure 12. Specimen
Specimenstrengthened
strengthenedwith
withthe
thesprayed
sprayed FRP
FRP using
using a glass
a glass fiber
fiber andand epoxy
epoxy resinresin (SC-S-
(SC-S-GE):
GE): (a) failure mode and (b) load-displacement relationship.
(a) failure mode and (b) load-displacement relationship.

Similar to the SC-S-GV specimen, a fracturing sound of the glass fiber in the inner part of the
Similar to the SC-S-GV specimen, a fracturing sound of the glass fiber in the inner part of the
reinforcement material occurred in the top and bottom column faces following the first negative
reinforcement material occurred in the top and bottom column faces following the first negative
loading cycle of the 10th loading step (R = 1%). At a load of 323.4 kN, with a negative loading after
loading cycle of the 10th loading step (R = 1%). At a load of 323.4 kN, with a negative loading after
step 10, the specimen started fracturing at the edge in the middle of the column. When the applied
step 10, the specimen started fracturing at the edge in the middle of the column. When the applied
displacement reached 23 mm, after the 12th positive loading step (R = 1.54%), larger fractures were
displacement reached 23 mm, after the 12th positive loading step (R = 1.54%), larger fractures were
observed, some of which were ~70 mm wide, and the fractures spread to the lower and upper ends
observed, some of which were ~70 mm wide, and the fractures spread to the lower and upper ends of
of the column specimen.
the column specimen.
The concrete and the reinforcement, with complete hardening after spraying, behaved together
The concrete and the reinforcement, with complete hardening after spraying, behaved together in
in the SC-S-GE column test specimen, as shown in Figure 12a, resulting in eventual fracture of both
the SC-S-GE column test specimen, as shown in Figure 12a, resulting in eventual fracture of both at the
at the 14th step (R = 3%).
14th step (R = 3%).

4.4. Sprayed
4.4. Sprayed FRP-Strengthened
FRP-Strengthened Specimen
Specimen Using
Using Carbon
Carbon Fiber
Fiber and
and Vinyl
Vinyl Resin
Resin (SC-S-CV)
(SC-S-CV)
Figure 13
Figure 13 shows
shows thethefailure
failuremode
modeafter afterthethe
cyclic loading
cyclic loading test,test,
as well as the
as well as lateral load-
the lateral
displacement curve for the SC-S-CV specimen. The SC-S-CV specimen
load-displacement curve for the SC-S-CV specimen. The SC-S-CV specimen was reinforced using was reinforced using carbon
fiber and
carbon fibervinyl
and ester
vinyl resin. Surface
ester resin. cracks
Surface werewere
cracks not seen because
not seen becauseof the sprayed
of the sprayedmaterials;
materials; first, a
first,
fracturing sound of the carbon fiber occurred in the top and bottom column faces
a fracturing sound of the carbon fiber occurred in the top and bottom column faces at the first cycle of at the first cycle of
the ninth
the ninth loading
loading step
step (R
(R == 0.49%)
0.49%) with
with aa load
load of of 274
274 kN.
kN.
At aa load
At load ofof 390
390 kN,
kN, with
with aa positive
positive loading
loading after
after step
step 11,
11, the
the specimen
specimen started
started fracturing
fracturing at at the
the
edge of the bottom column faces. After the 12th positive loading step (R
edge of the bottom column faces. After the 12th positive loading step (R = 1.54%), larger fractures= 1.54%), larger fractures
were observed
were observed and and they
theyspread
spreadto tothe
themiddle
middleofofthe thecolumn,
column, showing
showing simultaneous
simultaneous movement
movement of the
of
reinforcement and the concrete. Finally, at step 14, the reinforcement fractured
the reinforcement and the concrete. Finally, at step 14, the reinforcement fractured and completely and completely
debonded at
debonded at the
the edge
edge of
of the
the lower
lower end
end of
of the
the column
column specimen.
specimen. The The lateral
lateral strength
strength ofof the
the SC-S-CV
SC-S-CV
specimen did
specimen did not
not increase
increase atat the
the 34th
34th positive
positive loading
loading cycle
cycle (12th
(12th loading
loading step,
step, RR == 1.54%)
1.54%) with
with aa
maximum load of
maximum load of 423 kN. 423 kN.

4.5. Sprayed FRP-Strengthened

4.5. FRP-Strengthened Specimen
Specimen Using
Using Carbon
Carbon Fiber
Fiber and
and Epoxy
Epoxy Resin
Resin (SC-S-CE)
(SC-S-CE)
The SC-S-CE
The SC-S-CEspecimen
specimenwas was strengthened
strengthened using
using thethe sprayed
sprayed FRPFRP
withwith carbon
carbon fiber fiber and epoxy
and epoxy resin.
resin. Surface
Surface cracksnot
cracks were were
seennot seen because
because of the externally
of the externally sprayedfiber
sprayed carbon carbon
and fiber
epoxyand epoxy
resin. resin.
Figure 14
Figurethe
shows 14 failure
showsmode
the failure mode
following following
the cyclic the test,
loading cyclic loading
as well test,
as the as well
lateral as the lateral curve.
load-displacement load-
displacement
The curve.of The
lateral strength lateral strength
the SC-S-CE specimenofdidthenot
SC-S-CE
increasespecimen
at the 34thdid not increase
negative loadingat the(12th
cycle 34th
negativestep,
loading loading cycle (12th
R = 1.54%) with aloading
load of step,
397 kN,R =which
1.54%) with athe
showed load of 397 kN,
maximum load.which showed the
maximum load.
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 14 of 21
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 14 of 21

