Guades 2013 Whole PDF

Behaviour of Glass FRP Composite Tubes
Under Repeated Impact for Piling Application

By
Ernesto Jusayan Guades
Supervised by
Prof. Thiru Aravinthan
Dr. Mainul Islam
A dissertation submitted for the award of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Centre of Excellence in Engineered Fibre Composites

Faculty of Engineering and Surveying
University of Southern Queensland
Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
May 2013
EJ Guades
Abstract
Fibre composites have been a viable option in replacing traditional pile materials
such as concrete, steel and timber in harsh environmental conditions. On the other
hand, the emergence of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composite tubes as a
structural component and their corrosion-resistant characteristics made these
materials potential in piling application. Driving these piles, however, requires more
careful consideration due to their relatively low stiffness and thin walls. The
possibility of damaging the fibre composite materials during the process of impact
driving is always a concern. Research has therefore focused in understanding the
impact behaviour of these materials in order for them to be safely and effectively
driven into the ground.
This study investigated the behaviour of composite tubes subjected by
repeated axial impact. The effects of impact event (incident energy and number of
impact) on the instantaneous response and the residual properties of composite tubes
were examined. Tubes made of glass/vinyl ester, glass/polyester, and glass/epoxy
materials of different cross sections were considered. The impact behaviour of the
tubes was experimentally and analytically investigated.
An experimental study on the repeated impact behaviour of square composite
tube was conducted. The result showed that the dominant failure mode of the tube
repeatedly impacted was characterised by progressive crushing at the upper end. This
failure was manifested by inter and intra laminar cracking and glass fibre ruptures
with simultaneous development of axial splits along its corners. It was found that the
drop mass and impact velocity (or drop height) have pronounced effects on the
collapse of the tubes at lower incident energies. Their effects, however, gradually
decrease at relatively higher energies. The result also indicated that the incident
energy is the major damage factor in the failure of tubes for lower number of
impacts. On the contrary, the number of impacts becomes the key reason as soon as
the value of incident energy decreases.
The effects of the damage factors such as the level of impact energy, the
impact repetitions, and the mass impactor on the residual (post-impact) properties
were also examined. The result of the investigation revealed that these factors
significantly influenced the residual strength degradation of the impacted tubes. In
contrast, the residual modulus was found to be less affected by these factors since the
Behaviour of glass FRP composite tubes under repeated impact for piling application
EJ Guades
damage brought by them is localised in most of the cases. The maximum reduction
on the residual moduli is roughly 5%. On the other hand, the residual strengths
degraded by up to 10%. The flexural strength of the tube was the most severely
affected by the impact damage than its compressive and tensile strengths. This result
was due to the fact that the impact damage on matrix and fibre both contributed on
the flexural strength degradation. Moreover, the presence of matrix cracks or
delamination lead to an increase in buckling instability during the flexural test,
resulting to a much higher degradation compared to the other strengths. The
comparison of the residual compressive strengths sourced at different locations along
the height of the tube revealed that the strength reduction varied with its location.
The degradation of the compressive strength of the impacted tube decreased when its
location from the top of the tube increased. This result indicated that the influence of
impact damage on the degradation of residual compressive strength of the tube is
concentrated only in region closer to the impact point.
Finally, theoretical prediction using the basic energy principle was performed
to gain additional understanding on the damage evolution behaviour of composite
tubes subjected by repeated axial impact. The damage evolution model was verified
through experimental investigation on a 100 mm square pultruded tube. The model
was applied to composite tubes of different cross sections and materials made from
vinyl ester/polyester/epoxy matrix reinforced with glass fibres. It was found that the
experimental results on a 100 mm square pultruded tube and the proposed damage
model agreed well with each other. The variation is less than 10% indicating that the
model predicted reasonably the damage evolution of the tube subjected by repeated
impact loading. It was also found that the energies describing the low cycle, high
cycle, and endurance fatigue regions of the composite tubes are largely dependent on
their corresponding critical energy Ec. The higher the Ec values, the higher the range
of energies characterising these regions. The repeated impact curves (or Ec) of tubes
made from glass/epoxy is higher compared to the other matrix materials. Similarly,
circular tubes have greater Ec values of comparable square and rectangular tubes.
From this study, an improved understanding of the behaviour of glass fibre
FRP composite tubes under repeated axial impact can be achieved. The information
provided in this study will help in developing efcient techniques and guidelines in
driving composites piles.
ii
EJ Guades
Certification of Dissertation
I certify that the ideas, experimental work, results, analysis and conclusions reported
in this dissertation are entirely my own effort, except where otherwise
acknowledged. I also certify that the work is original and has not been previously
submitted for any award, except where otherwise acknowledged.
Signature of Candidate
Endorsed:
Signature of Supervisor/s
Signature of Supervisor/s
iii
EJ Guades
Acknowledgements
With humble gratitude I must acknowledge the following that have in one way or the
other contributed to the successful completion of this dissertation.
Prof. Thiru Aravinthan, my Principal Supervisor, for giving me the
opportunity to do a PhD at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ). I am
grateful to him for coaching me and willingly providing invaluable input and
direction. I learned a great deal of things from him in my entire journey of PhD. I am
also indebted to Dr. Mainul Islam, my Associate Supervisor, for sharing his time and
ideas to make this dissertation a success. I greatly appreciate Dr. Allan Manalo for
his support in my application to study at USQ. His technical suggestions and
assistance were indispensable in improving the quality of this research. The
generosity he extended to me during my study is greatly appreciated.
I would like to acknowledge the people behind USQ who provided the Post
graduate Scholarship Grant. I thank the supports of the Faculty of Engineering and
Surveying and the Centre of Excellence in Engineered Fibre Composites (CEEFC)
for making this research possible. My thanks to Assoc. Prof. Karu Karunasena, Dr.
Jay Epaarachchi, Dr. Francisco Cardona for all the useful discussions and
suggestions. I owe an appreciation for the technical and administrative support from
Martin Geach, Wayne Crowell, Atul Sakhiya, and Mohan Trada. Thanks to CEEFC
staff and postgraduate students for the support and friendship. I especially thank
Michael Kemp and all the staff of Wagners Composite Fibre Technology for
providing the precious test samples. Thanks are expressed to the administration and
staff of Northwest Samar State University for the Study Grant that would pave the
way for my travel to Australia in pursuit of another academic achievement.
My unending recognition to Myla, who always, in all ways, was there for me.
I am grateful to her for unselfishly setting aside her personal needs to give way to my
personal dreams and aspiration. Very special thanks to my family who have been a
source of encouragement and inspiration throughout my life. My appreciation to the
Inocentes family, Jen, and the Filipino community of Toowoomba for welcoming me
into their homes. Their incredible hospitality and generosity helped me overcome my
homesickness. Above all, I am thanking the Almighty God for guiding me all
throughout this endeavour. To those whom I missed to mention but have been a great
part of my study, thank you very much.
iv
EJ Guades
Associated Publications
Journal
1. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan. M.M. Islam, and A.C. Manalo (2012). A review
on the driving performance of FRP composite piles. Composite Structures,
Volume 94, May issue , p 1932-1942.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263822312000451
2. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan, A.C. Manalo, and M.M. Islam (2013).
Experimental investigation on the behaviour of square FRP composite tubes
under repeated axial impact. Composite Structures, Volume 97, March issue,
p 211-221.
3. E.J. Guades and T. Aravinthan (2013). Residual properties of square FRP
composite tubes subjected to repeated axial impact. Composite Structures,
Volume 95, January issue, p 354-365.
4. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan, A.C. Manalo, and M.M. Islam (2013). Damage
modelling of repeatedly impacted square fibre-reinforced polymer composite
tube. Journal of Materials and Design, Volume 47, May issue, p 687-697.
Conference Papers/Poster Presentation

1. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan. M.M. Islam, and A.C. Manalo (2012). Effects of
energy levels on the impact fatigue behaviour and post-impact flexural
properties of square FRP pultruded tubes. Proceedings of the 22nd
Australasian Conference on th Mechanics of Structures and Materials
(ACMSM22), 11-14 December, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
2. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan. M.M. Islam, and A.C. Manalo (2012). Stiffness
degradation of FRP pultruded tubes under repeated axial impacts.
Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on FRP in Structures, February
2- 4, Hokkaido, Japan. Paper no F1B05.
3. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan, and M.M. Islam. (2011). Driveability of
composite piles. Proceedings of the 1st International Postgraduate Conference
on Engineering, Designing and Developing the Built Environment for
Sustainable Wellbeing, April 27-29, QUT, Brisbane, Australia. p. 237-242
4. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan, and M.M. Islam. (2010). An overview on the
application of FRP composites in piling system. Proceedings of the Southern
Region Engineering Conference, November 11-12, 2010, Toowoomba,
Australia. Paper no T3-4.
EJ Guades
5. E.J. Guades, C. S. Sirimanna, T. Aravinthan & M.M. Islam. (2010).

Behaviour of composite pile under axial compression load. Proceedings of
the 22nd Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and
Materials (ACMSM21), December 7-10, Melbourne, Australia. p. 457-462.
6. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan, and M.M. Islam (2011). Impact behavior of
pultruded tubes as hollow FRP piles. Poster presentation during the USQ
Community Engaged Research Evening. November 15, Sacred Heart Church
Function Room, Towoomba, Queensland, Australia.
7. E.J. Guades, T. Aravinthan, and M.M. Islam (2010). Application and impact
behavior of pultruded tube as FRP composite pile. Poster presentation during
the USQ Community Engaged Research Evening. November 10, USQ
Refectory, Towoomba, Queensland, Australia.
vi
EJ Guades
Table of Contents
List of figures
List of tables
Notations
xii
xvii
xx
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General.. 1
1.2 Background.. .... 1
1.3 Fibre composites as an alternative in piling applications.. 2
1.4 FRP tubes as composite piles. 4
1.5 Challenges in using hollow FRP pipe piles... 5
1.6 Research needs related to their driving performance 6
1.7 Objectives 7
1.8 Scope of the thesis... 8
1.9 Outline of the thesis 9
1.10 Summary.. 10
Chapter 2
Review of composite piles and their driving performance
2.1 General... 11
2.2 Types of composite piles 11
2.2.1 Steel pipe core piles.. 11
2.2.2 Structurally reinforced plastic piles.. 12
2.2.3 Concrete-filled FRP pipe piles.. 13
2.2.4 Fibreglass pultruded piles. 14
2.2.5 Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles. 15
2.2.6 Hollow FRP pipe piles.. 16
2.2.7 FRP sheet piles.. 17
2.3 Driving performance of composite piles.... 18
2.3.1 Types of driving hammer and its effect 18
2.3.2 Resistance to driving offered by the soil.. 20
2.3.3 The ability of the pile to transfer
driving stresses.. 23
2.3.4 Strength of the pile to resist driving stresses 25
2.4 Recent developments on hollow FRP pipe piles 30
2.5 Study on the impact behaviour of FRP composite
tubes as a research needs 35
2.6 Behaviour of FRP composite plates/laminates repeatedly
impacted or tubes under repeated transverse impact.. 35
2.7 Conclusions ............... 39
vii
EJ Guades
Chapter 3
Characterisation of the properties of composite tubes
3.1 General... 41
3.2 Composite tubes under study. 41
3.3 Manufacturing of tubes using pultrusion process.. ... 42
3.4 Glass fibre content.. 43
3.5 Coupon tests... 45
3.5.1 Compressive test... 45
3.5.2 Tensile test 47
3.5.3 Flexural test.............. 49
3.6 Full scale tests 51
3.6.1 Compressive test. . 51
3.6.2 Flexural test... 54
3.7 Finite element (FE) analysis on full scale specimen . 59
3.7.1 FE simulation on the compressive behaviour. 60
3.7.2 FE simulation on the flexural behaviour. 63
3.8 Summary of the mechanical properties of composite tubes.. 69
3.9 Conclusions 71
Chapter 4
Investigation on the behaviour of square FRP composite tubes

under repeated axial impact
4.1 Introduction 72
4.2 Experimental program 73
4.2.1 Test specimen73
4.2.2 Test set-up and procedure. 73
4.2.3 Data processing. 78
4.3 Experimental results and discussion.. 80
4.3.1 Mode of damage............... 80
4.3.2 Progressive failure pattern 80
4.3.3 Impact load83
4.3.4 Impact energy87
4.3.5 Impact damage tolerance limit.. 92
4.4 Conclusions ... 96
Chapter 5
Residual properties of square FRP composite tubes subjected to

repeated axial impact
5.1 Introduction 98
5.2 Experimental program 99
5.2.1 Test specimen and repeated impact testing .. 99
5.2.2 Residual properties testing ... 101
5.3 Experimental results and discussion.. 106
5.3.1 Mode of damage............... 106
5.3.2 Summary of coupon test results............... 106
viii
EJ Guades
5.3.3 Effects of impact energy............... 108

5.3.4 Effects of impact repetitions .... 112
5.3.5 Effects of mass of the impactor 116
5.3.6 Comparison between compressive, tensile
and flexural properties.. 120
5.3.7 Residual strength versus modulus. 122
5.3.8 Variations of residual compressive strength
with the height of the tube 124
5.4 Conclusions 125
Chapter 6
Damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP composite tube
6.1 Introduction 128
6.2 Theoretical prediction methods. 128
6.3 Quasi-static compressive test. 131
6.3.1 Specimen and testing 131
6.4 Repeated impact test results... 132
6.5 Evaluation of damage using parameter D.. 134
6.6 Proposed damage response model.. 134
6.6.1 Minimum number of impacts to failure
of the tube, Nf ... 136
6.6.2 Minimum incident energy to fail the tube for
one impact (critical energy), Ec 136
6.6.3 Determination of (Ec)Quasi-static using quasi-static
compressive test 138
6.6.4 Solving b value..... 140
6.7 Comparison with the experimental data. 141
6.7.1 Verification of the repeated impact curve. 141
6.7.2 Validation of the proposed model. 142
6.8 Summary of procedure in establishing the damage evolution
curve .. 144
6.9 Application of the model to FRP composite tubes with
square and rectangular cross sections ... 146
6.9.1 Square and rectangular FRP composite tubes... ... 146
6.10 Conclusions.. 153
Chapter 7
Application of the damage evolution model to other types of

composite tubes
7.1 Introduction... 155
7.2 Background on the constituents of composite tubes
used in the model... 156
7.2.1 Vinyl ester resin 156
7.2.2 Polyester resin157
7.2.3 Epoxy resin157
ix
EJ Guades
7.3 Glass/vinyl ester composite tubes.. 158

7.4 Glass/polyester composite tubes 163
7.5 Glass/epoxy composite tubes. 170
7.6 Discussion on the repeated impact and damage evolution
curves of FRP composite tubes... 176
7.7 Discussion on the application of FRP composite tubes in
piling system .. 178
7.8 Conclusions 181
Chapter 8
Conclusions
8.1 Summary 182
8.2 Main conclusions from the study... 182
8.2.1 Behaviour of composite tubes subjected
by impact loading.. 182
8.2.2 Effects of impact loading on the residual
properties of composite tubes............... 183
8.2.3 Prediction on the damage evolution of
composite tubes. ... 184
8.3 Recommendations for future study 185
References
186
Appendix A Summary of results of the coupon and full scale tests on CT1 and
CT2 specimens
A.1 Fibre fraction test.. A-1
A.2 Compressive test on coupon specimen. A-2
A.3 Tensile test on coupon specimen.. A-3
A.4 Flexural test on coupon specimen. A-5
A.5 Compressive test on full scale specimen.. A-7
A.6 Flexural test on full scale specimen.. A-9
Appendix B Summary of specimen dimension and snapshots of the
machine/apparatus used in repeated impact test
B.1 Summary on the details of the specimens. B-1
B.2 Repeated impact testing set-up and specimen snapshots. B-3
B.3 Apparatus used in the micro observation of damage B-4
Appendix C Variation of acceleration data and impact stress with the height of
the tube
C.1 Analytical study on the variation of acceleration data.. C-1
C.2 Finite element modelling... C-5
C.3 Finite element analysis results and discussion.. C-13
C.4 Conclusions... C-21
EJ Guades
Appendix D Summary of specimen dimension and results in residual

properties testing
D.1 Summary of the details of the tubes. D-1
D.2 Summary of results of coupon compressive test.. D-1
D.3 Summary of results of coupon tensile test D-6
D.4 Summary of results of coupon flexural test.. D-8
xi
EJ Guades
List of Figures
Chapter 1
Introduction
Figure Figure caption

1.1
Problems of traditional piles installed in harsh environments
Chapter 2
Figure
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
Figure caption
Page
Steel pipe core piles 12
Structurally reinforced plastic piles 13
Concrete-filled FRP pipe piles 14
Fibreglass pultruded piles 15
Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles.. 16
Geometry of hollow FRP pipe piles used in the application.. 16
FRP sheet piles 17
Condition of the composite piles after driving 26
Condition of the composite piles after driving 27
Composite pile installed in Route 40 Bridge.. 28
Composite piles driven near Route 351 Bridge. 29
Hollow FRP pipe piles replacing deteriorated timber piles 31
Pultruded composite tubes used in shoring-up boardwalks 32
Impact driving of 125 mm square pultruded tubes. 33
Impact driving of 475 mm diameter hollow FRP pipe pile 34
Chapter 3
Figure
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
3.26
Page
2
Figure caption
Page
Oblique view of the composite tubes.. 42
The basic pultrusion process concept. 43
Coupon specimens and residue showing the fibre glass orientation.. 44
Compressive test set-up on coupons.. 46
Compressive stress-strain relationship 47
Compressive failure mode and condition of the specimens after the test47
Tensile test set-up on coupons 48
Tensile stress-strain relationship. 49
Tensile failure mode and condition of the specimens after the test 49
Flexural test set-up on coupons... 50
Flexural stress-strain relationship 51
Flexural failure mode and condition of the specimens after the test.. 51
Compressive test set-up on full scale specimens 52
Compressive stress-strain relationship of full scale specimens.. 53
Compressive failure mode and condition of the full scale specimens 54
Flexural test on full scale specimens.. 55
Flexural load-displacement relationship (3-point bending test). 56
Flexural load-strain relationship (3-point bending test).. 57
Typical failure modes for in 3-point bending tests.. 57
Flexural load-displacement relationship (4-point bending test).. 58
Flexural load-strain relationships (4-point bending test).... 59
Typical failure modes for in 3-point bending tests.. 59
Material modelling of the composite tube .. 60
Lamina lay-up arrangement used in FE model .. 61
Compressive stress-strain relationships.. .... 62
Compressive failure mode of the tested tube .. 63
xii
EJ Guades
3.27
3.28
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32
3.33
3.34
Actual tube (length varies from 1.2 m to 1.5 m). 63

FE model (3-point bending, L=1.2 m) 64
FE model (4-point bending, L=1.5m). 64
Support condition during flexural test (both ends).. 65
Flexural load-displacement relationships (3-point bending)... 66
Flexural failure mode in 3-point bending test..... 67
Flexural load-displacement relationships (4-point bending)... 68
Flexural failure mode in 4-point bending test.. ...69
Chapter 4
Figure
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
Figure caption
Page
Impact testing set-up... 74
Typical acceleration-displacement curves in impact testing 80
Condition of the tubes after impact test.. 81
Damage progressions of collapsed tube impacted by 476.8 J. 83
Impact load histories of repeatedly impacted composite tubes.. 85
Peak load progressions of repeatedly impacted tubes 87
Typical energy curves. 88
Impact energy histories of repeatedly impacted composite tubes.. 90
Comparison of the damage degree curves of repeatedly impacted tubes 91
Incident energy vs. Nf curve of repeatedly impacted tubes. 94
Nf vs. drop mass curve of repeatedly impacted tubes. 95
Nf vs. impact velocity curve of repeatedly impacted tubes 96
Chapter 5
Figure
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20


Figure caption
Page
Conditions of the tubes after impact test 101
Cutting plan of coupons used in residual properties testing.... 102
Compressive test specimens 103
Tensile test specimens 104
Flexural test specimens .. 105
Scanned images showing typical micro-cracks on the surface of the tubes 106
Residual strength and impact energy relationships 109
Enlarged view: Residual compressive strength-impact energy
relationships........... 109
Enlarged view: Residual tensile strength-impact energy relationships.. 110
Enlarged view: Residual flexural strength-impact energy relationships 110
Residual modulus-impact energy relationships .......................... 111
Enlarged view: Residual compressive modulus- impact energy
relationships................................................................................................. 111
Enlarged view: Residual tensile modulus- impact energy relationships 111
Enlarged view: Residual flexural modulus-impact energy relationships 112
Residual strength-number of impacts relationships .......................... 113
Enlarged view: Residual compressive strength-number of impacts
relationships ... 113
Enlarged view: Residual tensile strength-number of impacts relationships 114
Enlarged view: Residual flexural strength-number of impacts
relationships. 114
Residual modulus-number of impacts relationship .......................... 115
Enlarged view: Residual compressive modulus-number of impacts
relationships 115
xiii
EJ Guades
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
5.31
5.32
5.33
5.34
Enlarged view: Residual tensile modulus-number of impacts

relationships 115
Enlarged view: Residual flexural modulus-number of impacts
relationships ....................................................................................... 116
Residual strength-drop mass relationships at different energy levels
and number of impacts 117
Enlarged view: Residual compressive strength-drop mass relationships
at different energy levels and number of impacts 117
Enlarged view: Residual tensile strength-drop mass relationships
at different energy levels and number of impacts............................... 118
Enlarged view: Residual flexural strength-drop mass relationships
at different energy levels and number of impacts .............................. 118
Residual modulus-drop mass relationships at different energy levels
and number of impacts 119
Enlarged view: Residual compressive modulus-drop mass relationships
at different energy levels and number of impacts............................... 119
Enlarged view: Residual tensile modulus-drop mass relationships
Enlarged view: Residual flexural modulus-drop mass relationships
Comparison of residual compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths. 121
Comparison of residual compressive, tensile, and flexural moduli 122
Strength and modulus curves plotted at increasing impact energy levels... 123
Variation of residual compressive strengths with the height of the tube 125
Chapter 6
Figure
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
Figure caption
Page
Quasi-static compressive test.. 132
Normalised energy and number of impacts relationship 133
D vs. N curve of the representative composite tube... 134
Idealised lifetime response curve of the repeatedly impacted tube 135
Typical curve described by Ein = aNf-b... 136
Variation of the correlation of glass/vinyl ester composite tubes 137
Data points with the fitting line showing and relationship 138
Typical load-displacement curves from quasi-static compressive test 139
Schematic diagram used in computing (Ec)Quasi-static 139
b values using Excel 2010 Solver function. 140
Comparison between the experimental data and repeated impact curve 141
Proposed model vs. experimental data for collapsed tubes 143
Proposed model vs. experimental data for non-collapsed tubes . 144
Flow chart in establishing the damage evolution curve ..145
Square and rectangular composite tubes .....147
Crushed composite tubes..... 148
Load-displacement curves of S125 specimen .....148
Load-displacement curves of R75x100 specimen ...... 149
Repeated impact curves of the square and rectangular tubes.. 151
Damage evolution curves of square and rectangular tubes .... 152
Chapter 7
Figure
7.1
7.2
7.3
Damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP composite tubes

composite tubes
Figure caption
Page
Repeated impact curves of glass/vinyl ester tubes.. 161
Damage evolution curves of GV-C tube 162
Damage evolution curves of GV-S tube 162
xiv
EJ Guades
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
7.14
7.15
7.16
7.17
7.18
7.19
Damage evolution curves of GV-H tube 162

Data points with the fitting line showing and relationship
of glass/polyester tubes .. 164
Repeated impact curves of glass/polyester tubes 167
Damage evolution curves of GP-C1 tube ... 168
Damage evolution curves of GP-S1 tube ... 169
Repeated impact curves of glass/epoxy tubes ............ 173
Damage evolution curves of GE-C1 tube ................... 174
Damage evolution curves of GE-S1 tube ................... 176
CT2 specimens
Figure
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
A.10
A.11
A.12
A.13
A.14
A.15
A.16
Figure caption
Page
Compressive load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT1) A-3
Compressive load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT2) A-3
Tensile load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT1). A-4
Tensile load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT2). A-5
Flexural load-midspan deflection relationship
of coupon specimens (CT1) A-6
Flexural load-midspan deflection relationship
of coupon specimens (CT2) A-6
Simplified cross section of the tube. A-7
Compressive load-displacement relationship of full scale specimens
(CT1, L=100 mm)A-8
(CT1, L=200 mm)A-9
(CT2, L=100 mm)A-9
Specimen cross section lay-out .. A-10
Schematic plan of 3-point bending test . A-10
Schematic plan of 4-point bending test . A-10
Flexural stress-displacement relationship (3-point bending test) of CT1 A-11
Flexural stress-displacement relationship (3-point bending test) of CT2A-12
Flexural stress-strain relationship (4-point bending test) of CT1 A-12

Figure
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
Figure caption
Page
Repeated impact testing set-up data logger and fixtures. B-3
Condition of the specimen after impact test (Test matrix from Table 4.2). B-4
Condition of the specimen after impact test (Test matrix from Table 4.3). B-4
MOTIC SMZ 168 Series stereo zoom microscope. B-4
xv
EJ Guades
Appendix C Variation of impact stress with the height of the tube using finite
element (FE) analysis
Figure
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.6
C.7
C.8
C.9
C.10
C.11
C.12
C.13
C.14
C.15
C.16
C.17
C.18
C.19
Figure caption
Page
Schematic view of the impacted tube and the idealised model.. C-2
Comparison of aL/2 and a1 values at varying impact mass ..
C-2
Material modelling of the composite tube.. C-7
Lamina lay-up arrangement used in FE model C-7
Factor vs. time table for the impulse period of 0.01 second C-9
Variation of the static load case with the measured acceleration C-9
Factor vs. time table simulating repeated impact loading (E630).. C-10
Factor vs. time table simulating material degradation (E630) C-12
Comparison of time steps for E630 C-13
Variation of peak axial stress in longitudinal direction.. C-14
Variation of peak axial stress in transverse direction. C-16
Variation of peak axial strength degradation with number of impacts C-17
Absolute peak axial strength degradation at failure C-18
Comparison of the simulated damaged length at the start of failure... C-19
Damaged length simulation using FE analysis C-20
xvi
EJ Guades
List of Tables
Chapter 2
Table
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Table caption
Comparison of pile impedance..
List of applications of hollow FRP pipe piles
Mechanical properties of the 125 mm square tube
Summary of recent experimental studies on repeated impact test.
Chapter 3
Table
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7


Table caption
Page
Details of the specimen 99
Repeated impact test matrix 100
Details of the specimen for coupon tests. 102
Summary of compression test results. 107
Summary of tensile and flexural tests results. 107
Chapter 6
Table
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Table caption
Page
Details of the specimen ... 73
Test matrix used in defining the impact behaviour. 78
Test matrix used in defining the impact damage tolerance 78
Summary of Nf values. 92
Chapter 5
Table
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Page
25
31
32
36
Table caption
Page
Section properties of the 100 mm square tube... 42
Details of the specimen for fibre fraction test 44
Summary of glass fibre content of each ply ... 44
Details of the specimen for coupon tests 45
Material properties of the tube wall laminate ply .. 61
Summary of mechanical properties from coupon tests . 70
Summary of mechanical properties from full scale tests. 70
Chapter 4
Table
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP composite tubes
Table caption
Page
Details of the specimen used in quasi-static compressive test 131
Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static values.. 140
Comparison of incident energies at different Nf. 142
Comparison of incident energies at average Nf... 142
Properties of S125 and R75x100 specimens ...... 147
Summary of parametric values of square and rectangular tubes......... 149
Chapter 7

composite tubes
Table Table caption

Page
7.1
Details of GV-C, GV-S, and GV-H tubes .. 158
7.2
Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static and values of glass/vinyl ester tubes ... 159
xvii
EJ Guades
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
Summary of the repeated impact equation of glass/vinyl ester tubes ..... 160
Details of glass/polyester tubes (circular cross section).......................... 163
Details of glass/polyester tubes (square cross section)............................ 163
Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static and values of glass/polyester tubes.................. 165
Summary of the repeated impact equation of glass/polyester tubes ....... 165
Details of glass/epoxy tubes (circular cross section)....... 170
Details of glass/epoxy tubes (circular and square cross sections)....... 171
Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static and values of glass/epoxy tubes.............. 172
Summary of the repeated impact equation of glass/polyester tubes...... 172
CT2 specimens
Table
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7
A.8
A.9
A.10
A.11
A.12
A.13
A.14
Table caption
Page
Summary of results of fibre fraction test for CT1.. A-1
Summary of results of fibre fraction test for CT2.. A-1
Summary of results of coupon compressive test for CT1... A-2
Summary of results of coupon compressive test for CT2A-2
Summary of results of coupon tensile test for CT1 A-4
Summary of results of coupon tensile test for CT2 A-4
Summary of results of coupon flexural test for CT1.. A-5
Summary of results of coupon flexural test for CT2.. A-6
Summary of results of full scale compressive test for CT1 (L = 100 mm). A-7
Summary of results of full scale flexural test (3-point loading) for CT1 A-11

Table
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8
B.9
B.10
Table caption
Page
Dimension of specimen E630. B-1
Dimension of specimen E630-1.. B-2
Appendix C Variation of impact stress with the height of the tube using finite
element (FE) analysis
Table Table caption
Page
C.1
Material properties of the tube wall laminate ply C-7
C.2
Summary of applied static load cases used in FE analysis. C-10
Appendix D Summary of specimen dimension and results in residual

properties testing
Table Table caption
Page
D.1
Summary of the dimension of the tubes. D-1
xviii
EJ Guades
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.14
D.15
D.16
D.17
D.18
D.19
D.20
D.21
D.22
D.23
D.24
D.25
D.26
D.27
D.28
D.29
D.30
D.31
D.32
D.33
D.34
D.35
D.36
D.37
Coupon dimension and compressive test result for E160-80 (Top) D-1
Coupon dimension and compressive test result for E160-80 (Middle).. D-2
Coupon dimension and compressive test result for E160-80 (Bottom).. D-4
Coupon dimension and tensile test result for E160-80 D-6
Coupon dimension and flexural test result for E160-80. D-8
xix
EJ Guades
Notations
Roman alphabets
Notation
Description
A
Cross-sectional area of tube/coupon specimen
a
distance between one of the end supports and the nearest applied load,
parametric constant, acceleration
at
Acceleration as a function of time or at present time increment
at-1
Acceleration at previous time increment
b
Width of the tube/coupon specimen or parametric constant
c
Neutral axis depth of the tube or parametric constant
cw
Compression wave velocity
D
Damage parameter
d
Depth of the tube
E
Modulus of elasticity
Eabs
Absorbed energy
Ec
Critical energy (energy causing the failure of tube at one impact)
Ecomp
Compressive elastic modulus of tube/coupon specimen
(Ec)Dynamic
Critical energy obtained from dynamic (impact) test
Ef
Flexural elastic modulus
Eim
Impact energy
Ein
Incident energy
EK
Kinetic energy
EP
Potential energy
(Ec) Quasi-static
Critical energy obtained from quasi-static compressive test
Esat
Saturation energy
Et
Tensile elastic modulus
ET
Total energy
Ews
Energy as a function of displacement
Ewt
Energy as a function of time
Fs
Load at present displacement increment
Fs-1
Load at previous displacement increment
Ft
Impact load as a function of time
g
Acceleration due to gravity
h
Drop height
h0
Drop height (used in Appendix C)
j
Inner depth of the tube
k
Inner width of the tube
l
Length of the tube /coupon specimen
ls
Test span in flexure
L
Length of the tube (used in Appendix C)
Mg
Fibre glass content in mass percentage
m
Mass of the impactor
mc
Critical impact mass
xx
EJ Guades
m0
m1
m2
m3
mm
N
Nf
Nmax
Ppc
Ppf
Ppt
(Pm)0
(Pm)N
I
Ix
Iy
t
R(Nf)
ri
re
sm
st
t
t1
v
vff
vm
v0
vt
vt-1
z
Initial mass of the specimen used in fibre fraction test

Initial mass of the dry crucible used in fibre fraction test
Initial mass of the dry crucible plus dried specimen used in fibre fraction test
Final mass of the crucible plus residue used in fibre fraction test
Equivalent mass at the mth point (used in Appendix C)
Number of impact
Number of impacts to initiate failure/collapse of the tube
Maximum number of impact
Peak compressive load of tube/coupon specimen
Peak flexural load of tube/coupon specimen
Peak tensile load
Maximum load at the 1st impact
Maximum load at the Nth impact
Moment of inertia
Moment of inertia along the x-axis
Moment of inertia along the y-axis
Thickness of the coupon specimen
Reliability of Nf
Internal radius of the chamfered corner of the rectangular tube
External radius of the chamfered corner of the rectangular tube
Travelled distance by the wave at the mth point (used in Appendix C)
Displacement as a function of time
Present time increment
Previous time increment
Impact velocity
Volume of the specimen used in fibre fraction test
Wave velocity at the mth point (used in Appendix C)
Initial velocity of the impactor before hitting the target
Velocity as a function of time or at present time increment
Velocity at previous time increment
Pile impedance
Greek letters
Notation
pc
t
pc
pf
pt
1
2
Description
Ratio of the loading rates between quasi-static compressive and impact tests
Correlation factor
Peak compressive strain of tube or coupon specimen
Mass density/specific mass
Mass density of the tube (used in Appendix C)
Peak compressive stress of tube or coupon specimen
Peak compressive stress
Peak tensile stress
stress measured at the strain values 1 = 0.0005
stress measured at the strain values 2 = 0.0025
Life duration
xxi
Chapter 1 Introduction
EJ Guades
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
This thesis presents the results conducted to investigate the behaviour of fibre
reinforced polymer (FRP) composite tubes under repeated axial impact loading. The
effects of impact event (incident energy and number of impact) on the instantaneous
response and the residual properties of composite tubes were examined. The
mechanical properties of the tubes used in investigating the impact behaviour of the
tubes and their residual properties were obtained experimentally and using finite
element (FE) analysis. Theoretical prediction using the basic energy principle was
performed to gain additional understanding on the damage evolution behaviour of
composite tubes subjected by repeated axial impact. The damage evolution model
was verified through experimental investigation on a 100 mm square pultruded tube.
The model was applied to composite tubes of different cross sections and materials
made from vinyl ester/polyester/epoxy matrix reinforced with glass fibres. An
improved understanding of the behaviour of glass fibre FRP composite tubes under
repeated axial impact is expected from this study.
1.2 Background
Pile foundations are generally used to support structural loads in situations where soil
settlement is a major concern or where shallow foundations cannot provide the
required bearing capacity (Sakr et al., 2004). Piling industry has historically involved
the use of traditional materials such as concrete, steel and timber as pile foundations.
However, there are problems associated with their use especially when installed in
corrosive and marine environments. These include concrete degradation, steel
corrosion, and marine borer attack or deterioration of timber piles. Examples of
deteriorated traditional piles in harsh environments are shown in Figure 1.1.
The deterioration of concrete, steel and timber reduces their structural
capacities, which may ultimately result in damage or failure of the structure
(Iskander and Stachula, 2002). The costs associated with the repair and rehabilitation
EJ Guades
of deteriorated piles, and with disruption to the publics use of facility, can be very
high and in certain circumstances often exceed the original of the construction cost
(Neff, 2003). Lampo et al. (1997) estimated that the deterioration of concrete, steel
and timber piles costs the U.S. military and civilian marine and waterfront
communities nearly $2 billion a year. Aside from the cost, there is a growing concern
in the environmental and health impact of using treated pile materials. Creosote and
Copper Chromium Arsenic (CCA) treated timber pose a threat to marine life and the
workers who handled during manufacturing and installation are in potential health
risk (Iskander et al., 1998). Similarly, steel treated using sandblasting or painted with
solvent and heavy-metal containing coatings are potentially harmful to the
environment and are increasingly being regulated (Lampo et al., 2007).
Conclusively, using same material in the rehabilitation and replacement of these
deteriorated traditional piles is not an optimum solution as apparently the cycle of
inherent problems of their usage will just be repeated. 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) Degraded concrete pile

(www.substructure.com)
(b) Corroded steel piles

(www.watimas.com)
(c) Deteriorated timber piles (www.majorprojects.vic.gov.au)

Figure 1.1 Problems of traditional piles installed in harsh environments
EJ Guades
1.3 Fibre composites as an alternative in piling applications

