journal article·2026-02

Tensile Performance of GFRP Bars after Being Sprayed with Shotcrete

Richard Sturm, Amir Fam

Publisher page

Abstract

Shotcreting involves pneumatically spraying concrete at high velocities of approximately 100 km/h, yielding efficient construction, but raises concerns that the high-velocity spray can damage glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebars. This study is the first to investigate shotcrete’s potential to harm the tensile performance of GFRP bars by subjecting 48 bars to wet-mix shotcrete, using conventional industry practices and equipment, for spray durations of 5, 15, or 25 s. Two common types of 15.9 mm diameter GFRP rebar with different surface profiles were used, comprising ribbed or sand-coated bars. Two shotcrete mixes were used with either round (pea gravel) or angular (crushed limestone) aggregate. After shotcreting, all 48 abraded and 16 control bars were 3D-scanned to quantify the damage, if any, and measure their minimum cross-sectional area before tension testing the bars. Shotcrete damage to the bars was caused primarily by abrasion rather than impact damage from high-velocity aggregate impacts. Varying abrasion severity was observed. Common observations include removed sand-coating and local fiber erosion in one bar type and partially worn-away ribs in the other. Prismatic sand-coated bars were more susceptible to shotcrete abrasion than ribbed bars and showed nonlinearly increasing abrasion with spray duration. The average and maximum cross-sectional area losses were approximately 7% and 18% for sand-coated bars sprayed for 25 s with angular aggregate shotcrete. This area loss resulted in average and maximum reductions in tensile capacities of 11% and 22%, respectively; however, the bars still exceeded their guaranteed tensile capacity. The damage to ribbed rebars from shotcrete abrasion was negligible, with the ribs seeming to act as a sacrificial layer. The round aggregate mix produced negligible damage to both bar types. A model is developed to predict bar abrasion duration during construction based on member geometry and nozzle parameters, which is then used to predict cross-sectional area loss and force reduction. The model was verified against another experimental study and predicted exposure time within an 11% difference. While this study offers a first look at shotcrete abrasion of GFRP bars, further research is needed to predict abrasion damage conservatively.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Queen’s Univ.

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2022. Shotcrete-Guide. ACI PRC-506-22. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
2. Armelin, H. S., N. Banthia, and S. Mindess. 1999. “Kinematics of dry-mix shotcrete.” ACI Mater. J. 96 (3): 283–290. https://doi.org/10.14359/624.
3. ASA (American Shotcrete Association) Underground Committee. 2020. “Encapsulation of reinforcement in tunnel shotcrete final linings.” Shotcrete Magazine Fall 2020 22 (4).
4. ASTM. 2017. Standard test method for resistance of coarse aggregate to degradation by abrasion in the micro-Deval apparatus. ASTM D6928-17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
5. ASTM. 2019a. Standard practice for preparing and testing specimens from shotcrete test panels. ASTM C1140-11(19). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
6. ASTM. 2019b. Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates. ASTM C139-19. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
7. ASTM. 2020. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete. ASTM C143-20. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
8. ASTM. 2021a. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM C39-21. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
9. ASTM. 2021b. Standard test method for tensile properties of fiber reinforced polymer matrix composite bars. ASTM D7205-21. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
10. ASTM. 2023. Standard specification for basalt and glass fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars for concrete reinforcement. ASTM D8505-23. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
11. Austin, S. A., and P. J. Robins1995. Sprayed concrete: Properties, design and application. Caithness, UK: Whittles.
12. Bank L. C. 2006. Composites for construction: Structural design with FRP materials. Hoboken NJ: Wiley.10.1002/9780470121429 ↗
13. Beaupré D. and M. Jolin. 2001. “Effect of shotcrete consistency and nozzleman experience on reinforcement encasement quality.” Shotcrete Magazine. Fall 2001.
14. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.02.00210.1016/j.compositesb.2017.02.002 ↗
15. 10.1016/0950-0618(95)00048-810.1016/0950-0618(95)00048-8 ↗
16. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000056410.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000564 ↗
17. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000081410.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000814 ↗
18. 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:2(58)10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:2(58) ↗
19. Das, D., O. P. Dubey, M. Sharma, R. K. Nayak, and C. Samal. 2019. “Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of glass fiber reinforced polymer composites—A case study.” Mater. Today:. Proc. 19: 506–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.07.644.
20. Fouad, Y., M. El-Meniawi, and A. Afifi. 2011. “Erosion behaviour of epoxy based unidirectionl (GFRP) composite materials.” Alexandria Eng. J. 50 (1): 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2011.01.005.10.1016/j.aej.2011.01.005 ↗
21. Gagnon F. and M. Jolin. 2007. “Dynamic forces during shotcreting operations.” Shotcrete Magazine. Summer 2007.
22. 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.000088010.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000880 ↗
23. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000109210.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001092 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.06110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.061 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.11610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.116 ↗
26. Kumar, U. A., S. M. Alam, and P. Laxminarayana. 2020. “Influence of abrasive water jet cutting on glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites.” Mater. Today:. Proc. 27: 1651–1654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.554.
27. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.10830710.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108307 ↗
28. Morgan, D. R. 2010. “Structural shotcrete in western Canada.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Engineering Developments in Shotcrete, Queenstown, edited by E. S. Bernard. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
29. Panian L. M. Steyer and S. Tipping. 2007. “Post-tensioned shotcrete shearwalls.” Concrete International Magazine October 2007.
30. Singh, P., S. Singh, R. Ojha, P. Tiwari, S. Khan, R. Kumar, and A. Gupta. 2022. “Characterization of wear of FRP composites: A review.” Mater. Today:. Proc. 64: 1357–1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.236.
31. Sturm, R., and A. Fam. 2025. “Bond and development length of GFRP bars embedded in shotcrete.” J. Compos. Constr. 29 (4): 14. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCCOF2.CCENG-5195.10.1061/JCCOF2.CCENG-5195 ↗
32. Suresha, B., G. Chandramohan, Siddaramaiah, P. Samapthkumaran, and S. Seetharamu. 2007. “Three-body abrasive wear behaviour of carbon and glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites.” Mater. Sci. Eng., A 443 (1–2): 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2006.09.016.10.1016/j.msea.2006.09.016 ↗
33. Van Zetten S. 2021. “Constructability of mass shotcrete.” Web Session. ACI Baltimore. April 1 2021.
34. Warner J. 1995. “Understanding shotcrete—Structural applications.” Concrete International Magazine October 1 1995.
35. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.13024610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.130246 ↗