Polymers 2016, 8, 107 500 14 of 21

SC-S-CV specimen Maximum point
Positive:
400 Vmax: 423 kN
500
SC-S-CV specimen Maximum point δmax: 20.72 mm
300 Positive:
400 Vmax: 423 kN
200 δmax: 20.72 mm
300

(kN) (kN)
100
200

Load Load
1000

-100
0

-100
-200 Negative:
Vmax: 376 kN
-200
-300 Negative:
δ : 14.14 mm
Vmax: max
376 kN
Maximum point
-300
-400 δmax: 14.14 mm
-50 -40 -30point-20
Maximum -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-400
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 Displacement
0 10 20 (mm)
30 40 50 60 70

(a) Displacement
(b) (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 13.13. Specimenstrengthened
Specimen strengthenedwith
withthethesprayed
sprayedFRPFRPusing
usinga carbon
a carbon fiber
fiber and
and vinyl
vinyl ester
ester resin
resin
Figure 13.following
(SC-S-CV) Specimenthe
strengthened
cyclic withtest:
loading the (a)
sprayed FRP
failure using
mode a (b)
and carbon fiber and vinyl ester
load-displacement resin
relationship.
(SC-S-CV) following the cyclic loading test: (a) failure mode and (b) load-displacement relationship.
(SC-S-CV) following the cyclic loading test: (a) failure mode and (b) load-displacement relationship.
500
500 SC-S-CE specimen Maximum point Positive:
400 SC-S-CE specimen Maximum point Vmax: 390 kN
Positive:
400 Vmaxδ: 390 kN mm
: 20.88
300 max
δmax: 20.88 mm
300
200
200
(kN)

100
Load(kN)

100
Load

0
0

-100
-100

-200 Negative:
-200 Negative:
-300 VmaxV
: 397 : 397 kN
max kN
-300
δ :δ21.08
max
: 21.08
mm mm
max
Maximum
Maximum point
point
-400
-400
-50 -40
-50 -40 -30
-30 -20
-20 -10-10 0 0 10 10 20 20 30 3040 4050 5060 6070 70
Displacement
Displacement (mm)
(mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure14.
Figure 14.Specimen
Specimen strengthened
strengthened with
with the sprayed FRP using aacarbon fiber and epoxy resin (SC-S-
Figure 14. Specimen strengthened with the the sprayed
sprayed FRPFRP using
using carbon
a carbon fiber fiber and
and epoxy epoxy resin (SC-S-
resin (SC-S-CE):
CE): (a) failure mode and (b) load-displacement relationship.
(a)CE): (a) failure
failure mode and mode
(b)and (b) load-displacement
load-displacement relationship.
relationship.

A Afracturing
fracturingsoundsound of of the
the glass
glass fiber
fiber in
inthe
the inner
innerpart
part ofofthe
thereinforcement
reinforcement material occurred
material occurredin in
A top
the fracturing
and sound
bottom of thefaces
column glassatfiber
the in the
first inner part
negative of the
loading reinforcement
cycle of the 10th material
loading occurred
step (R = 1%) in
the
the with
top
top and
and bottom
bottom
column
column
faces at the first negative loading cycle of the 10th loading
faces at the first negative loading cycle of the 10th loading step (R = 1%)
step (R = 1%)
a
with a load load ofof 333.2
333.2 kN.
kN.
with a loadAfter ofthe
333.2
load kN.
reached 333.2 kN, the specimen started fracturing at the edge of the middle of the
After the load reached 333.2 kN, the specimen started fracturing at the edge of the middle of the
After the
column. Whenloadthe reached
applied333.2 kN, the specimen
displacement reached 28 started fracturing
mm, after the 12thatpositive
the edge of thestep
loading middle
(R = of the
2%),
column. When the applied displacement reached 28 mm, after the 12th positive loading step (R = 2%),
column.
largerWhen the applied
fractures displacement
were observed, some of reached
which 28 were mm,~90after
mmthe 12thand
wide, positive loadingspread
the fractures step (Rto=the
2%),
larger fractures were observed, some of which were ~90 mm wide, and the fractures spread to the
larger fractures
lower and upper were observed,
ends some of
of the column which were ~90 mm wide, and the fractures spread to the
specimen.
lower and upper ends of the column specimen.
lower and uppertoends
Similar the of the column
other specimen. specimens described above, the concrete and the
three strengthened
Similar to the other three strengthened specimens described above,the theSC-S-CE
concrete and the
Similar to the
reinforcement, withother three hardening
complete strengthened afterspecimens described
spraying, behaved above,in the
together concrete column
and the
reinforcement,
specimen, aswith with complete
shown hardening
in Figurehardening
14a, resulting after spraying,
in spraying,
eventual behaved
fracture together
of both in the
at thein15th SC-S-CE column
reinforcement, complete after behaved together the step (R = 5%).
SC-S-CE column
specimen, as shown in Figure 14a, resulting in eventual fracture of both at the 15th step (R = 5%).
specimen, as shown in Figure 14a, resulting in eventual fracture of both at the 15th step (R = 5%).
4.6. Strength and Deformation
4.6.
4.6. Strength
Strength and
and Deformation
Deformation
Figure 15 shows positive envelope curves of the lateral load-displacement relationship up to
=Figure
RFigure
3% for 1515theshows
shows sprayedpositive envelopecurves
FRP-strengthened
positive envelope curves of the
specimens
of the lateral
lateral
(SC-S-GV,load-displacement
SC-S-GE, SC-S-CV,
load-displacement relationship up
and SC-S-CE)
relationship uptoto
RR = 3%
= with
3% the
for for the sprayed
non-strengthened
the sprayed FRP-strengthened
control SC-N specimen
FRP-strengthened specimens
specimens (SC-S-GV,SC-S-GE,
for (SC-S-GV,
comparison SC-S-GE,
with SC-S-CV,and
the strengthened
SC-S-CV, and SC-S-CE)
specimens.
SC-S-CE)
with
Tablethe
10 non-strengthened
lists maximum strength controland SC-N specimen
deformation for comparison
capacities. The larger with themaximum
of the strengthened specimens.
positive and
Table 10 lists maximum strength and deformation capacities. The larger of the maximum positive and
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 15 of 21

