Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Review

A review on the driving performance of FRP composite piles

Ernesto Guades, Thiru Aravinthan , Mainul Islam, Allan Manalo
Centre of Excellence in Engineered Fibre Composites (CEEFC), Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Fibre composites have been a viable option in replacing traditional pile materials such as concrete, steel and timber in harsh environmental conditions. However, driving composite piles require more careful consideration due to their relatively low stiffness. Currently, there are no specic guidelines on the installation of composite piles which limits their acceptance in load-bearing applications. There is a need therefore to understand their behaviour during driving in order for composite piles to be safely and economically driven into the ground. This paper presents an overview on composite pile technologies and an examination on the different factors that affects their driving performance. Emphasis on the potential use of hollow bre reinforced polymer (FRP) piles and the need for further study on their impact behaviour is highlighted. It is expected that the information provided in this paper will help researchers and engineers to develop efcient techniques and guidelines in driving composites piles. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Available online 11 February 2012 Keywords: Composite piles Driveability Hollow FRP piles Impedance Impact behaviour

Contents 1. 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of composite piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Steel pipe core piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Structurally reinforced plastic piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Concrete-filled FRP piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Fibreglass pultruded piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. Hollow FRP piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7. FRP sheet piles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Driveability of composite piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Types of driving hammer and its effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Resistance to driving offered by the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The ability of the pile to transfer driving stresses to the pile tip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Strength of the pile to resist driving stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent developments on hollow FRP piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges in using hollow FRP piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research needs related to the driving performance of hollow FRP piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1932 1933 1934 1934 1934 1934 1934 1935 1935 1935 1935 1936 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1941

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

1. Introduction Deep foundation industry has historically involved the use of traditional materials such as concrete, steel and timber as pile
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 4631 1385; fax: +61 7 4631 2110.
E-mail addresses: Ernesto.Guades@usq.edu.au (E. Guades), Thiru.Aravinthan@ usq.edu.au (T. Aravinthan), Mainul.Islam@usq.edu.au (M. Islam), Allan.Manalo@ usq.edu.au (A. Manalo). 0263-8223/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.02.004

foundations. However, there are problems associated with the use of these materials especially when installed in corrosive and marine environments [1,2]. Examples of deteriorated traditional piles in these harsh environments are shown in Fig. 1. The deterioration of concrete, steel and timber reduces their structural capacities, which may ultimately result in damage or failure of the structure. Moreover, the maintenance and repair of deteriorated piles made from these materials are generally expensive.

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

1933

(a) Degradation of concrete pile showing corroded steel reinforcement (Source: http://www.substructure.com)

(b) Corrosion of steel piles (Source: http://www.watimas.com)

(c) Deterioration of timber piles (Source: http://www.majorprojects.vic.gov.au)

Fig. 1. Common problems of traditional piles installed in corrosive and marine environments.

Aside from the cost, there is a growing concern in the environmental and health impact of using treated timber [2] and steel painted with solvent or heavy-metals coatings [3]. These problems coupled on the use of traditional piles led researchers around the world to look for viable alternative materials that are suitable in harsh environments. A relatively new trend in deep foundations is the use of composite piles due to their inherent advantages over traditional piles. Composite piles refer to alternative pile foundations composed of bre reinforced polymers (FRPs), recycled plastics or hybrid materials that are placed into the ground to support axial and/or lateral loads [4]. Their advantages include light weight, high specic strength, high durability, corrosion resistance, chemical and environmental resistance, and low maintenance cost [5]. On the other hand, there are also potential drawbacks of using composite piles. Their initial cost is generally expensive compared to traditional pile materials [6]. The performance of bre composite piles is also a concern as composites have low bending and axial stiffness that may exhibit deformation more than the settlement permitted by design codes. Composite piles have been used in ports and harbours primarily as waterfront barriers, fender, and bearing piles for light structures [6]. They were also utilised in a bridge rehabilitation projects as load-bearing substructures [4]. Lately, composite piles were used in a timber pile replacement project [7] and as support in shoring-up boardwalks [8] in Australia. Apart from these various applications, composite piles have not yet gained wide acceptance due to the lack of installation guidelines [5]. The current method of installing composite piles into the ground is using impact driving.

This method drives a pile by raising a weight between guideposts and dropping it on the head of the pile. One of the important steps directed in developing efcient driving techniques and guidelines for composite piles is to understand their performance during driving. It is signicant that their driving performance is ascertained to ensure that they can be efciently driven to the desired embedment depth. This paper presents the recent developments on composite pile technologies and their behaviour under impact driving. As this work emphasised the potential use of hollow FRP piles in loadbearing applications, the challenges and the need for further study on their impact behaviour aimed to understand their driving performance are also presented. The information provided in this paper is expected to contribute in the development of efcient techniques and guidelines in driving composite piles. 2. Types of composite piles The application of composite piles was rst recorded in the United States (US) when they were used in April 1987 at Berth 120 in the port of Los Angeles [6]. These piles were composed of steel pipe core encased by recycled plastic shell and used for fendering applications. To date, there are seven types of composite piles. These include steel pipe core piles, structurally reinforced plastic piles, concrete-lled FRP piles, breglass pultruded piles, breglass reinforced plastic piles, hollow FRP piles, and FRP sheet piles as shown in Fig. 2. The description and applications of each type of composite piles are presented in the following subsections.

1934

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

Steel pipe

Glass/rebar

Concrete

a
HDPE shell Plastic matrix

c
FRP shell FRP composite profile

FRP profile

Plastic matrix w/ fibreglass

Fig. 2. Cross section view of the types of composite piles. (a) steel pipe core piles, (b) SRP piles, (c) concrete-lled FRP piles, (d) breglass pultruded piles, (e) breglass reinforced plastic piles, (f) hollow FRP piles and (g) FRP sheet piles.