In the last 200 years, rapid advances in construction materials technology have
enabled civil engineers to achieve impressive gains in safety, economy, and
functionality of structures built to serve the common needs of the society (Bakis et
al., 2002). These include the consideration and application of fibre reinforced
polymer (FRP) composite materials in civil engineering. Their application is of most
importance in the renewal of constructed facilities infrastructure such as buildings,
bridges, pipelines, etc. Their use has also increased in the rehabilitation of concrete
structures, mainly due to their tailorable performance characteristics, ease of
application, and low cycle costs (Einde et al., 2003).
The application of FRP composite materials in piling system is relatively new
compared to other civil engineering applications. The application of composite
piles was first recorded in the late 1980s (Iskander and Hassan, 2002). Composite
piles refer to alternative pile foundations composed of fibre reinforced polymers
(FRP), recycled plastics or hybrid materials that are placed into the ground to support
axial and/or lateral loads (Pando et al., 2006). They are considered viable alternatives
due to their inherent advantages over traditional piles. Their advantages include light
weight, high specific strength, high durability, corrosion resistance, chemical and
environmental resistance, and low maintenance cost (Sakr et al., 2005).
On the other hand, there are also potential drawbacks of using composite
piles. Iskander and Hassan (1998) enumerated four disadvantages of using composite
piles. First, their initial cost is generally expensive compared to traditional pile
materials. This disadvantage, however, is relative, as the overall cost is expected to
decrease as composite piles gain wider penetration in the civil engineering industry.
Ballinger (1994) emphasised that, although the cost of FRP composite materials may
be higher, the cost of labour and use of equipment necessary for construction work
may be lower due to their lighter weight. Pando et al. (2006) suggested that not only
should costs be compared on a total installed first-cost basis but also on a reasonable
total life cycle cost basis. Most composite piling manufacturers believe their products
may be competitive when compared to the life cycle cost of traditional piles in some
applications (Ballinger, 1994). For instance, Iskander and Hassan (1998) reported
that manufacturers claim their composite piles may last twice as long as treated
wooden piles. The second drawback of using composite piles is due to their inherent
low modulus. Composite pile materials may exhibit large deformations in excess of
EJ Guades
the settlement permitted by the codes. Moreover, their low modulus (or stiffness)
property may cause problems during installation and handling. In some situations,
however, their low modulus property provides an added advantage of their use.
Traditional piles are considered too stiff for fendering application, thus, making
composite piles an ideal potential use. They can also dampen seismic forces
transferred to the structure through the foundation and they may reduce moments in
piled rafts (Iskander and Hassan, 1998). The third drawback of using composite piles
is that their long-term performance under increasingly larger structural loads is not
yet well defined. An attempt has already been performed by Pando et al. (2006) to
monitor the long-term performance of two composite piles located in Route 351
Bridge in Virginia, U.S.A. The fourth disadvantage of their use is that composite
piles are generally less efficient to drive than traditional piles. Their poor driving
performance was attributed by their inherent low impedance property (Mirmiran et
al., 2002; Ashford and Jakrapiyanun, 2001). Impedance is associated to the ability of
the pile to transmit the energy imparted by the driving hammer into the ground
(Pando et al., 2006). The detailed discussion on the impedance properties of
composite piles is presented in Chapter 2. Although composite materials present a
number of disadvantages related to their application in piling system, the use of
composite piles is still an alternative that will eliminate deterioration problems of
traditional piling materials in waterfront environments and aggressive soils (Iskander
et al., 2001).
1.4 FRP tubes as composite piles

Composite piles have been used in ports and harbours primarily as waterfront
barriers, fender, and bearing piles for light structures (Iskander and Hassan, 1998).
Among composite piles; structurally reinforced plastic (SRP) pile, steel pipe core
pile, concrete-filled FRP pipe pile; and hollow FRP pipe pile are generally
considered to be potentially suitable in load-bearing applications. Previous studies
conducted on the first three types of composite piles, however, showed some
concerns of their use in this application. Common problems of these piles are
debonding between the component materials (Mirmiran et al., 2000; Pando et al.,
2006) although techniques are being developed to minimise its occurrence (Baxter et
al., 2005; Fam and Rizkalla, 2002). Steel pipe core piles have some integrity issue
since cracking on the plastic shell is imminent after it was installed (Lampo et al,
EJ Guades
1998). On the other hand, SRP piles have issues on handling and installation
(Iskander et al., 1998) and structural performance due to its inherent excessive
deformation behaviour. As a result, the last type of composite piles is considered a
comparably good option in piling application and is the focus of the present study.
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. For instance, square-shape composite tubes
bonded to an FRP plate are used as a structural decking in a flooring system (Bakis et
al., 2002). In Australia, pultruded composite tubes were used as fibre composite
bridge decking unit, as transmission line cross arms, and as a major structural
component of a fibre composite bridge girder (QDMR, 2006). Compared to concretefilled FRP pipe pile, hollow FRP pipe pile can be readily installed without the
intricacy of placing concrete infill using additional equipment. The cost of
transportation and installation is also lower due to their lighter weight, thus more cost
efficient. Additionally, bond failure (i.e., delamination between FRP shell and
concrete core in the case of concrete-filled FRP pipe pile) is not an impending issue
on the use of this pile.
1.5 Challenges in using hollow FRP pipe piles

One of the main challenges in the efficient 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. Like other types of composite piles, hollow FRP pipe piles are commonly
installed using impact driving. This method drives a pile by raising a weight between
guideposts and dropping it on the head of the pile. In this installation technique,
hollow FRP pipe piles were found to exhibit poor driving performance due to their
low impedance. Field test results showed that their thin-walled section generally
shatters under high driving stresses when encountering sand layer or boulders
(Mirmiran et al., 2002). Due to this rupture, their integrity and post-impact
performance is in question.
The impedance characteristics of hollow FRP pipe 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 fibre
EJ Guades
materials are the primary cost in the manufacture of hollow FRP piles (Ashford and
Jakrapiyanun, 2001), 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 (Iskander et al., 2001). The elastic modulus can be varied by
the fibre orientation. However, analytical study showed that varying the fibre
orientation still not sufficient to increase significantly the modulus leading to the
increase of impedance (Ashford and Jakrapiyanun, 2001). On the other hand, the
effect of the specific mass on the impedance of hollow FRP pile is not
straightforward. Aside from the fact that it is difficult 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
specific 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 (Mirmiran et al., 2002;
Ashford and Jakrapiyanun, 2001). So far, the feasibility of adopting these alternative
driving techniques to hollow FRP piles has not been implemented yet in actual field
condition. Recently, Sakr et al. (2004) 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 dry sand enclosed in a pressure chamber. Since the result is based on
experimental investigation in a laboratory facility, there is still a need to confirm this
method using field tests in various subsurface conditions.
1.6 Research needs related to their driving performance

Hollow FRP pipe piles have poor driving performance due to their inherent low
impedance. Similarly, driving them requires more careful consideration due to their
relatively low stiffness and thin walls. The fibre composite materials of the hollow
FRP pipe piles are susceptible to impact damage using the current installation
method. Characterisation of the impact damage behaviour of fibre composite
materials is highly important as they exhibit distinctive damage characteristics
compared to traditional materials. When they are subjected to impact loading, there
EJ Guades
might be no damage indication on the surfaces by visual evaluation but internal

damage may have occurred (Zhang and Richardson, 2007). This damage may have
an adverse effect on the structural integrity and post-impact performance of the
composite materials.
Previous studies related to the driving performance of hollow FRP piles only
include superficial consideration of the impact behaviour of the fibre composite
materials and does not systematically describe their impact strength. These studies
described the impact behaviour of the fibre composite materials through the observed
damage mechanisms only. Moreover, the effects of the damage parameters such as
impact energies and number of impacts on the behaviour of fibre composite materials
have not been fully investigated. The effects of these parameters should be clearly
understood to determine whether by varying their magnitude results in significant
changes on their impact strength and damage behaviour. Consequently, issues related
to the determination and prevention of impact induced damage on fibre composite
materials become more important, and there is a need to develop an understanding of
damage phenomena at the materials level. Literature revealed that the studies on the
behaviour of FRP composite materials subject to repeated impact are limited only to
composite laminates/panels or tubes under transverse impact. Therefore, a need to
conduct a study on the behaviour of composite tubes under repeated axial impact is
of prime priority.
1.7 Objectives
The evaluation of the impact behaviour of fibre composite materials is significant to
describe their driving and post-impact performance. The aim of this study is to
investigate the behaviour of glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite tubes
under repeated axial impact. The main objectives of the study are the following:
(a) Characterise the effects of energy, impact mass, drop height/velocity, and
impact repetitions on the impact behaviour of square GFRP composite tubes
experimentally;
(b) Investigate the residual (after-impact) properties behaviour of repeatedly
impacted square GFRP composite tubes;
(c) Develop prediction model on the impact damage evolution of square GFRP
composite tubes; and
EJ Guades
(d) Investigate the potential application of the proposed damage model to other
GFRP composite tubes with different properties (i.e., geometry, matrix
material).
1.8 Scope of the thesis

The study focused on understanding the behaviour of GFRP composite tubes subject
to repeated impact for piling application. The composite tubes used in this study are
commercially manufactured using pultrusion process. Due to commercial sensitivity,
further information on the details of fibre and matrix cannot be revealed. Similarly,
the manufacturing process of these pultruded tubes are not publicised, however, a
general idea on pultrusion process referenced from the literature is presented. The
following are considered during the progress of the study.
Review on the driving performance of composite piles and recent

development on hollow FRP pipe piles, and impact studies on FRP composite
materials;
Characterisation of the material properties of square GFRP composite tubes;
Testing and evaluation of the behaviour and failure mechanisms of square

GFRP composite tubes under repeated axial impact;
Testing and evaluation of the residual properties behaviour of the repeatedly

impacted square GFRP composite tubes;
Development of an energy-based model predicting the impact damage

behaviour of square GFRP composite tubes;
Comparison of the results from experiment and proposed damage model;
Investigation of the energy absorption behaviour of other FRP composite tube

materials (from quasi-static compressive tests and directly from the
literature); and
Application of the proposed model to these FRP composite tubes.
On the other hand, the following are beyond the scope of this study and
considered potential areas of research in the near future:
Evaluation of the behaviour of GFRP composite tubes under actual pile

driving considering the effect of soil;
Characterisation of the behaviour of GFRP composite tubes under lateral

impact;
EJ Guades
1.9 Outline of the thesis

This thesis contains 8 chapters in which each describes the different investigations
conducted in this study.
Chapter 1 gives an introduction and objectives of this study. This chapter

highlights the existing problems and the motivation of conducting an impact
study on FRP composite materials. This also discussed the significance of the
study relative to the use of FRP composite tubes in piling application.
Chapter 2 provides an overview on composite pile technologies and their

behaviour under impact driving. As this work emphasised the use of hollow
FRP pipe piles in load-bearing applications, the recent development of their
applications is also presented. The studies worldwide on the impact behaviour
of FRP materials as a research need related to their driving performance are
highlighted.
Chapter 3 presents the characterisation of the mechanical properties of square

GFRP composite tubes used in this study. The manufacture of composite
tubes using pultrusion process is discussed. A finite element (FE) analysis
on the compressive and flexural behaviours of full scale specimens was
also included in the discussion.
Chapter 4 characterises the behaviour of the square GFRP composite tubes

through experimental investigation. The effects of impact energy, drop mass,
drop height/velocity, and the number of impacts are highlighted in this
chapter.
Chapter 5 emphasises on the characterisation of the residual properties of the

square FRP tubes under repeated axial impact. In this study, the residual
properties of composite tubes were characterised by determining the residual
properties of the coupons cut from the impacted tube for each impact
condition.
Chapter 6 covers the development of a predictive model to characterise the

damage evolution of a repeatedly impacted square GFRP composite tubes.
This model adopts an energy-based approach in simulating the damage
evolution curve.
Chapter 7 discusses the potential application of the proposed model on

GFRP composite tubes with different properties. These include tubes with
EJ Guades
square, rectangular, and circular sections, tubes with bigger dimension, and
tubes with matrix material made of polyester and epoxy.
Chapter
presents
the
main
conclusions
of
the
research
and
recommendations for future work.
1.10 Summary
Hollow FRP pipe piles have been a viable option in replacing traditional pile
materials such as concrete, steel and timber in harsh environmental conditions.
Driving these piles, however, requires more careful consideration due to their
relatively low stiffness and thin walls. The possibility of damaging the fibre
composite materials during the process of impact driving is always a concern.
One of the main factors that affect the driving performance of these piles and
needs special attention is the impact strength of the fibre composite materials.
Therefore, there is a need to understand the impact behaviour of these materials
in order for them to be safely and effectively driven into the ground. This
motivated the author to conduct this study.
10
Chapter 2 Review of composite piles and their driving performance
EJ Guades
Chapter 2
Review of composite piles and their driving
performance
2.1 General
This chapter provides an overview on the types of composite pile and their driving
performance used in replacing traditional piles. As this work emphasised the use of
hollow FRP pipe piles in load-bearing applications, the recent development of their
application is also presented. The studies worldwide on the impact behaviour of FRP
materials as a research need related to their driving performance are highlighted.
2.2 Types of composite piles

The application of composite piles was first recorded in the United States (US) when
they were used in April 1987 at Berth 120 in the port of Los Angeles (Horeczko,
1995). These piles were composed of steel pipe core encased by recycled plastic
shell and used for fendering applications. The 18 m long pile has a 330 mm diameter
recycled plastics and 125 mm diameter steel pipe core. The pile was formed by 6 m
segments each connected by a threaded coupling. To date, there are seven types of
composite piles. These include steel pipe core piles, structurally reinforced plastic
piles, concrete-filled FRP pipe piles, fibreglass pultruded piles, fibreglass reinforced
plastic piles, hollow FRP pipe piles, and FRP sheet piles. The description and
applications of each type of composite piles are presented in the following
subsections.
2.2.1 Steel pipe core piles

Steel pipe core piles consist of two layers, an inner steel layer and thick outer plastic
shell (Figure 2.1). The cross sectional view of this pile is shown in Figure 2.1a. The
inner layer provides the structural strength while the outer shell (commonly made
from high density polyethylene (HDPE)) is used to protect the steel from corrosion.
Plastic Piling Inc. is currently the manufacturer of this type of composite pile in the
US (Iskander and Stachula, 2002). This type of pile is available in 200 to 600 mm
11
EJ Guades
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 (Iskander and Hassan, 2002). These piles were
observed to have cracks at the plastic shell surface a year after they were installed
(Lampo et al., 1998). The most common use of this type of pile is in fendering
applications in region with marine influence and change of the tide. Figure 2.1b
shows the application of steel pipe core piles in this environment. However, steel
pipe core piles are also considered potentially suitable for load-bearing applications.
According to Pando et al. (2006), 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.
Steel core
HDPE plastic
(a) Cross section (Baxter et al., 2005)
(b) Application in Tiffany Street Pier,

NY, USA (Lampo et al., 1998)
Figure 2.1 Steel pipe core piles
2.2.2 Structurally reinforced plastic piles

Structurally reinforced plastic (SRP) piles are composed of extruded recycled plastic
matrix reinforced with fibreglass rods or steel rebar (Figure 2.2). Figure 2.2a shows
the cross section of the pile. The recycled materials are usually from waste plastic
such as plastic milk jugs, soap bottles and juice containers (Lindsay, 1996). 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
12
EJ Guades
and are reinforced with 6 to 16 pieces of FRP or steel reinforcing rods of diameters
ranging from 25 to 35 mm (Baxter et al., 2005). SRP piles are mainly used in
fendering applications and regarded as potential load-bearing piles. Figure 2.2b
illustrates the use of SRP piles in fendering application. 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
deflections under axial and lateral load (Pando et al., 2006) and causes problem
during installation and handling due to their excessive deformation (Iskander and
Hassan, 2002). One version of this pile is structurally reinforced by a steel cage with
the rebars welded to a continuous steel spiral (Pando et al., 2006).
Fibreglass rods
HDPE plastic
(b) Application in Port Newark,

NJ, USA (Lampo et al., 1998)
Figure 2.2 Structurally reinforced plastic piles
2.2.3 Concrete-filled FRP pipe piles

Concrete-filled FRP piles are comprised of an outer FRP shell with unreinforced
concrete infill (Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3a shows the cross section of these piles. The
FRP shell provides a stay-in-place structural formwork for the concrete infill, acts as
non-corrosive reinforcement, gives confinement to concrete in compression, and
protects the concrete from severe environmental effects (Mirmiran and Shahawy,
1996). On the other hand, the concrete infill offers the internal resistance in the
compression zone and increases the stiffness of the member and prevents local
buckling of the FRP tube (Fam and Rizkalla, 2002). This structural system found to
perform better than the equivalent prestressed and reinforced concrete structural
members under combined axial and flexural loads (Mirmiran et al., 2000). Typically,
13
EJ Guades
concrete-filled FRP piles are available in diameters ranging from 203 to 610 mm,
with wall thicknesses ranging between 4.6 to 9.1 mm (Pando et al., 2006). 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 (Mirmiran et al., 2000). 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 (Fam and Rizkalla, 2002) and application of bonding
agents (Baxter et al., 2005). Figure 2.3b illustrates concrete-filled FRP piles being
adopted in a bridge rehabilitation projects in Virginia, USA (Pando et al., 2006).
FRP shell
Concrete infill
(b) Application in Route 40 Bridge,

VA, USA (Pando et al., 2006)
Figure 2.3 Concrete-filled FRP pipe piles
2.2.4 Fibreglass pultruded piles

Fibreglass pultruded piles are composed of outer fibreglass sheet fitted with a
fibreglass grid to provide structural strength (Figure 2.4). The cross sectional view of
fibreglass pultruded pile is presented in Figure 2.4a. 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 filled with HDPE, plastic lumber, or polyethylene
foam fills. The HDPE shell and fibreglass 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 (Iskander and Hassan,
2002). Fibreglass pultruded piles were also used in Tiffany Street Pier project as
shown in Figure 2.4b (Lampo et al., 1998). In August 3, 1996, a major fire occurred
14
EJ Guades
on the Tiffany Street Pier. Lampo et al. (1998) reported that the plastic lumber inserts
and the polymer matrix material in the tic-tac-toe profile section were consumed in
the fire.
FRP shell
FRP grids
Plastic inserts

Figure 2.4 Fibreglass pultruded piles
2.2.5 Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles

Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles consists of recycled plastic matrix with randomly
distributed fibreglass reinforcement (Figure 2.5). Figure 2.5a displays the cross
section of fibreglass reinforced plastic piles. The dense solid outer shell is bonded to
the peripheral surface of the inner plastic core which is foam-filled to reduce weight.
Various additives can be mixed with the plastic materials to enhance the performance
of the structural member. These additives include antioxidants, colorants, UV
protectors, fungicides and compatibilizers. Trimax (Trimax Building, 2007) and US
Plastics (US Plastics, 2007) are manufacturer of this product consisting of high
density extruded recycled polyethylene reinforced with approximately 20%
fiberglass. Trimax produce a variety of structural members that conform to lumber
industry standards (Iskander and Hassan, 2002). Piles are available in 250 mm
diameter with a standard length of 7.5 m. Fibre reinforced plastic piles are commonly
applied as retaining walls, sound barriers, car stops, walkways, railings and fender
piles. Figure 2.5b shows tapering of Trimax piles used in the construction of the
Tiffany Street Pier in New York City (Lampo et al, 1998). The suitability of using
fibre reinforced plastic piles in load-bearing applications in this project has not been
studied since they did not undergo testing for bearing piles (Lampo, et al., 1998)
15
EJ Guades
Plastic matrix
w/ fibreglass
(a) Cross section Trimax Building, 2007

Figure 2.5 Fibreglass reinforced plastic piles
2.2.6 Hollow FRP pipe piles

Hollow FRP pipe piles are an outer shell component of a concrete-filled FRP
composite system. Figure 2.6 shows the different sections of the piles used in the
application. Hollow FRP pipe piles are typically consist of a thermosetting matrix
reinforced with glass fibres forming a tubular section made either by filament
winding, pultrusion, or resin transfer moulding process. Some versions of these piles
are coated with acrylic to protect against abrasion, UV and chemical attacks
(Iskander and Hassan, 2002). The diameter and wall thickness of these piles can be
varied up to 460 mm and 22 mm, respectively. Hollow FRP pipe piles are considered
potentially suitable in load-bearing applications. As this paper gives emphasis on this
type of composite piles, the significant features and issues of their usage are
discussed in details in Section 2.4.
(a) Circular section
(b) Square section
Figure 2.6 Geometry of hollow FRP pipe piles used in the application
16
EJ Guades
2.2.7 FRP sheet piles

FRP sheet piles are typically made of FRP pultruded sections with corrugated-shape
profile (Figure 2.7). The cross sectional view of FRP sheet piles is presented in
Figure 2.7a. The single unit corrugated profile is composed of a symmetric double Zcross section. The available products on the market have section depths of 100 to 350
mm, widths from 400 to 460 mm, and wall thicknesses from 4 to 12 mm (Shao,
2006). FRP sheet piles found to be increasingly used as waterfront retaining
structures for both new installations and rehabilitations (Marsh, 2002). 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 (Dutta and Davinder, 1998).
Additionally, the asymmetrical shapes typically seen for FRP sheet piles make the
testing of these materials more difficult than for many other commonly produced
structural shapes (Lackey et al., 2007). Earlier study on composite sheet piles
includes recycled HDPE in tongue-and-groove profile reinforced with chopped glass
fibres as potential material (Lampo et al., 1997). As opposed to the other type of
composite piles which carry vertical axial load, FRP sheet piles in general is used for
a wall that resists horizontal loads (Figure 2.7b).
(a) Cross section (Shao, 2006)
(b) FRP pultruded profiles used as retaining walls (www.apeesmarlan.com)

Figure 2.7 FRP sheet piles
17
EJ Guades
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.
2.3 Driving performance of composite piles

One of the main challenges in the efficient 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
(www.pultrude.com/LitLibrary/sheetpile/sheetpileinstalls.pdf). 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 (Hussein et al., 2006). In general, pile driveability depends on four
significant 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 (Pando et al., 2006). The role of these factors in the driving performance of
composite piles will be discussed in the following subsections.
2.3.1 Types of driving hammer and its effect

Driving hammers play a significant 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 sufficient 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
18
EJ Guades
choose driving hammers not only suitable for the soil conditions but also should be
appropriate for the specific 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. (2002)
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-filled FRP piles. Each pile was
theoretically driven with light, medium or heavy hammer in each of the three types
of soils, two soil profiles 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-filled FRP piles can be driven by heavier hammers to a
higher depth, however, the former cannot attain more than 40-50% 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-filled 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
efficient 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. (2001) using wave
equation analysis. The analysis is based on discretising the pile, soil, and driving
system using a system of concentrated weights that are connected by linear elastic
springs (Iskander and Stachula, 2002). This analysis incorporates the effects of
hammer weight and velocity, cushion and pile properties, and the dynamic behaviour
of the soil during driving (Fenske and Hirsch, 1986). Two types of driving hammers
were considered in this study, single-acting steam and open-ended diesel hammers.
The composite piles were virtually driven in a soil profile 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 influence was apparent as the piles reach
the medium dense sand layer. The significance of the types of hammer is more
apparent in driving SRP piles compared to hollow FRP piles. Key finding of this
study is that single-acting steam hammer is more efficient than the diesel hammer as
it can drive the composite piles deeper at same number of blows.
19
EJ Guades
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. Boscato et al. (2008) revealed 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 the studies provided valuable information on the influence 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.
2.3.2 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. 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. (2002) using wave
equation analysis of piles (WEAP) program. Three types of soils (clay, sand and silt)
and two embedment depths were considered in their study. Moreover, two soil
profiles (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 significant difference
between the driveability of the hollow FRP piles in different soil profiles. However,
there is more substantial difference in friction and end-bearing conditions for
concrete-filled FRP and concrete piles.
20
EJ Guades
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 shear test, simple shear test, torsion or ring
shear test, and pull-out test (Frost and Han, 1999). For FRP materials and soils, the
determination of shear resistance between them is generally obtained using interface
shear test (IST). IST refers to tests using a modified direct shear apparatus to study
the shearing of granular materials on the surface of the FRP or steel materials (Frost
and Han, 1999).
A number of studies characterising the interface behaviour between FRP
materials and soils using interface shear test are already available. Frost and Han
(1999) assessed the friction between sand and FRP and steel materials. Their study
involves testing of these materials with sands (Valdosta and Ottawa), glass beads,
and silica powder in the IST apparatus. Normal stresses ranging from about 25 to 175
kPa were used in the shear test. The shear test was performed at a horizontal
displacement rate between 0.25 to 5.08 mm/min. Outcome of the study showed that
the interface friction coefficient between FRP and sand decreases as the mean grain
size increases. This finding 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 coefficient increased linearly with
increasing relative roughness. This study also revealed that the angularity of sand
particles was seen to be influential on the behaviour of interfaces as angular materials
have higher interface friction coefficient than rounded materials. In comparison with
steel materials, FRP exhibited similar relationships between the peak interface
friction coefficients and the relative roughness for a given granular material.
Interface shear test was performed by Pando et al. (2002) in investigating the
frictional resistance among sand and two commercially available FRP materials. This
test was also performed on a prestressed concrete pile for comparison with the FRP
materials. The FRP composite tubes were fabricated using different material
constituents and manufacturing techniques. FRP composite tube 1 is made from
glass/polyester materials with an outside diameter of 629 mm and wall thickness of
7.1 mm, whilst FRP composite tube 2 (glass/vinyl ester) has an outside diameter of
612 mm and wall thickness of 9.2 mm. On the other hand, density sand (fine to
medium grained, silica with sub-rounded to rounded grains) and model sand
21
EJ Guades
(consisted of fine grained sand with sub-angular to angular grains) were used as a
granular soil. The interface shear test adopted an applied normal stresses between 23
to 200 kPa.
Test results indicated that the relative roughness parameters and angularity of
the soil significantly influence the interface friction coefficient as previously found
out by Frost and Han (1999). This study also showed that surface hardness found to
have significant effects on the interface friction values for a relatively smooth FRP
surfaces. They 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 coefficient are higher and the shear
failure tends to occur by ploughing of the soil grains along the material surface. In
comparison with the material types, Pando et al. emphasised that the concrete
material has the highest value of the interface friction angle because of its rougher
surface topography, which produces more complete interlock of the soil grains with
its surface as compared to the FRP materials.
Sakr et al. (2005) studied the interface friction of FRP materials and fine subround to round air-dried sand. Unlike the two previous studies, this study
characterised the interface friction using interface shear and uplift pile load tests.
Whilst in interface shear test it utilises only a coupon cut from the FRP tube, the
whole tube undergoes testing in uplift load test. The shells of the FRP composite
tubes were both made of glass/epoxy materials and manufactured using filament
winding technique. FRP composite tube 1 has an outside diameter of 162.4 mm with
wall thickness of 6 mm. On the other hand, the outside diameter of FRP composite
tube 2 is 178 mm with wall thickness of 7.8 mm. A 6.35 mm thick cylindrical steel
open-ended tube having a diameter of 168.3 mm was also tested to serve as a
reference for comparison of result. Sakr et al. found a result similar to that obtained
by Frost and Han (1999) and Pando et al. (2002) that the relative roughness of the
FRP composite material has a significant effect on the FRP/sand interaction
behaviour. They reported that the pile capacity obtained from uplift loading test
compared reasonably well with those calculated from interface shear test. This
finding made them to conclude that the economical interface shear test can be used
efficiently to capture the skin friction characteristics of FRP piles driven in granular
soils. The values of the peak interface friction angle for the two FRP materials/dense
22
EJ Guades
sand (26 and 310, for FRP composite tube 1 and 2, respectively) were similar to, if
not higher than, the friction angle for the steel/dense sand (26.60). This result,
according to Sakr et al., made the use of FRP materials in deep foundation more
advantageous due to their increased shaft frictional resistance in addition to their
resistance to degradation.
2.3.3 The ability of the pile to transfer driving stresses

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 defined mathematically by Equation 2.1 (Ashford and
Jakrapiyanun, 2001).
z = Acw
(2.1)
where z is the impedance, is the mass density, A is the cross sectional area, and cw
is the compression wave velocity. Alternatively, cw can be calculated using Equation
2.2 (Rausche et al., 1988).
cw = (E/)1/2
(2.2)
where E is the composite modulus of elasticity.

As seen in Equations 2.1 and 2.2, it is apparent that not only the impedance
has the direct influence on the ability of pile to transfer driving stresses but also other
parameters such as the mass density, cross sectional area, modulus of elasticity, and
compressional wave velocity of the pile materials. Literature shows a number of
studies conducted on the effects of these parameters on the driving stress transferring
mechanism of composite piles. Iskander & Stachula (2002) predicted the effect of
modulus of elasticity on the driveability of three types of composite piles using
WEAP. The 400 mm diameter SRP pile has a length of 27.5 m. On the other hand,
the concrete-filled FRP pipe pile (315 mm outside diameter) and steel pipe core pile
(390 mm outside diameter) are 16.8 and 18.3 m long, respectively. The details of the
other input data on these composite piles are outlined in their paper. The result
showed that the variation of modulus of elasticity has virtually no effect on the
driveability of the concrete-filled FRP pipe pile. However, the modulus has large
influence on the driving performance of both SRP and steel pipe core piles. These
results, according to them, show that section with high composite modulus is easier
to drive than the lower ones. In the case of piles with relatively lower modulus,
23
EJ Guades
buckling is imminent under extreme loading conditions during their installation by

driving or when they are subjected to superstructure loads (Han and Frost, 1999).
FRP composites generally have anisotropic material properties and high elastic to
shear modulus, which may result in large shear deformations. The deflection of the
pile is always larger when the shear deformation is considered (Han and Frost, 2000).
In a parametric study on the effect of shear deformation on buckling of vertically
loaded FRP composite piles conducted by Han and Frost (1999), they reported that
buckling 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 also
characterised in the study of Iskander and Stachula (2002). 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 significance of quality control during manufacturing. On
the other hand, unit weight has little influence on the driveability of concrete-filled
FRP pipe piles as their weight is well-defined 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-filled FRP piles but slightly
influenced the driveability of SRP and steel pipe core piles. Relatively, damping ratio
has no major influence on the driveability of composite piles compared with the
modulus of elasticity and unit weight.
Table 2.1 summarises the typical impedance values of three traditional piles
and four selected composite piles with approximately similar outside diameters. It
should be noted that the impedance values indicated in the table are calculated using
Equation 2.1. Note that FRP sheet piles are not included in the table due to their
totally different geometric configuration and application compared to other
composite piles. It is apparent from Table 2.1 that among composite piles, concretefilled FRP pipe pile has the highest impedance value. Its value is approximately
similar with prestressed concrete pile and significantly higher than the other two
traditional piles. As the impedance of both concrete-filled FRP pipe and prestressed
concrete piles is comparable, it is expected that their driving performance will
behave similarly. This expectation was confirmed experimentally in some studies
conducted by Pando et al. (2006) and Mirmiran et al. (2002). In comparison with
concrete-filled FRP pipe piles, the steel pipe core and the SRP piles impedance
values are about 65% and 38%, respectively. The lowest impedance value
24
EJ Guades
corresponds to the hollow FRP pipe pile with 13% that of the concrete-filled FRP
pipe piles. According to Mirmiran et al. (2002), the low impedance value of hollow
FRP piles caused these piles to endure much higher stresses and to get damaged as
observed in their field 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.
Table 2.1 Comparison of pile impedance

A
(mm2)
77,900
(kg/m3)
2,406a
E
(GPa)
34.5a
c
(m/s)
3,787
z
(kg/s)x103
710
340 mm steel pipe pile

(9.5 mm wall thickness)
9,900
7,849b
200b
5,048
392
356 mm timber pile
99,500
815a
13.8a
4,114
334
325 mm concrete-filled
FRP pipe pile
83,000
2,240b
31b
3,652
692
254 mm steel pipe core pile
11,300
7,849b
200b
5,048
448
406 mm SRP pile

(reinforced with FRP tendons)
129,500
770a
5.4a
2,644
265
1,927b
23b
3,455
93
Pile type
315 mm prestressed
concrete pile
356 mm hollow FRP pipe

14,000
pile (13 mm wall thickness)
a
values from Iskander and Stachula (2002)
b
values from Ashford and Jakrapiyanun (2001)
2.3.4 Strength of the pile to resist driving stresses

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
25
EJ Guades
stresses imparted by the driving hammer are generally resisted by the composite
action between the component materials (e.g., FRP shell and concrete infill in the
case of concrete-filled FRP pipe pile). Unlike traditional piles, the impact fatigue
response of composite piles is not yet clearly defined.
Mirmiran et al. (2002) field-driven hollow and concrete-filled FRP pipe piles
using a 3.85 m long open-ended single acting diesel hammer. Their objective is to
compare the behaviour of the two composite piles under actual field 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-filled FRP pipe pile were
successfully driven to depths at about 7.3 m without damage at the top, and no
separation between the concrete and FRP shell (Figure 2.8a). This 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. 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 (Figure 2.8b). It was believed that the ruptures began when
the pile encountered sand layer. Mirmiran et al. (2002) 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.
(a) Concrete-filled FRP pipe pile
(b) Hollow FRP pipe pile
Figure 2.8 Condition of the composite piles after driving (Mirmiran et al., 2002)
In another field study, concrete-filled FRP pipe and SRP piles were tested by
Baxter et al. (2005) to investigate their behaviour under impact driving. The
concrete-filled FRP pipe pile has an outside diameter of 250 mm with an FRP shell
thickness of 20 mm. On the other hand, the 337 mm diameter SRP pile was
26
EJ Guades
fabricated from recycled plastics and is reinforced by 8-25 mm diameter steel rebar.
Both composite piles have a length of 7.3 m and were driven using hydraulic
hammer with a rated energy of 7.2 kJ. Unlike the result reported by Mirmiran et al.
on concrete-filled FRP pipe piles, Baxter and his associates observed that the top of
the pile was visibly broken at the end of driving. The damage was characterised by
cracking and spalling of concrete core at the top, and disintegration of some portion
of FRP shell (Figure 2.9a). Driving of SRP 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 degrees (Figure
2.9b). They also noticed that the steel reinforcement at the pile tip was exposed as a
result of damage on the plastic material. Another observation they reported is that the
diameter at the top of the pile was significantly increased from 337 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.
(a) Concrete-filled FRP pipe pile
(b) Structurally reinforced plastic pile
Figure 2.9 Condition of the composite piles after driving (Baxter et al., 2005)
Composite piles were driven by Pando et al. (2006) in a two separate projects
in Virginia, USA. The first project involves driving of concrete-filled FRP pipe pile
to replace the damaged concrete piles in Route 40 Bridge. The 13.1 m long concretefilled FRP pipe pile has an outside diameter of 625 mm with an FRP shell thickness
of 7.35 mm. This pile was driven by a hydraulic impact hammer with a rated energy
of 85.4 kJ. The concrete-filled FRP pipe pile was successfully driven to a depth of
8.5 m and recorded a blow count of 6 blows per 25 mm at the end of driving. The
27
EJ Guades
driving process is shown in Figure 2.10a. This study revealed that driving of this
composite pile up to 8.5 m embedment depth did not cause any significant damage
on the pile. Neither cracking/spalling of concrete infill nor rupture on the FRP shell
were observed during the driving process (Figure 2.10b).
On the other hand, the second project includes driving of SRP pile as test pile
near Route 351 Bridge. The 592 mm diameter and 18.3 m long composite pile is
made from medium density polyethylene material and reinforced by steel cage (2425 mm diameter rebars). A single acting diesel hammer with a maximum energy
rating of 106.8 kJ was used in the driving process. The SRP pile was driven to a
depth of up to 17.27 m below the original ground level. The result of the study
indicated that the damage observed by Baxter et al. on the top portion of the SRP pile
after driving is not present as evidenced by Figure 2.11a. The damage on the tip of
the SRP pile, however, was not investigated as no extraction was undertaken after
driving. The second project also involves driving of enhanced concrete-filled FRP
pipe pile. Enhancement of this composite pile was achieved by providing additional
14-25 mm diameter reinforcement bars aside from the FRP composite shell. This
enhanced composite pile has an outside diameter of 622 mm and an FRP wall
thickness of 10.7 mm. The information on the length of the pile and the hammer used
in driving of the enhanced composite pile are similar to that of the SRP pile. This
enhanced concrete-filled FRP pipe pile was successfully driven to a depth of 7.35
mm without significant damage on its component materials (Figure 2.11b).
(a) Driving process
(b) Driven concrete-filled FRP Pipe pile
Figure 2.10 Composite pile installed in Route 40 Bridge (Pando et al., 2006)
28
(a) SRP piles
EJ Guades
(b) Enhanced concrete-filled FRP Pipe pile
Figure 2.11 Composite piles driven near Route 351 Bridge (Pando et al., 2006)
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 (Lampo et al.,
1998). 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
(fibreglass pultruded, fibreglass 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.
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 influence of
impact energy and impact cycles needs to be considered as they are significant not
only in their driveability but also in their post-impact performance characterisation.
Noticeably, substantial amount of research are needed in this area.
General finding of the studies on the driving performance of composites piles
suggests that they are less efficient 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
29
EJ Guades
applications. These studies mainly discussed steel pipe core, SRP, and concrete-filled
FRP piles since they are considered potentially suited for load-bearing applications
Lampo et al., 1998). 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 and research needs related in
understanding the driving performance of these piles in load-bearing applications are
discussed in the following section.
2.4 Recent developments on hollow FRP pipe piles