with the non-strengthened

Polymers 2016, 8, 107 control SC-N specimen for comparison with the strengthened specimens. 15 of 21
Table 10 lists maximum strength and deformation capacities. The larger of the maximum positive and
negative
negative load
load valueswere
values wereused
usedhere
here(see
(see Figures
Figures 10–14).
10–14). The
Thestrength
strengthratio
ratio(SR)
(SR)is is
defined
defined as as
thetheratio
ratio
of of maximum
maximum loadVV
load of specimens
max of
max specimens strengthened
strengthenedwith withthethesprayed
sprayedFRP FRP toto
that of of
that thetheSC-N
SC-N control
control
specimen,
specimen, andandthethedisplacement
displacementratio ratio (DR)
(DR) indicates
indicates the
theratio
ratioofofdisplacement
displacementatat the maximum
the maximum point
point
δ of the specimens strengthened with the sprayed FRP to that of the
δmax of the specimens strengthened with the sprayed FRP to that of the SC-N control specimen.
max SC-N control specimen.
TheThe maximumshear
maximum shearstrength
strength ofof specimens
specimens SC-S-GV
SC-S-GVwas was422422kN,
kN,that
thatofofSC-S-GE
SC-S-GE waswas461461kN,kN,
that
that of of SC-S-CV
SC-S-CV waswas423423kN,
kN,and
andthat
thatofofSC-S-CE
SC-S-CEwaswas397397kN;
kN;these
these represent
represent an an increase
increase of of aa factor
factor of
of ~1.22 to 1.42 (i.e., 22%–42% larger) relative to the SC-N control specimen,
~1.22 to 1.42 (i.e., 22%–42% larger) relative to the SC-N control specimen, where the maximum shear where the maximum
shear strength was 325 kN. Also, as illustrated in Figure 15, the specimens strengthened using the
strength was 325 kN. Also, as illustrated in Figure 15, the specimens strengthened using the sprayed
sprayed FRP exhibited a reinforcement effect, in terms of shear strength, on average 1.31 times greater
FRP exhibited a reinforcement effect, in terms of shear strength, on average 1.31 times greater than
than the control specimen. The displacement at the maximum strength point (δmax) of the four
the control specimen. The displacement at the maximum strength point (δmax ) of the four specimens
specimens strengthened using the sprayed FRP ranged from ~19.22 to 21.28 mm; this indicates a
strengthened using the sprayed FRP ranged from ~19.22 to 21.28 mm; this indicates a reinforcement
reinforcement effect (i.e., deformation) on average 1.43 times larger than the SC-N control specimen
effect (i.e., deformation) on average 1.43 times larger than the SC-N control specimen (Figure 15).
(Figure 15).
TheThe results
resultsregarding
regardingthe thestrength
strength andand deformation capacitiesmentioned
deformation capacities mentioned above
above show
show thatthat
thethe
sprayed
sprayedFRP FRPtechnique
technique for for RC columnscontrolled
RC columns controlledbyby shear
shear was
was an an effective
effective retrofitting
retrofitting technique
technique to
to provide
provideboth bothincreased
increasedstrength
strength and deformation, which is a useful approach
and deformation, which is a useful approach for existing low- to for existing low-
to medium-rise
medium-riseRC RCbuildings
buildingsthat thatwere
werenot notdesigned
designedand andbuilt
builttotoseismic
seismicspecifications.
specifications. Adequate
Adequate
strength
strength andanddeformation
deformationcan canreduce
reduce the
the inelastic earthquakeresponse
inelastic earthquake responseininterms
terms ofof hysteretic
hysteretic energy
energy
dissipation
dissipation [33,34].
[33,34].

600
1.43 SCN
550
SC-S-GV
500 Sprayed FRP Specimens SC-S-GE
450
SC-S-CV
SC-S-CE
400
1.31
350
Load (kN)

300

250

200 Control
Specimen
150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)

Figure 15. Envelope of the load-displacement relations of the specimens.