2.1. Steel pipe core piles Steel pipe core piles consist of two layers, an inner steel layer and thick outer plastic shell (Fig. 2a). The inner layer provides the structural strength while the outer shell is used to protect the steel from corrosion. Plastic Piling Inc. is currently the manufacturer of this type of composite pile in the US [2]. This type of pile is available in 200 to 600 mm outer diameter and up to 23 m long. The structural pipe cores range from 100 to 400 mm outer diameter, with wall thicknesses between 6 and 40 mm. Early applications of this product suffered from delamination of the steel core from the plastic shell due to the difference in thermal stresses [6]. These piles were observed to have cracks at the plastic shell surface a year after they were installed [9]. The most common use of this type of pile is in fendering applications in region with marine inuence and change of the tide. However, steel pipe core piles are also considered potentially suitable for load-bearing applications. According to Pando et al. [4], the design procedure of this type of composite pile would be essentially the same as for the traditional steel pipe pile if the plastic shell is used only in the upper portion of the pile that is exposed to water. There was relatively little need for further research on this kind of pile since the design procedure of steel pipe piles is well established. 2.2. Structurally reinforced plastic piles

2.3. Concrete-lled FRP piles Concrete-lled FRP piles are comprised of an outer FRP shell with unreinforced concrete inll (Fig. 2c). The FRP shell provides a stay-in-place structural formwork for the concrete inll, acts as non-corrosive reinforcement, gives connement to concrete in compression, and protects the concrete from severe environmental effects [12]. On the other hand, the concrete inll offers the internal resistance in the compression zone and increases the stiffness of the member and prevents local buckling of the FRP tube [13]. This structural system found to perform better than the equivalent prestressed and reinforced concrete structural members under combined axial and exural loads [14]. Typically, concrete-lled FRP piles are available in diameters ranging from 203 to 610 mm, with wall thicknesses ranging between 4.6 and 9.1 mm [4]. These piles are suitable for both fendering and load-bearing applications. An impending concern in using these piles is the interface bonding and delamination problem between FRP shell and concrete core [14]. Recently, techniques and fabrication process were developed to minimise the occurrence of delamination. These include the roughening of inside shell surface by applying thin layer of epoxy sprayed with course silica [15] and application of bonding agents [11]. Concrete-lled FRP piles were lately adopted in bridge rehabilitation projects in Virginia, USA [4]. 2.4. Fibreglass pultruded piles

Structurally reinforced plastic (SRP) piles are composed of extruded recycled plastic matrix reinforced with breglass rods or steel rebar (Fig. 2b). The recycled materials are usually from waste plastic such as plastic milk jugs, soap bottles and juice containers [10]. SRP piles are produced using continuous extrusion process which allows manufacturing of up to 32 m long. The piles are available in diameters between 254 and 430 mm and are reinforced with 6 to 16 pieces of FRP or steel reinforcing rods of diameters ranging from 25 to 35 mm [11]. SRP piles are mainly used in fendering applications and regarded as potential load-bearing piles. Problems associated with these piles include the possibility of debonding of the reinforcing FRP rods and high creep rate related with the high polymeric content. This type of piles exhibits larger deections under axial and lateral load [4] and causes problem during installation and handling due to their excessive deformation [6]. One version of this pile is structurally reinforced by a steel cage with the rebars welded to a continuous steel spiral [4].

Fibreglass pultruded piles are composed of outer breglass sheet tted with a breglass grid to provide structural strength (Fig. 2d). The grid consists of two sets of orthogonal plates joined at four intersecting points and forms a tic-tac-toe pattern. The grid inserts are sometimes lled with high-density polyethylene (HDPE), plastic lumber, or polyethylene foam lls. The HDPE shell and breglass inserts are used to absorb vessel impact in fendering applications. These piles were used as fender piles in 1996 in a demonstration project at Berth 7 in Port Newark, New Jersey and in Tiffany Pier Project [6]. However, this type of composite piles was found not to be suitable for load-bearing applications [9]. 2.5. Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles consists of recycled plastic matrix with randomly distributed breglass reinforcement (Fig. 2e).

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

1935

The dense solid outer shell is bonded to the peripheral surface of the inner plastic core which is foam-lled to reduce weight. Trimax is the manufacturer of these composite piles and produces a variety of structural members that conform to lumber industry standards [6]. These piles are available in 250 mm diameter with a standard length of 7.5 m. These composite piles were used in the construction of the Tiffany Street Pier in New York City as fender piles. The suitability of using these piles in load-bearing applications has not been studied since they did not undergo testing for bearing piles [9]. 2.6. Hollow FRP piles Hollow FRP piles are an outer shell component of a concretelled FRP composite system (Fig. 2f). These piles typically consist of a thermosetting matrix reinforced with glass bres forming a tubular section made either by lament winding, pultrusion, or resin transfer moulding process. Some versions of these piles are coated with acrylic to protect against abrasion, UV and chemical attacks [6]. The diameter and wall thickness of these piles can be varied up to 460 mm and 22 mm, respectively. Hollow FRP piles are considered potentially suitable in load-bearing applications. As this paper gives emphasis on this type of composite piles, the signicant features and issues of their usage are discussed in details in Section 4. 2.7. FRP sheet piles FRP sheet piles are typically made of FRP pultruded sections with corrugated-shape prole (Fig. 2g). The single unit corrugated prole is composed of a symmetric double Z-cross section. The available products on the market have section depths of 100350 mm, widths from 400 to 460 mm, and wall thicknesses from 4 to 12 mm [16]. FRP sheet piles found to be increasingly used as waterfront retaining structures for both new installations and rehabilitations [17]. The problem associated in using FRP sheet piles includes possible damage at their corners caused by ice impact and rubbing if installed in cold regions [18]. Additionally, the asymmetrical shapes typically seen for FRP sheet piles make the testing of these materials more difcult than for many other commonly produced structural shapes [19]. Earlier study on composite sheet piles includes recycled HDPE in tongue-and-groove prole reinforced with chopped glass bres as potential material [3]. As opposed to the other type of composite piles which carry vertical axial load, FRP sheet piles in general are used for a wall that resists horizontal loads. Similarly, the reported application of this type of pile is limited to seepage reduction, waterfront bulkhead or retaining walls, and protection from waves or stormwater oods and not for load-bearing application. The information of the reported studies on composite piles suggested that composite piles are mostly used in fendering and in retaining-structure applications. These studies also showed that most composite piles are suitable in load-bearing application as proven by some bridge rehabilitation and replacement projects. Research studies are still undergoing to support the full utilisation of load-bearing composite piles. 3. Driveability of composite piles One of the main challenges in the efcient use of composite piles is to ensure that they can carry the intended design loads and be installed to the necessary depth. This challenge is attributed to the techniques on how they are being placed into the ground. FRP sheet piles can be placed into the ground using several methods [20]. However, composite piles used in load bearing and fendering applications are commonly installed using impact driving. As this