Most of the applications of hollow FRP pipe piles are as test piles or in theoretical
studies. The studies conducted on hollow FRP pipe piles are summarised in Table
2.2. 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. (Sirimanna,
2011). This project used an innovative technique for the repair of damaged timber
piles in Shorncliffe Pier in Brisbane (Figure 2.12). The aim of this technique is to
replace the deteriorated upper portion of a pile in an existing bridge or pier by hollow
FRP pipe pile without the need to remove or modify the bridge superstructure. The
procedures of this concept can be summarised as follows and can be found from this
link (http://www.bac.net.au/futurepile.html): (1) identifying the serviceable section
of the existing pile and removing the upper portion, (2) locating an FRP tubular
connector on the pile stump, (3) inserting the hollow FRP pipe pile into the
connector, (4) jacking the pile to the underside of the headstock, and (5) injection of
epoxy grout or other fasteners to complete the installation. The outside diameter of
this pile is between 300 and 470 mm and was manufactured using resin infusion
method. The FRP tube wall is consists of 26 layers constituting an overall thickness
of 22 mm. The hollow FRP pipe pile is made of vinyl ester resin reinforced by glass
fibres and XF Soric. The complete description and material characteristics of the
composite tube used is presented in the work of Sirimanna (2011). In this study, the
driving performance of these composite piles was not investigated since the
installation technique does not require the method of impact driving.
30
EJ Guades
Table 2.2 List of applications of hollow FRP pipe piles
Circular
Outside
diameter
(mm)
475
Wall
thickness
(mm)
22
Square
n/aa
Circular
Section
geometry
Length
(m)
Type of test
Nature of
application
Sources
9.2
Field test
Test piles
6.5
Field test
Support for
light
structures
294
22
7.3
Undriven/
field test
Load
bearing
piles
Circular
162
1.2
Laboratory
test
Test piles
Circular
348
14
7.9
Field test
Test piles
Circular
356
13
12.2
Analytical
test
n/a
Circular
356
7.2
18&27
Analytical
n/a
h
test
a
125 mm square section, bwww.http://www.bac.net.au/futurepile.html; cAravinthan
and Manalo (2012); dSirimanna (2011); eSakr et al. (2004); fMirmiran et al., 2002;
g
Ashford and Jakrapiyanun (2001); hIskander and Stachula (2001)
Figure 2.12 Hollow FRP pipe piles replacing deteriorated timber piles
(Courtesy of BAC Tech. Pty. Ltd., Queensland, Australia)
Hollow FRP pipe piles were also adopted to shore up boardwalks located in
New South Wales and Queensland (Figure 2.13). These projects utilised composite
31
EJ Guades
tubes manufactured by Wagners Composite Fibre Technology (WCFT), Australia

using pultrusion process. The 125 mm square pultruded tubes are made from E-glass
fibres and vinyl ester resin. The tube wall is consisted of nine plies with a total
thickness of 6.50 mm. Starting from the exterior of the wall, the stacking sequence of
the plies is in the form of [00/+450/00/-450/00/-450/00/+450/00], where the 00 direction
coincides with the longitudinal axis of the tube. Table 2.3 shows the mechanical
properties of the pultruded tube. The information on the installation process and their
behaviour under impact driving is presented in the next paragraph.
(a) Boardwalk project under construction,

Tweed Heads, New South Wales
(b) Finished boardwalk project,

Mackay, Queensland
Figure 2.13 Pultruded composite tubes used in shoring-up boardwalks

(Courtesy of WCFT, Queensland, Australia)
Table 2.3 Mechanical properties of the 125 mm square tubea
Tensile strength, longitudinal (MPa)
650
Tensile strength, transverse (MPa)
41
Compressive strength, longitudinal (MPa)
550
Compressive strength, transverse (MPa)
104
Shear strength (MPa)
84
Modulus of elasticity, longitudinal (MPa)
35,400
Modulus of elasticity, transverse (MPa)

a
WCFT Product Specifications
12,900
Field driving of square hollow FRP pipe piles were lately undertaken in
Australia. The 125 mm square pultruded tubes were driven to support an elevated
32
EJ Guades
walkway in Tweed Heads, New South Wales (shown in Figure 2.13). Figure 2.14a
displays the installation process of the 125 mm square pultruded tubes using impact
driving. It should be noted that the presence of 450 glass fibre reinforcement on the
tube provided a stronger structural resistance along the transverse direction. This
unique property made this tube suitable for structural application particularly as
hollow FRP pipe pile. The 4 m long pultruded tubes were driven to a depth of 2.5 to
3 m using a 1-ton impact hammer. It was observed that most of the tubes were
successfully driven without damage, if not suffered minimal damage only in a form
of cracks along their wall (Figure 2.14b). These cracks were noticed to be
concentrated only on the portion in contact with the impact mass. On the other hand,
it was observed that the head of few driven tubes were crashed during impact
driving. The damage at the top of the tube was characterised by lamina splitting,
fibre breakage, and formation of vertical cracks at the corners (Figure 2.14c). This
damage induced during impact driving, however, is generally common to hollow
FRP pipe piles as this was also the observation of Mirmiran et al. (2002) when this
type of composite pile of circular cross section was impact-driven. In this test, no
geotechnical data was obtained on the sites where the field tests were carried out and
no instrumentation was considered. While attempts have been conducted to
demonstrate the driveability of hollow FRP pipe piles made of pultruded square
tubes, no systematic study has been conducted so far that will provide a general
understanding on their behaviour under impact driving.
(a) Driving rig
(b) Undamaged tubes
(c) Crushed tubes
Figure 2.14 Impact driving of 125 mm square pultruded tubes

(Courtesy of Wagners CFT, Queensland, Australia)
33
EJ Guades
Field driving of a 475 mm diameter circular hollow FRP pipe pile was
undertaken in Wilkie Creek, Queensland. Figure 2.15 illustrates the impact driving
procedure
of
the
composite
pile.
Information
from
the
manufacturer
(http://www.bac.net.au/futurepile.html) shows that the pile was driven through very

stiff to sandy clay with an SPT N value of >50. The 9.2 m long composite pile with a
wall thickness of 22 mm was made of vinyl-ester resin reinforced by glass fibres.
This pile was effectively driven to a depth of 6 m using a 9 tonne 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 to 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. The final stages of pile driving involved the maximum energy from the pile
rig with the hammer dropping at 800 mm. Following test driving, the pile was
visually inspected with no significant damage identified. The pile was left to settle
for approximately 48 hours before dynamic pile driving analysis was completed to
check the capacity of the foundation and also identify any structural damage. The
CAPWAP method was used for the analysis and determined the geotechnical
capacity of the foundation to be 2,162 kN (815 and 1,347 kN shaft and toe resistance,
respectively). This test, however, did not attach any instrumentation on the pile that
will provide additional information on its behaviour during impact driving.
Figure 2.15 Impact driving of 475 mm diameter hollow FRP pipe pile
(Courtesy of BAC Tech. Pty. Ltd., Queensland, Australia)
34
EJ Guades
2.5 Study on the impact behaviour of FRP composite tubes as a research needs
relative to their driving performance
The optimum use of hollow FRP pipe piles is being challenged due to their poor
driving performance and lack of design guidelines of their installation. On the other
hand, the behaviour of the FRP composite materials under impact driving has not
been fully characterised since the studies related to their driving performance only
described their impact behaviour through the observed damaged mechanisms only.
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 (Richardson and Wisheart, 1996). Composite materials on the other hand
are brittle and can only absorb energy in elastic deformation and through damage
mechanism, and not through plastic deformation (Mamalis et al., 2006). The
characterisation of the impact behaviour of fibre composite materials is definitely of
great importance to define the driveability and post-impact performance of hollow
FRP pipe piles. Additionally, unlocking this information may also yield an
opportunity to improve their poor driving performance and their optimum use.
Research on the behaviour of FRP composite materials under repeated impact has
been extensive. These studies, however, are focused on composite plate/laminates or
tubes which are transversely impacted. The summary of these studies are presented
in Section 2.6.
2.6 Behaviour of FRP composite plates/laminates repeatedly impacted or tubes

under repeated transverse impact
Studies on the behaviour of FRP composite plates/laminates subject to impact
repetitions or tubes under repeated transverse impact using experimental
investigation have already been reported. Table 2.4 shows the summary of these
studies. A brief description of these studies and their corresponding key results are
presented in the next paragraphs.
Aurrekoetxea et al. (2011) investigated the repeated impact behaviour of selfreinforced polypropylene composite using instrumented falling mass tests. The
laminate was subjected by a hemispherical head impactor by impact energy between
1- 49 J. The result indicated that the nature of the laminate is highly anisotropic with
strain hardening failure. They stated that the impact fatigue life exceeds 500 impacts
up to 13 J, but drops sharply for 14 J. Furthermore, they emphasised that the strain
35
EJ Guades
hardening is the origin of the trend of peak load increase and plastic deformation
decrease with impact events.
Table 2.4 Summary of recent experimental studies on repeated impact test

Researcher/s
Aurrekoetxea
et al. (2011)
Laminate
Composite
thickness
material
(mm)
2.2
Self-reinforced
polypropylene
Type of
Impact
No. of
a
impact test energy (J) impactsa
Falling
mass
20
500
Sevkat et al.
(2010)
6.35
Glass/epoxy
Graphite/epoxy
Falling
mass
32
69
Coban et al.,
(2009)
Carbon/polyethe
rimide
Pendulum
type
2.65
3,580
Belingardi et
al. (2008)
10.13
Glass/vinyl ester
Glass/polyester
Falling
mass
392
40
David-West et
al. (2008)
Carbon prepegsb
Falling
mass
5.87
20
De Morais et
al. (2005)
4.27
Carbon/epoxy
Falling
mass
7.50
1500
Sugun and Rao 2.1

(2004)
Glass/epoxy
Carbon/epoxy
Kevlar/epoxy
Falling
mass
14.70
98
Hosur et al.
(2003)
Glass/epoxy
Falling
mass
50
40
Carbon/epoxy
Falling
mass
0.93
100
Pendulum
type
0.16
10,000
Roy et al.
6 rod
Glass/vinyl ester Pendulum 0.98
c
(2001b)
180 long
type
a
maximum value, bno data on matrix material, ccomposite rod
10,000
3.18
Found and
0.8
Howard (1995)
Roy et al.
(2001a)
4 rod
Carbon/vinyl
180 longc ester
The deformation characteristics of thermoplastic matrix composites during

repeated impact loading were investigated by Coban et al., (2009). They found that
the curves of damage evolution against the number of repeated impacts to fracture
the composites revealed three distinct zones: fibre micro buckling and shear fracture
36
EJ Guades
of fibres (1st region), initiation and propagation of delamination and matrix

deformations (2nd region), and propagation of delamination and fibre cracking and
pull out especially in tensile area (3rd region). Coban et al. reported that the intensive
deformation observed in compression region during impact-fatigue loading is due to
lower compressive strength of composites as compared to their tensile strength.
Belingardi et al. (2008) investigated the response of glass reinforced laminates under
repeated impacts using impact energy of up to 392 J. The result showed that the
maximum peak force sustained by the laminate is usually not reached in the first
impact. This phenomenon has been reported by other researchers as well (Sevkat et
al., 2010) and can be explained as a result of compaction process (Wyrick and
Adams, 1998) or change of dominant damage mode (Liu, 2004). Belingardi et al.
reported that no significant differences existed in the force and energy curves in
which no perforation happened.
The behaviour of a balanced laminates (symmetric, anti-symmetric, and
asymmetric) under repeated low energy level impacts was characterised by DavidWest et al. (2008). They found that the impulsive force was influenced by stacking
sequence and the crack path through the laminate. They reported that the symmetric
plate with different ply directions proved to have the best resistance to impact. They
also reported that the rate of damage progression in the event was characterised by an
equation from the energy profile that correlates the propagation energy and time. De
Morais et al. (2005) evaluated the influence of laminate thickness on the resistance to
repeated low energy impacts of glass, carbon and aramid fabrics reinforced
composites for two levels of energy impacts. The thickness of the laminates adopted
in their study ranges from 1.16 to 2.42 mm in which they are subjected by a 765 g
impactor dropped from a height between 0.5 and 1 m. The results obtained from their
tests show that below a certain energy level, the cross section of the laminate is the
most relevant variable that determines the impact resistance. Under this condition,
the experimental points of all tested laminates fall in a single curve, irrespective of
the reinforcing fibre used.
In another study, Sugun and Rao (2004) characterised the impact fatigue
behaviour of glass, carbon and Kevlar composites using a range of impact energies.
They reported a numerical relationship between the impact energy and the number of
impacts to perforation. As the incident energy was varied in arithmetic progression,
the number of impacts to perforation varied in harmonic series. They also
37
EJ Guades
emphasised that the peak load decreases while the total energy increases until the
perforation of the composite laminates. Hosur et al. (2003) investigated the damage
resistance of stitched/unstitched S2-glass/epoxy composites. Under this study,
laminates were subjected to repeated impact loading up to maximum of 40 impacts at
energy levels ranging from 10 to 50 J. They reported a sudden drop of peak load after
a certain number of impacts at an energy level between 40 and 50 J. They also
pointed out that the absorbed energy showed similar trend with respect to number of
impacts. Found and Howard (1995) performed repeated impact tests on carbon FRP
laminates using drop-weight impact rig. Impact tests were conducted from a height
of 0.5 m whilst the mass was varied to produce a wide range of impact energies
between 0.54 and 0.93 J. The outcome of their study revealed that the damage caused
by repeated impacts at energies of 0.54 and 0.73 J did not produce changes in the
peak impact force. However, a second impact at 0.93 J produced a significant
reduction in the peak force and an increase in impact duration.
The behaviour of high and medium strength carbon fibre-vinyl ester
composite tubes under repeated transverse impacts was studied by Roy et al. (2001a).
This study was conducted by impacting the tubes up to 10,000 cycles with an energy
level between 0.06 to 0.16 J using pendulum-type impact apparatus. The result
indicated an existence of a plateau region in the impact fatigue behaviour curve
between 10 and 100 cycles immediately below the single cycle impact strength. This
was followed by a progressive endurance with decreasing impact loads terminating at
an endurance limit at about 71% and 85% of the single impact strength for high and
medium strength composite tubes, respectively. Their analysis on the fractured
surface of the tube revealed debonding, fibre breakage and pull-out at the tensile
zone of the impacted samples. This mode of failure was also observed by Roy et al.
(2001b) when they subjected fibreglass-reinforced composite tubes under repeated
lateral impacts. Furthermore on the impacted carbon fibre reinforced tubes; they
noted that the presence of few macro-cracks and an increased volume of microcracks in the matrix with damaged fibres at the high and low impact endurance
regions, respectively, explain the impact fatigue behaviour of the studied composite
tubes.
Literature review shows that parameters such as impact load, incident energy
(or drop mass/height/velocity), and the number of impacts affect the behaviour of
composite laminates or tubes which are transversely impacted. It would be equally
38
EJ Guades
important to know on how these parameters affect the behaviour of composite tubes
when they are axially impacted. To date, information on the behaviour of FRP
composite tubes under repeated axial impact is very limited. There is a need,
therefore, to conduct a research on their impact behaviour. The information acquired
from the impact damage evaluation of the composite tubes will definitely lead to a
better understanding of the impact performance of hollow FRP pipe piles.
In this research, the behaviour of FRP composite tubes under repeated axial
impact was characterised. The investigated tube is suitable for structural application
since glass fibre reinforcements are provided in several directions. Specifically, the
existence of 450 glass fibre reinforcement contributed to a stronger structural
performance of the tube. Therefore, the characterisation of the impact behaviour of
this tube will apparently extend its usage to piling application.
2.7 Conclusions
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 significant advantages in terms of cost efficiency 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 fibre 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. Literature shows that
the studies on the behaviour of FRP materials under repeated impact are mostly
focused on composite laminates/panels or tubes under transverse impact. Therefore
there is a need to conduct a study on composite tubes that will characterise their
behaviour when they are subjected by repeated axial impact.
39
EJ Guades
The presence of 450 glass fibre reinforcement on the investigated tube

contributed to a better structural performance. Therefore, the investigation on the
impact behaviour of this tube apparently lengthens its structural usage specifically in
piling application. The information provided from this investigation will provide a
more systematic understanding on the impact behaviour of fibre composite materials
and eventually help researchers and engineers in developing installation guidelines
for their optimum use and wider application.
In Chapter 3, an investigation into the material characteristics of the adopted
composite tubes and their manufacturing process is presented.
40
Chapter 3 Characterisation of the properties of FRP composite tubes
EJ Guades
Chapter 3
Characterisation of the properties of FRP composite
tubes
3.1 General
This chapter presents the characterisation of the properties of the FRP composite
tubes adopted in this study. Specifically the fibre content, the compressive, tensile,
and the flexural properties of the tubes are investigated. Tests on coupons and full
scale specimens were undertaken to determine the mechanical properties of the
tubes. Moreover, a finite element analysis was carried to simulate the compressive
and flexural behaviour of full-scale specimen. This has been included to demonstrate
the feasibility of using FE method in predicting its mechanical behaviour to eliminate
the need of repeating costly arrangements for experimental tests. The discussions on
the technical description and chemical composition of the glass fibre and the matrix
materials are not included due to commercial confidentiality. Likewise, the process
of manufacturing of these tubes in the site is not revealed, however, an idea on this
process sourced from the literature is provided.
3.2 FRP composite tubes under study

The composite tubes tested in this study are manufactured by Wagners Composite
Fibre Technology based in Toowoomba, Australia. The 100 mm square tubes are
made from vinyl ester resin with E-glass fibre reinforcement and manufactured using
the process of pultrusion. The detailed information on this process is presented in the
next section. This study used two types of 100 mm square pultruded tubes as
provided by the manufacturer. The tube used in the experiments presented in
Chapters 4 (i.e., impact behaviour of pultruded tube) and 6 (i.e., prediction model on
impact behaviour of pultruded tube) are same and is designated as Composite Tube 1
(CT1). On the other hand, the tube designated as Composite Tube 2 (CT2) is adopted
in Chapter 3 (i.e., residual properties of pultruded tube). Basically, CT1 is an older
version of the pultruded tubes relative to CT2. Both have comparable physical and
mechanical properties as evidenced by the test results presented in this chapter. Their
41
EJ Guades
only difference is the colour texture. CT1 has green colour texture whilst CT2 is
white finished (Figure 3.1). The section properties of the tubes are shown in Table
3.1.
(a) Composite tube 1 (CT1)
(b) Composite tube 2 (CT2)

Figure 3.1 Oblique view of the composite tubes
Table 3.1 Section properties of the 100 mm square tubea
b
ri
re
d
t
Nominal depth, d (mm)
100
Nominal width, b (mm)
100
Nominal thickness, t (mm)
5.25
Internal radius, ri (mm)
4.75
External radius, re (mm)
10
Gross area (mm2)
1,932
6
Moment of inertia, Ix (10 mm )
2.86
Moment of inertia, Iy (106 mm4)

WCFT Product specification
2.86
3.3 Manufacturing of tubes using pultrusion process

The process of pultrusion in manufacturing FRP composite tubes provides both
product consistency and economy (Bakis et al., 2002). Figure 3.2 illustrates the
42
EJ Guades
schematic diagram showing the basic concept of pultrusion process. Pultrusion is a

manufacturing process for producing continuous lengths of reinforced polymer
structural shapes with constant cross-sections. Raw materials are a liquid resin
mixture (containing resin, fillers and specialized additives) and flexible textile
reinforcing fibres. The process involves pulling these raw materials through a heated
steel forming die using a continuous pulling device. The reinforcement materials are
in continuous forms such as rolls of fiberglass mat and doffs of fiberglass roving. As
the reinforcements are saturated with the resin mixture (wet-out) in the resin bath and
pulled through the die, the gelation, or hardening, of the resin is initiated by the heat
from the die and a rigid, cured profile is formed that corresponds to the shape of the
die. After which the cured product is cut on the desired length by the cut-off saw.
The common fibre-reinforcement in pultruded shapes consists of fibre bundles
(called rovings for glass fibre and tows for carbon) fibre, continuous strand mat, and
nonwoven surfacing veils (Bakis et al., 2002). Filled thermosetting resins in the
polyester and vinyl ester groups are generally used in the pultrusion.
Figure 3.2 The basic pultrusion process concept (www.strongwell.com/pultrusion)
3.4 Glass fibre content

The content of the glass fibre in the composite tube was characterised using fibre
fraction test. This test was conducted following the standard ISO 1172 (1996).
Coupons measuring approximately 20 x 30 mm were cut from the four sides of the
tube. A total of four coupons for each type of pultruded tube (i.e., CT1 and CT2)
were tested in accordance with the standard. The nominal dimension of the specimen
used in the fibre fraction test is shown in Table 3.2. The summary of the dimensions
and results of the test for CT1 and CT2 can be found in Appendix A (Section A.1). It
was found that the laminate lay-up and fibre orientation is identical for the two tubes.
43
EJ Guades
Therefore the laminate lay-up and fibre orientation of one tube can already represent
both of them. Figure 3.3 shows the sliced coupons and the residue showing the glass
fibre orientation of a representative tube (i.e. CT 2). Figure 3.3 indicates that the
stacking sequence of the plies is in the form of [00/+450/00/-450/00/-450/00/+450/00],
where the 00 direction coincides with the longitudinal axis of the tube.
Table 3.2 Details of the specimen for fibre fraction test
Type of test
Width, b
(mm)
20
Test standard
Fibre fraction ISO 1172

a
Nominal thickness of the tube
Thicknessa, t
(mm)
5.25
Length, l
(mm)
30
Figure 3.3 Coupon specimens and residue showing the fibre glass orientation
Table 3.3 Summary of glass fibre content of each ply
Ply no.
1
Ply orientation
00
Glass content (%)

24
+450
00
12
-450
00
12
-450
00
11
0
+45
00
24
44
EJ Guades
The summary of the results of the fibre fraction test for the two tubes can be
found in Appendix A (Section A.1). The average specific mass of the tubes is in the
range between 1,934 kg/m3 to 1943 kg/m3. On the other hand, the fibre content of the
two tubes varies from 75.84% to 76.21%. The difference of the average specific
mass and fibre content between the two tubes is less than 1%. This value is
comparably small, hence there is no significant difference occurs between these two
properties. The content of the glass fibre of each ply is summarised in Table 3.3.
3.5 Coupon tests

Tests on coupons cut from the tubes were undertaken to characterise the mechanical
properties of the tubes. The test results of CT2 specimen obtained in this section
served as the baseline values in comparison with the residual properties of the
impacted tubes discussed in Chapter 5. The experimental characterisation of the
coupons has been performed using compressive, tensile, and flexural tests. The
details of the nominal dimension of the specimen and the standards used in the
coupon tests for CT1 and CT2 specimens are shown in Table 3.4. The summary of
the dimensions of the specimens tested and the results of the whole test are presented
in Appendix A (Section A.2A.4). Note that in coupon tests, all calculated values are
the mechanical properties of the tubes along their longitudinal direction. The next
subsections present the details of each coupon test performed and their results.
Table 3.4 Details of the specimen for coupon tests
ASTM D 695:2010
Width, b
(mm)
12.50
Length, l
(mm)
140
Thicknessa, t
(mm)
5.25
ISO 5271:1996
25
250
5.25
Flexural
ISO 14125:1998
a
Nominal thickness of the tube
15
150
5.25
Type of test
Test standard
Compressive
Tensile
3.5.1 Compressive test

The compressive test was conducted using the procedure defined in ASTM D 695
(2010). The test was performed in the MTS 810 Servo-hydraulic testing machine
(100 kN capacity). Compressive test coupons with nominal width b of 12.5 mm were
loaded using an end-loaded, side supported (gripping pressure of 8.5 MPa), with an
unsupported length of 20 mm. This length is decided to be used since a strain gage
45
EJ Guades
needs to be attached on the specimen. Note that this length is still in the range
recommended in the standard (slenderness ratio from 11 to 16, the value is roughly
around 13 in this study). The nominal overall length of the coupon taken from CT1 is
140 mm whilst 115 for CT2. The overall length adopted in CT2 is comparatively
lower than CT1 as the former is used in comparison with the residual properties of
impacted tubes as presented in Chapter 5. Nevertheless, the unsupported lengths of
the specimens from CT1 and CT2 are the same. A total of 5 specimens were tested
for each tube in which at least one was taken from its four sides. Slicing of the
coupons was carefully done by using a wet saw machine. The test was conducted at a
loading rate of 1.5 mm/min until failure. Two of the 5 specimens were instrumented
by a 6mm long uniaxial strain gage attached on the 20 mm unsupported length using
a super glue or epoxy adhesive. Recording of data for compressive test was
generated using Systems 5000 data logger. Figure 3.4 shows the test set-up used in
performing the compressive test.
Figure 3.4 Compressive test set-up on coupons
Figure 3.5 shows the typical compressive stress-strain relationship of the

tested coupons taken from CT1 and CT2. It should be noted that the values of the
stress and the strain of the curve displayed in the figure are the mean values of the
specimens with strain gages. The results of the whole test are presented in Appendix
A (Section A.2). The compressive stress was calculated by dividing the applied load
with the cross-sectional area of the specimen (b x t) whilst the strain was determined
using uniaxial strain gage attached to the specimen. The compressive modulus was
then established from the linear fit of the stress-strain curve between 500 and 2500
microstrains. For both CT1 and CT2 specimens, it was observed that the specimen
46
EJ Guades
tested under compressive loading behaved linearly elastic up to failure. The CT1
specimen was observed to fail at a compressive stress between 420 to 485 MPa. It
was observed that the strain gages failed earlier than the specimen, however, the
estimated strain with the mentioned failure stress is in the range from 8,500 to 10,000
microstrains. On the other hand, the maximum compressive stress calculated for CT2
specimen ranges from 430 to 450 MPa with an estimated strain at about 8400 to 9300
microstrains. Figure 3.6 illustrates the typical failure mode of the specimens tested
under compressive loading and their conditions at the end of the test. Inter-laminar
failure along the unsupported length was observed during the test.
500
Stress (MPa)
400
300
Failure of
strain gage
200
CT1
CT2
100
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Strain (microstrain)
Figure 3.5 Compressive stress-strain relationship
CT1
CT2
Figure 3.6 Compressive failure mode and condition of the specimens after the test
3.5.2 Tensile test

The tensile test was performed in a 100 kN capacity MTS Insight Electro-mechanical
testing machine using a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. The test was conducted in
accordance with standard ISO 527-1 (1996). The tensile test specimens have nominal
47
EJ Guades
width b of 25 mm. The length l of coupons taken from CT1 is 250 mm whilst for
CT2, the length is around 230 mm. The 230 mm length of CT2 is used as these
specimens were adopted as the baseline in comparison for the residual tensile
properties of the impacted tubes (Chapter 5). A total of 5 coupons were cut from
each tube using a wet saw machine and tested. A 50 mm long gripping tabs (same
material as the tested specimens) were attached to both ends of the specimen using
Techniglue CA epoxy adhesive. Two of the specimens were instrumented by a 20
mm gage length uniaxial strain gage. All the data were recorded using Systems 5000
data acquisition machine. The experimental set-up used in conducting the tensile test
is shown in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7 Tensile test set-up on coupons
The longitudinal stress-strain curves of CT1 and CT2 specimens tested under
tensile loading is displayed in Figure 3.8. Just like in compressive test, the values of
the stress and the strain in the curve are the average values of the specimens with
attached strain gages. The results of the whole test are presented in Appendix A
(Section A.3).To determine the tensile stress, the applied load was divided by the
cross sectional area of the specimen. On the other hand, the strain was determined
using a 20 mm gage length strain gage attached on the specimen. After which the
tensile modulus was obtained from the linear portion of the stress-strain curve at a
strain between 500 and 2500 microstrains.
It can be observed from Figure 3.8 that CT1 and CT2 specimens both
exhibited an elastic behaviour up to failure. For CT1 specimen, the maximum tensile
stress calculated is in the range of 570 to 650 MPa. In this test, the strain gage
attached on CT1 failed before the specimen. The estimated strain at this failure stress
is about 14,300 to 16,900 microstrains. On the other hand, the maximum calculated
48
EJ Guades
tensile stress for CT2 specimen varies from 570 to 640 MPa at a strain values
between 14,800 to 14,900 microstrains. The typical failure observed during the
tensile test was glass fibre rupture along the gage length (Figure 3.9).
600
Stress (MPa)
500
400
Failure of
strain gage
300
200
CT1
CT2
100
0
0
5000
10000
15000
Figure 3.8 Tensile stress-strain relationship
CT1
CT2
Figure 3.9 Tensile failure mode and condition of the specimens after the test
3.5.3 Flexural test

The 15 x 150 mm (width b and total length l, respectively) specimen was tested
under three-point static bending using the standard procedure defined in ISO 14125
(1998). Similar with the compressive and tensile tests specimens, flexural test
specimens were cut from the pultruded tubes using a wet saw machine. A total of 5
specimens were taken from each composite tube and tested. The test was performed
in a 10 kN capacity MTS Insight Electro-mechanical testing machine with a loading
rate of 3 mm/min until failure. A span ls of 84 mm was selected giving a span to
depth ratio of 16:1, according to the standard. The specimen was held and pressed,
respectively, by two fixed supports and loading steel cylinders having a diameter of
49
EJ Guades
10 mm. The data were recorded via Systems 5000 data acquisition machine. Figure
3.10 demonstrates the test set-up used in performing the flexural test. This figure
indicates the schematic illustration, as well as the actual set-up during the flexural
tests.
Figure 3.10 Flexural test set-up on coupons
Figure 3.11 shows the curve that relates the stress and the strain of the CT1
and CT2 specimens. Similar with the other two tests, the values used to plot the
curves in Figure 3.11 are the mean values. In flexural test, however, these values
were achieved from the test results of 5 specimens as compared to 2 specimens for
compressive and tensile tests. The results of the whole test are presented in Appendix
A (Section A.3). The values of the flexural stress, strain, and modulus were
calculated using the equations indicated in the test standard (see Appendix A, Section
A.3).
Figure 3.11 indicates that CT1 and CT2 specimens remain elastic throughout
the test. It was found that the maximum calculated flexural stress of CT1 specimen
ranges from 1,000 to 1,070 MPa with a maximum strain at around 25,700 to 27,000
microstrains. For CT2 specimen, the maximum flexural stress based from the
calculation is between 940 to 1,060 MPa having a failure strain at about 23,900 to
27,300 microstrains.
Figure 3.12 displays the failure mode of the specimens and their condition
after the flexural test. The figure indicates that the typical type of failure on the
specimens tested under flexure is fracture of the fibre at the tensile side of the
specimen below the point of loading. Some of the specimens tested using three point
bending also showed inter-laminar shear fractures.
50
EJ Guades
1200
Stress (MPa)
1000
800
600
CT1
CT2
400
200
0
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Figure 3.11 Flexural stress-strain relationship
CT1
CT2
Figure 3.12 Flexural failure mode and condition of the specimens after the test
3.6 Full scale tests

Aside from the coupon tests that have been performed on the two tubes, tests on full
scale specimens were also undertaken to characterise their mechanical properties.
The characterisation of their properties was carried out through experimentation
using compressive and flexural tests. The results obtained from the tests on full scale
specimens provide additional information on the properties of the studied tubes. The
following subsections discuss the details of the tests.
3.6.1 Compressive test

There is currently no standard method in performing compressive test on composite
tubes. As a result, the procedures made available from the literature were considered
as a guide in conducting the test. Specifically, the method adopted by Guess et al.
(1995) in performing compressive test on composite tubes was considered. In the
present study, the adopted length of the specimen is 100 mm. This specimen length
provides a slenderness ratio of around 2.6 (slightly below to that used by Guess et al,
1995).
51
EJ Guades
A summary of the details of the 5 specimens tested is presented in Appendix

A (Section A.5). The compressive test was performed in the 2000 kN capacity servohydraulic compression testing machine. All test specimens were compressed at a rate
of 1.5 mm/min up to failure. A total of 5 replicates for each type of tube were tested
in which two of them were instrumented by a strain gage. The 20 mm gage length
uniaxial strain gage was attached on one of the sides of the tube positioned along its
mid-height to record the strain values. Recording of data was generated using
Systems 5000 data logger. Snapshots were taken during and after the test on the
specimens to document their mode of failure. Figure 3.13 displays the test set-up and
the specimen used in conducting the compressive test.
Aside from testing a specimen having a length of 100 mm, compressive test
on a 200 mm long specimen was also undertaken. The compressive test on longer
tube, however, is only performed on CT1 specimen (total of 3 replicates). The
method used in performing compressive test on longer specimen is similar to that of
the shorter one except that it is tested without attached strain gage. Consequently, the
peak stress, as well as the deformation behaviour is the main concern of testing the
200 mm long specimen. The main reason of including a longer specimen in the test is
simply to get additional information whether by using a length of up to 2d or 2b
(where d and b are the sides of the tube) provides no significant change in its
compressive strength. Since the test results on 100 mm long specimen provided the
basis in characterising the compressive properties of the tube, the results on longer
specimen is not discussed in this section. The outcomes of the compressive test on a
200 mm long specimen, however, are presented in Appendix A (Section A.5, Table
A.10).
CT1
CT2
Figure 3.13 Compressive test set-up on full scale specimens
52
EJ Guades
The stress-strain curves of CT1 and CT2 tested under compressive loading is
shown in Figure 3.14. The values of the stress and the strain in the figure indicate the
mean values of the specimens having strain gages. The results of the whole test are
summarised in Appendix A (Section A.5). The compressive stress was calculated by
dividing the applied load with the cross-sectional area of the tube whilst the strain
was obtained based from the data recorded by the attached strain gage. Just like the
compressive test on coupon specimens, the modulus was established from the linear
fit of the stress-strain curve between 500 and 2500 microstrains.
It can be observed from Figure 3.14 that CT1 and CT2 tubes subjected by
compressive load remained linearly elastic although some of the strain gages failed
earlier than the specimens. The linearly-elastic behaviour of the tested tubes is also
found in testing coupons specimen as reported earlier in Section 3.5.1. The calculated
maximum compressive stress for CT1 specimen is in the range of 268 to 294 MPa
with a strain at about 6,800 to 7,000 microstrains. On the other hand, CT2 specimen
exhibited a failure stress between 253 to 289 MPa with a maximum strain ranging
from 6,400 to 6,500 microstrains. The results obtained from the compressive tests on
the full scale specimens indicate that their compressive strengths are comparable.
Consequently, the compressive property of one tube can be used in representing the
property of the other.
Figure 3.15 illustrates the damage mode of the specimens
tested under compressive loading and their conditions after the test. It was observed
that the common type of damage is buckling bulge (inside and outside), delamination
along the wall, glass fibre rupture, and matrix cracking. It was also noticed that few
of the tested tubes manifest brooming on their top and bottom ends.
300
Stress (MPa)
250
200
150
Failure of
strain gage
100
CT1
50
CT2
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Figure 3.14 Compressive stress-strain relationship of full scale specimens
53
EJ Guades
CT1
CT2
Figure 3.15 Typical failure mode and condition of the full scale specimens
3.6.2 Flexural test