Figure 15. Envelope of the load-displacement relations of the specimens.
Table 10. Summary of the strengths and deformation capacities of the test specimens.
Table 10. Summary of the strengths and deformation capacities of the test specimens.
Maximum shear Displacement at the Strength ratio Displacement ratio
Specimen Maximum shear Displacement at the Displacement
Specimen strength Vmax (kN) maximum Point δmax (mm) (SR) ratio (SR)
Strength (DR)
strength V max (kN) maximum Point δmax (mm) ratio (DR)
SC-N 325 14.38 1.00 (325/325) 1.00 (14.38/14.38)
SC-N 325 14.38 1.00 (325/325) 1.00 (14.38/14.38)
SC-S-GV
SC-S-GV 422
422(30%)
(30%) 19.22
19.22 1.301.30
(422/325)
(422/325) 1.34 1.34
(19.22/14.38)
(19.22/14.38)
SC-S-GE
SC-S-GE 461(42%)
461 (42%) 21.28
21.28 1.421.42 (461/325)
(461/325) 1.48 1.48 (21.28/14.38)
(21.28/14.38)
SC-S-CV 423 (30%) 20.72 1.30 (423/325) 1.44 (20.72/14.38)
SC-S-CV 423 (30%) 20.72 1.30 (423/325) 1.44 (20.72/14.38)
SC-S-CE 397 (22%) 21.08 1.22 (397/325) 1.47 (21.08/14.38)
SC-S-CE 397 (22%) 21.08 1.22 (397/325) 1.47 (21.08/14.38)

5. Applicability of Shear Strengthening Design Equations for the FRP Sheet to Sprayed FRP
5. Applicability of Shear Strengthening Design Equations for the FRP Sheet to Sprayed FRP
In Japan, the current standard equations for calculating the maximum shear strength capacity
In Japan, the current standard equations for calculating the maximum shear strength capacity
according
accordingtotothe
theshear
shearstrengthening
strengthening effects
effects of the reinforcement
of the reinforcementmaterials
materials(FRP
(FRPsheet)
sheet) include
include an an
equation
equationproposed
proposed byby
the
theJBDPA
JBDPA[35]
[35](Equation
(Equation(2)),
(2)),and
andone
onespecified
specifiedby
by the
the Architectural Institute of
Architectural Institute
of Japan (AIJ) [36] (Equation (3)), revised using the shear capacity equation for the truss-arch
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 16 of 21

Japan (AIJ) [36] (Equation (3)), revised using the shear capacity equation for the truss-arch mechanism
on the basis of the effective strain of the FRP sheet based on a regression analysis of existing
experimental data. For practical use of FRP sheets according to Equation (3), especially, the AIJ
proposed a coefficient of shear strength reduction of α = 0.67, based on a regression analysis of existing
experimental data.
Both Equations (2) and (3) were modified by converting a parameter showing shear reinforcing
bars, when the FRP sheet reinforcement was considered, in the existing equations to calculate the
ultimate shear strength of the columns.
$ ,
’ /
0.053Pt0.23 p17.6 ` f ck q
’
& b /
.
Vu “ ` 0.845 Psw ˆ σsw ` α ˆ Pf w ˆ σ f w ` 0.1σ0 ˆ b ˆ j (2)
M
` 0.12
’
’ /
/
% -
Qˆd

where
Pt = tensile reinforcement ratio (percent)
f ck = compressive strength of concrete (N/mm2 )
M/Q = shear span length; default value = ho /2
ho = clear height
d = effective depth of the column

Psw = shear reinforcement ratio of shear reinforcing bars

σsw = yield strength of the shear reinforcing bars (N/mm2 )
α = coefficient of shear strength reduction
Pfw = shear reinforcement ratio of FRP sheets
σsw = tensile strength of FRP sheets (N/mm2 )
σ0 = axial stress in the column (N/mm2 )
b = column width (mm)
j = distance between the centroids of the tension and compression forces
´ ¯
Vu “ b ˆ jt ˆ Psw ˆ σsw ` α ˆ Pf w ˆ σ f w ˆ cotφ ` tanθ¨ p1 ´ βq ˆ υ ˆ f ck ˆ b ˆ D{2 (3)

where
jt “ distance between the centroids of the main reinforcing bars
" c *
f ck
cotφ : min 2.0, jt { pD ˆ tanθq , υ ˆ ´ 1.0
Psw ˆ σsw ` α ˆ Pfw ˆ σfw
φ = compressive inner angle of concrete in truss mechanism

D = column depth
b
tanθ “ ph0 {Dq2 ` 1 ´ h0 {D
υ: effective coefficient of compressive strength of concrete (υ “ 0.7 ´ f ck {200)
!` ˘ ´ ¯)
β“ 1 ` cot2 φ ¨ Psw ˆ σsw ` α ˆ Pf w ˆ σfw { pυ ˆ f ck q