paper emphasised impact driving performance, other installation methods such as vibratory hammer and water jetting equipment which are normally used in driving FRP sheet piles are not included in the discussions. Pile driveability refers to the ability of a pile to be safely and economically driven to support the required bearing capacity and possibly to a minimum required penetration depth [21]. In general, pile driveability depends on four signicant factors, namely: (1) the energy delivered to the pile by the pile driving hammer, (2) the resistance to driving offered by the soil, (3) the ability of the pile to transfer driving stresses to the pile tip, and (4) the strength of the pile to resist driving stresses [4]. The role of these factors in the driving performance of composite piles will be discussed in the following subsections. 3.1. Types of driving hammer and its effect Driving hammers play a signicant role in successfully driving composite piles. Good driving occurs when the hammer effectively transmits energy to the pile and the induced stress wave develops a force in the pile sufcient to overcome the soil resistance. However, the transmission of waves will not be effective if the stresses induced by the hammer during driving are higher than the impact strength of the pile as damage will be created. It is therefore a requirement for effective driving to choose driving hammers not only suitable for the soil conditions but also should be appropriate for the specic pile materials. Study on the effect of driving hammers on the driving performance of composite piles is rather sparse because of their novelty. Mirmiran et al. [22] conducted a parametric study to determine the effect of light, medium and heavy (i.e., 30.89, 73.55, and 158.86 kJ energy output; respectively) single-acting diesel hammer on the driveability of hollow and concrete-lled FRP piles. Each pile was theoretically driven with light, medium or heavy hammer in each of the three types of soils, two soil proles and at the two driving depths for different magnitude of soil resistance using a software program Microwave. Result of their study showed that both hollow and concrete-lled FRP piles can be driven by heavier hammers to a higher depth, however, the former cannot attain more than 4050% of the capacity of the latter. The variation of their driveability becomes more pronounced under heavier hammers, as compared to light hammer. When driving concrete-lled FRP piles, it was found that heavier hammers induce much larger stresses compared to light hammer. Nonetheless, Mirmiran et al. still considered heavier hammers to be more efcient than light hammers in driving as they can drive these composite piles deeper at the same blow count. The effect of the types of hammers in driving composite piles (i.e., SRP and hollow FRP composite piles) was studied by Iskander et al. [1] using wave equation analysis. This analysis incorporates the effects of hammer weight and velocity, cushion and pile properties, and the dynamic behaviour of the soil during driving [23]. Two types of driving hammers were considered in this study, single-acting steam and open-ended diesel hammers. Both hammers are rated similarly; however, single-acting steam hammer achieves its rated energy using heavy ram and shorter stroke while openended diesel hammer has light ram and longer stroke [24]. The composite piles were virtually driven in a soil prole composed of two layers of medium stiff clay and medium dense sand. This study revealed that both hammers showed similar effect on the driving performance of composite piles when initially driven in medium stiff clay, however, their inuence was apparent as the piles reach the medium dense sand layer. The signicance of the types of hammer is more apparent in driving SRP piles compared to hollow FRP piles. Key nding of this study is that single-acting steam hammer is more efcient than the diesel hammer as it can drive the composite piles deeper at same number of blows.

1936

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

Impact hammers are suitable to break or shear the skin friction bond between the pile and soil especially for cohesive soil. In this case, steel sheets have the axial capacity to support the hammer weight and effectively transfer energy through the pile for penetration [25]. Boscato and Russo [26] revealed in their study that FRP sheet piles possess similar dynamic response to that of their steel counterpart. This indicates that the installation procedure and pile driving machine for steel sheet piles can be used successfully with the FRP sheet pile. The result of both studies provided valuable information on the inuence of driving hammers on the driving performance of composite piles. However, their emphasis is directed more on the transmissibility of stress waves induced by the hammer. It is also noteworthy that the effect of driving hammer should be associated with the impact strength of the composite pile materials as it contributes on effective driving. 3.2. Resistance to driving offered by the soil Pile driving constitutes substantial penetration of piles to dense sand layers or other strong soils. It is important that the resistance of the hammer-pile-soil system should overcome the resistance that the soil can offer in order to achieve effective driving. The resistance of the soil in driving are attributed by the components of the static pile capacity which are the frictional resistance on the side and the end bearing on the tip of the pile [23]. Whilst the area considered in side friction is a function of embedded pile length, end bearing resistance utilised the cross section of the pile as the effective gross area. The effect of the side friction and end bearing resistance in different soils during composite pile driving was studied by Mirmiran et al. [22] using wave equation analysis program (WEAP). Three types of soils (clay, sand and silt) and two embedment depths were considered in their study. Moreover, two soil proles (with 90% of the total capacity is provided by end bearing and the rest contributed by friction in a triangular distribution along the length of the pile, and the other with 10% of the capacity is afforded by the end bearing) were adopted. Results from the entire spectrum of their study showed that there is no signicant difference between the driveability of the hollow FRP piles in different soil proles. However, there is more substantial difference in friction and end-bearing conditions for concrete-lled FRP and concrete piles. The side frictional resistance at the interface between the pile material and the surrounding soil represents a considerable element not only on the compression and uplift capacity of the pile, but also on the resistance in driving. This resistance can be experimentally obtained using direct or interface shear test, simple shear test, torsion or ring shear test, and pull-out test [27]. A number of studies characterising the interface behaviour between FRP materials and soils using interface shear test are already available. Frost and Han [27] assessed the friction between sand and FRP and steel materials using this method. Outcome of the study showed that the interface friction coefcient between FRP and sand decreases as the mean grain size increases. This nding implies that large particles have lower friction angle than smaller grains with the same mineralogy when a mass particle slides on identical rough surfaces. On the other hand, the friction coefcient increased linearly with increasing relative roughness. This study also revealed that the angularity of sand particles was seen to be inuential on the behaviour of interfaces as angular materials have higher interface friction coefcient than rounded materials. In comparison with steel materials, FRP exhibited similar relationships between the peak interface friction coefcients and the relative roughness for a given granular material. Interface shear test was performed by Pando et al. [30] in investigating the frictional resistance among sand and two commercially