In this study, the flexural properties of the composite tubes were characterised using
3-point bending test. A summary of the details of the specimens (CT1 and CT2)
tested is presented in Appendix A (Section A.6). The 3-point bending test was
performed in the 2000 kN capacity servo-hydraulic compression testing machine.
The load is applied using the 60 mm diameter steel rod backed up with a 150 mm x
100 mm x 12 mm flat steel plate placed between the rod and specimen to help
distributing the applied load. The 1,200 mm long specimen was centred on the lower
machine supports (the support is 1000 mm apart from each other). A total of 3
replicates were tested for each type of tube. All specimens were instrumented by a 20
mm gage length uniaxial strain gage attached on the bottom face (tensile side) along
the mid-span of the tube. The specimens were loaded at a constant rate of 3 mm/min
until failure. Data was collected using Systems 5000 data acquisition machine and
the data acquisition system of the compressive testing machine. Figures 3.16a and
3.16c show the test set-up and the specimens, respectively, used in conducting the 3point bending test.
In addition to 3-point bending test, flexural test using 4-point loading was
also performed on the composite tube to get additional information especially on the
flexural strength. This test was also undertaken to have a comparison with the results
in 3-point bending. The 4-point bending tests, however, is only conducted on CT1
specimen (three replicates). The testing machine used in the 4-point bending test is
similar to that in the 3-point bending. A relatively longer span (ls = 1200 mm, total
specimen length is 1,500 mm) was used in testing the specimen under 4-point
loading. The middle top (compression) and bottom (tension) sides of the tube were
54
EJ Guades
instrumented by a 20 mm length uniaxial strain gage. The details of the specimen

used in 4-point bending test are presented in Appendix A (Section A.6). The test setup and specimen used in conducting the 4-point bending test are displayed in Figures
3.16b and 3.16c, respectively.
d
500mm
500mm
ls = 1000mm
l
(a) Actual set-up and schematic illustration of 3-point bending test
200mm
d
500mm
500mm
ls = 1200mm
l
(b) Actual set-up and schematic illustration of 4-point bending test
CT1
CT2
3-point bending test
CT1
4-point bending test
(c) Specimens with attached strain gage

Figure 3.16 Flexural tests on full scale specimens
55
EJ Guades
Figure 3.17 shows the relationship between the load and displacement (midspan) of the specimens tested under 3-point loading. It should be noted that the
curves shown in the figure are curves of the representative tubes. The loaddisplacement relationships of the entire specimens under flexural test (3-point and 4point) are presented in Appendix A. It can be observed from the figure that initially
the curve of the tested specimen exhibits an elastic behaviour. When they deflected
by around 7 or 9 mm (CT1 and CT2, respectively), however, the value of the load
tends to become steady. At this point, initial cracks on the surface of the tested tube
in contact with the loading plate were observed. It was suspected that local crushing
on the contact point between the loading plate and the compressive zone makes the
load steady. The load initiating these cracks is about 18 kN and 23 kN for CT1 and
CT2 specimens respectively. After this point, however, the value of the load
increases with increasing displacement until failure. It is worth noting that the
stiffness before the occurrence of the initial cracks is comparably higher than after
the manifestation. This result is expected since the occurrence of premature failure
reduced the bending stiffness of the tested tubes. One can notice that the peak load
found to be affected by the initiation of the initial crack. The earlier is the
occurrence; the lower is the peak load. The maximum calculated flexural stress for
CT1 specimen ranges from 125 to 131 MPa. On the other hand, the peak flexural
stress of CT2 specimen is between 127 to 143 MPa. It should be noted that these
values were calculated using Equation A.16 (Appendix A).
40
Load (kN)
30
20
10
CT1
CT2
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.17 Flexural load-displacement relationship (3-point bending test)
The curve describing the load-strain relationship of the tested tubes is

displayed in Figure 3.18. Note that the strain gage was only attached on the bottom
56
EJ Guades
side of the tube. The attached strain gage on the tensile side (mid-span) was able to
record the strains up to the failure of the tube. The curve in Figure 3.18 indicates that
it is linearly elastic up to the start of initial cracks. This trend continues after a certain
point (initial cracks) whereby the tube becomes stable and is able to carry additional
load by as much as 24 kN and 30 kN (CT1 and CT2, respectively). It was observed
that all specimens failed by crushing on the compression side of the tube at the
loading point (Figure 3.19).
40
Load (kN)
30
20
Failure of
strain gage
10
CT1
CT2
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Strain (micro)
Figure 3.18 Flexural load-strain relationship (3-point bending test)
Figure 3.19 Typical failure modes in 3-point bending tests
Figure 3.20 shows a typical load-displacement curve of the flexural test under
4-point loading. The figure indicates the curves of the three replicates (i.e., CT1
specimen) tested. Unlike the load-displacement curve during 3-point loading test, the
curve in Figure 3.20 demonstrates that the load increases continuously with
increasing displacement until failure. This is because no sign of premature failure
occurred during the 4-point bending test. The specimen failed at a range between 40
57
EJ Guades
kN to 41 kN. The maximum calculated flexural stress for CT1 specimen ranges from
166 to 173 MPa. Note that these values were calculated using Equation A.17
(Appendix A). By comparing this value, it follows that they underestimate the values
in the 3-point bending test by roughly 25% which is primarily caused by premature
failure that had been observed during the 3-point bending test. Just like the dominant
failure mode observed in 3-point bending, all tubes failed by crushing on their
compression side at the loading point (see Figure 3.22).
50
Specimen 1
Load (kN)
40
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
Displacement (mm)
30
40
Figure 3.20 Flexural load-displacement relationship (4-point bending test)
Figure 3.21 demonstrates the relationship of the load and strain (top and
bottom) of the tubes tested under 4-point loading. The attached gages recorded the
strains up to the failure of the tube. It can be observed from Figure 3.21 that the loadstrain relationship at the bottom of the tube is linearly elastic up to failure. This was
also the case observed in 3-point bending whereby in all instances the bottom part is
in tension all throughout the test. On the other hand, the trend of the strain on the top
is different to that in the bottom. Initially these values are negative indicating that the
tube is compressed. After some point, however, these values tend to become positive
demonstrating that the tube (top, mid-span) is shifting from being compressed to
under tension. As can be observed in the figure, the top (midspan) surface of the tube
goes back to its local undeformed position (neutral) when the load reached to around
27 kN. A further load increase provided the top to be in tension. This phenomenon
can be explained by the following. At the initial stage of the test, the top (midspan)
surface of the tube is compressed. However when the load increases, the loading
rams (spaced at 200 from each other) pushed the surface in contact with them
creating a concave surface (see Figure 3.19b). As a result, this triggers to push the
58
EJ Guades
initially compressed surface to go back to its undeformed position (neutral line) and
finally in tension or forming a convex shape (see Figure 3.34b).
50
Bottom
Top
Load (kN)
40
Failure of
strain gage
30
20
10
0
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Strain (micro)
Figure 3.21 Flexural load-strain relationships (4-point bending test)
Figure 3.22 Typical failure modes in 4-point bending tests
3.7 Finite element (FE) analysis on full scale specimen

Numerical simulations were carried out to compare with the experimental
measurements of the compressive and flexural behaviour of the tubes. As highlighted
in Section 3.1, the primary objective of its inclusion is to exhibit the feasibility of
using FE method in predicting the mechanical behaviour in aid of minimising the
need of performing a relatively expensive experimental test. The results obtained
from the FE method would be beneficial since this composite tube has been used for
other structural applications such as power pole cross arms. Consequently, the
information from this analysis can be used in understanding the mechanical
properties and structural performance of this FRP composite tube for various
applications. Finite element (FE) analysis has been included to demonstrate its
feasibility in predicting the mechanical behaviour to eliminate the need of repeating
59
EJ Guades
costly arrangements for experimental tests. The model was developed whereby the
property inputs are based from the material properties derived from coupon tests.
The investigation was carried out using the Strand7 finite element analysis
commercial package (Strand7, 2012). Finite element method was carried out
simulating the specimen and the loading set-up in the actual experimental conditions
to have a reliable result. The simulation of the compressive and flexural behaviour of
the full scale tubes using finite FE method is discussed in the next subsections.
3.7.1 FE simulation on the compressive behaviour

In this study, the 100 mm square tube with a length of 100 mm was modelled which
is comprised of 1,932 nodes and 1,840 plate elements; with meshes of 4.475 x 5 mm
(sides) and 1.4 x 5 mm (corners). Figure 3.23 shows the material model of the 100
mm square pultruded tube with a wall thickness of 5.25 mm and a length of 100 mm.
The figure also displays the simulated composite tube. Laminate properties were
adopted as property attributes of plate elements. The laminate was modelled as a
stack of several plies as shown in Figure 3.24. The ply properties adopted in
modelling the laminate is summarised in Table 3.5. This FE analysis considered the
elastic linear behaviour of the FRP composite material in comparing with the
experimental results. As this is the interest in the analysis, the material model is
characterised by the initial linear part of the stress-strain curve represented by the
elastic modulus along the longitudinal direction of the FRP composite tube. This
value has been inputted in the analysis to predict its mechanical behaviour.
(a) Actual tube
(b) FE model
Figure 3.23 Material modelling of the composite tube
60
EJ Guades
Figure 3.24 Lamina lay-up arrangement used in FE model
Table 3.5 Material properties of the tube wall laminate ply

Material property
Density
Symbol
Property value
1,970a
Unit
kg/m3
Thickness
0.5833
mm
a
Elastic modulus (longitudinal direction)
E11
39,234
MPa
Elastic modulus (transverse direction)
E22
12,900b
MPa
Poisson ratio
12
0.35c
a
b
c
Table 3.6, WCFT Product specification, Tensile coupon test with extensometer
conducted on CT1 specimen for the use in FE analysis
In the conducted experiment, the composite tube was in contact with stiff
loading plates at the two ends. Even if the support condition may emerge to be close
to a simply-supported condition, previous research conducted showed a much closer
value to the experiment results if a clamped support condition is adopted (Teng
and Hu, 2006). Therefore, the clamped-end condition is more appropriate for this
model. To adopt such support condition, the two ends were fully fixed in all direction
except that the axial displacement of the top end was left unrestrained to allow the
application of axial loading. A uniformly distributed pressure on the top of the model
was applied to properly simulate the loading condition. Initially, a 284 MPa uniform
pressure load (equivalent to 550 kN) was applied on the top edge of the model. This
value was chosen arbitrarily as this is more or less the peak load recorded during the
experiment. Fraction of this load was then used in the analysis to provide several
load values in aid of plotting the load relationship. A linear static solver was used
to investigate the compressive behaviour of the tube (Strand7, 2012).
61
EJ Guades
Figure 3.25 shows the longitudinal stress-strain relationship using

experimental and FE investigation. In the figure, the experimental data are from one
of the CT1 specimen tested. The experimental result shows linear stress-strain
relationship up to final failure and is in good agreement with the predicted stressstrain relation based from FE method. The actual failure stress of the tube using
experimental investigation is 268 MPa (equivalent to 520 kN failure) at a failure
strain of 7000 microstrains. On the other hand, the predicted failure stress using FE
method at same strain is around 257 MPa (496 kN). This value is 4.1% lower to that
of the actual failure stress. The difference of the values is comparably small and
therefore the values used in the inputs, as well as assumptions used in modelling, are
considered acceptable as it predicts the experimental values reasonably.
300
Stress (MPa)
250
200
150
Experiment
100
FEM
50
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Strain (micro)
Figure 3.25 Compressive stress-strain relationships
The comparison between the failure modes of the tube obtained from
experiment and FE analysis is shown in Figure 3.26. The typical failure mode
observed in the experiment is buckling bulge at the corner and at the sides of the tube
(Figure 3.26a). Moreover, delamination and matrix cracks at several locations
including the corners of the tubes were present during the compressive test as shown
in the figure. The simulated failure of the tube reveals that bucking bulge happened
at its four corners (Figure 3.26b). Similarly, bulging is also imminent at the sides of
the tube. In the FE analysis, simulated cracks (white-coloured portion) found to be
happening at the corners. Unlike in Figure 3.26a, the simulated cracks occurred on
the top and the bottom corners of the tube. Though this was not apparent in Figure
3.26a, it was observed that some of the tested tubes revealed matrix cracking on both
top and bottom regions. The experimental results show that cracking is also
62
EJ Guades
transpiring at the mid-length along the corners of the tube. The simulated failure
mode did not apparently have this kind of failure. However, it is clear that stress
concentration in this area is highlighted indicating that cracks are imminent in this
region.
Buckling
bulge
Buckling
bulge
Corner
cracking
Corner
cracking
(a) Experiment
(b) FE analysis
Figure 3.26 Compressive failure mode of the tested tube
3.7.2 FE simulation on the flexural behaviour

The material model used in the FE analysis of the behaviour of the tube under 3point and 4-point flexural tests is similar to that used in simulating its compressive
behaviour. Consequently, the ply properties used in the former is similar to the latter.
In flexural simulation however, a relatively bigger numbers of nodes and plates are
employed. The lengths of the tube simulated in the 3-point and 4-point bending tests
are 1,200 mm and 1,500 mm; respectively. Figures 3.27 to 3.29 show the simulated
and FE models used in flexural behaviour investigation.
Figure 3.27 Actual tube (length varies from 1.2 m to 1.5 m)
63
EJ Guades
Figure 3.28 FE model (3-point bending, L=1.2 m)
Figure 3.29 FE model (4-point bending, L=1.5m)
During flexural tests (3-point and 4-point), the ends of the tube rest on two
steel cylindrical supports of the testing machine as shown in Figure 3.30. Figure 3.30
displays the actual support conditions used in the experimental study. This supports
condition shows that the tube maybe allowed translating in its longitudinal direction
since the contact area between the steel cylinder and the tube is quite small (can be
assumed as line support). Figure 3.30 indicates that the condition is close to a rollerroller support. However for the purpose of stability requirement, a constraint support
that will resist the translation along its longitudinal was provided to at least one of its
end support. As a result, the support constraint in the FE analysis was idealised as a
simply supported condition.
The applied load in the experiment was transmitted from the loading rams to
the specimen through a 12 mm thick flat steel plate. Therefore an area load (pressure
load) is suitable to be used in simulating the loading condition in the FE analysis. It
was found that the contact area of the steel plate to the tube is 80 mm x 100 mm
64
EJ Guades
(8000 mm2). For 3-point bending behaviour simulation, an area load of 3.10 MPa (25
kN) was initially applied on the midspan on the simulated tube. On the other hand, an
area load of around 2.48 MPa (20 kN) was applied on two points of loading
applications in 4-point bending simulation (see Figure 3.16b for the loading
location). It should be noted that they are selected as an initial loading values since
they are considered the maximum peak values in the two corresponding tests.
However, a fraction of this load was also used in the analysis in aid of plotting the
load-displacement relationship. Just like the compressive behaviour simulation, the
linear static solver technique was used in simulating the flexural behaviour of the
tube.
Figure 3.30 Support condition during flexural test (both ends)
Figure 3.31 shows the load-deformation relationship using experimental and

FE investigations. The experimental result in the figure was obtained from one of the
tested tubes for the three tubes (CT1) testing under 3-point loading condition. It
should be noted that the comparison between the experiment and FEM results are up
to the initial peak load (i.e., occurrence of initial crack) on the test. In this case, the
comparison is only up to 17.6 kN load. This scheme is adopted as apparently the
FEM result may not be able to predict reasonably due to the significant reduction on
the failure load contributed by the initial crack. Moreover, the method used in
comparing the peak loads obtained from the experiment and from FE analysis is
based on the a similar strain condition whereby the reference is the strain obtained
from the former corresponding to the failure load.
65
EJ Guades
From Figure 3.31, the peak load obtained from the experiment is around 17.6
kN with a displacement at about 6.3 mm. For FEM, it was found that the calculated
load at 6.3 mm displacement is 17.1 kN. The actual peak load (initial) is 2.8% higher
than that predicted using the FE analysis. If we consider the failure load of the
specimen tested under 3-point bending (26 kN at a displacement of 15.5 mm), it
follows that the FE result underestimates the experimental result by around 38%.
Therefore in this condition where premature failure (local crushing) is imminent to
occur, the comparison up to the first peak load can be considered reasonable. A 2.8%
difference indicates that the experimental behaviour up to the first peak load can be
fairly simulated using FE method.
50
Load (kN)
40
30
20
10
Experiment
FEM
0
0
10
15
20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.31 Flexural load-displacement relationships (3-point bending)
Figure 3.32 displays the failure modes obtained from 3-point bending test and
from the simulation. The observed failure of the specimen under 3-point bending test
is by crushing on the compression side of the tube at the loading point (Figure 3.32a).
This was characterised by matrix crushing at the corners. Moreover, the failure was
manifested through indentation of the loaded area forming a concave surface. The
simulated failure of the tube reveals that crushing on the compression side of the tube
is the dominant failure mode. Crushing of the two edges and the formation of the
indented (concave) surface were the manifestations of the failure (Figure 3.32b). It
should be noted that in Figure 3.32b, the crushed edges are represented by a whitecoloured area. From this result and from the comparison of the load-displacement
curves we can infer that the flexural behaviour obtained from FE analysis predicts
well the actual flexural behaviour of the tube up to the initial linear part.
66
EJ Guades
Indented (concave) surface
Crushed edge
(a) Experiment
Crushed edge
(b) FE analysis
Figure 3.32 Flexural failure mode in 3-point bending test
Figure 3.33 shows the load-deformation relationship obtained from both the
experiment and FE simulation. The comparison between the results of the two
methods involves only the initial linear part of the curve derived from the
experiment. A complete load-displacement curve of this specimen (i.e., CT1) is
previously displayed in Figure 3.20 (Specimen 1). The initial linear part of this curve
extends up to 9.1 mm at a corresponding load of 19 kN. From Figure 3.33, it was
observed that the calculated load from FE analysis at 9.1 mm displacement is 19.7
kN. In this case, the load value predicted from FE analysis is 3.6% higher than the
experimental value. This value is relatively small indicating that the FE analysis
predicted the flexural behaviour of the FRP composite tube up to the initial linear
part.
Supposing we consider to compare the experimental and FE analysis values
up to actual failure (40.8 kN at a corresponding displacement of 25 mm), it shows
67
EJ Guades
that FE value is higher than the experimental by 24%. This difference in the peak
load is contributed by the nonlinearity behaviour of the tube especially in its
deformation behaviour. Apparently, the FE analysis provided a good estimate of
linear flexural behaviour of the FRP tube but seems did not deliver a reasonable
estimation value when reaching the non-linear part. From this result and from the
comparison of the load-displacement curves, we can infer that the flexural behaviour
obtained from FE analysis predicts fairly the actual flexural behaviour of the tube up
to the initial linear part.
60
Load (kN)
50
40
30
20
Experiment
FEM
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Displacement (mm)
Figure 3.33 Flexural load-displacement relationships (4-point bending)
The failure pattern of tubes tested under 4-point bending and from FE
analysis is revealed in Figure 3.34. The failure mode observed in 3-point bending test
was also present in 4-point bending (see Figure 3.34a). This was characterised by
crushing at the compression area in direct contact with the loading rams. Similarly,
an indented region (concave) was also noticeable in the failed tubes under 4-point
bending test. These manifestations can also be observed in the simulated failure
mode (Figure 3.34b). It is apparent from the simulated failure that aside from the
mentioned failure patterns, crushing on the midspan area (initially compression zone)
is imminent. In the figure, the crushed portion is represented by a white-coloured
area. It is worth noting that whilst the surface in contact with the loading rams
provided a concave shape, the middle area produces a convex line. This simulation
confirms the results obtained from the load-strain relationship (Figure 3.21) that
while this region is compressed during the initial loading, the increase of loading
until failure shifted the surface into tension mode.
68
EJ Guades
Crushed edge
(a) Experiment
Convex lines
Crushed edge
(b) FE analysis
Figure 3.34 Flexural failure mode in 4-point bending test
3.8 Summary of the mechanical properties of composite tubes
Tables 3.6 and 3.7 summarise the average value of the properties of the composite
tubes determined from the different coupon and full scale tests. Note that in coupon
tests, all calculated values are the mechanical properties of the tubes along their
longitudinal direction. As shown in Table 3.6, the peak compressive stress derived
from coupon test of CT1 specimen is 459.14 MPa whilst 441.55 MPa for CT2. The
strength value of the former is slightly higher than the latter by 3.9%. On the other
hand, the average elastic modulus of CT1 specimen subjected under compressive
loading is 51,081 MPa. This value is 2.7% higher compared to the value of CT2
specimen. Table 3.6 also shows that the peak stress of CT1 and CT2 specimens
under tension using coupon test are 618.48 and 603.20 MPa, respectively. These
values suggest a difference of about 2.5% relative to the other value. It was found
that the tensile elastic modulus of CT1 specimen is 39,233 MPa whereas for CT2, the
value is 40,698 MPa. The value of the former underestimates the latter by roughly
69
EJ Guades
3.7%. The average flexural peak stress of CT1 and CT2 specimens are 1,037.54 and
994.44 MPa, respectively. The value of CT1 specimen is marginally higher than CT2
by 4.2%. The values of their flexural modulus, on the other hand, are 36,092 and
38,534 MPa respectively. These values indicate that the difference of the modulus
between CT1 and CT2 specimens is about 6.8%. For coupon tests, the difference of
the strain at peak values for both specimens under compressive, tensile, and flexural
loading is 4.4, 5.1, and 0.4%; respectively.
The results indicated in Table 3.7 shows that for full scale test, the peak
compressive stress of CT1 is 284.14 MPa. This value is 4.8% higher than that of
CT2. The difference between their compressive elastic modulus and strain at peak is
1.9 and 5.8%, respectively. On the other hand, the difference between the peak
flexural stress of CT1 and CT2 specimens is 5.4%. By comparing the values
generated from the coupon and full scale tests, it follows that the value of the former
is relatively higher than the latter regardless of the type of the tested tubes.
Table 3.6 Summary of mechanical properties from coupon tests

Properties
Compressive, Peak stress (MPa)
CT1
459.14
CT2
441.45
Difference (%)
3.9
Compressive, Elastic modulus (MPa)
51,081
49,690
2.7
Compressive, Strain at peak (%)
0.92
0.88
4.4
Tensile, Peak stress (MPa)
618.48
603.20
2.5
Tensile, Elastic modulus (MPa)
39,234
40,698
3.7
Tensile, Strain at peak (%)
1.56
1.48
5.1
Flexural, Peak stress (MPa)
1,037.54
994.44
4.2
Flexural, Elastic modulus (MPa)
36,092
38,534
6.8
Flexural, Strain at peak (%)
2.61
2.60
0.4
Table 3.7 Summary of mechanical properties from full scale tests

Properties
Compressive, Peak stress (MPa)
CT1
284.14
CT2
270.41
Difference (%)
4.8
Compressive, Elastic modulus (MPa)
39,970
39,215
1.9
Compressive, Strain at peak (%)
0.69
0.65
5.8
Flexural, Peak stress (MPa)a
128.64
135.63
5.4
Flexural, Peak stress (MPa)b

169.75
b
From 3-point bending test, from 4-point bending test
70
EJ Guades
3.9 Conclusions
The mechanical properties of the composite tubes were characterised using
experimental investigation. Two types of tubes were tested; designated as CT1 and
CT2. CT1 is adopted in studies presented in Chapters 4 and 6, whilst CT2 is used in a
study discussed in Chapter 5. The tests were performed on coupons and full scale
specimens. The result showed that generally, CT1 and CT2 specimens exhibited
linearly elastic up to failure. For coupon test, it was observed that the flexural
strength is comparably higher than its corresponding compressive and tensile
strengths. The maximum variation of the experimental data (fibre fraction, specific
mass, peak stress, and elastic modulus) is less than 5%. This result indicates that the
reproducibility of the test is quite reasonable which verifies that the manufacturing
process of the composite tubes is consistent. This result also indicates that the
experimental procedures were conducted within the acceptable margin of error. The
comparison of the values of the mechanical properties between CT1 and CT2
specimens revealed that the difference is less than 6%. It was also revealed that both
tubes have similar plies lay-up and glass fibre content. Also, no significant difference
on the properties occurs between the two composite tubes.
The compressive and flexural behaviours of FRP composite tube were
investigated using experiment and FE methods. The result demonstrated that the
flexural stress of the tube obtained from 4-point bending test is relatively higher than
from 3-point bending due to the presence of pre-mature failure on the latter. As a
result, it is recommended that a 4-point bending test can be used in characterising the
flexural behaviour of the FRP composite tube. The comparison between the
compressive peak load values using experiment and FE methods revealed that their
difference is less than 5%. On the other hand, it was found that the variation of the
compared load values describing the flexural behaviour up to the initial linear part of
the load-displacement curves is 4%. Though the FE method did not provide a good
estimation of the ultimate moment capacity of the tube, it is apparent that the both
compressive and flexure failure modes were fairly simulated. These results indicated
that FE analysis predicted reasonably up to the initial linear part of the actual
compressive and flexural behaviours of the FRP composite tubes.
In Chapter 4, an investigation on the behaviour of composite tube under
repeated axial impact is presented.
71
Chapter 4 Investigation on the impact behaviour of FRP tubes
EJ Guades
Chapter 4
Investigation on the behaviour of square FRP
composite tubes under repeated axial impact
4.1 Introduction
The high corrosion-resistant characteristic of FRP composite tubes and their
emergence as a structural component made them suitable alternatives for piling
application in harsh marine environment. Driving them, however, requires more
careful consideration due to their relatively low stiffness and thin walls. The
possibility of damaging the fibre composite materials during the process of impact
driving is always a concern. One of the main factors that affect their driving
performance is the impact strength of the fibre composite materials. Therefore, there
is a need to understand the impact behaviour of these materials in order for them to
be safely and effectively driven into the ground.
The behaviour of FRP composite materials under repeated impact is
commonly characterised using experimental investigation. The experimental studies
that investigate the impact behaviour, however, mostly focused on composite
laminates or tubes which are transversely impacted. The results of these studies
revealed that parameters such as impact load (or mass), incident energy, and the
number of impacts affect the impact behaviour. It would be equally important to
know on how these parameters affect the behaviour of composite tubes when they
are axially impacted.
This chapter presents an experimental investigation on the behaviour of a 100
mm square FRP pultruded tube under repeated axial impact. The main interest of the
study is to characterise the impact behaviour of the FRP material itself and therefore
a possibility of scaling down the size of the tube is reasonable. Although FRP
composite tubes with a relatively smaller section (100x100 mm square) were used in
the experimental investigation, it is considered suitable to characterise the impact
behaviour of a full-scale hollow FRP pipe piles used in piling application. As the
cross section of the tubes increases, the impact energy (or impact load) required
during the test to collapse or fail them also increases. However, the damage
72
EJ Guades
behaviour (e.g., failure mode) between FRP composite tubes with smaller and bigger
geometrical sections can be associated. The investigated tube has 450 glass fibre
reinforcement that provides better performance making it suitable for structural
application. The effects of parameters such as the incident energy, number of
impacts, drop mass, and impact velocity (or drop height) on their damage tolerance
limit are also presented.
4.2 Experimental program

4.2.1 Test specimen
The composite tube used in the investigation presented in this chapter has
mechanical properties similar to that of CT1. A total of 20 specimens were tested
following the test matrices presented in Section 4.2.2. Table 4.1 shows the cross
sectional dimension of the specimen. It should be noted that the values in the table
are the mean values of the 20 specimens. The details of the dimension of all
specimens tested can be found in Appendix B (Section B.1).
Table 4.1 Details of the specimen

b
d
t
Dimension
Depth, d (mm)
Value
100.52
Width, b (mm)
100.49
Length, l (mm)
375.40
Thickness, t (mm)
5.22
4.2.2 Test set-up and procedure

Repeated impact test was performed using an un-instrumented drop weight impact
testing machine defined in AS 4132.3 (1993) with some modifications on the steel
clamping frame to suit for the testing condition of the specimen (Figure 4.1). The
impact testing machine was readily available (pre-fabricated) in the Centre of
Excellence in Engineered Fibre Composites of USQ. On the other hand, the steel
clamping frame (Figure 4.1c) and the instrumentation and data acquisition methods
were designed by the author and his supervisors as part of the test methods. The
maximum drop mass (mass of the impactor and added weights) that can be attained
from the set-up is 25 kg. The impactor is a 135 mm diameter steel cylinder with a
73
EJ Guades
flatted-nose contact surface. The nominal (net or baseline) mass of the impactor is 16
kg, with additional 5 kg steel weights can be attached to the impactor as desired. The
maximum available drop height is 3 m, in which the incident (applied) energy can be
varied up to 736 J.
1. Light rope for release and retrieval of impactor

2. Improvised gripping/releasing devise
3. Impactor (mass can be varied)
4. Fixed guide PVC tube
5. Sighting cut-outs at 500 mm intervals
6. Extended movable guide PVC tube
7. Main impact testing housing (steel tripod)
8. 10 mm thick steel plate capping
9. Steel frame to hold the specimen
10. Specimen (375 long mm pultruded tube)
11. Foam to flexibly hold the specimen
12. Solid concrete base
8
6
9
10
11
12
(a) Schematic diagram of drop weight impact apparatus
(b) Oblique view of the test set-up
(c) Steel frame fixture
Figure 4.1 Impact testing set-up
74
EJ Guades
The incident energy Ein can be calculated using Equation 4.1.

Ein = mgh
(4.1)
where m and h are the drop mass and drop height, respectively, whilst g is the
gravitational constant.
A 10 mm thick steel plate was used in capping the top of the tested tube to
help in evenly distributing the impact load and to simulate actual pile driving
condition. The steel cap was held by a spring connected to the steel frame to avoid
overthrowing during the rebound. During test, the impactor is raised manually to the
desired drop height through an attached rope. It is then temporarily held and later
released by an improvised clamping devise positioned a distance from the impact
apparatus. The rope is caught manually after each impact to avoid bouncing and
extraneous impacts on the specimen. Steel cap is removed at least every three
impacts to check the position of the impactor relative to the contact section of the
tube and to ensure that the tup strikes the specimen each time at approximately same
location. This process is repeated until the required number of impacts on the tube is
achieved or damage is observed on the specimen.
Two replicates with a length of 375 mm for any given incident energies were
subjected to a maximum of 130 impacts or up to collapse/failure of the tubes. This
length was selected based on the type of failure observed during field driving of
composite tubes. It was reported that commonly the damage occurred during impact
driving of square composite tubes is end crushing at the top portion. The present
study considered this worst scenario during the conduct of the impact tests on FRP
composite tubes. The damage was observed to be imminent at the top of the pile (end
crushing) with not much more on mid-height collapse (buckling failure). Therefore,
this type of failure was initially considered in selecting the length of the specimen
based from this result.
Mamalis et al. (1997a) reported that for square composite tube made of glass
fibre and vinyl ester subjected to single impact, this type of failure (i.e., progressive
end crashing) usually occurred on a relatively short specimens. Moreover, the result
of their study showed that an aspect ratio (b/l, where b and l are the sides and axial
length of the tubes, respectively) of up to 3.2 provided a progressive crushing type of
failure. In the present study, a relatively longer length of 375 mm (b/l = 3.75) was
selected due to some considerations especially in placing the accelerometer on the
75
specimen
EJ Guades
and the specimen length the current impact testing set-up can
accommodate.
The maximum number of impact (i.e., 130) was chosen based on the initial
result of impacting the tube using the minimum drop mass (i.e., 16.2 kg) at a drop
height of 3 m. This number of impact, drop mass, and drop height mentioned served
as the baseline since it was observed that end crushing on the top portion occurred on
the tested specimen. The results obtained using the baseline values suggest that at
130 impacts, impact energy higher than the baseline will fail whilst those with
relatively lower value may not induce a significant damage on the tube. These two
conditions are considered important and used in defining the behaviour of composite
tubes subjected to repeated impact.
Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show the detailed test matrix for the impact test adopted in
this study. The test matrix presented in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 are used in defining the
impact behaviour of the tube and its impact damage tolerance limit, respectively. It
should be noted that the specimen identification in Table 4.2 is referred from the
incident energy (e.g., E630 634.5 J). On the other hand, the specimen identification
in Table 4.3 (e.g., E480-1, E480-2, and E480-3) indicates similar incident energy but
with different drop mass and height. The adopted drop masses shown in the tables
are the minimum and maximum values that can be attained from the testing set-up
and the intermediate mass is determined by attaching a 5 kg steel weight on the
impactor.
As highlighted in Section 4.1, the impact load (or impact mass) needed to fail
the FRP composite tube increases with increasing cross section. As an example, a
125 mm square pultruded tube needed a 1000 kg hammer in driving until it ruptures
(Section 2.4, Chapter 2). In the present study, a trial test (repeated impact) was
performed first on the 100 mm square tube without attaching an instrumentation to
have a little bit of an idea whether a 16.2 kg minimum drop mass can rupture the
tube at a certain number of impact. It should be noted that this mass is the baseline
(net) mass of the impactor without attaching additional weights for the current test
set-up. From this preliminary test, the tube was physically observed to rupture after a
certain impact repetitions (around 100 impacts).
The load (or mass) used in the experiment is apparently not the typical load
used in actual pile driving. However, it was adopted as it is found suitable in
rupturing a 100 mm square FRP composite tube. Consequently, this load becomes
76
EJ Guades
the minimum drop mass adopted in this study to characterise the impact behaviour of
FRP composite tube. The drop heights shown in Table 4.2 are distributed in the
order of 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 of the maximum available drop height of 3 m, whilst in
Table 4.3, they are obtained depending on the corresponding drop mass and the
targeted incident energy (column 3). The specimen was instrumented by an
accelerometer with model 350A14 from PCB Piezometrics, Inc. In pile driving,
ASTM D 4945 (2008) recommends that accelerometer should be placed at a distance
of at least 1.5b (where b is the side or diameter of the pile) from the top of the pile.
This recommendation was considered in the present study and the accelerometer was
mounted on the mid-height of the tube (distance is 1.8b from the top of the tube). A
relatively longer distance is selected to provide extra protection on the accelerometer
from direct hitting when failure of the tube happened.
This study used the acceleration recorded by the shock sensor placed at the
mid-height of the tube to represent its impact response. As will be presented in
Section 4.2.3, the acceleration history data was post processed to get the energy
history curves needed for further analysis. Section 4.2.3 highlighted that the value of
the calculated energy at the mid-height is closed to the applied (incident) energy
indicating that the amplitude of the recorded acceleration history will be likely
similar when the sensor was placed relatively nearer to the impact point (i.e. at the
head of the tube). To support this hypothesis, the author performed a simple
analytical modelling study explaining the accuracy of the assumption to use the data
obtained at the mid-height of the tube and is presented in Appendix C (Section C.1).
The results presented in Appendix C shows that the difference of the acceleration
values at the mid-height and at the top most portion of the tube is relatively small
indicating that the former can be used to represent the impact response of FRP
composite tube.
Some specimens were subjected to less than 130 impact repetitions (see
Tables 4.2 and 4.3) to avoid damage of the accelerometer when rupturing of tube
occurred. The data acquired by the accelerometer were recorded and saved on a
personal computer via LMS SCADAS Mobile data acquisition machine using a
sampling rate of 51.2 kHz. The entire test specimens used in the impact test and
some details on the machine used in impact testing are presented in Appendix B
(Section B.2).
77
EJ Guades
After the test, the impacted tube was taken and inspected to determine its
damage. Visual inspection and MOTIC SMZ 168 Series stereo zoom microscope
were used in observing the damage on the surfaces of the impacted tube. The
snapshot of this microscope is shown in Appendix B (Section B.2). The microscopic
observation was performed using a magnification factor of about x100. A typical
scanned image showing micro-cracks on the top of the tube using this apparatus is
displayed in Figure 4.3c.
Table 4.2 Test matrix used in defining the impact behaviour

Specimen
ID
E630
Drop mass
(kg)
21.56
Drop height
(m)
3.00
Incident
energy (J)
634.5
Number of
Remarks
impacts
45
(C/F)a
E480
16.20
3.00
476.8
130
(C/F)a
E420
21.56
2.00
423.0
130
(C/F)a
E320
16.20
2.00
317.8
130
(NC)a
E210
21.56
1.00
211.5
130
(NC)a
E160
16.20
1.00
158.9
130
(NC)a
C/F (collapsed/failed tube), NC (non-collapsed tube), asee Figure 4.3
Table 4.3 Test matrix used in defining the impact damage tolerance
Specimen
ID
E630-1
Drop mass
(kg)
25.20
Drop height
(m)
2.57
Incident
energy (J)
634.5
Number of
Remarks
impacts
30
(C/F)
E630-2b
21.56
3.00
634.5
45
(C/F)
E480-1
25.20
1.93
476.8
45
(C/F)
E480-2
21.56
2.25
476.8
90
(C/F)
E480-3c
16.20
3.00
476.8
130
(C/F)
E420-1
25.20
1.71
423.0
60
(C/F)
E420-2
21.56
2.00
423.0
130
(C/F)
same specimen as E630, E480, and E420, respectively in Table 4.2
b,c,d
4.2.3 Data processing