Kang [37] conducted a comparison study of theoretical values computed from existing equations,
expressed in Equations (2) and (3), and experimental test values of column specimens reinforced using
FRP sheets. The results indicated that the equation proposed by the JBDPA [35] having a coefficient
of strength reduction of α = 1.0 was the most reliable with an average comparison correlation of 0.85
(standard deviation of 0.09), compared with the AIJ equation calculated using a coefficient of strength
reduction of α = 0.67.
This study proposes coefficients of shear strength reduction (α), using Equations (4) and (5) of the
sprayed FRP strengthening technique based on a comparison between theoretical values calculated
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 17 of 21

from the two existing equations and experimental test results of the column specimens strengthened
using the sprayed FRP.
»$ , fi2
’ /
0.053Pt0.23 p17.6 ` f ck q
’ /
—& Vtest . ffi
´ ´ 0.1σ0 fl ´ Psw ˆ σsw
{0.845ffi
—
–’ b ˆ j M
` 0.12
’ /
/
% -
Qˆd
α1 “ (4)
Pfw ˆ σfw

where
α1 = coefficient of shear strength reduction based on Equation (2), specified by the JBDPA [35].
Vtest = experimental test results of the column specimens strengthened using sprayed FRP (Table 9).
" *
Vtest ´ tanθ ˆ p1 ´ βq ˆ υ ˆ f ck ˆ b ˆ D{2
´ Psw ˆ σsw
b ˆ jt ˆ cotφ
α2 “ (5)
Pfw ˆ σfw

where
α2 = coefficient of shear strength reduction based on Equation (3), modified by the AIJ [36], using
the arch-truss mechanism equation for calculating shear strength capacity.
To use Equations (4) and (5) with sprayed FRP, the properties of the mixture of chopped fibers
and resins was taken into account using the value of reinforcement design thickness (tsf ) for Pfw
and the reinforcement strength obtained from the material test (σt ) for σfw (Table 3), respectively.
When the shear strengthening capacity of sprayed FRP was computed under these conditions without
considering the coefficient of shear strength reduction, the shear capacity could not be estimated
appropriately because the computation is based on the assumption that the sprayed FRP behaves in
tandem with the member.
Because the actual behavior of sprayed FRP results in fracturing and debonding failure at the
region of maximum load, there is a need for a coefficient of shear strength reduction of the design
strength for sprayed FRP, just as there is for the existing FRP sheet strengthening method [35,36,38].
Thus, the experimental values of Table 10 and the computed values from Equations (2) and (3) were
compared to propose a coefficient of shear strength reduction (α1 and α2 ) for sprayed FRP, as shown
in Equations (4) and (5).
Table 11 lists coefficients of shear strength reduction (α1 ) calculated using Equation (4)—which
was derived using Equation (2), proposed by the JBDPA [35]—and those (α2 ) calculated using
Equation (5), which was derived based on Equation (3), proposed by the AIJ [36]. As indicated
in Table 11, the coefficients of strength reduction (α1 ) for the sprayed FRP system in Equation (4)
(JBDPA) were distributed in the range of 0.93–2.25, and the average value was 1.51. The coefficients of
strength reduction (α2 ) in Equation (5) (AIJ) had a lower limit value of 0.35, an upper limit value of
0.48, and an average value of 0.41.
Table 12 and Figure 16 show the relationship between the test values of V max (test) and the
theoretical values of V max (calculation), which were computed by applying each of the values for
α1 (JBDPA), the proposed coefficient of shear strength reduction in Table 11: α1 = 1.51 (average α1
value); the minimum value of α1 = 0.93, and the maximum value of α1 = 2.25, together with α1 = 1.0,
as proposed by Kang [37]. Table 13 and Figure 17 show the relationship between the test values of
V max (test) and the theoretical values of V max (calculation), which were computed by applying each
of the values for α2 (AIJ), the proposed coefficient of shear strength reduction in Table 11: α2 = 0.41
(average α2 value); the minimum value of α2 = 0.35, and the maximum value of α2 = 0.48, together
with α2 = 0.67, as proposed by the AIJ [36].
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 18 of 21

Polymers 2016, 8, 107 Table 11. Proposed coefficients of strength reduction. 18 of 21

Table 11. ProposedCoefficients strength reduction.

coefficients of strength reduction

Coefficients α2 (Equation
reduction(5)) (Architectural Institute
Specimen α1 (Equation (4)) (Japan Buildingof strength
of Japan; modified based on the
Disaster Prevention Association) [35] (Equation (5)) (Architectural Institute
Specimen (Equation (4)) (Japan Building Arch–Truss mechanism equation) [36]
of Japan; modified based on the Arch–
SC-N Disaster Prevention –Association) [35]
Truss mechanism–equation) [36]
SC-S-GV
SC-N –1.54 –0.41
SC-S-GE 2.25 0.48
SC-S-GV 1.54 0.41
SC-S-CV 1.31 0.38
SC-S-GE
SC-S-CE 2.25
0.93 0.48
0.35
SC-S-CV
Average 1.31
1.51 0.38
0.41
SC-S-CE 0.93 0.35
Average 1.51 0.41
Table 12. Comparison of V max (test) and V max (calculation) based on coefficients of strength reduction.