available FRP materials. Test results indicated that the relative roughness parameters and angularity of the soil signicantly inuence the interface friction coefcient as previously found out by Frost and Han [27]. This study also showed that surface hardness found to have signicant effects on the interface friction values for a relatively smooth FRP surfaces. It becomes less likely that the soil grains will penetrate into the material as the surface hardness of the FRP increases. Comparing with the angularity of soil, this study noted that angular sands are able to pierce into harder material more than rounded grains can due to higher contact stresses at the sharp grain edges. They also commented that shear failure at the interface tends to occur by sliding of the soil grains along the material surface when the soil does not penetrate. On the other hand, when soil grains do penetrate into the contact material, the interface is more constraint so that the values of the interface coefcient are higher and the shear failure tends to occur by ploughing of the soil grains along the material surface. Unlike the two previous studies, Sakr et al. [5] characterised the interface friction of FRP materials and sand via pull-out and interface shear tests. However, they found similar result that the relative roughness of the FRP composite material has a signicant effect on the FRP/sand interaction behaviour. This study also revealed that the pile capacity obtained from uplift loading test compared reasonably well with those calculated from interface shear test. This nding made the authors to conclude that the economical interface shear test can be used efciently to capture the skin friction characteristics of FRP piles driven in granular soils. 3.3. The ability of the pile to transfer driving stresses to the pile tip The capability of the pile to transmit the energy imparted by the driving hammer into the ground is associated to its impedance or dynamic stiffness. The greater the impedance of the pile, the greater is the force that will be transmitted by the pile into the soil. Pile impedance can be dened mathematically by equation (1) [31].

zqAc

where z is the impedance, q is the mass density, A is the cross sectional area, and c is the compression wave velocity. Alternatively, c can be calculated using equation (2) [32].

c E=q1=2

where E is the composite modulus of elasticity. Iskander and Stachula [2] predicted the effect of modulus of elasticity on the driveability of three types of composite piles using WEAP. They found out that the variation of modulus of elasticity has virtually no effect on the driveability of the concrete-lled FRP pile. However, the modulus has large inuence on the driving performance of both SRP and steel pipe core piles. Composite piles may buckle under extreme loading conditions during their installation by driving or when they are subjected to superstructure loads because of their inherent low modulus [28]. FRP composites generally have anisotropic material properties and high elastic to shear modulus, which may result in large shear deformations. The deection of the pile is always larger when the shear deformation is considered [29]. In the parametric study on the effect of shear deformation on buckling of vertically loaded FRP piles conducted by Han and Frost [28], they found out that the buckling of FRP piles may happen when the surrounding soil is very soft or when a large portion of the pile extends above the ground. The sensitivity of unit weights on the driveability of composite piles was characterised by Iskander et al. [1] using parametric study. The result showed that the unit weight of the pile is a major factor in driving SRP and steel pipe core piles and further highlights the signicance of quality control during manufacturing. On the other hand, unit weight has little inuence on the driveability of

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942 Table 1 Comparison of pile impedance. Pile type 315 mm prestressed concrete pile 340 mm steel pipe pile (9.5 mm wall thickness) 356 mm timber pile 325 mm concrete-lled FRP pile 254 mm steel pipe core pile 406 mm SRP pile (reinforced with FRP tendons) 356 mm hollow FRP pile (13 mm wall thickness)
a b

1937

A (mm2)

q (kg/ E c (m/ Impedance, z m3) (GPa) s) (kg/s) 103

3787 710 5048 392 4114 334 3652 692 5048 448 2644 265

77,900 2406a 34.5a 9900 7849

b

200

99,500 815a 13.8a 83,000 2240b 31b 11,300 7849b 200b 129,500 770
a

5.4

concrete-lled FRP piles. According to Mirmiran et al. [22], the low impedance value of hollow FRP piles caused these piles to endure much higher stresses and to get damaged as observed in their eld tests. In general, composite piles have low impedance values than traditional piles. However, their impedance can be improved by increasing the mass density and the cross-sectional area. Composite materials are inherently characterised by their low mass densities that would be rather difcult to increase substantially. Filling the empty pipe by a denser material such as concrete would provide extra mass and cross sectional area, although making the pile costly and heavier for transportation. 3.4. Strength of the pile to resist driving stresses

14,000 1927b 23b

3455

93

Values from [2]. Values from [31].