From the data acquisition machine, the acceleration-time responses acquired by the
accelerometer were then transferred to Excel format using Report Preview method
(LMS Test.Xpress, 2012). The impact load as a function of time Ft is proportional to
the recorded acceleration signal at by the mass impactor m and is calculated using
78
EJ Guades
Equation 4.2. The velocity vt and displacement st as a function of time can be

obtained by the first and second integration of the acceleration history, respectively.
Equations 4.3 and 4.4 show the integral relationships of vt and st, respectively. In
Equation 4.3, v0 is the initial velocity which is represented by the impactor velocity
just before impact. It should be noted that Ews value is obtained from the curve
whereby the load is plotted as a function of displacement. The work done or energy
Ews (or Ewt) can be calculated using Equation 4.5. A typical accelerationdisplacement curve is displayed in Figure 4.2.
Ft = mat
vt =
(4.2)
+ v0
(4.3)
st =
(4.4)
Ews =
(4.5)
A discrete measurement trapezoidal rule was used for integration in finding

the values of vt, st, and Ews (Baxter et al., 2005). Equations 4.6 to 4.8 illustrate the
relationship in calculating the values of vt, st, and Es, respectively, using this method.
vt = (at + at-1 ) (t (t1))
(4.6)
st = (vt + vt-1 ) (t (t1))
(4.7)
Ews = (Fs + Fs-1 ) (s (s1))
(4.8)
where at is the acceleration at present time increment, at-1 is the acceleration at

previous time increment, t is the present time increment, (t1) is the previous time
increment, vt is the velocity at present time increment, vt-1 is the velocity at previous
time increment, Fs is the load at present displacement increment, Fs-1 is the load at
previous displacement increment, s is the present displacement increment, and (s1)
is the previous displacement increment.
The incident energy (column 4 in Table 4.2) was compared to the measured
energy value (Equation 4.8) at the 1st impact to determine the possible energy loss
and the reliability of the testing set-up during the impact test. The energy loss can be
estimated as the difference of these two energies. The calculated energy loss is up to
3% and believed to be contributed by the friction between the guide pipe and the
impactor, the energy absorbed by the steel cap and its support (spring), and the
energy absorbed by the systems in vibration, heat or the support. The details on the
effects of these factors on the impact behaviour of pultruded tubes, however, are not
examined in this study. As reported in Section 4.2.2, this result indicates that an
79
EJ Guades
acceleration data at the mid-height can be used to represent the response of the whole
tube. This was supported by an analytical study presented in Appendix C (Section
C.1). The details on the effects of these factors, however, are not examined.
350
E630
300
1st impact
10
20
40
250
200
150
100
50
Acceleration (m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)
350
E320
300
1st impact
40
90
130
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.00
0.10
Displacement (m)
350
E480
300
1st impact
40
90
130
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.40
0.50
E210
300
1st impact
40
90
130
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.00
0.10
Displacement (m)
350
350
E420
300
1st impact
40
90
130
250
200
150
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Displacement (m)
100
50
0
Acceleration (m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)
0.30
Displacement (m)
Acceleration (m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)
350
0.20
E160
300
1st impact
40
90
130
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Displacement (m)
(a) Collapsed tubes
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Displacement (m)
(b) Non-collapsed tubes
Figure 4.2 Typical acceleration-displacement curves in impact testing
4.3 Experimental results and discussion

4.3.1 Mode of damage
Figure 4.3 shows the condition of the collapsed (failed/ruptured) and non-collapsed
composite tubes at the end of repeated impact tests. As shown in Figure 4.3a, tubes
impacted by higher incident energies (423 J or more) ruptured when they were
80
EJ Guades
subjected to at least 45 impacts. The head of the collapsed tubes was observed to be
the most severely damaged portion (end crushing) and the damage was manifested
by the formation of matrix cracks and glass fibre ruptures. Axial splits along the four
corners of the tubes were observed and both external and internal fronds curled
downwards. On the other hand, composite tubes impacted by lower incident energies
(318 J or less) did not show visible damage even up to 130 impacts as illustrated in
Figure 4.3b. However, microscopically-scanned images showed that micro-cracks
have occurred on the top portion of the non-collapsed tubes (Figure 4.3c).
(a) Collapsed/failed tubes
(c) Scanned images showing typical micro-cracks on the tube (E320)

Figure 4.3 Conditions of the tubes after impact test
81
EJ Guades
4.3.2 Progressive failure pattern

Figure 4.4 displays the damage progressions of a typical collapsed composite tube
(i.e., E480) repeatedly impacted and its corresponding peak load response. It should
be noted that the impact load data shown in Figure 4.4 are the peak load of each
corresponding impact. This load was obtained from the load history curve of each
impact number (e.g., Figure 4.5). In the damage progression curve, the impacted tube
initially remained intact and no visible damage was sustained up to 40 th impacts.
However, it can be noticed from the impact load versus number of impact
relationship curve that its peak load is apparently reduced. This phenomenon can be
associated to the impact damage characteristics of fibre composite materials. When
they are subjected to impact loading, there are no damage indications on surfaces by
visual inspection but internal damage (called barely visible impact damage) may
have already occurred (Zhang and Richardson, 2007). The presence of the internal
damage led to the strength degradation of the fibre composite material. This finding
was also supported by the results obtained on the peak load versus number of
impacts curves of non-collapsed tubes (discussed in Section 4.3.3.2).
The damage was visually noticed on the impacted tube at approximately 55th
impacts where the peak load reaches to its relatively lowest value. This value
apparently indicates the initiation of collapse of the repeatedly impacted composite
tube. The damage observed on the tube at this point was characterised by the
formation of intra- and inter-laminar cracks with simultaneous development of axial
splits along its corners. The damage on the impacted tube continued to grow in the
post-collapse region up to 130th impacts. This time, a clear formation of lamina
bundles which bent inwards and outwards due to flexural damage can be noticed.
Additionally, debris wedge of pulverised materials were formed on the surface of the
tube. The debris formation is a result of the friction between the bent bundles and
contact surface of the drop mass (Mamalis et al., 1997a). In spite of the difference in
damage intensities that occurred starting from the initiation of collapse to 130th
impacts, interestingly the peak load values at the post-collapse region is
approximately similar. This indicates that the effect of number of impacts in this
region is more significant on the severity of the macroscopic physical damage than
the peak load response of the repeatedly impacted tubes. The higher the number of
impact the composite tube is subjected, the massive is the damage brought by the
impact event.
82
20th impact
40th
55th
60th
EJ Guades
80th
100th
130th
6000
Peak load (N)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
20
40
60
80
Number of impacts
100
120
140
Figure 4.4 Damage progressions of collapsed tube impacted by 476.8 J
4.3.3 Impact load

4.3.3.1 Load histories of the impacted tubes
Figure 4.5 shows the load histories of the impacted tubes after the repeated impact
tests. Figure 4.5a indicates that the load-time curves of the 1st and 10th impacts of
E630 exhibited almost identical behaviour except that the peak load value of the
latter is slightly reduced. As emphasised previously, the micro-cracks developed on
the top of the tube caused the load reduction. However, its effect on the shape of the
curves was not seen to be an influential factor. Both curves demonstrated a linear
increase at the beginning up to peak and drops until dissipation. This behaviour was
also observed in the case of E480 (1st and 40th impacts) and E420 (1st, 40th, and 90th
impacts). The linearity of the curve up to peak implies that the impacted tube has
been damaged only minimally and impact repetitions up to 10th impact did not cause
any significant change in the load histories. It is worth noting that both 1st and 10th
impacts are located in the pre-collapse region of the peak load-number of impacts
curve of E630 as can be seen in Figure 4.6a. Apparently, the impact energy (drop
mass and/or height) has to be increased more in order to collapse the tube up to these
impact number.
The load histories of the 30th and 40th impacts of E630 showed series of peaks
until reaching their maximum values. In Figure 4.6a, it can be observed that these
83
EJ Guades
impact numbers are situated in the post-collapse region and conclusively damage is
expected to be created (analogous to the post-collapse condition in Figure 4.4.) This
indicates that as soon as damage was induced on the tube, troughs and peaks are
imminently formed. The troughs and peaks can be attributed to the different
fracturing mechanism of the tube in the forms of cracks, delamination, fibre splitting,
and fibre ruptures although the sequence of the fracturing process cannot be
distinctively followed due to the dynamic nature of the impact loading.
The load-time curves of E480 (90th and 130th impacts) and E420 (130th
impact) showed series of peaks up to maximum value just like the load histories of
E630 in the post-collapse region. Conclusively, the load histories of collapsed tubes
can be described by either one of the collapsed tubes as all of them exhibited similar
load-time curves. One notable observation on the distinction of load histories of
collapsed tubes between the two regions (i.e., pre and post-collapse) is on the
duration of occurrence of the maximum peak load. Note that the maximum peak load
can be obtained right before unloading happened and usually dependent on the
contact duration (related to the maximum downward deflection of the tube) between
the mass impactor and the contact surface of the tube. The time of occurrence in the
pre-collapse region is relatively short compared in the post-collapse region. During
the first few impacts (pre-collapse region), it was observed that the mass impactor
rebounded consistently upon hitting the tube thereby producing a shorter contact
duration between them. However, when significant damage occurred on the
composite tube (post-collapse region), the mass impactor moved deeper into the
composite. The damaged portion was deflected together with the impactor as a result
of a more compliant tube making the contact duration between them longer as
expected.
Experimental results presented in Figure 4.5b show that for E320, the loadtime curves of 1st, 40th, 90th, and 130th impacts are similar. This observation was also
valid for specimens impacted by lower incident energies (i.e., E210 and E160). As
discussed earlier, the nature of these load histories pointed out that significant
damage has not been introduced on the impacted tube even after the 130th impact
(Figure 4.3b). Interestingly, the characteristics of the load-time curves of noncollapsed tubes are identical to that of collapsed tubes at the pre-collapse region. The
similarity of their behaviour is likely to happen as both tubes are in their undamaged
conditions.
84
7000
E630
E320
7000
6000
6000
1st impact
10
20
40
5000
4000
3000
2000
Impact load (N)
Impact load (N)
EJ Guades
1000
1st impact
40
90
130
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time (ms)
E480
7000
20
25
6000
1st impact
40
90
130
5000
4000
3000
Impact load (N)
Impact load (N)
15
E210
7000
6000
2000
5000
1st impact
40
90
130
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000
0
0
10
15
20
25
7000
10
15
20
25
Time (ms)
Time (ms)
E420
E160
7000
6000
6000
1st impact
40
90
130
5000
4000
3000
Impact load (N)
Impact load (N)
10
Time (ms)
2000
1000
5000
1st impact
40
90
130
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
0
10
Time (ms)
15
(a) Collapsed tubes
20
25
10
15
20
25
Time (ms)
Figure 4.5 Impact load histories of repeatedly impacted composite tubes
4.3.3.2 Peak load progressions

The peak load progression of tested tubes under repeated impact is shown in Figure
4.6. Note that the impact load data indicated in this figure are the peak load of each
corresponding impact (average of two replicates). The peak load was obtained from
the load history curve of each impact number (e.g., Figure 4.5). It should be noted
that the peak load value in Figure 4.6 is the measured load (via recorded
acceleration) at the mid-height of the tube. This value assumed the overall load
response of the tube and was used in comparing the load value per impact. It was
observed, however, that there was a variation of load (or stress) response along the
height (longitudinal and transverse directions) of the tube when it is subjected by
85
EJ Guades
impact loading. The discussion on the variation of impact stress with the height of
the tube is presented in Appendix C. The data points in Figure 4.6 show fluctuations
of peak load values which are probably due to the dynamic nature of the test and
different fracturing mechanisms (in the case of collapsed tubes) that occurred.
Nevertheless, a clear trend (using a solid line) can still be followed distinctly on the
peak load evolutions of the impacted tubes. For collapsed tubes (Figure 4.6a), all
three cases had a very similar trend that described their pre- and post-collapse
behaviours. Their trend line suggested that the peak load values initially decreased
(first region) up to the start of collapse and become constant upon reaching the postcollapse region (second region). By closely examining the propagation of peak load
in the second region, one can apparently deduce that the peak load values after 130
impacts are expected to be relatively similar if it would have been continuously
impacted.
The findings obtained by the present study on the peak load evolutions of the
repeatedly impacted tubes in the second region were also observed in previous
studies (Yang et al., 2009; Mamalis et al., 1997a; and Czaplicki et al., 1991). These
earlier studies, however, crushed the composite tubes progressively and described the
post-collapse behaviour in terms of displacement and not on the number of impacts
as adopted in the present study. As observed in the experiment, the number of
impacts is very much associated to the axial displacement at the top of the tube and
both exhibit dependency with one another. This can be evidenced by Figure 4.4 in
which there was an apparent increase of damaged materials at the top of the tube
with increasing number of impacts.
A clear disparity observed between the peak load evolutions of the collapsed
tubes is the location of the start of collapse whereby the specimen impacted by lower
incident energies endured more impacts than the other. The number of impacts
required to commence collapsing the composite tube (Nf) is approximately 20, 57
and 95 for E630, E480 and E420, respectively. By considering these numbers of
impacts, it can be established that the peak load degradation of collapsed tubes is
more rapid if it is impacted by higher incident energy. Unlike collapsed tubes, the
corresponding trend line of non-collapsed tubes (Figure 4.6b) indicated a single-line
peak load value behaviour up to 130th impacts. As emphasised in Section 4.3.2, the
strength degradation is possible even without the manifestation of visible damage on
the fibre composite materials. The peak load value can still be potentially reduced
86
EJ Guades
with the presence of micro-cracks (Figure 4.3c) as illustrated in Figure 4.6b in the
case of E320. It is worth noting that the nature of the peak load evolutions of the
non-collapsed tubes can be categorised as the peak load response of the collapsed
tubes in the pre-collapse region.
8000
8000
E630
6000
Peak load (N)
Peak load (N)
6000
4000
2000
0
10
20
30
Number of impacts
8000
40
2000
50
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
80
100
120
140
100
120
140
Number of impacts
8000
E480
6000
E210
6000
Peak load (N)
Peak load (N)
4000
0
0
4000
2000
4000
2000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
8000
120
140
20
40
60
Number of impacts
8000
E420
E160
6000
Peak load (N)
6000
Peak load (N)
E320
4000
4000
2000
2000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
(a) Collapsed tubes
120
140
20
40
60
80
Number of impacts
Figure 4.6 Peak load progressions of repeatedly impacted tubes
4.3.4 Impact energy

Figure 4.7 shows the typical energy history curves during impact test of the FRP
composite materials (Sevkat et al., 2010 and Sugun and Rao, 2004a). This figure
demonstrates the two distinct cases during impact test between the interaction of the
fibre composite materials and the mass impactor. The shape of the curves of the two
cases depends primarily on the energy absorption capability of the impacted
87
EJ Guades
composite materials. Rebound case (Case 1) is likely to happen if the energy

absorbed by the composites is very small and the impactor tends to bounce back
from the impacted surface. In this condition, all the impact energy is completely
transferred from the projectile to the target where it is stored elastically or absorbed
via creation of damage. Upon unloading, the stored elastic energy (rebound energy)
is used to accelerate the now rebounding impactor. On the other hand, no rebound
will occur if most of the energy is absorbed by the impacted composites in a form of
damage. Once the impact energy is absorbed mostly by the composites, penetration
(or perforation) case (Case 2) usually happens.
Case 2
Rebound energy
Energy
Case 1
Absorbed energy
Absorbed energy
Impact (total) energy
Time
Figure 4.7 Typical energy curves. Rebound and penetration (perforation) cases
4.3.4.1 Energy histories of the impacted tubes
The energy-time records of the composite tubes under drop-weight test are shown in
Figure 4.8. It should be noted that the energy values in the curve were calculated
using Equation 4.8. For collapsed tubes (Figure 4.8a), both rebound and penetration
cases were observed during the test regime. In this study, penetration/perforation
means the start of collapse or end crushing of the tube, as compared to the composite
plates where the perforation is generally characterised by the formation of a hole on
the impacted surface. The energy histories of E630 showed that while initial impacts
(1st and 10th) produced the rebound case, the later impacts (30th and 40th) created the
penetration case. This condition was also noticed in specimens E480 and E420
whereby impact successions provided two distinct energy curves. This indicated that
the impacted tubes had only endured minimal damage (micro-cracks) during the first
few impacts enabling them to develop significant rebound energy. However when
the damage started to increase due to impact repetitions, the rebound energy was
88
EJ Guades
almost insignificant and all of the impact energy was absorbed by the tube. These
results support the fact that successive impacts enhance the damage of the composite
materials ensuing in an increase in the absorbed energy (Sevkat et al., 2010). It is
worth noting that by comparing the energy histories and the peak load progressions
of the collapsed tubes, the rebound and penetration case occurred in the pre-collapse
and post-collapse region, respectively. The damage was fully introduced in the
collapsed tubes at the second region (shown in Figure 4.4) and as expected the entire
impact energy was absorbed by them. On the other hand, the energy histories of noncollapsed tubes (Figure 4.8b) showed only rebound case regardless of the number of
impact repetitions. This is because the damage introduced to the composite tubes in
the form of micro-cracks up to 130th impacts was not sufficient to cancel out the
rebound energy.
Most of the instrumented drop-weight impact testing machines generally
mounts the recording sensor on the impactor. For repeated impact tests having
uniform applied incident energy, the value of the impact (total) energy (sum of
absorbed and rebound energies) recorded by the sensor is expected to be
approximately similar per impact number (Sevkat et al., 2010). However, it was
observed that the result from the present study is in contrary to the aforesaid
statement. The numerical values of impact energy recorded by the accelerometer
apparently decreased with increasing number of impacts as shown in Figure 4.8. It
should be reminded that in the present study, the sensor was placed on the mid-height
of the tube and not on the impactor itself. This technique of sensor placement
provided significant reductions of impact energy from the 1st impact up to the
maximum number the tube has impacted (i.e., 45 or 130). The impact energy
recorded by the sensor was reduced as a consequence of the damage developed on
the top of the tube that provides as an extra energy absorber. Conclusively, the
applied energy during the test at this point is equivalent to the energy recorded at the
location of the sensor and the energy being absorbed by the top end of the tube due to
damage. In this study, however, the absorbed energy due to the damage at the top of
the tube is not quantified. Instead, the energy calculated at the mid-height assumes to
represent, generally, the energy absorption behaviour of the tube. To avoid confusion
on the rate of energy absorption of the impacted tubes, this study adopted damage
degree variable. This variable was recently proposed by Belingardi et al. (2008) to
account for the damage accumulation in composites. Its value is numerically
89
EJ Guades
equivalent to Eabs/Eim where Eabs and Eim are the absorbed and impact (total) energies,
respectively, and was defined schematically in Figure 4.7.
E630
1st impact
10
20
40
500
400
300
200
100
10
20
30
60
70
500
400
300
200
100
80
10
20
30
200
100
50
60
70
80
50
60
70
80
50
60
70
80
E210
1st impact
40
90
130
500
300
40
Time (ms)
600
Impact energy (J)
400
50
E480
1st impact
40
90
130
500
40
Time (ms)
600
Impact energy (J)
1st impact
40
90
130
400
300
200
100
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (ms)
50
60
70
80
E420
600
500
400
10
20
30
300
200
40
Time (ms)
E160
600
1st impact
40
90
130
Impact energy (J)
Impact energy (J)
E320
600
Impact energy (J)
Impact energy (J)
600
1st impact
40
90
130
500
400
300
200
100
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time (ms)
(a) Collapsed tubes
10
20
30
40
Time (ms)
Figure 4.8 Impact energy histories of repeatedly impacted composite tubes
4.3.4.2 Degree of damage of the impacted tubes

Figure 4.9 shows the damage degree-number of impacts curves of the impacted
composite tubes. The value of the energy for each impact in Figure 4.9 was obtained
based from its corresponding energy history curve (e.g., Figure 4.8). From the energy
history curve, the absorbed and impact (total) energies were determined by making
use of Figure 4.7. The curves of non-collapsed tubes (Figure 4.9b) suggests that the
rate of energy absorption was higher for tubes impacted by higher incident energies
indicating that heavier impacts induced more damage than lighter one. These tubes
apparently absorbed energy very quickly due to their fast damage accumulation.
90
EJ Guades
However for collapsed tubes (Figure 4.9a), the effect of the incident energy was only
seen in the pre-collapse region. The rate of energy absorption after the initiation of
collapse became similar regardless of the magnitude of the incident energies applied.
One difference that was observed from the current study in comparison with
the results from the studies conducted by Belingardi et al. (2008) is the different
magnitude of values of the degree of damage. The value of the damage degree of the
latter approached one during complete perforation (no resistance offered by the
laminate). On the other hand, it was observed that a small value of rebound energy
though negligible was still recorded in the present study and a value of one was not
ultimately reached during the test. It is interesting to note that the number of impacts
did not significantly change the value of the damage degree in the post-collapse
region. However, it was clear that the accumulated physical damage on the
composite tube in the form of matrix cracks, delamination, and fibre ruptures
substantially increased.
Damage degree, Eabs/Eim
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
E630
E480
E420
0.50
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Number of impacts
(a) Collapsed tubes
Damage degree, Eabs/Eim
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
317.84 J
211.50 J
158.92 J
0.50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Number of impacts

Figure 4.9 Comparison of the damage degree curves of repeatedly impacted tubes
91
EJ Guades
4.3.5 Impact damage tolerance limit

The damage tolerance in composite laminates is usually studied by determining the
effects of different impact energies on their residual strengths (Sanchez-Saez et al.,
2005). For repeated impacts, the number of drops to failure (Nf) can be used to define
their damage tolerance limit (Datta et al., 2004 and Ho et al., 2004). These studies
specified Nf as the number of impacts until total perforation of the laminate specimen
(i.e., damage degree approaches the value of unity).
In the present investigation, Nf was also chosen as the damage tolerance limit.
This index can be defined as the number of impacts to initiate collapse/failure on the
impacted tubes which was used to characterise the effects of incident energy, number
of impacts, drop mass, and impact velocity (or drop height). It should be noted that
Nf is the result of the impact test based from the test matrix shown in Table 4.3. The
summary of Nf values for different incident energies is displayed in Table 4.4. These
values were obtained from the peak load progression curve (e.g., Figure 4.6) of each
corresponding impact test condition. Identifying of the Nf values were achieved using
the peak load progression curve and visual inspection on the tube during the progress
of the test.
Table 4.4 Summary of Nf values

Specimen
ID
E630-1
Drop mass
(kg)
25.20
Drop height
(m)
2.57
Incident
energy (J)
634.5
Number of impacts to
initiate failure Nf a
13
E630-2
21.56
3.00
634.5
20
E480-1
25.20
1.93
476.8
32
E480-2
21.56
2.25
476.8
51
E480-3
16.20
3.00
476.8
57
E420-1
25.20
1.71
423.0
48
423.0
95
E420-2
21.56
2.00
a
average value from 2 replicates
4.3.5.1 Effects of incident energy and number of impacts

Figure 4.10 illustrates the incident energy and the corresponding Nf of two different
impactor masses (i.e., 25.20 and 21.56 kg). Note that the other mass (16.20 kg) is not
considered in the plot due to insufficient data points. Generally, the data points on
incident energy-number of impacts curves follow a logarithmic (or exponential)
92
EJ Guades
relationship as observed in most of the studies conducted on impact fatigue (Datta et

al., 2004; Ho et al., 2004; and Azouaoui et al., 2007). This was also observed in the
present study whereby the points shown in the figure follow a logarithmic curve.
Figure 4.10 indicates that the incident energy varies inversely with Nf. This result is
interesting, since this can serve as a basis in prioritisation between them for design
purposes.
As can be seen from Figure 4.10, the damage will occur quickly and only a
few numbers of repeated impacts will make the FRP composite tubes to collapse for
an energy level higher than 600 J for both masses. The collapse of the composite
tubes is more imminent if it is impacted by higher incident energy. This can be
considered as a case of low cycle fatigue (Azouaoui et al., 2007). On the other hand,
for a range of incident energy between 300 J and 600 J, the degree of damage of the
tube was found to be less rapid than previously. The more the energy level decreases,
the more the propagation of damage slows down which is the case of high cycle
fatigue.
For an energy level lower than 300 J, the curves showed that the collapse of
the tubes was very slow and the slope angle of the curve have a tendency to approach
to zero. This case was described as the case of endurance fatigue (Azouaoui et al.,
2007). These results conclusively show that energy levels are the major damage
factor for lower number of impacts. However, the number of impacts becomes the
dominant factor as soon as the value of incident energy was reduced. It is worthwhile
to note that the degree of separation between the two curves increased as the number
of impact increases. This certainly implies that the effect of impactor mass is more
significant when the number of impacts takes a higher value than its lower
counterpart.
It can be observed from the graph that the effect of the variation of the
incident energy is significant only up to roughly 1000 J (see intercepts of trend lines).
At this point, this incident energy corresponds to a critical energy Ec that will
fail/collapse the composite tube for a single impact. It is worth noting that at this
level of energy, the curves with the corresponding drop masses (i.e., 25.20 and 21.56
kg) coincide with each other. On the other hand, the significance of the mass
variation becomes less when the value of the incident energy is above Ec. This is
because all of the applied incident energies higher than Ec will have a corresponding
Nf of 1.
93
EJ Guades
800
Incident energy (J)
25.20 kg
21.56 kg
y = -136.5ln(x) + 1034.6
y = -164.1ln(x) + 1053.1
600
21.56 kg
400
25.20 kg
200
0
0
20
40
60
Nf
80
100
120
140
Figure 4.10 Incident energy vs. Nf curve of repeatedly impacted tubes
4.3.5.2 Effects of drop mass

The relationship between the Nf and drop mass for the three incident energies is
shown in Figure 4.11. It can be clearly observed from the figure that Nf decreases
with increasing impactor mass for all cases. This suggests that the effect of drop
mass at different energy levels takes into account on the impact damage tolerance
limit of the composite tubes. The slope of the line for each case indicates that the
number of impacts to collapse an FRP tube was decreasing with increasing incident
energies. The slope of the line with the lowest incident energy (i.e., 423 J) provided
the highest value. On the other hand, a near-zero slope value can be observed on the
tube impacted by 634 J. For a near-zero slope case, it is apparent that the values of Nf
along this line are approximately similar, thus nullifying the effect of drop mass for a
higher incident energy. Reasonably, the drop mass had a significant effect on the
composite tubes at lower incident energies leading to earlier collapse. This effect,
however, gradually reduced as the incident energy increased. This finding was also
reported in the study performed by Sugun and Rao (2004b). However, their emphasis
was concentrated on composite laminates and not on tube as investigated in the
present study.
The trend of the curves shown in Figure 4.11 suggests that they tend to meet
at a relatively higher drop mass. Using the equation of the trend line, it is expected
that the curves will meet approximately at drop mass between 28 to 45 kg at Nf =1.
At this point, this range of drop masses is considered as the critical drop mass mc
whereby the failure of the tube will occur for one impact. The deviation of the drop
mass provides a contribution in the damage tolerance of the impacted tubes when the
94
EJ Guades
value is smaller than mc. On the other hand, its effect becomes less important when
the drop mass is higher than mc since the tube impacted by a relatively higher mass
will all fail at same impact number (i.e., Nf =1).
120
423.01 J y = -13.462x + 387.23
100
476.77 J y = -2.6535x + 102.35

634.51 J y = -0.8242x + 37.769
Nf
80
423 J
60
476.8 J
40
20
634.5 J
0
10
15
20
25
30
Drop mass (kg)
Figure 4.11 Nf vs. drop mass curve of repeatedly impacted tubes
4.3.5.3 Effects of impact velocity and drop height

The relationship between the impact velocity v and drop height
can be defined
mathematically using Equation 4.9.

v=
(4.9)
where g is the gravitational constant. From this equation, it is apparent that v is

directly related with h. Therefore, their associated effects can be inferred logically. In
this section, the effect of impact velocity was investigated. Equation 4.1 can be
written in a form shown in Equation 4.10.
Ein = mv2
(4.10)
By virtue of Equation 4.10, it is clear that the incident energy and the impact velocity
are directly related for a given m. Therefore we can infer that the effects of impact
velocity on the impact damage tolerance of composite tubes are somehow
comparable to that of impact energy at a given m.
Figure 4.12 demonstrates the relationship between the Nf and impact velocity
for the two drop masses. This figure shows that, in general, the curve follows an
exponential (or logarithmic) curve just like the Ein Nf curve (Figure 4.10). The curve
indicates that the failure or collapse of the tube is quicker under higher level of
velocity (7 m/s or above) at a given mass. On the other hand, the rate of damage of
the tube was found to be to be less rapid under a relatively lower velocity (below 7
95
EJ Guades
m/s). The more the velocity decreases, the more the propagation of damage slows
down (related to high cycle fatigue). By using the equation of the trend line of each
curve indicated in the figure, it follows that the impact velocity will be in the range
between 9 to 11 m/s at Nf =1. The occurrence of Nf =1 for a given m indicates a
critical impact velocity vc that will fail/collapse the tube for one impact. The effect of
the variation of impact velocity is dominant when the value of the impact velocity is
less than vc. When the value of the impact velocity is higher than vc, however, its
influence on the impact damage tolerance limit becomes insignificant since all of
these velocity values will have a corresponding Nf value of 1.
Figure 4.12 also shows that the effect of the variation of drop mass on the
damage tolerance of tubes is more significant for lower level of impact velocity.
Increasing the impact velocity will reduce the effect on the mass variation (curves of
25.2 and 21.56 kg becomes nearer). In fact, the drop mass variation effect becomes
zero at Nf =1 (or at vc), as at this Nf both curves are expected to meet each other. This
result can be substantiated by Equation 4.10 whereby it shows that m and v are
inversely related for a given Ein.
120
25.20 kg y = 14806e-0.993x
21.56 kg y = 76286e-1.08x
100
Nf
80
60
21.56 kg
40
25.20 kg
20
0
0
10
Impact velocity (m/s)
Figure 4.12 Nf vs. impact velocity curve of repeatedly impacted tubes
4.4 Conclusions
Repeated impact tests were carried out on square FRP composite tubes over a range
of incident energies to determine their impact behaviour. The number of impacts to
initiate collapse was used to characterise the effect of incident energy, number of
impacts, drop mass, and impact velocity (or drop height). The experimental
investigation showed that the failure of the square composite tube subjected to
96
EJ Guades
repeated impact is generally dominated by crushing at its top end. This failure was
characterised by matrix cracking and breaking of glass fibre reinforcement with
simultaneous development of axial splits along its corners. Development of external
and internal fronds was also present during the failure of the tube. Moreover, debris
wedge of pulverised materials were formed on the surface of the tube. This formation
is attributed by the friction between the bent bundles and the contact surface of the
impactor. Though there was no visible damage observed on the non-collapsed tubes,
micro-structural observation on their surfaces revealed some micro-cracks occurred
especially on the portion near the impact point. Micro-cracks were considered as the
main reason on the peak load degradation of the impacted tubes.
In spite of the difference in damage intensities that occurred on the tested
tube from the initiation of failure to the final state, the peak load values remained
constant. This result indicates that the effect of impact repetitions in the post-collapse
region is more significant on the multiplication of physical damage than the peak
load response of the repeatedly impacted tubes. The shape of the load and energy
history curves of the non-collapse tubes is approximately similar. This demonstrates
that the effect of the variation of the applied incident energy can be neglected. Thus,
a single test under this condition can already represent the behaviour of the noncollapsed tubes subjected by repeated impact loading. It was found that the variation
of incident energy and number of impacts are significant on the rate of energy
absorption in the pre-collapse region. The variation, however, is less important when
the impacted tube started to fail. The repeated impact curve of the failed tubes shows
that incident energy is inversely related to the number of impacts. This result
provided the basis in prioritisation between them for consideration in the failure of
the impacted composite tubes. Moreover, the drop mass and impact velocity (or drop
height) have a pronounced effects on the damage tolerance limit of composite tubes
at a relatively lower incident energy.
Composite materials are sensitive to impact loading because even minor
damage can affect their structural integrity. Not only that it affected the instantaneous
performance of the materials during the impact event but also it affected their bearing
capacity. It is therefore important to study the effect of impact loading on the postimpact performance of the composite tube. In Chapter 5, the post-impact mechanical
properties (residual properties) of composite tubes subjected by repeated axial impact
is discussed.
97
Chapter 5 Residual properties of FRP composite tubes
EJ Guades
Chapter 5
Residual properties of FRP composite
subjected to repeated axial impact
tubes
5.1 Introduction
Composite materials have low resistance under dynamic loading, particularly impact
loading, which can significantly reduce their mechanical properties (Im et al., 2001).
These materials are especially sensitive to impact loading since even minor damage
can cause considerable reduction in structural integrity. It was reported in Chapter 4
that the typical damage on the impacted tubes appeared in the form of matrix
cracking and fibre fracture especially on collapsed or ruptured tubes. This mode of
damage might not be the case for the non-collapsed tubes. However, microstructural
observation revealed that there was an occurrence of micro-cracks on their surfaces
near the impact point. These micro-cracks are often difficult to detect which can
result to premature catastrophic failure due to decreased strength caused by the
impact loading. Therefore, it is of vital importance to have better understanding on
their structural performance in the presence of impact damage in order to realise their
potential.
Impact damage has adverse effect on the load bearing capability of the
materials, referred to as residual strength or strength-after-impact (Zhang and
Richardson, 2007). For fibre composite materials, the study on the effect of impact
events to their residual properties has been very extensive. Most of these studies,
however, are limited on composite laminates for aerospace and automobile
applications. The residual compressive properties of composite laminates subjected
to low velocity impact have been reported (Sanchez-Saez et al., 2005; Short et al.,
2002; Wyrick and Adams, 1998; Freitas and Reis, 1998; Ambur and Starnes, 1998;
and Davies et al., 1996). Likewise, their residual tensile and flexural properties were
also investigated (Belingardi et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2010; Santiuste et al., 2010;
Zhang and Richardson, 2007; Mouritz et al., 1997; and Found and Howard, 1995).
A number of studies characterising the effects of impact events on the postimpact performance of composite tubes are available. All of these studies, however,
98
EJ Guades
focused on the residual properties of the tubes under transverse impact (Deniz et al.,
2012; Abdallah et al., 2011; Minak et al., 2010; Gning et al., 2005; and Chotard et
al., 2001). Common results obtained from the studies on the residual properties of
composite laminates or tubes under transverse impact revealed that impact damage
significantly affect their post-impact performance. It was shown that their strength in
a damaged component may have only 40% of that in an undamaged structural
element (Sanchez-Saez et al., 2005). It was emphasised that, in general, the reduction
is largely dependent on the level of impact energy and the number of impacts the
composite material was subjected.
In this chapter, the residual properties of square FRP pultruded tubes under
repeated axial impact using experimental investigation is presented. The effects of
the incident energy, impact repetitions, and the drop mass on the residual properties
of the tubes are emphasised. Moreover, the comparisons between the residual
strength and modulus, as well as the three testing modes (compressive, tensile, and
flexural tests) are discussed.
5.2 Experimental program

5.2.1 Test specimen and repeated impact testing
The specimen used in characterising the residual properties of FRP composite tube
has the mechanical properties similar to that of CT2. A total of 9 tubes were used
following the test matrix presented in Section 5.2.2. Table 5.1 shows the cross
sectional dimension (average value) of the tubes. The details of the dimension of the
9 tubes can be found in Appendix D (Section D.1).
Table 5.1 Details of the specimen

b
d
t
Dimension
Depth, d (mm)
Value
100.51
Width, b (mm)
100.43
Length, l (mm)
375.22
Thickness, t (mm)
5.23
Series of tests were performed to characterise the residual properties of

square composite tubes. First, the tube was subjected to repeated impact loading.
After which the impacted tube underwent residual properties testing. The details
99
EJ Guades
of these tests are discussed in the next sections. The machine and procedure used
in repeated impact test are similar to that presented in Section 4.2.2 (Chapter 4)
except that the tube is no longer instrumented. This method is adopted to get rid of
the drilled hole used in mounting the accelerometer which affects the uniformity of
the cross section of the coupons used in the tests. Additionally, the applied impact
energy was characterised in terms of the incident energy (column 4 in Table 5.2) and
therefore the accelerometer may not be needed for the investigation. The length of
the tube shown in Table 5.1 was selected as this is the maximum length the impact
testing set-up can accommodate. The repeated impact test was conducted following
the test matrix shown in Table 5.2. It should be noted that the tube IDs are referred
from the incident energy and number of impact. In Chapter 3, it was reported that
there was no significant difference occurred on the mechanical properties between
CT1 and CT2 specimens. As a result, the test matrix shown previously in Table 4.2
(Chapter 4) served as a reference in coming up with the test scheme in Table 5.2. The
results obtained from Chapter 4 is very important as they provided an idea on the
damage conditions of the composite tube under repeated axial impact (i.e.
collapsed/failed and non-collapsed conditions). The tube was then taken out for
inspection to determine the extent of the impact damage. Both visual and
microscopic inspections were performed in documenting the damage on the impacted
tube. After which the impacted tubes were subjected to residual properties testing.
Figure 5.1 shows the condition of the tube at the end of the impact test.
Table 5.2 Repeated impact test matrix
E0-0
Drop mass
(kg)
0
Drop height
(m)
0
Incident
energy (J)
0
Number of
Remarks
impacts
0
Baseline tubea
E160-80
16.20
158.9
80
(NC)a
E320-80
16.20
317.8
80
(NC)a
E480-10
16.20
476.8
10
(NC)a
E630-10
21.56
634.5
10
(NC)a
E480-40
16.20
476.8
40
(C/F)a
E480-80
16.20
476.8
80
(C/F)a
E630-30
21.56
634.5
30
(C/F)a
Tube ID
E740-10
25.20
3
741.6
10
(C/F)a
NC (non-collapsed tube), C/F (collapsed/failed tube), asee Figure 5.1
100
EJ Guades
Figure 5.1 Conditions of the tubes after impact test