Table 12. Comparison of Vmax (test) and Vmax (calculation) based on coefficients of strength reduction.
V max [Calculation] (the JBDPA) [35] (kN)
V max [Test]
Specimen
Vmax [Test] α1 V
“max1.0[Calculation] (the JBDPA)
α1 “ 0.93 α1 “ [35]
1.5 (kN)α1 “ 2.25
Specimen (kN) = . = . = . = .
(kN) (Kang [37]) (Minimum) (Average) (Maximum)
(Kang [37]) (Minimum) (Average) (Maximum)
SC-N 325 280
SC-N 325 280
SC-S-GV 422 385 380 420 460
SC-S-GV SC-S-GE 422 461 385 386 380 381 420
421 462 460
SC-S-GE SC-S-CV 461 423 386 399 381 394 421
438 483 462
SC-S-CV SC-S-CE 423 397 399 404 394 397 438
442 488 483
SC-S-CE 397 404 397 442 488
Table 13. Comparison of V max (test) and V max (calculation) based on coefficients of strength reduction.
Table 13. Comparison of Vmax (test) and Vmax (calculation) based on coefficients of strength reduction.

VVmax
max [Calculation]
[Calculation] (the
(the AIJ
AIJ ModifiedBased
Modified Basedononthe
the
V max [test] Arch–Truss mechanism equation) [36] (kN)
Vmax [test]
Specimen Arch–Truss mechanism equation) [36] (kN)
Specimen (kN)
(kN) = . α2 “ 0.35 =α2. “ 0.41 α2 = .
“ 0.48 = 0.67
α2 “ 0.67
(Minimum)(Minimum)(Average)
(Average) (Maximum)
(Maximum) (AIJ (AIJ
[35]) [35])
SC-N SC-N 325 325 303
303
SC-S-GV SC-S-GV 422 422 469 469 498 498 531 622 622
SC-S-GESC-S-GE 461 461 470 470 499 499 533 624 624
SC-S-CVSC-S-CV 423 423 502 502 536 536 576
576 684 684
SC-S-CESC-S-CE 397 397 631 631 663 663 690
690 774 774

500
α1=0.93[min.]
α1=1.00
[JBDPA, 18]
α1=1.50[ave.]
450
α1=2.25[max.]
Vmax [test] (kN)

400

350
350 400 450 500 550
Vmax [calculation] (kN)

Figure
Figure 16.
16.Comparison of Vof
Comparison (test)
max V max and Vmax
(test) (calculation)
and based on coefficients
V max (calculation) based onofcoefficients
strength reduction (α ).
of strength
reduction (α1 ).
Test results using the sprayed FRP technique against shear failure in columns indicated that the
coefficient of shear strength reduction (α2) in the existing equation specified by the AIJ [36] tended to
over-estimate the value of Vmax (test) compared with α1 (JBDPA) [35]. Considering the safety of
seismic capacity for the shear strengthening of columns, in the sprayed FRP retrofitting method, the
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 19 of 21

Test results using the sprayed FRP technique against shear failure in columns indicated that the
coefficient of shear strength reduction (α2 ) in the existing equation specified by the AIJ [36] tended
to
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 the value of V max (test) compared with α1 (JBDPA) [35]. Considering the 19
over-estimate safety
of 21
of seismic capacity for the shear strengthening of columns, in the sprayed FRP retrofitting method,
shear
the strength
shear strengthequation calculated
equation using
calculated α1 α=1 0.93
using (specified
= 0.93 bybythe
(specified theJBDPA)
JBDPA)isis the
the most practical
most practical
theoretical equation.
theoretical equation.

500
α2=0.35[min.]
α2=0.41[ave.]
α2=0.48[max.]
α2=0.67[AIJ.19]
450
Vmax [test] (kN)

400

350
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Vmax [calculation] (kN)