concrete-lled FRP piles as their weight is well-dened just like traditional piles. Another parameter that is directly related to impedance is the damping characteristics of pile materials. Damping ratio has no effect on concrete-lled FRP piles but slightly inuenced the driveability of SRP and steel pipe core piles [1]. Relatively, damping ratio has no major inuence on the driveability of composite piles compared with the modulus of elasticity and unit weight. Table 1 summarises the typical impedance values of three traditional piles and four selected composite piles with approximately similar outside diameters. It should be noted that FRP sheet piles are not included in the table due to their totally different geometric conguration and application compared to other composite piles. It is apparent from Table 1 that among composite piles, concretelled FRP pile has the highest impedance value. Its value is approximately similar with prestressed concrete pile and signicantly higher than the other two traditional piles. As the impedance of both concrete-lled FRP and prestressed concrete piles is comparable, it is expected that their driving performance will behave similarly. This expectation was conrmed experimentally in some studies conducted by [4,22]. In comparison with concrete-lled FRP piles, the steel pipe core and the SRP piles impedance values are about 65% and 38%, respectively. The lowest impedance value corresponds to the hollow FRP pile with 13% that of the

The strength of the composite piles in resisting driving stresses is attributed to their axial impact response characteristics and energy absorption behaviour. It should be noted that these characteristics are associated to the impact fatigue response of the composite piles since they are repeatedly impacted. For composite piles, impact stresses imparted by the driving hammer are generally resisted by the composite action between the component materials (e.g., FRP shell and concrete inll in the case of concrete-lled FRP pile). Unlike traditional piles, the impact fatigue response of composite piles is not yet clearly dened. Mirmiran et al. [22] eld-driven hollow and concrete-lled FRP piles using a 3.85 m long open-end single acting diesel hammer. Their objective is to compare the behaviour of the two composite piles under actual eld driving impacts. The FRP tubes adopted for the composite piles had an outside diameter of 348 mm with a wall thickness of 14 mm. The 9.1 m long concrete-lled FRP piles were successfully driven to depths at about 7.3 m without damage at the top, and no separation between the concrete and FRP shell (Fig. 3). The non-damage and non-separation of the component materials of this type of composite piles after driving were also observed in other study [4]. This observation indicated that despite of impact repetitions induced on the pile, the concrete core and FRP shell worked in composite action and the integrity of the system was not compromised. However, this is not the observed case in the study conducted by Baxter et al. [11] as the top of the pile was visibly broken at the end of driving. This damage was characterised by cracking and spalling of concrete core at the top, and disintegration of some portion of FRP shell. It should be noted,

Fig. 3. Condition of concrete-lled FRP pile at the end of impact driving [22].

Fig. 4. Condition of hollow FRP pile at the end of impact driving [22].

1938

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

The reported studies described the impact behaviour of composite piles through the observed damage mechanisms only. The effects of impact energy, as well as the impact cycles, have not been investigated in detail. The inuence of impact energy and impact cycles needs to be considered as they are signicant not only in their driveability but also in their post-impact performance characterisation. Noticeably, substantial amount of research are needed in this area. General nding of the studies on the driving performance of composites piles suggests that they are less efcient to drive than traditional piles. This poor driving performance affects their integrity and limits their application. For the past decade, studies on composite piles had been mostly focused on their use in load-bearing applications. These studies mainly discussed steel pipe core, SRP, and concrete-lled FRP piles since they are considered potentially suited for load-bearing applications [9]. Recent developments on hollow FRP piles for various structural applications suggest their high potential as load-bearing piles. These piles provide a solution in this particular application with the added advantages over other potential load-bearing composite piles. The recent developments, challenges, and research needs related in understanding the driving performance of these piles in load-bearing applications are discussed in the following section.

4. Recent developments on hollow FRP piles The rst three types of composite piles are generally considered to be potentially suitable in load-bearing applications. However, previous studies conducted on these types showed some concerns on their potential use in this application. Common problems of these piles are debonding between the component materials although techniques are being developed to minimise its occurrence. Steel pipe core piles have some integrity issue since cracking on the plastic shell is imminent after it was installed. On the other hand, SRP piles have handling and structural performance issues due to its inherent excessive deformation behaviour. The emergence of FRP composite tubes as a structural component provided the industry to consider these materials as a potential composite load-bearing pile type since they can carry design load. Compared to concrete-lled FRP composite pile, they can be readily installed without the intricacy of placing concrete inll using additional equipment. The cost of transportation and installation is also lower due to their lighter weight, thus more cost efcient. Additionally, bond failure (i.e., delamination between FRP shell and concrete core in the case of concrete-lled FRP piles) is not an impending issue on the use of this pile. Table 2 summarises the application of hollow FRP piles. Most of these piles are used as test piles or in theoretical studies [1,8,22,31,33]. Recently, they were adopted in replacing damage timber piles and as bearing pile for light structures in Australia. The replacement project is a collaborative effort between the Centre of Excellence in Engineered Fibre Composites (CEEFC) of the University of Southern Queensland and BAC Technologies Pty. Ltd. [7]. This project used an innovative technique for the repair of damaged timber piles in Shorncliffe Pier in Brisbane (Fig. 6). The concept of this technique is to partially replace the decayed portion of the timber pile with hollow FRP pile through an FRP tubular connector. This concept however did not include driving of the pile and therefore cannot provide driving performance information. On the other hand, hollow FRP piles were used to shore up boardwalks located in New South Wales and Queensland [8]. These projects utilised 125 mm square pultruded composite tubes manufactured by Wagners Composite Fibre Technology. Fig. 7 demonstrates pultruded composite tubes used in supporting lightweight structures such as boardwalks.