5.2.2 Residual properties testing
In general, coupons cut from the impacted surface of the composite plates or panels
are used to characterise their residual properties (Wang et al., 2012; Belingardi et al.,
2009; Wyrick and Adams, 1998; and Mouritz et al., 1997). On the other hand,
Ballere et al. (2009) and Helmi et al. (2006) tested a coupon taken from the FRP
composite tube to determine the residual tensile strength and to establish the repeated
impact curve. In the work presented here, the residual properties of composite tubes
were characterised by determining the residual properties of the coupons cut from the
impacted tube for each impact condition. This technique allows in comparing
reasonably the residual properties since the coupons used in the tests are taken from
one source only. They assumed the overall behaviour of an impacted tube as they are
sourced from the four sides of the tube.
Figure 5.2 illustrates the cutting plan of coupons used in the tests. Slicing of
the coupons was carefully done by using a wet saw machine. The coupons that were
used in the tests only include portions which are free from visible damage and were
considered feasible for testing. For collapsed tubes, this was achieved by cutting and
excluding approximately 140 mm of length from the top of the tube. It should be
noted that the visible damage in a form of vertical cracks for the most damaged
tube (i.e., E740-10) extended only to approximately 130 mm from the top of the
tube. On the other hand, the whole portion of the non-collapsed tubes were
considered feasible for testing as no sign of visible damage was observed on the
entire length (see Figure 5.1). The test specimens were cut on each face of the tube.
A total of four specimens were taken from each impacted tubes. Five specimens were
also cut from the un-impacted tube (i.e., E0-0) and tested to serve as the baseline
value of the composite tubes. It is worth noting that the baseline tube and the tube
used in characterising the mechanical properties of CT2 (presented in Chapter 3)
101
EJ Guades
using coupon tests are the same. Nevertheless, its mechanical properties are again
presented in this chapter for ease of analysis and discussions.
Reference line
L1=70 mm
Top
Compressive
Tensile
Flexural
140 mm
Middle
117.50 mm
Bottom
117.50 mm
(a) Non-collapsed tubes
375 mm
(b) Collapsed tubes
Figure 5.2 Cutting plan of coupons used in residual properties testing

The compressive, tensile, and flexural tests on coupons were conducted using
the test procedures and machines similar to that of CT2 specimen presented in
Chapter 3). Table 5.3 displays the nominal dimension of the specimen used in the
coupon tests. The summary of the dimensions of the specimens tested and the results
of the whole test are presented in Appendix D (Sections D.2 to D.4). The length of
the tensile test specimen is relatively shorter to that recommended by the standard
(i.e., 250 mm) as this is the maximum length that can be obtained from the impacted
tube. Two of the compressive and tensile test specimens for impacted tubes were
instrumented by a strain gage (6 and 20 mm long uniaxial strain gage, respectively).
It should be noted that for compressive test specimens from impacted tubes, only the
coupons taken at the middle portion are instrumented. Figures 5.3 to 5.5 shows the
specimens used in the three tests.
Table 5.3 Details of the specimen for coupon tests
Type of test
Compressive
Width, b (mm)
12.50
Length, l (mm)
140a, 117.5b
Thickness, t (mm)
5.25
Tensile
25
230
5.25
Flexural
15
150
a
b
Top coupon, Middle and bottom coupons
5.25
102
EJ Guades
(a) Before the test
(b) After the test

Figure 5.3 Compressive test specimens
103
EJ Guades
(a) Before the test
(b) After the test

Figure 5.4 Tensile test specimens
104
EJ Guades
(a) Before the test
(b) After the test

Figure 5.5 Flexural test specimens
105
EJ Guades
5.3 Experimental results and discussion

5.3.1 Mode of damage
Figure 5.6 shows the tested tubes (representative) under collapsed and non-collapsed
conditions. Tubes impacted by higher incident energies (477 J or more) collapsed
when they were subjected to at least 40 impact repetitions. The head of the collapsed
tubes was observed to be the most severely damaged portion. Axial splits along the
four corners of the tubes were also observed and both external and internal fronds
curled downwards. On the other hand, composite tubes impacted by lower incident
energies (318 J or less) did not show visible damage even up to 80 impacts.
However, microscopically-scanned images showed that micro-cracks have occurred
on the top portion of the non-collapsed tubes after the test (Figure 5.6a). Microcracks were also observed on a portion below the location where the visible vertical
crack had occurred on the collapsed tubes (Figure 5.6b).
(a) Non-collapsed
(b) Collapsed
Figure 5.6 Scanned images showing typical micro-cracks on the impacted tubes
5.3.2 Summary of coupon test results
Tables 5.4 and 5.5 summarise the results of the residual properties testing of the
impacted tubes. The values reflected in the tables are the mean value of the tested
coupons. The strength (peak stress) and modulus values shown in in the tables are
computed based from the calculations specified in the corresponding test standards
(see Section 3.5 of Chapter 3 and Section A.2 to A.4 of Appendix A). All
compressive residual properties values discussed in Sections 5.3.3 to 5.3.7 are
106
EJ Guades
exclusively the values at the middle portion of the impacted tubes. This was selected
for comparison with other properties since the start of cutting line used at the middle
portion is in same level with the tensile and flexural specimens (see Figure 5.2). The
results obtained from these specimens were used to characterise the effects of the
incident energy, the impact repetitions, and the variation of drop mass on the residual
properties of the tubes subjected to repeated axial impacts. On the other hand, the
results acquired from the compressive tests on top and bottom portions were used to
examine the variations of the residual strength with the height of the tube.
Table 5.4 Summary of compressive test results
E0-0
Top portion
Strength
(MPa)
-
Middle portion
Strength Modulus
(MPa)
(MPa)
441.45
49,690
Bottom portion
Strength
(MPa)
-
E160-80
425.38
434.37
49,802
442.39
E320-80
430.38
434.88
50,149
441.24
E480-10
436.14
441.70
50,026
454.84
E630-10
431.90
435.11
49,944
450.55
E480-40
432.84
50,280
441.37
E480-80
425.64
50,359
444.35
E630-30
416.62
49,032
454.98
E740-10
411.25
50,649
444.81
Tube ID
Table 5.5 Summary of tensile and flexural tests results
E0-0
Tensile properties
Strength Modulus
(MPa)
(MPa)
603.20
40,698
Flexural properties
Strength Modulus
(MPa)
(MPa)
994.44
38,543
E160-80
604.98
40,707
955.40
37,439
E320-80
606.67
41,390
941.30
37,937
E480-10
610.53
41,226
944.79
37,632
E630-10
601.72
41,474
941.06
37,808
E480-40
611.86
41,253
918.33
37,130
E480-80
603.50
41,039
895.01
38,462
E630-30
601.38
41,604
900.17
39,050
E740-10
602.79
40,803
899.50
37,993
Tube ID
107
EJ Guades
5.3.3 Effects of impact energy

Figure 5.7 shows the relationships of residual strength with increasing impact
energies of the tubes subjected by 10, 30, 40, and 80 impact repetitions. An enlarged
view of the curves is displayed in Figures 5.8 to 5.10 to help in the discussions of the
results. Figure 5.7 indicates that impact events result in reductions in strengths to
varying degrees. Although the samples that were tested in determining the residual
properties do not have visible damage, microscopic observation revealed that microcracks were present on their surface (see Figure 5.6). The presence of the external or
internal damage in a form of micro-cracks led to the strength degradation of the fibre
composite material (Zhang and Richardson, 2007).
The maximum reduction of residual compressive, tensile, and flexural
strengths is 6.8%, 0.3%, and 10% of their corresponding baseline strength,
respectively. By examining closely these values and observing the trend of the data
points on Figures 5.8 and 5.10, it follows that the effect of increasing the impact
energy significantly reduced both residual compressive and flexural strengths. The
increase, however, did not provide considerable reduction on the residual tensile
strength of the impacted tubes (Figure 5.9). In fact, the maximum reduction of the
tensile residual strength is lower than the standard deviation found in the unimpacted specimen (see Table A.6, Appendix A). This result suggests that the
reduction of tensile strength can be neglected. Additional discussion as to the reasons
why the tensile strength is less affected compared to the other two strengths are
presented in Section 5.3.6.
In general, residual strengths decrease with increasing impact energy as can
be observed in Figure 5.7. Figures 5.8 and 5.10 illustrate that the residual strengths of
the tubes impacted by 10, 40, and 80 impacts are in a reducing trend at 477 J.
Similarly, a clear gap of residual strengths can be noticed between 10 and 30 impacts
at 634 J. It should be noted that the two data points (477 J and 634 J at 40 and 30
impacts, respectively) are connected by straight lines because no tests were run at the
intermediate energies.
One comment is worthwhile making on the comparison of the strength
reductions at these energy levels. The decrease from 10 to 40 impacts at 477 J is
relatively lower to that from 10 to 30 impacts at 634 J. This shows that the rate of
reduction between increasing impact number becomes rapid when impact energy
increases. This finding can be confirmed by comparing the curves of 10 and 80
108
EJ Guades
impacts. The separation between these curves becomes noticeable as the impact
energy increases. Their relative difference in compression and flexure increased from
0 to approximately 3.6% and 4.1% of their corresponding baseline strength,
respectively, at 477 J.
Figures 5.8 and 5.10 also demonstrate that the rate of reduction up to 318 J
and 634 J at 80 and 10 impacts, respectively, is relatively slow. However, it can be
observed that there is a sudden drop of curve after increasing these impact energies
to 477 J and 742 J, respectively. It should be reminded that impacting the tube by
318 J (at 80 impacts) and 634 J (at 10 impacts) did not induced visible damage on the
top of tubes as shown in Figure 5.1. The damage imparted by the mentioned impact
energies only includes micro cracks along the impact point. The collapse of the tubes
happened only after increasing the impact energy to 477 J and 742 J, respectively.
This certainly shows that the effect in increasing the impact energy on the residual
strength reduction of impacted tubes is more substantial when the tube collapsed.
Residual strength (MPa)
1000
Flexural
800
Tensile
600
400
Compressive
10 impacts
30
40
80
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.7 Residual strength- impact energy relationships
450
Baseline
440
40
430
80
420
30
410
10
400
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.8 Enlarged view: Residual compressive strength - impact energy

relationships
109
EJ Guades
615
40
610
605
80
Baseline
10
30
600
595
590
0
100
200
300
400
500
Impact energy (J)
600
700
800
Figure 5.9 Enlarged view: Residual tensile strength-impact energy relationships
1000
Baseline
975
950
925
40
900
30
80
10
875
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.10 Enlarged view: Residual flexural strength-impact energy

relationships
The residual modulus versus impact energy curves of the tubes under 10, 30,
40, and 80 impact repetitions is illustrated in Figures 5.11 to 5.14. The figures show
that, generally, the residual modulus is slightly reduced with increasing impact
energies compared to its strength. In Figures 5.12 and 5.14, the maximum reduction
of residual compressive and flexural moduli is 1.3 and 4.4% of their equivalent
baseline modulus, respectively. On the other hand, the tensile modulus is at far
slightly above to its corresponding baseline values (Figure 5.13). It can be observed
from the figures that the residual modulus is less sensitive on the interaction effect of
impact energy and number of impacts (i.e., increase of energy with increasing
number of impacts). This result points out the less sensitivity of the residual modulus
in the interaction effect as compared to the residual strengths. Moreover, increasing
the incident energy does not provide significant difference on the value of residual
modulus regardless of the condition of the tubes (i.e., from non-collapse to collapse
condition).
110
EJ Guades
Residual modulus (MPa)
60000
Compressive
50000
Tensile
40000
Flexural
30000
20000
10 impacts
30
40
80
10000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.11 Residual modulus-impact energy relationships
51000
10
50500
80
40
50000
Baseline
49500
30
49000
48500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.12 Enlarged view: Residual compressive modulus- impact energy

relationships
42000
30
41500
40
41000
80
10
Baseline
40500
40000
39500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.13 Enlarged view: Residual tensile modulus- impact energy

relationships
111
EJ Guades
40000
30
39000
Baseline
80
38000
10
40
37000
36000
35000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.14 Enlarged view: Residual flexural modulus-impact energy

relationships
5.3.4 Effects of impact repetitions
Figures 5.15 to 5.18 show the relationships of residual strengths with increasing
number of impacts at various energy levels. It can be observed from the figures that
the residual strengths of impacted tubes decrease with increasing number of impacts.
The maximum loss of residual compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths of the tube
when impacted up to 80 repetitions is 6.8, 0.3 and 10% of their corresponding
baseline strength, respectively. Note that these values are identical to the values
mentioned in Section 5.3.2 since both impact energy and number of impact are
simultaneously considered in the plot. Similarly, it can be ascertained that the values
of the maximum reduction of residual modulus plotted against impact energy will be
relatively the same when it is plotted in number of impacts.
Figure 5.17 shows that the tensile strength of the impacted tube is not
particularly sensitive to the increase of number of impacts. On the other hand, the
number of impacts dramatically reduced both compressive and flexural strengths as
clearly shown in Figures 5.16 and 5.18. The reduction, however, depends on the
magnitude of the applied impact energy. For instance, it needs only 10 impacts to
reduce the compressive and flexural strengths by 6 and 10% of their baseline values,
respectively, when the tube is impacted by 742 J. Likewise, subjecting the tube by
159 J with 80 impact repetitions yielded a 1.6 and 3.9% loss of its compressive and
flexural strengths, respectively. It is apparent that impact repetitions at a specific
level of energy enhanced the damage sustained by the FRP material, thus, reducing
its strength.
One notable observation that can be achieved from the figures is that the
effect of impact repetitions on increasing the strength reduction of impacted tubes
112
EJ Guades
varies inversely with impact energy. This result is interesting since one can prioritise
in choosing among these two factors for design purposes. Looking on Figures 5.16
and 5.18, the reduction of strength when the tube is subjected by 742 J at 10 impact
repetitions is comparably higher than when it is impacted by 159 J with 80 impacts.
By carefully observing this relation, it follows that the loss of strength of impacted
tubes is significantly contributed due to the increase of impact energy and not much
on impact repetitions. In fact, the residual strengths after 80 impacts at 159 J suggest
that it is approaching a threshold energy below in which significant reductions in
strength are not observed. This indicates that at same number of impacts, impacts at
higher energy levels induce a greater loss in residual strengths of composite tubes
than lighter impacts. This finding was also found by Wyrick and Adams (1998) when
they investigated the effect of repeated impact loading on the residual properties of
composite laminate.
1000
Flexural
800
600
Tensile
400
Compressive
200
158.9 J
317.8 J
476.8 J
634.5 J
741.6 J
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
Figure 5.15 Residual strength- number of impacts relationships
450
Baseline
440
317.8 J
158.9 J
430
476.8 J
420
634.5 J
410
741.6 J
400
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
Figure 5.16 Enlarged view: Residual compressive strength -number of impacts

relationships
113
EJ Guades
615
610
317.8 J
605
158.9 J
741.6 J
476.7 J
634.5 J
600
Baseline
595
590
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
Figure 5.17 Enlarged view: Residual tensile strength- number of impacts

relationships
1000
Baseline
975
158.9 J
950
317.8 J
925
900
476.8 J
634.5 J
741.6 J
875
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
Figure 5.18 Enlarged view: Residual flexural strength-number of impacts

relationships
Figures 5.19 to 5.22 show the comparison of residual modulus and number of
impacts curves of impacted tubes under different energy levels. The curves shown on
the figures indicate that the residual modulus is slightly degraded when it is subjected
by series of impacts. In fact, the residual tensile modulus of the impacted tube
(Figure 5.21) is slightly higher than the baseline value. The maximum percentage
loss of the residual modulus is at far below than their strength counterpart.
It can be observed from the figures that the repetition of impact did not
significantly alter the value of modulus regardless of the energy levels. This result
supports the finding highlighted previously in Section 5.3.3 that the modulus
property of the impacted tube is less affected by the interaction of the impact energy
and number of impact. Furthermore, the outcome shows that the effect of the damage
caused by impact repetitions on the tubes is more concentrated on the strength and
not on the modulus.
114
EJ Guades
60000
Compressive
50000
Tensile
40000
Flexural
30000
20000
10000
158.9 J
317.8 J
476.8 J
634.5 J
741.6 J
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
Figure 5.19 Residual modulus-number of impacts relationship
51000
741.6 J
50500
476.8 J
317.8 J
50000
158.9 J
Baseline
49500
49000
634.5 J
48500
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
Figure 5.20 Enlarged view: Residual compressive modulus-number of impacts

relationships
42000
634.5 J
41500
317.8 J
41000
476.8 J
741.6 J
Baseline
158.9 J
40500
40000
39500
0
20
40
60
Number of impacts
80
100
Figure 5.21 Enlarged view: Residual tensile modulus-number of impacts

relationships
115
EJ Guades
40000
39000
634.5 J
Baseline
476.8 J
741.6 J
38000
317.8 J
158.9 J
37000
36000
35000
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of impacts
Figure 5.22 Enlarged view: Residual flexural modulus-number of impacts

relationships
5.3.5 Effects of mass of the impactor
Figures 5.23 to 5.26 illustrate the plot of residual strength versus drop mass of the
impacted tubes at different energy levels and number of impacts. As can be seen
from the figures, the residual strengths of the tubes decreased significantly when
increasing the impact mass. The degradation due to the effect of drop mass, however,
is more noticeable in the compressive and flexural strengths of the tubes (see Figures
5.24 and 5.26).
The data points plotted in Figures 5.24 and 5.26 for tubes subjected by 10
impact repetitions indicates that the increase of impactor mass reduced the residual
strengths in varying magnitudes. The initial reductions of the compressive and
flexural strengths of tubes impacted by 16.2 kg mass are 0.02 and 3.9%, respectively.
An additional 30% of the initial mass (i.e., 21.6 kg) increased the loss of strength to
1.4 and 5.4%, respectively. However, when the initial mass is increased by
approximately 60% (i.e., 25.2 kg), the strength reduction rises to 6.8 and 9.5% of
their baseline values. It is worth noting that incrementally increasing the original
impactor mass by 30% up to 25.2 kg provided an equivalent strength loss of 1.4 and
5.4% (compressive), and 1.5 and 4.1% (flexural). This result shows that the
relationship between the impactor mass and residual strength is non-linear, whereby
increasing the mass intensifies the rate of the strength reduction of the impacted
composite tube.
The effect of the drop mass on the reduction of residual strength varies
proportionally with impact energy as can be observed in figures. In fact, the curves
plotted in the figures are just a mirror image when it is plotted against impact mass
instead of impact energy. Moreover, the relationship between drop mass and impact
116
EJ Guades
energy is directly proportional as expressed by equation 4.1 (Chapter 4). Therefore

their associated effects such as their effect on the condition of the tube (i.e., from
non-collapse to collapse) and their interaction with the number of impact can be
inferred logically.
Figures 5.24 and 5.26 show that when the tube was subjected by 16.2 kg
impactor mass, the residual strength of impacted tubes decreases when the number of
impacts increases (10, 40 and 80 impacts). This can be substantiated by a clear gap
between the data points at this mass level. The associated effect of impact repetitions
and mass impactor on residual strength degradation can be observed also at 21.6 and
25.2 kg. At these mass levels, however, a wider gap between these points can be
observed. This result suggests that the associated effects of impactor mass and
impact repetitions on the residual strength reduction of tubes is more pronounced for
heavier mass.
1000
Flexural
800
Tensile
600
400
Compressive
10 impacts
30
40
80
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Impact energy (J)
600
700
800
Figure 5.23 Residual strength-drop mass relationships at different energy levels and
number of impacts
450
16.20 kg
Baseline
440
21.56 kg
16.20 kg
430
16.20 kg
420
10 impacts
30
40
80
410
21.56 kg
25.20 kg
Compressive
400
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.24 Enlarged view: Residual compressive strength-drop mass

relationships at different energy levels and number of impacts
117
EJ Guades
615
610
16.20 kg
16.20 kg
605
16.20 kg Baseline 25.20 kg

21.56 kg
21.56 kg
600
10 impacts
30
40
80
595
Tensile
590
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.25 Enlarged view: Residual tensile strength-drop mass relationships at

different energy levels and number of impacts
1000
Baseline
975
950
21.56 kg
16.20 kg
925
16.20 kg
10 impacts
30
40
80
900
25.20 kg
21.56 kg
16.20 kg
875
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.26 Enlarged view: Residual flexural strength-drop mass relationships at

The increase of impact mass slightly reduced the residual modulus of the
impacted tubes as shown in Figures 5.27 to 5.30. The associated effects of the drop
mass with the impact energy and number of impacts found to be less significant in
the residual strength degradation of the impacted tubes. As a matter of fact, the
residual tensile modulus of the impacted tube (Figure 5.29) is slightly higher than the
corresponding baseline value. Moreover, the curves in the figure point out that the
maximum percentage reduction of residual modulus is comparably smaller than their
equivalent strength.
These figures show that increasing the drop mass does not provide significant
difference on the value of residual modulus regardless of the condition of the tubes
(i.e., from non-collapse to collapse condition). Conclusively, the variation of impact
mass is more significant on the reduction of residual strength than their
corresponding modulus.
118
EJ Guades
60000
Compressive
50000
Tensile
40000
Flexural
30000
20000
10 impacts
30
40
80
10000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.27 Residual modulus-drop mass relationships at different energy levels and
number of impacts
51000
25.20 kg
50500
16.20 kg
50000
16.20 kg
16.20 kg
21.56 kg
Baseline
49500
10 impacts
30
40
80
49000
21.56 kg
48500
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.28 Enlarged view: Residual compressive modulus-drop mass

relationships at different energy levels and number of impacts
42000
41500
16.20 kg
16.20 kg
16.20 kg
41000
21.56 kg
21.56 kg
25.20 kg
Baseline
40500
10 impacts
30
40
80
40000
39500
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.29 Enlarged view: Residual tensile modulus-drop mass relationships at

119
EJ Guades
40000
21.56 kg
39000
Baseline
16.20 kg
38000
25.20 kg
16.20 kg 21.56 kg
16.20 kg
37000
10 impacts
30
40
80
36000
35000
0
100
200
Flexural
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.30 Enlarged view: Residual flexural modulus-drop mass relationships at

5.3.6 Comparison between compressive, tensile and flexural properties
Figure 5.31 shows the comparison between the compressive, tensile, and flexural
residual properties of the impacted tubes. The comparison was done by plotting their
respective strength (or modulus) retention factor (residual strength divided by
corresponding baseline strength) against increasing incident energy. It should be
noted that the value adopted in plotting the strength (or modulus) retention factor for
477 J and 634 J are the average among the derived values at different impact
numbers (i.e., retention factor at 10, 40, and 80 impacts for 477 J; retention factor at
10 and 30 impacts for 634 J). The compressive, tensile and flexural strength retention
factors at 742 J are 0.93, 0.99, and 0.90; respectively. Based from these values and
the observation we can get from Figure 5.31, it can be deduced that the flexural
strength is the most severely affected by the impact event compared to the other
strengths. The reason of this phenomenon can be explained by the following. During
the impact event, the typical impact damage of FRP composite materials appears in
the form of matrix cracking, delamination, and fibre shear-out and fracture. Whilst
matrix cracking or delamination reduces the compressive strength, fibre shear-out or
fracture decreases the tensile strength of the composites (discussed in the next
paragraph). It should be noted that in flexural testing, the composite material is both
subjected by compressive and tensile forces. Therefore, it is expected that the
reduction of flexural strength is comparatively higher than the other two
corresponding strengths as impact damage on both matrix and fibre affects the
flexural strength of the composites. Moreover, matrix cracks or delamination lead to
an increase in buckling instability (Kinsey et al., 1995) present during the flexural
120
EJ Guades
test, resulting to a much higher degradation in the flexural strength as compared to

the compressive strength.
Strength retention factor
1.10
1.00
0.90
Compressive
Tensile
Flexural
0.80
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.31 Comparison of residual compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths
During flexural loading, the upper portion of the coupon is generally in

compression while the bottom part is in tension. It can therefore be inferred that
characterising both residual compressive and tensile strengths would judiciously
characterise also the flexural strength of the tested coupon. As a result, the discussion
in this section is more focused on the comparison between the residual compressive
and tensile strengths of the impacted tubes. It can be seen from Figure 5.31 that
despite the damage in the form of micro-cracks observed along the surface of the
tested samples (Figure 5.6), the tensile strength is not affected up to impact energy
levels of 477 J and is only slightly reduced by a 742 J impact. In contrary,
compressive strength are markedly affected even by lighter impacts (i.e., 159 J). This
outcome is expected to happen as the impact-induced damage on the surface of the
tested coupons is mainly cracking of matrix or presumably delamination. Matrix
cracking or delamination reduces the compressive strength but has little effect on the
tensile strength, whereas broken fibres have more effect on tensile strength (Behesty
and Harris, 1998). This indicates that during the impact event, tensile strength is less
sensitive compared to the compressive strength resulting to have a much higher
strength retention value. This result was also found in the studies conducted by
Wyrick and Adams (1998) and Behesty and Harris (1998) on composite laminates.
The curves of the modulus plotted against different levels of energy shown in
Figure 5.32 indicate that the modulus values of the impacted tubes are comparable.
The lowest compressive and flexural modulus retention factors during the impact
121
EJ Guades
regime are 0.98 and 0.96; respectively. On the other hand, the tensile modulus
retention factor is slightly above the baseline value. It is apparent from Figure 5.32
that during the impact regime, the loading conditions did not significantly affect the
modulus of the impacted tubes. In fact, the data points of compressive and tensile
modulus illustrates that they coincide with each other at some energy levels.
Modulus retention factor
1.10
1.00
0.90
Compressive
Tensile
Flexural
0.80
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
Figure 5.32 Comparison of residual compressive, tensile, and flexural moduli

5.3.7 Residual strength versus modulus
The comparison between the strength and modulus of the impacted tubes plotted
against increasing energy levels is shown in Figure 5.33. The figure indicates that
impact events result in reductions in residual properties to varying degrees. The
higher the damage, the higher is the degradation of residual properties of the
impacted tube. The reductions, however, are obviously concentrated on the residual
strength rather than in residual modulus. It can be noticed that the variation of their
values is more pronounced in the compressive and flexural properties (see Figures
5.33a and 5.33c). The effect of the damage caused by this impact event on the tensile
properties of the tubes (Figure 5.33b), however, is insignificant. The reason of this
phenomenon was highlighted in Sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.7.
Figure 5.33a and 5.33c show that the residual compressive and flexural
moduli are slightly reduced with increasing impact energies compared to their
corresponding strength. The retention factors at an energy level of 742 J are 1 and
0.98 in compression and flexure, respectively, indicating that the modulus is not
particularly sensitive to the damage presence. Comparatively, strengths are more
severely affected by impact damage which leads to higher reductions. The impacted
tube retained only 93 and 90% of its compressive and flexural strengths,
respectively, when it was impacted by 742 J. This higher sensitivity can be explained
122
EJ Guades
by the fact that the damage in the form of micro-cracks induced by the impact events
is localised in most cases and therefore it has less effect on global properties such as
modulus. This result was also found by Zhang and Richardson (2007) when they
evaluated the effect of impact damage on the flexural properties of pultruded glassreinforced composites.
Retention factor
1.10
1.00
0.90
Strength
Modulus
0.80
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Impact energy (J)
(a) Residual compressive properties
Retention factor
1.10
1.00
0.90
Strength
Modulus
0.80
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
700
800
Impact energy (J)
(b) Residual tensile properties
Retention factor
1.10
1.00
0.90
Strength
Modulus
0.80
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Impact energy (J)
(c) Residual flexural properties

Figure 5.33 Strength and modulus curves plotted at increasing impact energy levels
123
EJ Guades
5.3.8 Variations of residual compressive strength with the height of the tube
Figure 5.34 shows the comparison of the residual compressive strengths of the
coupons sourced from different locations on the impacted tubes. It should be noted
that the measured values of the compressive strengths represent the strength of the
entire length of the coupons. In this study, however, the measured strength assumed
to represent the value at the mid-length of the coupons for ease in the comparison of
the strengths. The lay-out illustrating the mid-length location of the tested coupons
below a reference line (top edge of the non-collapsed tube) is shown previously in
Figure 5.2.
Figures 5.34a and 5.34b indicate that the residual compressive strength of
impacted tube varies with its location from the reference line. The residual strength
reduction found to increase when its location becomes nearer to the surface in direct
contact with the impactor. The maximum retention factor of a coupon taken from a
non-collapsed tube (i.e., E160-80) at the initial location L1 of 70 mm is 0.96 as
shown in Figure 5.34a. However when we tested a coupon taken from 2.8 and 4.5
times L1 below the reference line, it was found that the strength retention factor
increased to 0.98 and 1, respectively. This was also the case in the collapsed tubes
(i.e., E740-10) whereby the strength retention factor increases from 0.93 to 1.01 at
2.8 and 4.5 of L1, respectively (see Figure 5.34b). This indicates that the effect of
impact event on the reduction of residual compressive strength is concentrated only
in areas which are relatively near from the source of the impact. Similarly, the
damage that is created in the form of micro-cracks by this event decreases when the
point of location moves away from this source. This result supports the findings on
the residual modulus of the impacted tubes discussed in Section 5.3.7 that impact
damage is localised in most cases.
This outcome is very interesting and noteworthy on the use of FRP tubes as
composite piles. It should be reminded that the testing set-up adopted in conducting
impact test fairly simulate the actual conditions in pile driving. Similarly, the damage
mode observed on the composite tubes at the end of test reflects the condition of the
hollow FRP pile when encountering hard soils or boulders. Although localised
impact damage has adverse effect on the post-impact performance of the FRP
materials, the result of the present study suggests that the load-bearing capacity of
the hollow FRP pile after installation can be improved. This can be achieved by
removing portion of the FRP materials specifically near the pile head in direct
124
EJ Guades
contact with the impact hammer. The removal of this sacrificial length will
apparently restore back the 100% baseline compressive strength of the FRP
materials.
L1 = 70 mm
1.20
1.00
0.96 0.98
1.00
0.97 0.99 1.00
2.8 x L1
0.99 1.00
1.03
4.5 x L1
0.98 0.99
1.02
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
E160-80
E320-80
E480-10
E630-10
(a) Non-collapsed tubes
L1 = 70 mm
1.20
1.00
1.01
0.98 1.00
0.96
E480-40
E480-80
2.8 x L1
4.5 x L1
1.03
1.01
0.94
0.93
E630-30
E740-10
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
(b) Collapsed tubes

Figure 5.34 Variation of residual compressive strengths with the height of the tube
5.4 Conclusions
The residual properties of a square composite tube under repeated axial impact were
investigated in this chapter. Initially, the tubes were subjected by repeated impact
loading using a range of incident energies. The coupons taken from the impacted
tubes were then tested statically to determine the residual compressive, tensile, and
flexural properties. The damage caused by the impact loading on the composite tubes
played an important role in their post-impact bearing performance. It was found that
the levels of impact energy, number of impacts, and the drop mass is significant on
the residual strength reduction of the impacted tubes. The higher their magnitude
125
EJ Guades
increased, the faster the strength of the impacted tubes degraded. On the contrary, the
residual modulus property found to be less affected by impact event since the
damage brought by them is localised in most of the cases.
Comparing between the reductions of the residual strengths, the flexural
strength is severely affected by the impact loading compared to the compressive and
tensile strengths. This is because the impact event provided damage on both matrix
and fibre damage resulting to a combined effect on the flexural strengths. In addition
to this, the presence of matrix cracks or delamination lead to an increase in buckling
instability during the flexural test, resulting to a much higher degradation compared
to the other strengths. It was found that the tensile strength of the tube is less
sensitive on the damage caused by the impact event. The maximum reductions of the
residual compressive, tensile and flexural strengths are 6.8%, 0.3% and 10%;
respectively. It was also found that the reductions of the residual strength values of
non-collapsed tubes are lower than the value when the tubes are impacted up to
failure. The comparison of the residual compressive strengths sourced at different
locations along the height of the tube revealed that the strength reduction varied with
its location. The degradation of the compressive strength of the impacted tube
decreased when its location from the top of the tube increased. Similarly, the
influence of impact damage on the degradation of residual compressive strength of
the tube is concentrated only in region closer to the impact point.
It is apparent that the impact damage provided significant effect on the
performance of the FRP composite materials during the impact event. Clearly there is
some degradation of residual properties after repeated axial impact for a short
specimen. For the full-scale actual piles, however, the residual properties far away
from the impact location may not be affected by the impact damage at the top.
Therefore, residual properties testing on a full length pile might be beneficial will
provide additional information on the effect of axial impact loading. On the other
hand, Supplementary technique such as analytical method provides a significant role
in predicting the damage response of the FRP composite tube. This method deems an
alternative for a costly and sometimes not straightforward experimental
investigation.
In Chapter 6, the damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP composite
tube is discussed. The damage behaviour of the impacted tubes can be characterised
in terms of their response during the application of impact loading and/or their postBehaviour of glass FRP composite tubes under repeated impact for piling application
126
EJ Guades
impact (residual) behaviour. For both characterisations, it was found that factors such
as the impact energy and number of impacts contributed on the damage response of
the FRP composite tube. The damage prediction model presented in Chapter is
directly related to the former since it illustrates the repeated impact/fatigue (EinN)
curves of the composite tubes. The results obtained from residual properties testings
indicated that generally, the strengths of the composite tubes are significantly
reduced. The damage was represented by a strength retention factor (ratio between
the initial strength and the strength in the damage state) whereby this value decreases
with increasing Ein and N values. Specifically, it was highlighted that the reduction
resulted from damage in a form of matrix cracking, delamination, and fibre ruptures.
In the damage response modelling, the damage was characterised by a damage index
(DI) which is a ratio between the absorbed energy Eabs and Ein. Since the DI in the
prediction model describes the amount of damage, it can be deduced that it has more
or less similar meaning with the strength retention ratio that defines the residual
properties of the impacted composite tubes.
127
Chapter 6 Damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP composite tube
EJ Guades
Chapter 6
Damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP
composite tube
6.1 Introduction
The widely used method of determining the response of fibre composite materials
subjected by repeated impact loading is by experimental testing (Aurrekoetxea et al.,
2011; Sevkat et al., 2010; Belingardi et al., 2008; Azouaoui et al., 2007; Roy et al.,
2001; Wyrick and Adams, 1998; Ho et al., 1997; and Found and Howard, 1995).
However, the high cost of the experimental works and other limitation such as the
unavailability of testing machine make the design by means of an analytical method
attractive. Analytical models characterising the damage behaviour of FRP composite
materials under repeated impact have been reported (Bora et al., 2009; Belingardi et
al., 2008; Azouaoui et al., 2007; Datta et al., 2004; Sugun and Rao, 2004a;
Belingardi and Vadori, 2003; Azouaoui et al., 2001; Roy et al., 2001; Jang et al,
1992; and Lhymn, 1985). Their applications, however, are limited on laminates or
tubes which are transversely impacted. These models are presented in Section 6.2.
In this chapter, a proposed lifetime prediction model that will characterise the
damage evolution of a repeatedly impacted square FRP composite tube is presented.
This chapter also presents the application of the model to glass/vinyl ester tubes with
different cross sections. The proposed damage model quantifies the energy
absorption response of the impacted tubes when subjected to various impact energy
levels. Quasi-static compressive test was conducted on the composite tubes to aid in
the formulation of the lifetime prediction model. The values of the parameters
considered in modelling the response of the tube were either obtained experimentally
or referenced from the literature. The proposed model was then verified by
comparing it to the results of the experimental work discussed in Chapter 4.
6.2 Theoretical prediction methods