Figure 17.
Figure 17.Comparison of Vof
Comparison (test)
max V and Vmax (calculation) based on coefficients of strength reduction (α ).
max (test) and V max (calculation) based on coefficients of strength
reduction (α2 ).
6. Concluding Remarks
6. Concluding Remarks
Material tests and structural tests were conducted in this study to determine the optimum
properties of sprayed
Material tests and FRP materialstests
structural for construction
were conducted workability
in thisand
studyfieldtoapplicability.
determine theTheoptimum
material
property values to achieve strength equivalent to one layer of existing FRP sheet were
properties of sprayed FRP materials for construction workability and field applicability. The material determined by
the material tests. The results of the material tests were used in cyclic loading structural
property values to achieve strength equivalent to one layer of existing FRP sheet were determined by tests on shear
column
the specimens
material to investigate
tests. The the
results of the seismictests
material strengthening
were used inperformance
cyclic loading of sprayed
structuralFRP,
testsincluding
on shear
the maximum load-carrying capacity, deformation, and hysteresis of the
column specimens to investigate the seismic strengthening performance of sprayed FRP, including thelateral load-drift
relationship.
maximum load-carrying capacity, deformation, and hysteresis of the lateral load-drift relationship.
Finally, the
Finally, thepossibility
possibility
of of using
using the the existing
existing FRP sheet
FRP sheet strengthening
strengthening design design
equationsequations for
for sprayed
sprayed FRP calculations was investigated, and a seismic strengthening design
FRP calculations was investigated, and a seismic strengthening design equation for sprayed FRP equation for sprayed
FRP reinforcement
reinforcement was proposed.
was proposed. The results
The results of thisofstudy
this study are summarized
are summarized below. below.
(1). The
(1) The optimum
optimum material
material was found to be 38-mm38-mm chopped
chopped glass and carbon fibers mixed with resin
in
in a ratio
ratio of of 1:2.
1:2.The
Theoptimum
optimumdesign
designthickness
thickness forfor sprayed
sprayed FRP FRP
waswas4.4 4.4
mm,mm, 4.2 mm
4.2 mm and and4.0 mm4.0
mm respectively for chopped glass fiber, vinyl ester resin, and epoxy
respectively for chopped glass fiber, vinyl ester resin, and epoxy resin, 3.0 mm for resin, 3.0 mm for chopped
carbon
carbon fiber.
fiber.
(2) The maximum shear
(2). The maximum shear strength
strength ofof specimens
specimens strengthened
strengthened using using the sprayed FRP
the sprayed FRP exhibited
exhibited aa
reinforcement effect, in terms of shear strength, on average 1.31 (i.e., 31%
reinforcement effect, in terms of shear strength, on average 1.31 (i.e., 31% larger) times greaterlarger) times greater
than
than the
the control
control specimen.
specimen. The
The displacement
displacement at at the
the maximum
maximum strength
strength pointpoint ofof four
four specimens
specimens
strengthened using sprayed FRP ranged from ~19.22 to 21.28 mm; this indicates
strengthened using sprayed FRP ranged from ~19.22 to 21.28 mm; this indicates a reinforcement a reinforcement
effect
effect (i.e.,
(i.e., deformation)
deformation) on on average
average 1.43
1.43 times
times larger
larger than
than the control specimen.
the control specimen.
(3). Existing
(3) Existing FRPFRP sheet
sheet design
design equations
equations are applicable to
are applicable to column
column testtest specimens.
specimens. Considering
Considering the the
safety of seismic capacity for the shear strengthening of columns, in the sprayed
safety of seismic capacity for the shear strengthening of columns, in the sprayed FRP retrofitting FRP retrofitting
method
method the the shear
shear strength
strength equation calculating using
equation calculating using αα1 == 0.93,
0.93, as
as specified
specified by by the
the JBDPA,
JBDPA, is is the
the
1
most practical theoretical equation.
most practical theoretical equation.
(4). The
(4) The proposed
proposed sprayedsprayed FRP
FRP technique
technique for for RC
RC columns
columns controlled
controlled by shear is
by shear is an
an effective
effective
retrofitting
retrofitting technique
technique providing
providing bothboth increased
increased strength
strength and deformation, which
and deformation, which is is aa useful
useful
approach for existing low- to medium-rise RC buildings that are not designed according to the
seismic specifications. For further research, the influence of discrepancies between the design
thickness and the actual construction thickness and debonding mechanism of the strengthening
material and concrete should be examined.
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 20 of 21

approach for existing low- to medium-rise RC buildings that are not designed according to the
seismic specifications. For further research, the influence of discrepancies between the design
thickness and the actual construction thickness and debonding mechanism of the strengthening
material and concrete should be examined.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by a grant (15CTAP-C097490-01) from the Technology
Advancement Research Program and a grant (14RERP-B082884-01) from the Housing Environment Research
Project, funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport Affairs of the Korean government.
Author Contributions: Kang Seok Lee and Bang Yeon Lee managed the research in this paper and prepared the
manuscript; Kang Seok Lee and Soo Yeon Seo performed the experiments and analyzed the data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bentayeb, F.; Tahar, K.A.; Chateauneuf, A. New technique for reinforcement of concrete columns confined by
embedded composite grid. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1624–1633. [CrossRef]
2. Cömert, M.; Hajihosseinlou, S.; Nasrinpour, A.; Ates, A.O.; Demir, C.; Marasli, M.; Ilki, A. Seismic Retrofit of
Sub-Standard Rc Columns through Basalt Mesh Reinforced Sprayed GFRC Jacketing. In Proceedings of the
FRC 2014 Joint ACI-fib International Workshop on Fibre Reinforced Concrete: From Design to Structural
Applications, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2014; pp. 367–376.
3. Experimental analysis of fiber-reinforced mortar for walls in rectified brick blocks. Avaiable online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275329859_Experimental_analysis_of_fiber-reinforced_mortar
_for_walls_in_rectified_brick_blocks_Analisi_sperimentale_di_malte_fibrorinforzate_per_pareti_in_blocchi
_di_laterizio_rettificati (accessed on 10 February 2016).
4. Foti, D.; Vacca, S. Mechanical behavior of concrete columns reinforced with rheoplastic mortar. Mater. Constr.
2013, 63, 267–282. [CrossRef]
5. Fukuyama, K.; Higashibata, Y.; Miyauchi, Y. Studies on repair and strengthening methods of damaged
reinforced concrete columns. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2000, 22, 81–88. [CrossRef]
6. Bakis, C.; Bank, L.C.; Brown, V.; Cosenza, E.; Davalos, J.; Lesko, J.; Machida, A.; Rizkalla, S.; Triantafillou, T.
Fiber-reinforced polymer composites for construction-state-of-the-art review. J. Compos. Constr. 2002, 6,
73–87. [CrossRef]
7. Bencardino, F.; Colotti, V.; Spadea, G.; Swamy, R. Holistic design of RC beams and slabs strengthened with
externally bonded FRP laminates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2006, 28, 832–844. [CrossRef]
8. Nanni, A. Flexural behavior and design of RC members using FRP reinforcement. J. Struct. Eng. 1993, 119,
3344–3359. [CrossRef]
9. Baena, M.; Turon, A.; Torres, L.; Miàs, C. Experimental study and code predictions of fibre reinforced polymer
reinforced concrete (FRP RC) tensile members. Compos. Struct. 2011, 93, 2511–2520. [CrossRef]
10. Bencardino, F.; Condello, A. SRG/SRP–concrete bond–slip laws for externally strengthened RC beams.
Compos. Struct. 2015, 132, 804–815. [CrossRef]
11. Bencardino, F.; Condello, A. Reliability and adaptability of the analytical models proposed for the FRP
systems to the steel reinforced polymer and steel reinforced grout strengthening systems. Compos. B 2015, 76,
249–259. [CrossRef]
12. Desprez, C.; Mazars, J.; Kotronis, P.; Paultre, P. Damage model for FRP-confined concrete columns under
cyclic loading. Eng. Struct. 2013, 48, 519–531. [CrossRef]
13. Du, Y.; Clark, L.A.; Chan, A.H. Impact of reinforcement corrosion on ductile behavior of reinforced concrete
beams. ACI Struct. J. 2007, 104, 285.
14. Foti, D. On the numerical and experimental strengthening assessment of tufa masonry with FRP. Mech. Adv.
Mater. Struct. 2013, 20, 163–175. [CrossRef]
15. Ombres, L. Debonding analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened with fibre reinforced cementitious
mortar. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2012, 81, 94–109. [CrossRef]
16. Xie, J.-H.; Hu, R.-L. Experimental study on rehabilitation of corrosion-damaged reinforced concrete beams
with carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 708–716. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2016, 8, 107 21 of 21