Fig. 5. Condition of SRP pile at the end of impact driving [4].

however, that these studies used different composite materials and properties, soil conditions, and driving hammers. On the other hand, the top of the hollow FRP piles was found to be damaged after it was driven to a depth of 3.5 m (Fig. 4). It was believed that the ruptures began when the pile encountered sand layer. Mirmiran et al. [22] observed that approximately 1 m of the tube at the top crumbled and peeled off. Formation of fronds and vertical cracks at the top of the pile is also apparent from the observed damage. In another eld study, structurally reinforced plastic pile was tested by Baxter et al. [11] to investigate its behaviour under impact driving. The 337 mm diameter SRP pile was fabricated from recycled plastics and is reinforced by 825 mm diameter steel rebar. This 7.3 m length composite pile was driven using hydraulic hammer with a rated energy of 7.2 kJ. Driving of this pile runs smoothly until embedment depth of 1.8 m. However, the driving was eventually halted at an approximate depth of 2 m when no advances were observed. Upon inspection, they observed that the top 1 m of the pile bent out of vertical alignment by slightly more than 3. They also noticed that the diameter at the top of the pile was signicantly increased from 336 mm to 368 mm. This damage according to them was attributed by the energy imparted by the hammer or by the generation of heat from the driving equipment itself. These reported observations however were not seen by Pando et al. [4] when they drove a 592 mm diameter steel-reinforced SRP pile. The 18.3 m long composite pile was driven to a depth of 17.27 m without any sign of damage at the top of the pile (Fig. 5). Although steel pipe core piles have been used in many locations, records of either a static or dynamic load test on these piles were not reported [9]. Nevertheless, it was found that the dominant damage behaviour of steel pipe core piles when repeatedly impacted was delamination between the steel core and the plastic shell. Similarly, the driving records of the other types of composite piles (breglass pultruded, breglass reinforced plastic, and FRP sheet piles) were not available. Even so, FRP sheet piles were observed to be susceptible to damage from transverse stresses that hammers induced [25].

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942 Table 2 List of applications of hollow FRP piles. Section geometry Circular Circular Square Circular Circular Circular Circular
a

1939

Outside diameter (mm) 294 460 n/aa 162 348 356 356

Wall thickness (mm) 22 22 6.5 5 14 13 7.2

Length (m) 7.3 9.2 4 1.2 7.9 12.2 18&27

Manufacturing process Resin infused Resin infused Pultrusion Filament winding Centrifugal casting Resin transfer moulding No data

Type of test Un-driven/eld test Field test Field test Laboratory test Field test Analytical test Analytical test

Nature of application Load bearing piles Test piles Support for light structures Test piles Test piles n/a n/a

Sources [7] [7,8] [8] [33] [22] [31] [1]

125 mm square section.

Fig. 6. Timber piles replacement project, Shorncliffe pier, Queensland (Courtesy from BAC Tech. Pty. Ltd., Queensland, Australia).

Field driving of square and circular hollow FRP piles were lately undertaken in Australia. The 125 mm square pultruded tubes were driven to support an elevated walkway in Tweed Heads, New South Wales (Fig. 8) whilst the 460 mm diameter glass FRP test pile was driven in Wilkie Creek, Queensland (Fig. 9). The 4 m long pultruded tubes with wall thickness of 6.50 mm were made from E-glass and vinyl-ester resin. These tubes were successfully driven to a depth of 2.53 m using a 1-ton impact hammer. However, few of the driven tubes observed to have been damaged. The damage at the top of the tube was characterised by lamina splitting, bre breakage, and formation of vertical cracks at the corners. This damage induced during impact driving, however, is generally common to hollow FRP piles as this was also the observation of Mirmiran et al. [22]. On the other hand, the 9.2 m long circular hollow FRP pile with a wall thickness of 22 mm was made of vinyl-ester resin reinforced by glass bres. This pile was effectively driven to a depth of 6 m using a diesel impact hammer. Driving of this pile runs smoothly until embedment depth of 4 m. However; it was

noticed that during this test regime, the pile would bow like a string every time the hammer strikes the top of the pile. Driving resistance started to develop when the bottom end of the pile reached a depth between 4 and 4.7 m. At this stage, timber ply cushion was broken although it was observed that no sign of damage on the top of the pile. Cracks were observed on the top of the pile at the end of driving. No geotechnical data was obtained on the sites where the eld tests were carried out and no instrumentation was considered on these driving tests. While attempts have been conducted to demonstrate the driveability of pultruded FRP piles, no systematic study has been conducted so far that will provide a general understanding on their behaviour under impact driving. 5. Challenges in using hollow FRP piles Hollow FRP piles offered a unique advantages among other composite piles in terms of cost efciency and structural capabilities as previously mentioned. However, it was found that they

(a) Boardwalk project under construction, Tweed Heads, New South Wales

(b) Finished boardwalk project, Mackay, Queensland

Fig. 7. Pultruded composite tubes used in shoring-up boardwalks. (Courtesy from Wagners CFT, Queensland, Australia).

1940

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

dry sand enclosed in a pressure chamber. The result of their study showed that the driving performance of the modelled composite pile increased signicantly compared to traditional head driving. However they emphasised that the advantage of the proposed driving method in terms of its effectiveness can only be seen when driving it on the sand rather than in clay soil. Since the result is based on experimental investigation in a laboratory facility, there is still a need to conrm this method using eld tests in various subsurface conditions. 6. Research needs related to the driving performance of hollow FRP piles Hollow FRP piles have poor driving performance due to their inherent low impedance. It was illustrated that improving the impedance is not an optimum solution to enhance the driving performance of these composite piles. Similarly, the bre composite materials of the hollow FRP piles are susceptible to impact damage using the current installation method. Characterisation of the impact damage behaviour of bre composite materials is highly important as they exhibit distinctive damage characteristics compared to traditional materials. When they are subjected to impact loading, there might be no damage indication on the surfaces by visual evaluation but internal damage may have occurred [34]. This damage may have an adverse effect on the structural integrity and post-impact performance of the material. Previous studies related to the driving performance of hollow FRP piles only include supercial consideration of the impact behaviour of the bre composite materials and does not systematically describe their impact strength. These studies described the impact behaviour of the bre composite materials through the observed damage mechanisms only [8,22]. Moreover, the effects of the damage parameters such as impact energies and number of impacts on the behaviour of bre composite materials have not been investigated. The effects of these parameters should be

Fig. 8. Field driving of a 125 mm square pultruded composite tubes.