This section presents a number of analytical models developed to predict the
repeated impact damage evolution of FRP composite laminates or transversely
128
EJ Guades
impacted tubes. The equations describing the repeated impact curve of the FRP
composite materials obtained from the literature are also presented. Some of the
notations of the equations used in the referred papers were changed to correlate with
the symbols used in other studies.
Several researchers correlated the damage response of the material to a
quantifiable parameter to characterise the damage on the FRP composite materials
due to repeated impact. Azouaoui et al. (2001) presented a lifetime prediction model
to determine the damage evolution of a glass/epoxy laminate subject to repeated
impact. Their modelling is based on a non-linear parametric creep relation proposed
by Mankowsky with a modification on the denominator function (Equation 6.1).
D = a [b / ((a+1) c)]
(6.1)
where D is the damage parameter; is the life duration (= N/Nf, N and Nf being the
number of impact and failure impact number, respectively); a, b, and c are
experimental constants depending on material properties and incident energy. These
constants control the slope of the second, first, and the third zone levels of the S
shape damage curve, respectively. Their result suggested a good agreement between
the experimental data points and the proposed model.
The damage progression of a glass-reinforced laminate was studied by
Belingardi et al. (2008) by introducing a damage parameter. The derivation of this
damage parameter is based on the energy balance concept obtained from the first
principle of thermodynamics (Belingardi and Vadori, 2003). D correlates the values
of impact energy Eim, the, absorbed energy Eabs and the saturation energy Esat. The
relationships of these parameters are shown in Equations 6.2 and 6.3. They reported
that a quadratic relationship was found between the rate of damage accumulation and
Eim in the initial linear part of the D vs. number of impacts curve.
D = Eabs / Eim
up to penetration
(6.2)
D = Eabs / Esat
after penetration
(6.3)
A theoretical lifetime analysis was developed by Lhymn (1985) to predict the

damage response of a Polyphenylene sulphide (PPS)/glass composite laminate under
repeated impact. The model, which is based on an energy principle and twoparameter Weibull distribution function, displays a correlation of the Eim and Nf in
Equation 6.4.
Eim = a [(ln R(Nf)1/f)] [Nf]-1/b
(6.4)
129
EJ Guades
where R(Nf) denotes the reliability of the Nf; f is the shape parameter; a and b,
respectively, are the slope and intercept of the log(Eim) vs. N0 curve (N0 being the
location parameter). R(Nf) and f can be determined by data pooling technique
whilst a and b by plotting log(Eim) vs. N0 curve. Lhymn emphasised the scattery of
the experimental data and reported that there exist a low limit of Eim below which no
impact failure occurs on the laminate.
Jang et al. (1992) evaluated the damage tolerance of a continuous fibrereinforced epoxy laminate under repeated impact. For most epoxy-based composites
studied, the residual strength models shown in Equations 6.5 and 6.6 can describe the
damage response of the composite laminate:
(Pm)N / (Pm)0 = N-b
if
Ein < Ec
(6.5)
(Pm)N / (Pm)0 = (NNc)-b
if
Ein Ec
(6.6)
where (Pm)N and (Pm)0 are the maximum loads at the Nth and 1st impacts,
respectively; Nc is the number of impact in which the first observation of a significant
delamination crack occurred; Ein is the incident energy; Ec is critical energy in which
a significant delamination crack occurs in response to a single impact; and b is the
slope of the log[(Pm)N / (Pm)0] vs. logN curve.
The damage tolerance and response of composite laminates under repeated
impact loading were investigated by Azouaoui et al. (2007), Bora et al. (2009), Datta
et al. (2005), Sugun and Rao (2004a), and Ho et al. (1997). These researchers chose
the number of impacts to failure Nf as an index to define the damage tolerance limit.
Common results obtained from these studies showed that Nf is inversely proportional
to the incident energy Ein and the fatigue curve follows a simple power function in
the form of either Equation 6.7 or 6.8.
Nf = a Einb
Ein = a Nf
-b
(6.7)
(6.8)
where a and b are material constants that define the slope and intercept, respectively,
of the logEin. vs. logNf curve. Similarly, Roy et al. (2001) reported that the curve
defined by Equation 6.8 can also characterise the damage response of a transverselyimpacted composite tubes.
The above-mentioned analytical models combined with experimental
verification were proven to satisfactory predict the repeated impact behaviour of
composite materials. In the present study, some of the principles used in developing
a prediction model for composite laminates or tubes which are transversely impacted
130
EJ Guades
were adopted for FRP tubes under repeated axial impact. The proposed damage
model used an energy-based approach, particularly implementing the concepts
considered in formulating Equation 6.2. Equation 6.8 was also adopted in tracing the
repeated impact (fatigue) curve of the composite tubes.
6.3 Quasi-static compressive test

The results acquired from quasi-static compressive test were used to determine a
parameter needed in developing the proposed model. The complete discussion of the
role of this parameter in the damage model is presented in Section 6.6.2. In this
section, the material and method used in the quasi-static compressive test are
discussed.
6.3.1 Specimen and testing

A total of 3 replicates (composite tube with properties similar to the tubes used in
Chapter 4) were tested. Table 6.1 shows the details of the specimens used in the test.
Table 6.1 Details of specimen used in quasi-static test
b
d
t
Specimen
no
1
Depth, Width,
d (mm) b (mm)
100.58 100.58
Length,
l (mm)
374.50
Thickness,
t (mm)
5.18
100.68
100.43
375.50
5.20
100.69
100.60
375.00
5.24
Average
100.65
100.54
375.00
5.21
It was observed that the damage on the impacted tube is rupture on its head
or end crushing (detailed discussion was presented in Section 4.3 of Chapter 4). To
ensure that neither brittle failure nor buckling instability failure will take place
during quasi-static compressive test, a triggering mechanism is used to promote
progressive deformation. In this study, chamfering of one end (top) is adopted as a
failure triggering mechanism. The specimens used in conducting quasi-static
compressive and impact tests are identical except that the top end of the tube adopted
in the former was chamfered by 450 (Figure 6.1a). This failure initiator can reduce
the peak load experienced by the specimen without affecting the sustained crushing
load (Mamalis et al., 1997b), which is needed in determining its specific absorbed
energy. Chamfering one end of the tube was done in a rotating sander (Figure 6.1b).
131
EJ Guades
The 375 mm long composite tube was crushed by a 2000 kN capacity servohydraulic compressive testing machine at a constant speed of 50 mm/min (Figure
6.1c). The load-displacement curves of the three specimens tested were recorded
using an automated data acquisition system attached on the machine and presented in
Section 6.6.3 (Figure 6.8).
(a) Specimen with 450 chamfer
(c) Progressive crushing
(b) Chamfering process
(d) Crushed specimens
Figure 6.1 Quasi-static compressive test

6.4 Repeated impact test results
The results obtained from the experimental work discussed in Chapter 4 (i.e., impact
behaviour of composite tube) were used to verify the proposed model. In particular,
the energy absorption behaviour and the impact damage tolerance limit of the
impacted tubes are emphasised.
Figure 6.2 shows the energy absorption (normalised energy) evolution of
impacted tubes (i.e., specimens used in comparing with the prediction model shown
in Table 4.2 of Chapter 4). Note that this figure is almost identical to that of Figure
4.9 (Chapter 4) except that trend lines are indicated. The figure was intentionally
changed to suit in coming up with the proposed prediction model. This figure is
again presented in this chapter to aid in the discussion and a brief discussion was
included. The curves shown in Figure 6.2 suggest that the rate of energy absorption
132
EJ Guades
was higher for tubes impacted by higher incident energies indicating that heavier
impacts induced more damage than lighter one. Tubes under higher impact energies
relatively absorbed energy very quickly due to their fast damage accumulation.
Figure 6.2a demonstrates that the trend of the energy absorption response of
the collapsed tubes is similar regardless of the magnitude of the impact energy. Their
response can be approximated by a bilinear curve as highlighted by a line. The initial
line shows that the absorbed energy increases at a constant rate indicating that
rebounding of the impactor is still imminent. Apparently, the rate of the energy
absorption in the first line is largely dependent on point where collapse or failure
initiated (Nf). After rupturing, however, the absorbed energy is nearly similar all
throughout as illustrated by a zero-slope trend line. It is worth noting that in the postcollapse region, the recorded values of the absorbed energy are slightly less than the
incident energy. In the proposed model, the effect of energy loss is not considered in
the analysis. On the other hand, Figure 6.2b illustrates that the absorption energy
response of the non-collapsed tubes characterised a single-line trend.
Normalised energy, Eabs/Eim
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
634.51 J
476.77 J
423.01 J
0.50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
120
140
Number of impacts, N
(a) Collapsed tubes

Normalised energy, Eabs/Eim
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
317.84 J
211.50 J
158.92 J
0.50
0
20
40
60
80
100

Figure 6.2 Normalised energy and number of impacts relationship
133
EJ Guades
6.5 Evaluation of damage using parameter D

The damage mechanism of the impacted composite tubes is evaluated in terms of
their absorbed energy during the test regime (Delfosse and Poursartip, 1997). The
damage can be characterised by introducing a damage parameter D presented
previously in Equation 6.2 but modifying the right-hand side (i.e. Eabs/Eim) as
expressed in Equation 6.9. The modification made the intercept of the initial line
becomes zero at the 1st impact (see Figure 6.2) resulting to a more simplified
prediction model. Equation 6.9 can be characterised as the evolution of damage of
the composite tube relative to the initial damage.
D = [(Eabs)N (Eabs)1 ] / [(Eim (Eabs)1]
(6.9)
th
where (Eabs)N is the absorbed energy at N impact and (Eabs)1 is the absorbed energy
at the 1st impact. Figure 6.3 shows the damage parameter D of the representative tube
(Ein = 476.8 J, collapsed) plotted in increasing number of impacts N. A solid line is
drawn to emphasise the flow of the trend.
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Experimental data (476.77 J)
Trend line
0.20
0.00
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Figure 6.3 D vs. N curve of the representative composite tube

6.6 Proposed damage response model
The D vs. N curve presented in Figure 6.3 allows in approximating the evolution of
damage of the tubes using a bilinear curve model. Similarly, an idealised life time
curve of the tube under repeated impact can be drawn from Figure 6.3. The idealised
curve is illustrated in Figure 6.4 and served as a schematic reference in formulating
the equation of the proposed model. It should be noted that the N value of the curve
in Figure 6.4 is normalised by the maximum number the tube is subjected, Nmax. The
curve indicates that the damage response of the tube can be defined mathematically
by the equations of the two lines. The equation of the first (initial) line describes the
value of D when 1 N <Nf. Likewise, the equation of the second line characterises
134
EJ Guades
the value of D when N > Nf. It can be observed that when N > Nf (i.e., second line),
the value of D at increasing N remains constant. Specifically, the value of D in this
range is equivalent to unity. On the other hand, the equation of the first line can be
obtained by considering a point along this line (denoted by P1 in the curve). From the
line, the coordinate of P1 can be taken as (D, N/Nmax). It is worth noting that the D in
the coordinate corresponds to a value at a given N. Using the straight line equation in
slope-intercept form, we can get the equation (i.e. Equation 6.10) describing the
damage response of the tube when 1 N < Nf. The equations of the proposed damage
model of tube subjected by repeated axial impact are shown in Equations 6.10 and
6.11. The proposed model correlates the D to corresponding N, Nf, and Nmax. It
should be noted that the curve defined by Equation 6.10 is considered imaginary
when Nf approaches to unity, however, the damage response of the impacted tube
under this condition falls in a curve defined by Equation 6.11. Likewise, the value of
D in Equation 6.10 tends to become zero when Nf approaches infinity.
D = (N/Nmax)/((Nf 1)/Nmax)
if
1 N < Nf
(6.10)
D=1
if
N Nf
(6.11)
On the other hand, the following are the assumptions adopted in the proposed
damage evolution model.
1. The value of D at N = 1 is zero when Nf >1;
2. At the initiation of collapse (N = Nf), all of the impact energy are
absorbed by the tube (D = 1) thereby neglecting the energy loss.
The determination of the parameters used in the proposed predictive model to
characterise the damage of axially impacted FRP tubes are described in the following
sub-sections.
Damage parameter, D
1.2
(Nf -1)/Nmax
1-((Nf -1) /Nmax )
1.0
P1 (D,N/Nmax )
0.8
0.6
1
(Nf -1)/Nmax
0.4
0.2
(0,0)
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Life fraction, N/Nmax
Figure 6.4 Idealised lifetime response curve of the repeatedly impacted tube
135
EJ Guades
6.6.1 Minimum number of impacts to failure of the tube, Nf

In the present study, Equation 6.8 was adopted to determine the relationship between
the incident energy Ein and number of impacts to collapse Nf. This equation was used
as a basis of computation since the Ein and Nf responses of the FRP composite
materials usually follow a power law. This basis of computation is supported by the
result on impact test of composite materials discussed in Section 2 whereby their
repeated impact curve can be traced by a simple power relationship. Equation 6.8
only includes few parameters, and if found suitable, will make the proposed
predictive model simple. Figure 6.5 demonstrates the curve defined by this equation.
160 0
(1, Ec)
Incident energy, Ein (J)
140 0
120 0
100 0
Ein = a Nf-b
800
600
400
Nf =1
200
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Number of impacts to failure, Nf
Figure 6.5 Typical curve described by Ein = aNf-b

From Equation 6.8 and Figure 6.5, it can be observed that when Nf = 1, and
Ein = Ec, the value of a becomes Ec. Substituting a to Equation 6.8 yields Equation
6.12.
Ein = Ec Nf-b
(6.12)
6.6.2 Minimum incident energy to fail the tube for one impact (critical energy), Ec
The minimum energy required to fail the composite tubes for one impact can be
found through experiment (Palanivelu et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2009; Xiao, 2009;
Greve et al., 2001; Mamalis et al., 2005, Song et al., 2002; and Mamalis et al.,
1997a) or using finite element (FE) analysis (Palanivelu et al., 2010; Han et al.,
2007; Mamalis et al., 2006; and Kim and Arora, 2003). The former, however, needs
expensive testing machine or special testing set-up to follow the crushing process.
On the other hand, the latter is not straightforward as it requires complex analysis
and fine tuning of the model to satisfactory simulate the actual behaviour during
136
EJ Guades
impact or dynamic loading. As a result, the present study devises an alternative

method in determining the value of Ec. This was achieved by correlating the value of
Ec under dynamic or impact load to its value when loaded statically (Equation 6.13).
(Ec)Dynamic = (Ec)Quasi-static
(6.13)
Literature revealed that the value of the correlation factor for composite
tubes made of E-glass fibres and vinyl ester resin is in the range of 0.90 to 1.35
(Yang et al., 2009; Mamalis et al., 1997a; Mamalis et al., 1996; and Thornton, 1990).
Figure 6.6 shows the summary of values in bar chart of composite tubes made of
glass/vinyl ester obtained from the literature. It should be noted that only of this type
of composite material was considered since glass/vinyl ester is the material used in
the present study.
2.00
Yang et al. (2009)
Mamalis et al. (1996)
Mamalis et al. (1997a)

Thornton (1990)
1.50
Average = 1.16
1.00
0.50
0.00
Yang et al. (2 009)
Mamalis et al. (199 7a)
Mamalis et al. (199 6)
Thornton (199 0)
Figure 6.6 Variation of the correlation of glass/vinyl ester composite tubes

For tubes made from strain-rate-insensitive materials, their dynamic
progressive collapse can be idealised as a quasi-static response (Jones, 1989). The
quasi-static method of analysis usually neglects the variation of the axial force about
the mean value (i.e. neglecting the effect of rate of straining) which is caused by the
resistance cycle change (Jones, 1995). In the case of glass/vinyl ester composite
tubes, however, this method may not be applicable due to their strain-rate sensitivity
characteristic (Jacob et al., 2002). Thus, adopting the average value of (i.e., 1.16,)
shown in Figure 6.6 may not represent a suitable value for the analysis. To account
for this sensitivity, the present study adopted Equation 6.14 in calculating .
Equation 6.14 defined a fitting line for an experimental results conducted by
Mamalis et al. (1997a) with various strain rate of loading (Figure 6.7).
137
EJ Guades
2.00
1.50
= -0.8709 + 1.32
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.0200
0.0210
0.0220
(x10-3)
0.0230
0.0240
Figure 6.7 Data points with the fitting line showing and relationship.
Experimental data from Mamalis et al. (1997a)
From Figure 6.7,
= -0.8709 +1.32
(6.14)
= [(Rate of loading)Quasi-static] / [(Rate of loading)Dynamic]
(6.15)
where,
In this study, the (Rate of loading)Quasi-static is equal to 50 mm/min as

indicated previously in Section 6.3.1. On the other hand, the (Rate of loading)Dynamic
used the value of 7.67 m/s (using Equation 4.9 in Chapter 4, equivalent to drop
height of 3 m). The value used in the rate of loading for dynamic (impact) testing
was adopted considering that it is the maximum value (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3 in
Chapter 4). From these values, we can get = 0.108 x10-3 using Equation 6.15.
Substituting to Equation 6.14 gives equals to 1.225. Note that this value is
5% higher than the average value shown in Figure 6.6. Substituting the value of to
Equation 6.13 results to Equation 6.16.
(Ec)Dynamic = 1.225 (Ec)Quasi-static
(6.16)
6.6.3 Determination of (Ec)Quasi-static using quasi-static compressive test

Figure 6.8 shows the typical load displacement curves of the composite tubes from
quasi-static compressive test presented in Section 6.3. It can be noticed from the
figure that the main feature of the curve in the post crushing region is the
characteristic oscillation from the mean post-crushing load, associated by a shallow
serration. This feature can also be observed on tubes made from metallic materials
(Hsu and Jones, 2004; Al Galib and Limam, 2004; Bardi et al., 2003; and Huang and
Lu, 2003). The difference, however, is on their crushing response in terms of
138
EJ Guades
physical damage in which composite tubes exhibited mushrooming failure (see

Figure 6.1c). On the other hand, the failure of metallic tube is associated with the
development of wrinkle or buckle and grows until sufficient external energy has been
imparted to complete the formation (Jones, 1995). The value of (Ec)Quasi-static (shaded
area in Figure 6.9) was calculated by numerical integration using trapezoidal rule
method (see Equation 4.8 in Chapter 4). The shaded area represents the minimum
incident energy required to crash/fail the tube in response to a single impact.
Table 6.2 summarises the (Ec)Quasi-static values of the 3 specimens obtained
from the quasi-static compressive test. The average value of (Ec)Quasi-static of the
specimens tested is 1,212.60 J. Substituting this value to Equation 6.16, we will get
(Ec)Dynamic = 1485.44 J. Moreover, Equation 6.17 can be obtained by replacing
(Ec)Dynamic value in Equation 6.12.
Ein = 1485.44Nf-b
(6.17)
250
200
Specimen 1
Load (kN)
Specimen 2
150
Specimen 3
100
50
0
10
20
30
40
Displacement (mm)
Figure 6.8 Typical load-displacement curves from quasi-static compressive test

250
Load (kN)
200
150
F = f(s)
100
E c Quasi static
50
S1
0
0
S2
10
S2
Fds
S1
20
30
40
Displacement (mm)
Figure 6.9 Schematic diagram used in computing (Ec)Quasi-static
139
EJ Guades
Table 6.2 Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static values

Specimen no
1
(Ec)Quasi-static, J
1,181.6
1,233.9
1,222.3
Average
1,212.6
Standard deviation
22.4
6.6.4 Solving b value

The constant value b from Equation 6.17 was computed using an Excel 2010
Solver function. This function uses an optimisation technique in calculating the
value of b by changing variable cells subject to the applied constraints. This method
was also adopted by Azouaoui et al. (2001) in finding the material constants in
modelling the damage of composite laminates subjected by repeated impact loading.
Setting the term (1485.44Nf
Ein) to zero (as the objective) with the
following constraints: 0 < Ein 1485.44 J; Nf 1, Nf should be an integer; 0 b 1.

Figure 6.10 shows different b values for 20 runs (i.e., different initial combination
values of Ein and Nf). Note that a total of 20 runs were conducted to check the
reliability and accuracy of the result. The b values obtained from this method ranges
between 0.230 and 0.330. The adopted value of the present study is the average b
value equals to 0.291.
Substituting this b value to Equation 6.17, we can get the equation that will
characterise the repeated impact (fatigue) curve of the composite tubes (Equation
6.18).
Ein = 1485.44Nf-0.291
(6.18)
1.0
0.8
0.6
baverage = 0.291
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of runs
Figure 6.10 b values using Excel 2010 Solver function

140
EJ Guades
6.7 Comparison with the experimental data

6.7.1 Verification of the repeated impact curve
Figure 6.11 illustrates the Ein-Nf relationship that compares the curve traced by
Equation 6.18 and the experimental data. It should be noted that the experimental
points presented in this figure are the results of the test defined by Table 4.3 in
Chapter 4. This result was already presented in Table 4.4 (Chapter 4), however, is
again shown in Table 6.3 for ease of comparison. It was emphasised that the data
points on incident energy-number of impacts curves of composite laminate or tubes
under transverse impact follow a power relationship. This result was also found in
the present study whereby the points shown in Figure 6.11 exhibit an exponential
curve. This verifies the assumption that the equation of repeated impact curve of
composite laminates is valid for composite tubes subjected by repeated axial impact.
Figure 6.11 indicates that the curve reasonably fit the experimental points.
The difference between the Ein from Equation 6.18 and from impact test ranges from
-8.69 to 11.54% (Table 6.3). It can be observed from Table 6.3 that even if Ein is
same (e.g., 634.5 J), Nf may be different. This result is expected as different impact
masses (or drop heights) for every Ein were used in the impact tests (Section 4.2.2 of
Chapter 4). The effect of impact mass is significant in the value of Nf more
pronouncedly at lower Ein as discussed in Section 4.3.5 (Chapter 4). Nevertheless, the
value of Nf computed from Equation 6.18 is in between the experimental values.
Table 6.4 shows that when an average experimental Nf is used, their variation is
reduced to less than 3%. Conclusively, Equation 6.18 can be used in developing the
damage prediction model of composite tubes under repeated impact.
1600
1400
Experimental data
1200
-0.291
EEqn.
18
in = 1485.44N
f
1000
800
600
400
200
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 6.11 Comparison between the experimental data and repeated impact curve
141
EJ Guades
Table 6.3 Comparison of incident energies at different Nf
13
Ein (J)
Experiment Equation 6.18
634.5
700.9
20
634.5
617.9
-2.69%
32
476.8
538.5
11.46%
51
476.8
469.8
-1.49%
57
476.8
454.7
-4.85%
48
423.0
478.2
11.54%
95
423.0
389.2
from experimental result
-8.69%
Nf a
% Difference
9.48%
Table 6.4 Comparison of incident energies at average Nf

Ein (J)
Experiment Equation 6.18
17
634.5
648.0
47
476.8
481.2
72
423.0
422.9
a
from experimental result
Nf a
% Difference
2.10%
0.90%
-0.01%
6.7.2 Validation of the proposed model

Figures 6.12 and 6.13 compare the results between the prediction model and
experiment using Nmax of 200. The experimental data shown in the figures are the
results of the impact tests conducted based from test matrix presented in Table 4.2
(Chapter 4). Note that supposedly Nmax values should be either 45 (Ein = 634.5 J) or
130 (Ein = 423 J or lower). In Figures 6.12 and 6.13, however, a value of 200 is
uniformly adopted in all cases to extrapolate the lines of the model for clear
comparison. Figures 6.12a to 6.12c shows an R2 value of at least 0.97 between the
proposed model and the experimental data for Ein = 423 J or higher (i.e.,
collapsed/failed tubes). This indicates a good agreement between the experimental
data points and the prediction model. The percentage difference of Ein between the
model and experiment is 2.67, 4.85, and 8.69 at Nf of 20, 57, and 95; respectively
(see Table 6.3). On the other hand, the R2 value of Ein = 318 J or lower cannot be
obtained due to the absence of (Nf)Exp, nevertheless, (Nf)Predicted are indicated (see
Figures 6.13a to 6.13c). The model (or Equation 6.18) predicted that failure of the
composite tubes will occur at an Nf of 194, 779, and 2065 when it is impacted by a
relatively lower incident energies of 317.8 J, 211.5 J, and 158.9 J; respectively. It can
142
EJ Guades
be observed from Figures 6.13a to 6.13c that the D values are less than 1 at initial
N/Nmax. This is possibly due to the dynamic nature of the test whereby the D values
during the first few impacts are serrated. The trend, however, becomes apparent at
relatively higher N/Nmax values.
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
R2 = 0.983
0.80
0.60
0.40
Experimental data
0.20
Prediction model
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
-0.20
(a) Ein = 634.5 J
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
R2 = 0.971
0.80
0.60
0.40
Experimental data
0.20
Prediction model
0.00
0.00
0.20
-0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
(b) Ein = 476.8 J

1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
R2 = 0.978
0.80
0.60
0.40
Experimental data
0.20
Prediction model
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
-0.20
(c) Ein = 423 J

Figure 6.12 Proposed model vs. experimental data for collapsed tubes
143
EJ Guades
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
Experimental data
0.80
Prediction model
(Nf)predicted = 194
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.80
1.00
0.80
1.00
-0.20
(a) Ein = 317.8 J

1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
Experimental data
0.80
Prediction model
0.60
(Nf)predicted = 779
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
-0.20
(b) Ein = 211.5 J

1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
Experimental data
0.80
Prediction model
(Nf)predicted = 2065
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
-0.20
(c) Ein = 158.9 J

Figure 6.13 Proposed model vs. experimental data for non-collapsed tubes
6.8 Summary of procedure in establishing the damage evolution curve
Figure 6.14 shows the flow chart that describes the procedures in establishing the
damage evolution curve of the impacted tube. This chart is explained and
summarised by the following:
144
EJ Guades
1. Calculate the values of Ec and b.

2. Ec can be obtained from either dynamic (impact) or quasi-static compressive
tests. If using quasi-static compressive test, use Equation 6.13 and find the
correlation factor . The value of depends on the rate of loading used in the
quasi-static compressive test, the impact velocity during the impact test, and
the type of the matrix material of the composite tube.
3. The value of b can be obtained using Excel Solver function. Several trials
can be run and finally choose the average value of b.
4. The repeated impact (fatigue) curve can then be drawn by substituting the
values of Ec and b to Equation 6.12. This curve provides the relationship
between Ein and Nf. Consequently, the values of Ein are calculated by
assigning values to Nf. Note that it is more suitable to pre-assign values to Nf
instead the other way around since Nf is required to be an integer. Preassigning values to Ec in finding Nf might result to a non-integer Nf values.
5. The value of Nmax can be selected based from the value of Nf. Generally, its
value is chosen to be greater than Nf.
6. The damage evolution curve (D versus N/Nmax) can now be established by
substituting the value of Nf with its corresponding Ein. The curve can be
defined by either Equation 6.10 or Equation 6.11, or their combination,
depending on the value of N, Nf and Nmax.
Calculate Ec and b
Ec (using dynamic or quasi static tests)
b (using Excel Solver function)
Repeated impact curve (Ein-Nf relationship)
Identify Nmax
Damage evolution curve
Figure 6.14 Flow chart in establishing the damage evolution curve
145
EJ Guades
6.9 Application of model to FRP composite tubes with square and rectangular
cross sections
In the preceding sections, the prediction model characterising the damage evolution
of a repeatedly impacted FRP composite tubes was discussed. The model predicted
reasonably the damage and failure response of a 100 mm square composite tube. Its
application to other types of composite tubes, on the other hand, needs to be
investigated. Similarly, a suitable parameters need to be established for the other
types of composite tubes in correctly predicting their damage response using the
model.
One of the parameters identified in the damage model is the absorbed energy
of the composite tube during impact loading. It should be noted that the energy at
this point corresponds to the energy absorbed as a result of the progressive crushing
of the tube. The absorbed energy of the composite tube can be obtained from its
load-deformation curve derived from either impact or quasi static compressive tests
(Mamalis et al., 1997b). Literature revealed that the shape of the load-deformation
curves of composite tubes under similar test (i.e., impact or quasi static) for different
geometries (i.e., circular, square, rectangular) are approximately similar (Palanivelu
et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2009; Melo et al., 2008, and Schultz and Hyer, 2001). It is
therefore reasonable that the model can be used to characterise the damage evolution
curve to tubes with different cross sections subjected by repeated axial impact
loading.
6.9.1 Square and rectangular FRP composite tubes

In this section, the repeated impact curve (Equation 6.12) and the damage evolution
curves (Equations 6.10 or/and 6.11) of the glass fibre/vinyl ester composite tubes
using the model are discussed. The procedure presented in Section 6.8 provided a
guide in establishing the curve for each corresponding tubes. Two tubes (square and
rectangular shapes) of different sizes made of glass fibre and vinyl ester resin are
made available. For the two available tubes, the critical absorbed energy used in the
model was obtained experimentally. It should be noted that in this section, the
repeated impact and the damage evolution curves of the previously studied tube
(100x100mm) was included in the discussions in comparison with the other tubes.
The composite tubes are manufactured using the process of pultrusion. These
tubes are designated as S125 and R75x100 (Figure 6.15). It is worth noting that the
146
EJ Guades
letter S and R in the designation represents square and rectangular sections,

respectively, whilst the number indicates the nominal dimensions of the tubes.
Likewise, the 100x100mm square tube is designated as S100 although some of its
details (properties, etc.) will no longer be presented in this section. Table 6.5 shows
the properties of the tubes. The dimensions presented in the table are the average of
the three specimens.
(a) S125 specimen
(b) R75x100 specimen
Figure 6.15 Square and rectangular composite tubes
Table 6.5 Properties of S125 and R75x100 specimens

Properties
Depth, d (outer, mm)
S125
125.32
R75x100
100.49
Width, b (outer, mm)
125.44
74.91
Length, l (mm)
374.33
375.36
6.26
5.26
Specific mass, (kg/m )
1,990
1,965
Glass content (%)
79.80
79.51
Thickness, t (mm)
3
Fibre lay-up
a
a
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
[0 /+45 /0 /-45 /0 /-45 /0 /+45 /0 ], where the 00 direction coincides
with the longitudinal axis of the tube.
a
To obtain the damage evolution curve of the composite tubes using the
model, their repeated impact curves (Equation 6.12) are determined first. The value
of Ec for S125 and R75x100 tubes was determined from the result of the quasi-static
compressive tests. The methods and testing machine used in this test is similar to that
used for 100x100 pultruded section presented in Section 6.6.3 except that the tube
147
EJ Guades
was crushed at 10 mm/min. Both tubes are tested using a 450 chamfer on their top
end (Figure 6.15). The height of the tested tubes was 375 mm. It should be noted that
the axial height of the tubes subjected by axial loading and collapsing in a
progressive manner does not affect their energy absorbing capacity (Mamalis et al.,
1997a). A total of three replicates were used for each test. Figure 6.16 shows the
crushed tubes at the end of the quasi-static compressive test.
(a) S125 specimen
(b) R75x100 specimen
Figure 6.16 Crushed composite tubes
Figures 6.17 and 6.18 illustrate the load-displacement curves of S125 and
R75x100 specimens, respectively. It should be noted that the curve displayed in the
figures are for the three replicates. From the curve, (Ec)Quasi-static was calculated by
numerical integration using trapezoidal rule method. The area in the curve used in
obtaining (Ec)Quasi-static is the area corresponding to the displacement where the
crushing load started to become stable. An example of the area used in calculating
the (Ec)Quasi-static was presented in Figure 6.9.
400
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Load (kN)
300
Specimen 3
200
100
10
20
Displacement (mm)
30
40
Figure 6.17 Load-displacement curves of S125 specimen

148
EJ Guades
400
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Load (kN)
300
Specimen 3
200
100
10
20
Displacement (mm)
30
40
Figure 6.18 Load-displacement curves of R75x100 specimen

The average value of (Ec)Quasi-static of S125 specimen is 2,472.8 J. On the other
hand, the average value of (Ec)Quasi-static of specimen R75x100 is 1,052.1 J. It can be
observed that the value of S125 is comparably higher than R75x100 due to the higher
geometric size of the former. Table 6.6 summarises the values of (Ec)Dynamic, b, and
the equation of the repeated impact curves of the two composite tubes. Note that the
(Ec)Dynamic values are calculated using Equation 6.13 with value of 1.301. The table
also includes the values for the S100 specimen.
The value of b in Table 6.6 for S125 and R75x100 specimens was computed
using an Excel 2010 Solver function similar to that of S100 (see Section 6.6.4). It
should be noted that the applied constraints for the two tubes are similar to that of a
100x100 section (i.e., S100 specimen) except that the value of Ec was changed to
3,217.5 J and 1,368.9 J for S125 and R75x100 specimens, respectively. The average
b value for S125 and R75x100 specimens is 0.205 and 0.316, respectively. After
getting the two parameters (i.e., Ec and b), the equations defining the repeated impact
curve of S125 and R75x100 specimens are now determined by substituting these
values (Column 4 of Table 6.6).
Table 6.6 Summary of parametric values of square and rectangular tubes
Tube
S125
(Ec)Dynamic (J)
3,217.5
b
0.205
Repeated impact equation