17. Banthia, N.; Nandakumar, N.; Boyd, A. Sprayed fiber-reinforced polymers: From laboratory to a real bridge.
Concr. Int. 2002, 24, 47–52.
18. Furuta, T.; Kanakubo, T.; Nemoto, T.; Takahashi, K.; Fukuyama, H. Sprayed up FRP Strengthening for
Concrete Structures. Proc. Int. Conf. FRP Compos. Civ. Eng. 2001, 2, 1109–1116.
19. Sprayed-up FRP strengthening for reinforced concrete beams. Avaiable online: http://rcs.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/
spray/icci2002.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2016).
20. Ha, S.; Jang, J.; Park, S.; Lee, H. Advanced spray multiple layup process for quality control of sprayed FRP
composites used to retrofit concrete structures. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 141, 04014060. [CrossRef]
21. Ha, S.; Khalid, H.R.; Park, S.; Lee, H. Interfacial crack-induced debonding behavior of sprayed FRP laminate
bonded to RC beams. Compos. Struct. 2015, 128, 176–187. [CrossRef]
22. Harries, K.A.; Young, S.C. Sprayed-fiber-reinforced composite materials for infrastructure rehabilitation.
Concr. Int. 2003, 25, 47–51.
23. Lee, K.S. Experimental study on sprayed FRP system for strengthening reinforced concrete beams. J. Adv.
Concr. Technol. 2012, 10, 219–230. [CrossRef]
24. JIS K 7054. Tensile Test Method for Glass-Fiber Reinforced Plastic; Japanese Industrial Standard; Japanese
Standards Association: Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
25. Central Glass Co., Ltd. Available online: https://www.cgco.co.jp/products/search_category/fiberglass/
(accessed on 10 February 2016).
26. Mitsubishi Rayon Co., Ltd. Available online: http://www.mrc.co.jp/products/special/ (accessed on
10 February 2016).
27. Conclinic Co., Ltd. Available online: http://www.conclinic.co.kr/ (accessed on 10 February 2016).
28. Binks Polycraft, Inc. Available online: http://www.binks.com/ (accessed on 10 February 2016).
29. SK Chemicals Co., Ltd. Available online: http://www.skchemicals.com/kr/ (accessed on 10 February 2016).
30. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association. English Version: Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Guidelines for Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, and Technical
Manual for Seismic Evaluation and Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings; Japan Building
Disaster Prevention Association: Tokyo, Japan, 2005.
31. Uniform Building Code. Structural Engineering Design Provision. In Proceedings of the International
Conference of Building Officials, CA, USA, 1 August 1997.
32. Japan Concrete Institute. Techniques for Structural Tests of Concrete Structures; Japan Concrete Institute: Tokyo,
Japan, 2004.
33. Otani, S. Inelastic analysis of RC frame structures. J. Struct. Division 1974, 100, 1433–1449.
34. Umemura, H. Earthquake Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Accounting for the Dynamic Effects of
Earthquakes; Giho-do Publishing Co.: Tokyo, Japan, 1973.
35. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association. Technical Manual for Seismic Evaluation and Seismic Retrofit of
Existing Reinforced Concrete and Steel Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Continuous FRP Sheet; Japan Building
Disaster Prevention Association: Tokyo, Japan, 1998.
36. Architectural Institute of Japan. Design and Construction Guideline of Continuous Fiber Reinforced Concrete;
Architectural Institute of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 1999.
37. Kang, K.W. The Evaluation of Shear Strengthened RC Columns with Carbon Fiber Sheets. Master‘s Thesis,
Hanyang University, Seoul, Koera, 1999.
38. ACI Committee 440. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening
Concrete Structures; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2000.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).