exhibited poor driving performance. It was emphasised that their poor driving performance was attributed by their inherent low impedance [22,31]. Field test results showed that their thin-walled section generally shatters under high driving stresses when encountering sand layer or boulders. Due to this rupture, their integrity and post-impact performance is in question. The impedance characteristics of hollow FRP piles are inherently material-dependent and therefore increasing it may not be simple. For instance, the cross-sectional area of the hollow FRP pile can be increased; doubling the wall thickness would essentially double the impedance. Unfortunately, since bre materials are the primary cost in the manufacture of hollow FRP piles [31], doubling the wall thickness could also nearly double the cost. The compression wave velocity of the hollow FRP piles is directly related to their modulus of elasticity. The elastic modulus can be varied by the bre orientation. However, analytical study showed that varying the bre orientation still not sufcient to increase signicantly the modulus leading to the increase of impedance [31]. On the other hand, the effect of the specic mass on the impedance of hollow FRP pile is not straightforward. Aside from the fact that it is difcult to increase due to their inherent lightweight characteristics, increasing it would results to only minimal contribution as this parameter will also reduce the wave velocity. Increasing the impedance by working on the material parameters such as specic mass, elasticity and area is not an optimum solution to enhance the driving performance of hollow FRP piles. Working on some aspects such as driving installations may also found to improve their driving performance. Few recommended installation techniques include using steel mandrel to essentially drag the pile into place or to use high-frequency vibratory driver [22,31]. So far, the feasibility of adopting these alternative driving techniques to hollow FRP piles has not been implemented yet in actual eld condition. Recently, Sakr et al. [33] developed a driving technique called toe driving to install the hollow FRP piles into granular soils. This driving method was carried in a laboratory where the large-scale model hollow FRP pile was driven in dense

Fig. 9. Field driving of a 460 mm diameter hollow FRP pile.

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942

1941

clearly understood to determine whether by varying their magnitude results in signicant changes on their impact strength and damage behaviour. Consequently, issues related to the determination and prevention of impact induced damage on bre composite materials become more important, and there is a need to develop an understanding of damage phenomena at the materials level. Impact damage is generally not considered to be an issue in metal structures because, owing to the ductile behaviour of the materials, large amount of energy may be absorbed [35]. Composite materials on the other hand are brittle and so can only absorb energy in elastic deformation and through damage mechanism, and not through plastic deformation [36]. Research on impact fatigue behaviour of FRP materials is limited to studies on composite laminates for automobile and aerospace applications [3741]. Common results obtained from these studies showed that the strength of laminates is signicantly reduced after repeated impacts. There are also few published works on the behaviour of FRP tubes which are laterally impacted [42,43]. However, no study was conducted on the behaviour of FRP tubes under repeated axial impacts. The characterisation of the impact behaviour of bre composite materials is denitely of great importance to dene the driveability and post-impact performance of hollow FRP piles. Additionally, unlocking this information may also yield an opportunity to improve their poor driving performance and their optimum use. Therefore studies related to the determination of the impact strength and damage characterisation of these composite piles become more important and undoubtedly the need to conduct study on the axial impact behaviour of hollow FRP piles is of prime priority. 7. Concluding remarks Composite piles have longer service life, require less maintenance, and environmental friendly. These inherent characteristics made them a viable option in replacing traditional piles in harsh environmental conditions. Just like other types of composite piles, hollow FRP piles show high potential in load-bearing applications. These piles provided signicant advantages in terms of cost efciency and structural capabilities. However, these piles have not yet gained wide acceptance because of the lack of design guidelines especially on their installation techniques. It was found that the type of driving hammers used, resistance offered by the soil, the pile impedance, and the impact strength of the pile materials are the main factors that affect the driving performance of composite piles. Their effect however on the driving performance of hollow FRP piles are not fully investigated. Consequently, the possibility of damaging the bre composite materials during the process of impact driving is still imminent. Further research studies on the impact behaviour of this type of composite pile ranging from materials to full-scale levels should be conducted to understand their driving performance. This information will provide a more systematic understanding on the impact behaviour of bre composite materials and eventually help researchers and engineers in developing installation guidelines for their optimum use and wider application. References
[1] Iskander MG, Hanna S, Stachula A. Driveability of FRP composite piling. J Geotech Geo-environ Eng 2001;127(2):16976. [2] Iskander MG, Stachula A. Wave equation analyses of bre-reinforced polymer composite piling. J Compos Constr 2002;6(2):8896. [3] Lampo R, Maher A, Bushel J, Odelio R. Design and development of FRP composite piling systems. In: Proceedings, international composites expo, Nashville, Tennessee, 27-29 January 1997. p. 16. [4] Pando MA, Ealy CD, Filz GM, Lesko JJ, Hoppe EJ. A laboratory and eld study of composite piles for bridge substructures. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ publications/research/infrastructure/structures/04043/> [viewed: 02.07.10].

[5] Sakr M, El Naggar MH, Nehdi M. Interface characteristics and laboratory constructability tests of novel bre-reinforced polymer/concrete piles. J Compos Constr 2005;9(3):27483. [6] Iskander MG, Hassan M. State of the practice review in FRP composite piling. J Compos Constr 2002;2(3):11620. [7] Sirimanna CS. Behaviour of bre composite piles for timber pile rehabilitation. Master of engineering dissertation, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia; 2011. [8] Guades EJ, Aravinthan T, Islam MM. Driveability of composite piles. In: Proceedings of the 1st intl postgraduate conference on eddBE2011, Brisbane, Australia, 2729 April 2011. p. 23742. [9] Lampo R, Nosker T, Barno D, Bushel J, Maher A, Dutta P, Odelio R. Development and demonstration of FRP composite fender, load-bearing, and sheet piling systems. <http://www.cecer.army.mil/techreports/lam_COFE/Lam_COFE.FLM. post.PDF/> [viewed 02.09.10]. [10] Lindsay K. Composite piling market heats up. Composite Design and Application (CDA-Summer issue). New York: Dredging and Port Construction; 1996. p. 123. [11] Baxter CDP, Marinucci A, Bradshow AS, Morgan RJ. Field study of composite piles in the marine environment. <http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24900/24979/ 536153.pdf> [viewed 02.07.10]. [12] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M. A new concrete-lled hollow FRP composite column. Composites: Part B 1996;27(1):2638. [13] Fam AZ, Rizkalla SH. Connement model for axially loaded concrete conned by circular bre-reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Struct J 2001;98(4):45161. [14] Mirmiran A, Shahawy M, El Khoury C, Naguib W. Large beam-column tests on concrete-lled composite tubes. ACI Struct J 2000;97(2):26877. [15] Fam AZ, Rizkalla SH. Flexural behaviour of concrete-lled bre-reinforced polymer circular tubes. J Compos Constr 2002;6(2):12332. [16] Shao Y. Characterization of a pultruded FRP sheet pile for waterfront retaining structures. J Mater Civ Eng 2006;18(5):62633. [17] Marsh G. Reinforced plastics prevail in the waterfront. Reinf Plast 2002;46(6):305. [18] Dutta P, Devinder S. Ice action on sheet piles made of composite material. Draft Technical Report (US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory [CRREL]); 1998. [19] Lackey E, Vaughan JG, Wimbrow W. Examination of mechanical test methods for pultruded sheet piling. In: Composites and Polycon Conference, Tampa, Florida USA, 1719 October 2007. p. 113. [20] Anonymous. SuperLoc composite sheet pile installation prole. <http:// www.pultrude.com/LitLibrary/sheetpile/sheetpileinstalls.pdf> [viewed 16.01.12]. [21] Hussein MH, Woerner WA, Sharp M, Hwang C. Pile driveability and bearing capacity in high-rebound soils. <http://www.pile.com/reference/ASCE/ Asce_Atl_Feb06.pdf> [viewed 01.08.11]. [22] Mirmiran A, Shao Y. Shahawy. Analysis and eld tests on the performance of composite tubes under pile driving impact. Compos Struct 2002;55(2):12735. [23] Fenske CW, Hirsch TJ. Pile driveability analysis. <http://www.vulcanhammer. info/drivability/Fenske-Hirsch.pdf> [viewed: 01.08.11]. [24] Anonymous. Driveability of Vulcan hammers and pile driving equipment. <http://www.vulcanhammer.info/drivability/efcnt.php> [viewed: 11.08.11]. [25] Anonymous. Steel versus synthetics: A direct comparison. <http://ip-68-178204-61.ip.secureserver.net/assets/Bulletins/MaterialTruth_TB_Web.pdf> [viewed: 16.01.12]. [26] Boscato G, Russo S. On vibration of pultruded FRP sheet piles. In: Proceedings of the 4th Intl. conference on FRP composites in civil engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, 2224 July 2008. p. 16. [27] Frost JD, Han J. Behaviour of interfaces between bre-reinforced polymers and sands. J Geotech Geo-environ Eng 1999;125(8):63340. [28] Han J, Frost JD. Buckling of vertically loaded bre-reinforced polymer piles. Int J Reinf Plast Compos 1999;18(4):290318. [29] Han J, Frost JD. Load-deection response of transversely isotropic piles under lateral load. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 2000;24(5):50929. [30] Pando MA, Filz GM, Dove JE, Hoppe EJ. Interface shear tests on FRP composite piles. In: ASCE International Deep Foundations Congress, Orlando, Florida, 14 16 February 2002. p 1486500. [31] Ashford SA, Jakrapiyanun W. Driveability of glass FRP composite piling. J Compos Constr 2001;5(1):5860. [32] Rausche F, Likins GE, Hussein MH. Pile integrity by low and high strain impacts <http://www.pile.com/reference/3rdStresswave/ pile_integ_by_low_and_high_strain_impacts.pdf> [viewed: 06.08.11]. [33] Sakr M, Naggar MH, Nehdi M. Load transfer of bre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite tapered piles in dense sand. Can Geotech J 2004;41(1):7088. [34] Zhang ZY, Richardson MOW. Low velocity impact damage evaluation and its effect on the residual exural properties of pultruded GRP composites. Compos Struct 2007;81(2):195201. [35] Richardson MOW, Wisheart MJ. Review of low-velocity impact properties of composite materials. Composites: Part A 1996;27(12):112331. [36] Mamalis AG, Manolakos DE, Ioannidis MB, Papapostolou DP. The static and dynamic axial collapse of CFRP square tubes: nite element modelling. Compos Struct 2006;74(2):21325. [37] Sevkat E, Liaw B, Delale F, Raju B. Effect of repeated impacts on the response of plain-woven hybrid composites. Composites: Part B 2010;41(5): 40313.

1942

E. Guades et al. / Composite Structures 94 (2012) 19321942 [41] Found MS, Howard IC. Single and multiple impact behaviour of a CFRP laminate. Compos Struct 1995;32(1):15963. [42] Roy R, Sarkar BK, Bose NR. Impact fatigue of glass bre-vinyl ester resin composites. Composites: Part A 2001;32(6):8716. [43] Roy R, Sarkar BK, Rana AK, Bose NR. Impact fatigue behaviour of carbon brereinforced vinyl ester resin composites. Bull Mater Sci 2001;24(1): 7986.

[38] Belingardi G, Cavatorta M, Paolino D. Repeated impact response and hand layup and vacuum infusion thick glass reinforced laminates. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(7):60919. [39] Sugun BS, Rao RM. Lowvelocity impact characterization of glass, carbon and Kevlar composites using repeated drop tests. J Plast Compos 2004;23(15):158399. [40] Jang BP, Kowbel W, Jang BZ. Impact behaviour and impact-fatigue testing of polymer composites. Compos Sci Technol 1992;44(2):10718.