Ein = 3,217.5 Nf-0.205
S100
1,485.4
0.291
Ein = 1485.4Nf-0.291
R75x100
1,368.9
0.316
Ein = 1,368.9 Nf-0.316
Figure 6.19 illustrates the repeated impact curve of the tubes. The value of Ein
in the curve was obtained by pre-assigning value of Nf in the repeated impact
149
EJ Guades
equation of each corresponding tube. The significance of the repeated impact curve
shown in the figure is that this provides an idea as to the required impact repetitions
for a certain level of energy to initiate collapse or failure of the tube. The curve
indicates that no failure would likely to occur if the number of impacts at a
corresponding level of energy falls below this curve.
From Figure 6.19, it can be observed that the initiation of failure for S125
specimen is rapid if it is impacted by incident energy higher than 1,400 J. This range
of impact energy with its corresponding number of impact defines the low cycle
fatigue behaviour of S125 specimen. On the other hand, for an energy between 1400
J and 1,000 J, the rate of reduction is less rapid compared to the rate in the low cycle
fatigue region. This region corresponds to the high cycle fatigue behaviour of S125
specimen. In this region, a smaller increment of impact energy would already
provide a higher value of Nf as compared to the low cycle fatigue region with same
impact energy increment. For an energy level lower than 1,000 J, the curve of S125
specimen demonstrated that the rate of failure was very slow. In fact, the curve along
this region tends to become parallel to the x-axis. This indicates that the effect of the
increase of incident energy in this region is minimal. This region can be described as
region of the endurance fatigue of S125 specimen.
For S100 and R75x100 specimens, it can be observed that the minimum
energy constituting the low cycle fatigue region is around 600 J and 400 J,
respectively. On the other hand, it can be observed that the impact energies ranging
between 300 J and 600 J, and 290 J and 400 J define the high cycle fatigue behaviour
of S100 and R75x100 specimens; respectively. The endurance fatigue of R75x100
specimen under repeated impact loading occurs below 300 J and 290 J, respectively.
By comparing the three specimens, one can observe that the Ec of S125
specimen is relatively higher than the other two specimens. This is expected since the
cross section of the S125 specimen is higher than S100 and R75x100 specimens.
Moreover, Mamalis et al. (1997a) and Kindervater (1990) reported that rectangular
cross section tube has 0.6 times the specific energy absorption of comparable square
specimen. The lowest level of energy under low cycle fatigue region of S125 is
comparably higher than that of the two specimens. Similarly, the minimum value of
energy at the high cycle fatigue region of S125 is greater than S100 and R75x100
specimens relative to their Ec. This indicates that the range of the energies
constituting the low and high cycle fatigue regions increases with increasing Ec.
150
EJ Guades
3500
3000
S125
2500
S100
2000
R75x100
1500
1000
500
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Figure 6.19 Repeated impact curves of the square and rectangular tubes
Figure 6.20 shows the damage evolution curves of S125, S100 and R75x100
specimens using the model (Equations 6.10 or/and 6.11). The curve shown in the
figure illustrates the damage evolution when impacted by different levels of energy
(i.e., % of Ec) up to failure of the tubes. It should be noted that the Nmax adopted for
each curve corresponds to the N value at the start of collapse when impacted by 20%
of Ec (i.e., 2,265, 235, and 150 for S125, S100 and R75x100 specimens,
respectively). Unlike the repeated impact curve, the curve traced by the damage
evolution model provides the degree of damage in the non-collapsed region. This
curve illustrates the quantitative damage due to repeated impact loading on the tube
from its non-damage to a fully damaged state (collapse or failure).
For S125 specimen (Figure 6.20a), it can be noticed that the slope of the
curve in the non-collapse region decreases with decreasing applied incident energy.
Moreover, the reduction rate of the slope is not constant relative to the magnitude of
the applied energy. For instance, the slope of the curve for 80% and 60% of Ec
almost coincides with each other. This result is expected to happen since the incident
energies of 80% and 60% of Ec (2,570 J and 1,930 J, respectively) fall in the energy
constituting the low cycle fatigue of the tube. In the low cycle fatigue region, the
failure of the tube is influenced by the applied incident energy with not much on the
number of impact. As a result, the slopes in damage evolution curve under this
region will be comparable. It should be noted that the slope of the curve is inversely
proportional to the N value. On the other hand, the change in slope of 40% and 20%
of Ec relative to the slopes at the low cycle fatigue region is more evident. The
reduction rate is clearer when the tube is impacted by 20% of Ec (i.e., 660 J). This
incident energy is within the energy range describing the region of the endurance
151
EJ Guades
fatigue of S125 specimen. It is therefore expected that the change in slope will be
faster since in this region the failure of the tube is controlled by the number of impact
rather than the incident energy.
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
(a) S125
1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
(b) S100
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
(c) R75x100
Figure 6.20 Damage evolution curves of square and rectangular tubes
152
EJ Guades
The trend of the change in slope observed in S125 specimen can be observed
also in S100 and R75x100 specimens (Figures 6.20b and 6.20c). One comment is
worthwhile in comparing their damage evolution curves. It can be seen that the
decrease of the rate of D with respect to N/Nmax is faster in specimen R75x100
compared to S125 and S100 specimens. This is because the range of the number of
impact constituting the regions in the damage evolution curve decreases with
decreasing Ec values of the tubes.
6.10 Conclusions
This chapter presented a lifetime prediction model that determines the damage
response of square FRP composite tube subjected by repeated axial impact loading.
The damage was characterised using a damage parameter D based from the energy
principle. Impact and quasi-static compressive tests on composite tubes were
undertaken in determining the parametric values and in validating the proposed
model. On the other hand, some of the parameters used in the model were directly
obtained from the literature. The results showed that the energy obtained from quasistatic compressive test can be used in determining the dynamic critical energy by
carefully selecting a suitable value of the correlation factor. The correlation factor is
a function of the rate of loading used in static and dynamic tests. This indicated that a
simple static compressive test can substitute a relatively expensive and complex
dynamic (impact) test in finding the critical energy.
Just like the composite laminates, the repeated impact (fatigue) curve of the
composite tubes follows a power function correlation. This was evidenced by both
the experimental data points and the repeated impact equation. Consequently, the
experimental data points and the fatigue curve fairly agreed with each other. The
repeated impact curve provides an idea as to the required impact repetitions for a
certain level of energy to initiate collapse or failure of the tube. Moreover, it
indicates that no failure would likely to occur if the number of impacts at a
corresponding level of energy falls below this curve. It was found that the
experimental results and the proposed damage model agreed well with each other.
The variation is less than 10% indicating that the model predicted reasonably the
damage evolution of the tube subjected by repeated impact loading.
The application of the damage evolution model was extended to available
glass fibre/vinyl ester tubes having square and rectangular cross sections. It was
153
EJ Guades
revealed that S125 specimen has a higher value of energy that describes the repeated
impact regions compared to S100 and R75 specimens. This result indicated that the
range of energies under these regions is highly dependent on the value of Ec. The
application of the model found to be suitable to vinyl ester tubes reinforced by glass
fibres. It would also be worthy to characterise its usage to other matrix materials such
as polyester and epoxy. In Chapter 7, the application of the proposed damage model
to other composite tubes of different matrix material (i.e., polyester and epoxy) and
vinyl ester (with cross sections other than presented in this chapter) that are
referenced from the literature is discussed.
154
Chapter 7 Application of the model to other types of composite tubes
EJ Guades
Chapter 7
Application of the damage evolution model to other
types of composite tubes
7.1 Introduction
The prediction model has been reported and found that it can characterise the damage
evolution response of FRP composite tubes. The model predicted reasonably the
damage response of a square composite tube made from glass/vinyl ester material.
Similarly, its application can also be extended to composite tubes manufactured from
vinyl ester with cross section other than square or rectangular ones, or from different
matrix materials (i.e., polyester and epoxy). However, consideration should be
carried out in selecting appropriate parameters including the critical energy Ec to
predict soundly their damage response. The value of Ec is mainly dependent on the
absorption capacity of the tube and usually obtained from its load-deformation curve
during the progressive crushing test. It was reported that the shape of the loaddeformation curve under progressive crushing test (dynamic or quasi-static tests) for
tubes made of glass fibres and vinyl ester/polyester/epoxy matrices exhibit
comparable shape (Palanivelu et al., 2010; Mamalis et al., 1997a; and Thornton P.H.,
1990). Likewise, FRP composite tubes made of different geometries (e.g., square,
rectangular, circular etc.) have similar load-deformation trend as reported earlier in
Section 6.9. Consequently, the model can be used to predict the damage response of
the tubes made of polyester and epoxy reinforced by glass fibres or vinyl ester of
different cross sections.
This chapter discusses the application of the damage model to other types of
composite tubes. Unlike the tubes presented in Section 6.9, the tubes described in
this chapter are all referenced from the literature. Note that the application of the
model is extended to other composite tubes made of polyester or epoxy matrices
since they are also commonly used as matrix materials in FRP composite tubes.
Tubes of different sizes and geometries (e.g., circle, square, and rectangular) are
emphasised. Moreover, the application of the model to tubes of different matrix
materials (i.e., vinyl ester, polyester, and epoxy) is reported. The parameters used in
155
EJ Guades
the model for this application were derived experimentally or from the information
published in the literature.
7.2 Background on the constituents of composite tubes used in the model

The two main constituents of fibre composite materials are the reinforcement fibres
and the polymer matrix. While the reinforcement fibres are responsible for
determining main structural properties such as tensile strength and stiffness in the
fibre direction, the successful structural performance of a composite is greatly
dependent on both constituent phases. To date, the common fibre reinforcement used
in composite tube for piling application is glass fibre (Sirimanna, 2011; Pando et al.,
2006; Helmi et al., 2006; Sakr et al., 2005; Mirmiran et al., 2002; Ashford and
Jakrapiyanun, 2001). The chief advantage of glass fibres compared to other types of
reinforcement fibres in civil engineering application (i.e., carbon, aramid) is its
economic cost. Additionally, glass fibres provide distinctive advantage in terms of
their compatibility with broad range of polymer systems such as vinyl esters,
polyesters and epoxies. In Chapter 6, the composite tube that was adopted in deriving
the damage evolution model used glass fibres as reinforcement. Reasonably, the
application of the model is limited on composite tubes which are reinforced by glass
fibres. On the other hand, the common resins that are used in composite tubes for
piling application are vinyl ester (Sirimanna, 2011), polyester (Pando et al., 2006),
and epoxy (Helmi et al., 2006; Sakr et al., 2005; and Mirmiran et al., 2002).
Similarly, these types of resins (matrices) are the subject of interest in the damage
evolution model since they are considered suitable for application as emphasised in
Section 7.1. A summary of information on these resins is presented in the next
sections.
7.2.1 Vinyl ester resin

Vinyl ester resins are unsaturated esters of epoxy resin (Kim, 1995). Vinyl ester
resins are formed by the reaction of epoxy resins with acrylic or methacrylic acid.
They have similar properties as epoxies and processibility of polyester. These resins
are often identified as a class of unsaturated polyester thermosetting resins because
of the curing and processing similarities. Vinyl ester resins have been found to offer
exceptional chemical resistance characteristics and have been the matrix material of
choice in harsh chemical environments. They have higher elongation and corrosion
156
EJ Guades
properties than polyesters, providing a transition in properties and cost to the high
performance epoxy resins, but maintaining the processing versatility of polyesters
(Barbero, 2011). These resins do present several attractive features from a civil
engineering perspective, including a lower cost structure than epoxy. While epoxy
resins are regarded as covering the high end of the polymer matrix performance field
and polyester as covering the lower end, vinyl ester resins hold the middle ground.
7.2.2 Polyester resin

Polyester resins are low velocity, clear liquids based on unsaturated polyesters,
which are dissolved in a reactive monomer, such as styrene (Barbero, 2011). The
addition of heat and a free radical initiator system, such as organic peroxides, results
in a cross linking reaction between the unsaturated polymer and unsaturated
monomer, converting the low-viscosity solution into a three-dimensional thermoset
polymer. These resins can endure extreme exposure to the elements for a period of
more than 30 years, although some discoloration and loss of strength may occur
(Schweitzer, 1995). Polyester resins have good resistance to chemical attack and
have been used for many corrosion-resistant structures (Kim, 1995). On the other
hand, while it is possible to formulate very high performance polyester resins, these
materials can cost as much as or more than competing vinyl ester or epoxy systems.
7.2.3 Epoxy resin

Epoxies are a broad range of products with a common epoxy ring consisting of two
carbon atoms single bonded to an oxygen atom (Kim, 1995). In general, they possess
good high temperature resistance and are normally used at temperatures up to 1770 C
or as high as 3160 C. Epoxy resins are widely used because of their versatility, high
mechanical properties, and high corrosion resistance (Barbero, 2011). Epoxies shrink
less than the other two resin materials which help explains their excellent bond
characteristics when used as adhesives. Epoxy resins have higher specific strength
and dimensional stability, and better resistance to solvents and alkalis compared to
polyester resins. Epoxy resins, however, have poor resistance to acids, UV and
weathering. For civil engineering application, glass/epoxy composites maybe of
higher quality than glass/polyester composites. However, the higher cost and
difficulty in processing of epoxy may counterweigh such advantage.
157
EJ Guades
In the next sections, the application of the damage evolution model to

composite tubes made from vinyl ester, polyester, and epoxy resins is presented.
7.3 Glass/vinyl ester composite tubes

Table 7.1 summarises the information of the tube from the literature used for
application in the damage evolution model of glass fibre/vinyl ester composites.
Aside from square section, the table indicates circular and hourglass cross sections of
the composite tubes. As emphasised in Section 7.1, the application of the model to
other geometries aside from square section is suitable since the shape of the loaddeformation curve of these tubes are comparable. In relation to the absorbed energy
of different cross section, Mamalis et al (1997a) and Kindervater (1990) stated that
square and rectangular cross-sectioned tubes have, respectively, 0.8 and 0.5 times the
specific energy absorption of comparable circular specimens. They emphasised that
the lower specific absorption of square and rectangular sections is generally
attributed to the fact that the corners act as stress concentrator leading to the
formation of splitting cracks. In Table 7.1, the first two letters in the designations of
the tube (i.e., GV) indicates glass/vinyl ester, whilst the last letter indicates the
geometrical section.
Table 7.1 Details of GV-C, GV-S, and GV-H tubes

Designation
GV-C
GV-S
GV-H
Geometry
Circular
Square
Hourglass
Diameter (outside, mm)
38
47.7
47.7
Thickness, t (mm)
2.5
3.3
220
101.6
76.2
Specific mass, (kg/m )
1,819
1,550
1,550
Glass content (%)
50.4a
33.9a
33.9a
Length, l (mm)
3
Reference
Palanivelu et al. Mamalis et al. Mamalis et al.

(2010)
(1997a)
(1996)
a
by volume, bdetails of the dimension can be found on the indicated reference
158
EJ Guades
To obtain the damage evolution curve of the composite tubes using the
model, their repeated impact curves are determined first. The repeated impact curve
(Equation 6.12 in Chapter 6) will again presented for ease of discussion.
Ein = Ec Nf-b
(7.1)
The repeated impact curves of GV-C, GV-S, and GV-H specimens were
obtained based from Equation 7.1. The Ec value of each tube which is used in
Equation 7.1 was derived based from the load-displacement curve of the tube being
considered. Due to the absence of numerical values representing the data points on
the curve, Ec was calculated approximately using the mean sustained crushing load
multiplied by the crushing displacement x. The value of the crushing displacement
was measured up to the point where the crushing load starts to stabilise. The energy
obtained using this procedure (i.e., x) provides the critical impact energy that will
crush the tube for one impact. It should be noted that the total energy (specific)
absorbed during crushing of the composite tubes under progressive collapse is a
function of x, specimen cross section, and the material density (Abdewi et al.,
2006). Table 7.2 shows the summary of the (Ec)Quasi-static and values for GV-S and
GV-H tubes. For GV-C tube, these values are not indicated since the cited reference
employed dynamic (impact) testing and therefore the value of (Ec)Dynamic can be
directly obtained from the curve.
Table 7.2 Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static and values of glass/vinyl ester tubes
Tube
GV-C
(kN)
38.66
x (mm)
10
(Ec)Quasi-static (J)
a
GV-S
40.60
203
1.302b
GV-H
132.60
5
663
1.302b
a
From dynamic (impact) test, bfrom Equation 6.14 using a drop height of 3.3 m
Table 7.3 summarises the values of (Ec)Dynamic, b, and the equation of the
repeated impact curves of the composite tubes. It should be noted that the (Ec)Dynamic
values of GV-S and GV-H in Table 7.3 were calculated using Equation 6.13 whilst
for GV-C, its value is directly obtained from the load-deformation curve. On the
other hand, the value of b from Equation 7.1 was computed using Solver function.
The constraints used in 100x100 mm section were adopted except that the Ec values
were changed to 386.60 J, 264.31 J., and 863.23 J for GV-C, GV-S, and GV-H
159
EJ Guades
specimens; respectively. The value of b in the table represents the average value of
20 runs. Substituting the values of Ec and b to Equation 7.1 we can get the repeated
impact equation of the three tubes (Column 4 in Table 7.3)
Table 7.3 Summary of the repeated impact equation of glass/vinyl ester tubes
Tube
GV-C
(Ec)Dynamic (J)
386.6
b
0.459

Ein = 386.6 Nf-0.459
GV-S
264.3
0.470
Ein = 264.3 Nf-0.470
GV-H
863.2
0.363
Ein = 863.2 Nf-0.363
Figure 7.1 shows the repeated impact curve of the three tubes. It
should be noted that the value of Ein in the curve was obtained by pre-assigning value
of Nf in the repeated impact equation shown in Table 7.3. As mentioned in Section
6.9.1, the significance of the repeated impact curve is it provides information as to
the required impact repetitions at a certain level of energy to initiate collapse or
failure of the tube. The repeated impact curve shows that there will be no failure or
rupture will occur if it is subjected by a number of impact at specific energy below
this curve. In the curve, the Nmax adopted corresponds to the N value at the start of
collapse when impacted by 20% of Ec. Similarly, this relationship in obtaining Nmax
was also used for the tubes with polyester or epoxy as the matrix material.
For GV-C tube, the minimum impact energy defining the low cycle fatigue
behaviour is approximately 80 J. This is 21% of the Ec value of the GV-C tube. On
the other hand, the range of incident energies describing the high cycle fatigue region
of GV-C is between 80 J and 25 J. The lower limit of energy under this region is 6%
of Ec. Energies lower than 25 J are considered energies that fall under the region of
the endurance fatigue. For GV-S and GV-H tubes, the lowest level of energy that
characterises the low cycle fatigue behaviour is around 25 J and 150 J, respectively.
A relatively higher value measured for specimen GV-H is expected since its Ec value
is higher compared to that of GV-C and GV-S tubes. These values are 17% and 10%
of their corresponding Ec. The range of energy defining the high cycle fatigue region
for GV-S tube is between 25 J and 10 J whilst between 150 J to 80 J for GV-S tube.
The lowest limit values are 9% and 4% of their equivalent Ec values. Energies lower
than 80 J and 10 J define the endurance fatigue region of tubes GV-S and GV-H,
respectively. A consistent trend can be observed in comparing with the repeated
160
EJ Guades
impact curve of GV-C, GV-S, and GV-H tubes. The range of the energies describing
the low and high cycle fatigue regions increases with increasing Ec values.
1000
800
GV-C
GV-S
600
GV-H
400
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Figure 7.1 Repeated impact curves of glass/vinyl ester tubes

The damage evolution curve of GV-C, GV-S, and GV-H tubes is displayed in
Figures 7.2 to 7.4. From the figures, one can observe that the slope of the curve
changes with magnitude of the applied impact energy. A trend can be noticed relative
to the change of slope of the curve whereby the rate of decrease becomes faster with
decreasing impact energy. It should be noted that for GV-C tube (Figure 7.2), the
incident energy that will crush the tube for 2 repeated impacts is equivalent to 73%
of Ec. This value was used in comparison since an 80% of Ec cannot be obtained from
this condition unlike the case of other tubes. It can be noticed from Figure 7.2 that
there has been no significant difference occurred between the change of slope from
the initial curve (i.e., impacted by Ec) when it is impacted by 73% and 60% of Ec.
The reason is that the 281 J and 233 J (i.e., 73% and 60% of Ec, respectively) are in
the range of energies describing the low cycle fatigue region. The influence of the
number of impacts (inversely proportional on the slope of the curve in the model) on
the collapse of the tube is negligible. It is therefore expected that the change in slope
between the curves impacted by 73% and 60% of Ec is comparable. In fact, the
relative difference between the number of impacts of these energies is same (i.e., 1
and 2 impacts for 73% and 60% of Ec, respectively). On the other hand, a clear
change of slope (decrease) can be noticed when the tube is impacted by 40% and
20% of Ec. This indicates that the rate of reduction on the slope of curve in the
damage evolution of the tube becomes quicker in the high cycle and endurance
fatigue regions. The result obtained from GV-C tube on the decrease of slope in the
161
EJ Guades
low cycle fatigue region can be observed also for GV-S and GV-H tubes (Figures 7.3
and 7.4, respectively). The reduction is not substantial when GV-S and GV-H tubes
are impacted by 80% and 60% of Ec. The decrease, however, becomes apparent
when the tubes are subjected by 40% and 20% of their corresponding Ec.
1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
0.80
0.60
Ec
0.73 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Figure 7.2 Damage evolution curves of GV-C tube
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Ec
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Figure 7.3 Damage evolution curves of GV-S tube

1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
0.80
0.60
Ec
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Figure 7.4 Damage evolution curves of GV-H tube
162
EJ Guades
7.4 Glass/polyester composite tubes

Tables 7.4 and 7.5 summarises the information of the tube used for application in the
damage evolution model of glass/polyester composites. The tables indicate square
and circular cross sections as the subject in this section. In the tables, the first two
and the last letter in the designations of the tube (e.g., GP-C) indicates
glass/polyester and the cross section, respectively. The number, on the other hand, is
placed to distinguish the study relative to other studies. With regards to the energy
absorption capacity of glass/vinyl ester and glass/polyester composite tubes, the
studies conducted by Palanivelu et al. (2010) revealed that the former absorbed more
energy than the latter. Glass/vinyl ester absorbed energy as much as 33% higher than
the glass/polyester tube. They reported that the increase in absorbed energy was due
to the better inter-laminar strength and the higher strain to failure of vinyl ester resin.
Table 7.4 Details of glass/polyester tubes (circular cross section)

Designation
GP-C1
GP-C2
GP-C3
Geometry
Circular
Circular
Circular
Diameter (inside, mm)
70
50
70
Thickness, t (mm)
3.6
3.3
Length, l (mm)
128.3
220
5.6
Specific mass, (kg/m3)
1,665
1,490
No data
Glass content (%)
No data
51.7
No data
Reference
Stamenovic et
al. (2011)
Palanivelu et al.
(2010)
Velmurugan et
al. (2004)
Table 7.5 Details of glass/polyester tubes (square cross section)

Designation
GP-S1
GP-S2
GP-S3
Geometry
Square
Square
Square
60
50
50
60
50
50
Thickness, t (mm)
4.5
4.3
Length, l (mm)
220
100
80
1,812
2,068
1,400
Glass content (%)
49.2
62.2
50
Reference
Palanivelu et
al. (2010)
Ismael and
Ahmad (2007)
Saito et al.
(2000)
163
EJ Guades
Just like the glass/vinyl ester composites, the repeated impact curves of
glass/polyester tubes were obtained using Equation 7.1. Similarly, the value of Ec (or
(Ec)Dynamic) was obtained based from the load-displacement curve of the tube being
considered. This value was calculated using the mean sustained crushing load
multiplied by the crushing displacement x as emphasised previously in Section 7.3.
For GP-C2 and GP-S1 tubes, the (Ec)Dynamic values can be directly obtained from the
reference since these studies employed dynamic testing. For GP-C1, GP-C3, GP-S2,
and GP-S3; on the other hand, values need to be determine in finding the
relationship between (Ec)Dynamic and (Ec)Quasi-static (i.e., Equation 6.13). Mamalis et al.
(1994) reported that the absorbed energy during dynamic testing is lower than the
static testing for fibre glass/polyester circular tubes and frusta (i.e., value is less
than 1). This result was also verified by Mamalis et al. (1997a) whereby the absorbed
energy obtained from dynamic testing on square tubes underestimated the values
acquired from static testing by as much as 18%. Jacob et al. (2002) reported that
glass/polyester tubes which are axially loaded are strain rate sensitive. This means
that a correlation of speed testing adopted in quasi-static test should be associated to
the impact velocity from the dynamic test in simulating the reasonable (Ec)Dynamic
value. As a result, Equation 7.2 was used in calculating the value of for
glass/polyester composites. Equation 7.2 described a fitting line for the experimental
results conducted by Mamalis et al. (1997a) as shown in Figure 7.5. The result of
their study was adopted in finding the value of because; not only that the material
used in their study is glass/polyester composites, but also the tests were performed
using different loading rates (static and dynamic tests).
2.00
1.50
1.00
= -12.862 + 1.0999
0.50
0.00
0.020 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.025 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.029
(x10-3)
Figure 7.5 Data points with the fitting line showing and relationship of
glass/polyester tubes. Data points from Mamalis et al. (1997a)
164
EJ Guades
From Figure 7.5,

= -12.862 +1.0999
(7.2)
where is defined by Equation 6.15. Table 7.6 summarises the (Ec)Quasi-static and
values of the glass/polyester composite tubes.
Table 7.6 Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static and values of glass/polyester tubes
Tube
GP-C1
(kN)
62.00
x (mm)
17
1,054.0
0.961b
GP-C2
28.34
20
GP-C3
27.78
15
416.7
1.044b
GP-S1
31.01
20
GP-S2
75.00
10
750.0
1.058b
GP-S3
61.47
15
922.0
0.961b
a
From dynamic (impact) test, bfrom Equation 6.14 using a drop height of 3 m
The summary of the (Ec)Dynamic and b values, as well as the equation of the
repeated impact curve for the glass/polyester tubes, is displayed in Table 7.7. Note
that in the table, the value of (Ec)Dynamic for GP-C2 and GP-S1 were directly obtained
from its load-deformation curve while the rests using Equation 6.13. The value of b
for glass/polyester composite tubes was computed using Solver function. For
glass/polyester tubes, the constraints used in finding b for glass/vinyl ester
composites are same except that the Ec values in the latter where substituted by the
actual Ec values of glass/polyester composites. Just like the b value of the glass/vinyl
ester tubes, the value in Table 7.7 is the average of 20 runs. By substituting the
values of Ec and b to Equation 7.1, we can get the repeated impact equation of the
glass/polyester tubes (Column 4 in the table).
Table 7.7 Summary of the repeated impact equation of glass/polyester tubes

Tube
GP-C1
(Ec)Dynamic (J)
1,012.5
b
0.322

Ein = 1,012.5 Nf-0.322
GP-C2
566.8
0.426
Ein = 566.8 Nf-0.426
GP-C3
435.1
0.433
Ein = 435.1 Nf-0.433
GP-S1
620.2
0.390
Ein = 620.2 Nf-0.390
GP-S2
793.6
0.356
Ein = 793.6 Nf-0.356
GP-S3
885.8
0.336
Ein = 885.8 Nf-0.336
165
EJ Guades
Figure 7.6 shows the repeated impact curve of the glass/polyester composite
tubes. In Figure 7.6, it can be observed that the low cycle fatigue region of GP-C1
tube (circular tube, dotted line) occurred with applied incident energy between 1,013
J and 300 J. The lowest limit of incident energy under this region is 30% of Ec. The
range of incident energies characterising the high cycle fatigue region, on the other
hand, extends between 300 J and 150 J. The energy corresponding to the lowermost
limit is 15% of its Ec value. Incident energies lesser than 150 J constitute the energies
that describe the endurance fatigue region of GP-C1 tube.
For the two other circular tubes (i.e., GP-C2 and GP-C3), the lowest incident
energies that cover the regions of low fatigue cycle are approximately 120 J and 85 J,
respectively. These values are 21% and 20% of their corresponding Ec values. One
can observe that the values of GP-C2 and GP-C3 tubes in this region are comparably
lower to that of GP-C1 specimen. This result is due to the fact that the Ec value of
GP-C1 is much higher than the other circular glass/polyester tubes. The higher the
Ec, the higher will be the energy characterising the limit at the low cycle fatigue
region. On the other hand, the lowest level of energy that defines the high cycle
fatigue area of GP-C2 and GP-C3 tubes is 50 J and 30 J, respectively. These values
are 9% and 7% of their corresponding Ec values. Similar with the comparison of
values on the low cycle fatigue region, the lowest level of energy of GP-C1 exhibits
higher value than the other circular glass/polyester composite tubes in the region of
high cycle fatigue. The endurance fatigue regions of GP-C2 and GP-C3 tubes were
defined by incident energies less than 50 J and 30 J, respectively. At these energy
levels, the effect of the variation of energy is considered negligible since the trend of
the curve is dictated by the number of impact.
The repeated impact curves of glass/polyester tubes with square cross section
are also displayed in Figure 7.6 (marked with solid lines). The lowest limit
describing the low cycle fatigue region of GP-S1 specimen is around 100 J. For GPS2 and GP-S3 tubes the values are around 180 J and 230 J, respectively. On the other
hand, these figures show that the lowest level of energy constituting the region of
high cycle fatigue of GP-S1 is approximately 60 J. This value is 10% of its
corresponding Ec value. For GP-S2 and GP-S3 tubes, the energy defining the low
cycle fatigue regions are approximately 90 J and 120 J; respectively. These values
are, respectively, 11%, and 14% of their corresponding Ec values. The energies that
described the endurance fatigue regions of GP-S are those energies lower than 60 J.
166
EJ Guades
On the other hand, energy lesser than 90 J and 120 J describes the endurance fatigue
regions of GP-S2 and GP-S3 tubes.
The trend observed on glass/polyester tubes having circular cross section
relative to the variation of incident energies on the three regions was also found in
the tube with square cross section. Figure 7.6 indicated that the lowest energy level at
specific region increases with increasing Ec values of the tubes. The comparison of
the repeated impact curve between glass/vinyl ester and glass/polyester is not
straightforward. This is because the tubes have different cross sectional areas and the
fibre reinforcements (lay-up and content) vary from one another. However, it is
evident that the repeated impact curve (or level of energy in the three regions) of the
glass/vinyl ester will be much higher compared to the glass/polyester tube. This is
because glass/vinyl ester composites exhibit comparably better energy absorption
behaviour than the glass/polyester material (Palanivelu et al., 2010).
1200
1000
800
600
GP-C1
GP-C2
GP-C3
GP-S1
GP-S2
GP-S3
400
200
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Figure 7.6 Repeated impact curves of glass/polyester tubes

Figures 7.7 to 7.12 display the damage evolution curves of the glass/polyester
composite tubes. It can be seen from the figure that the slope of the curve before the
collapse decreases at decreasing applied energy. The reduction rate, however,
depends on the magnitude of the energy whereby the rate becomes faster at a
relatively smaller energy value. The curves of GP-C1 tube (Figure 7.7) indicate that
no major difference transpired between the slopes of the curve when it is impacted
by 80% and 60% of Ec. It is worth noting that 810 J and 600 J (80% and 60% of Ec,
respectively) levels of energy are in the range of energies constituting the low cycle
fatigue region. Therefore this result is expected since in this region failure of the tube
167
EJ Guades
is dominated by the level of energy. This was also the result observed in glass/vinyl
ester tubes whereby no significant change in slope of the curve in this region. The
decrease in the slope of the curve for GP-C1 tube is noticeable when it is subjected
by 410 J (i.e., 40% of Ec). Moreover, a huge reduction of the slope can be seen when
the tube is impacted by 207 J (i.e., 20% of Ec).
The result obtained from GP-C1 tube on the reduction of slope in the region
of low cycle fatigue can also be seen for other glass/polyester tubes (Figures 7.8 to
7.12). The decrease is not significant when these tubes are impacted by incident
energies describing the low cycle fatigue region (80% to 60% of Ec). The reduction
of the slopes of these tubes is significant when they are subjected by 40% and 20%
of their corresponding Ec.
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Figure 7.7 Damage evolution curves of GP-C1 tube
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.74 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
168
EJ Guades
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Ec
0.75 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.76 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Figure 7.10 Damage evolution curves of GP-S1 tube
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.78 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
169
EJ Guades
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Ec
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
7.5 Glass/epoxy composite tubes

Tables 7.8 and 7.9 shows the information of the glass/epoxy composite tubes sourced
from the literature used for application in the damage evolution model. The
geometries considered for application are tubes with square and circular cross
sections as indicated in the table. The first two and the last letter in the designation of
the tube (e.g., GE-C) indicates glass/epoxy and the cross section, respectively. Just
like in designating glass/polyester tubes, the number in the designation is placed to
distinguish the study relative to the other. In general, glass/epoxy composite tubes
absorbed more energy than the glass/polyester tubes (Jacob et al., 2002). They
emphasise that the changes in matrix stiffness have little effect on the energy
absorption capability of composite materials with ductile reinforcement. Moreover,
they reported that further studies are essential to understand clearly the role of
matrices in the energy absorption capability of the composite material.
Table 7.8 Details of glass/epoxy tubes (circular cross section)

Designation
GE-C1
GE-C2
GE-C3
Geometry
Circular
Circular
Circular
74.50
39.30
30
Thickness, t (mm)
3.70
1.5
Length, l (mm)
150
91
100
No data
No data
No data
Glass content (%)
No data
No data
50.1
Reference
Muralikannan et
al. (2010)
Ochelski and
Gotowicki (2009)
Kim et al.
(2009)
170
EJ Guades
Table 7.9 Details of glass/epoxy tubes (circular and square cross sections)
Designation
GE-C4
GE-C5
GE-S1
Geometry
Circular
Circular
Square
103.35
55
80a
Thickness, t (mm)
3.35
1.9
Length, l (mm)
300
100
100
No data
No data
2,100
Glass content (%)
No data
No data
40.3
Song and Du
(2002)
Ghasemnejad
et al. (2009)
Reference
Aljibori et al.
(2008)
a
outer width or outer depth (square section)
The repeated impact curves of glass/epoxy tubes were obtained using

Equation 7.1. Just like the glass/vinyl ester and glass/polyester tubes, the value of Ec
(or (Ec)Dynamic) of glass/epoxy composites was obtained based from the loaddisplacement curve of each corresponding tube. This value was calculated using the
mean sustained crushing load multiplied by the crushing displacement x. As
illustrated in Equation 6.13, the value of (Ec)Dynamic and (Ec)Quasi-static are correlated
by a factor . This correlation was already illustrated in determining the repeated
impact and damage evolution curves of glass/vinyl ester or glass/polyester tubes.
For glass/epoxy composite tubes, however, there are contradicting remarks with
regards to this relationship. Schmueser and Wickliffe (1987) reported that the
dynamic specific energy of glass/epoxy tube was lower compared to when it is
loaded statically. This result was also found by Muralikannan et al. (2010) whereby
the mean load in impact loading decreases with the increase in impact velocity. This
result, according to Muralikannan et al., is because of the reduced fracture strength
and reduced frictional energy absorption in impact loading.
In contrary, Berry and Hull (1984) found that the specific energy of the
glass/epoxy composites increases with increasing loading rates up to 8.5 m/s. As a
result, the present study assumed that the value of (Ec)Quasi-static can be used as a
direct value of (Ec)Dynamic ( 1) for those obtained using quasi static compressive
tests. A more accurate value of the (Ec)Dynamic, however, can be derived using impact
testing if desired. Table 7.10 shows the summary of (Ec)Quasi-static and values of the
glass/epoxy composite tubes.
171
EJ Guades
Table 7.10 Summary of (Ec)Quasi-static and values of glass/epoxy tubes

Tube
GE-C1
(kN)
50.00
x (mm)
15
a
GE-C2
117.70
10
1,177
1.0
GE-C3
22.40
10
224
1.0
GE-C4
40.00
10
400
1.0
GE-C5
20.00
10
200
1.0
10
520
1.0
GE-S1
52.00
a
From dynamic (impact) test
Table 7.11 displays the summary of the (Ec)Dynamic, b values, and the repeated
impact equation of the glass/epoxy tubes. Note that (Ec)Dynamic was calculated using
Equation 6.13 by taking into account the corresponding value of . Just like in
glass/vinyl ester and glass/polyester composites, the value of b from Equation 7.1 for
glass/epoxy tubes was computed using Solver function. The constraints used in
finding b for glass/vinyl ester and glass/polyester composites are same except that
the Ec values where changed to the actual Ec values of the corresponding glass/epoxy
tubes. The equation of the repeated impact curve was obtained by inputting the
values of (Ec)Dynamic and b to Equation 7.1.
Table 7.11 Summary of the repeated impact equation of glass/polyester tubes
Tube
GE-C1
(Ec)Dynamic (J)
750
b
0.369

Ein = 750 Nf-0.369
GE-C2
1,177
0.321
Ein = 1,177 Nf-0.321
GE-C3
224
0.514
Ein = 224 Nf-0.514
GE-C4
400
0.452
Ein = 400 Nf-0.452
GE-C5
200
0.529
Ein = 200 Nf-0.529
GE-S1
520
0.435
Ein = 520 Nf-0.435
The repeated impact curve of the glass/epoxy composite tubes is displayed in

Figure 7.13. For GE-C1 tube (circular tubes, dotted line), it can be observed that the
start of failure is quick when the tube is impacted by incident energy between 150 J
to 750 J. This range of energies characterises the low cycle fatigue region of the tube.
The lowest level of energy under this region is equivalent to 20% of its
corresponding Ec. The range of energies that define the region of high cycle fatigue
of GE-C1 tube is between 90 J to 150 J. As can be seen from Figure 7.13, a slower
172
EJ Guades
rate of failure can be observed when impacted by this level of energies compared to
the energies defining the low cycle fatigue region. Incident energies lower than 90 J
constitute the energies that describe the endurance fatigue region of GE-C1 tube.
For the other glass/epoxy composite tubes with circular cross sections, the
lowest level of incident energies that describe their low cycle fatigue regions are in
between 10% to 24% of their Ec values. The extreme values (i.e., 10% and 24%)
correspond to GE-C2 and GE-C5, respectively. It should be noted that the values of
the other tubes (GE-C3 and GE-C4) lie in between 10% to 24% of their Ec value. On
the other hand, the lowest level of energies that characterise their high cycle fatigue
region is within the range of 5% to 14% of their corresponding Ec value. Incident
energies lower than these values explain the endurance fatigue region of these tubes.
For glass/epoxy square composite tube (i.e., GE-S1 tube), the energies that
describe the low cycle fatigue region is roughly between 100 J to 520 J. The lowest
level of energy characterising this region is 19% of the corresponding Ec value. On
the other hand, the lowest level of incident energy characterising the region of high
cycle fatigue of GE-S1 tube is approximately 60 J. Energies lower than 60 J covers
the energy explaining its endurance fatigue region.
1200
1000
800
600
GE-C1
GE-C2
GE-C3
GE-C4
GE-C5
GE-S1
400
200
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Figure 7.13 Repeated impact curves of glass/epoxy tubes

The damage evolution curves of the glass/epoxy composite tubes are shown
in Figures 7.14 to 7.19. Just like the other two composite tubes, the slope of the DN/Nmax curves decreases with decreasing applied energy. The rate of reduction
becomes quicker when the tube was impacted by smaller incident energy. The curve
in Figure 7.14 shows that no significant deviations on the slope of the damage
173
EJ Guades
evolution curve of GE-C1 when it is impacted up to collapse by 80% and 60% of its
Ec value. From Figure 7.14, incident energies greater than 60% of Ec are energies
considered to be in low cycle fatigue region. In this region, the initiation of failure of
GE-C1 tube is highly dependent on the level of energy. This means that a large
reduction of incident energy (e.g., from Ec to 60% of Ec) in this region will not
significantly increase the rate of slope reduction of the curve. This result was also
observed in the glass/vinyl ester and glass/polyester composite tubes wherein the rate
of slope reduction is almost similar from Ec to 80% and 60% of Ec. The reduction in
the slope of the curve for GE-C1 tube is noticeable when it is subjected by 40% and
20% of Ec. The result found from GE-C1 tube on the rate of slope reduction in the
region of low cycle fatigue can also be observed for the remaining glass/epoxy tubes.
Looking on Figures 7.15 to 7.19, the difference in slope when they are subjected up
to collapse by at least 60% of Ec is relatively small. However, a significant reduction
of slope can be noticed when they are impacted by 20% of Ec.
1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Figure 7.14 Damage evolution curves of GE-C1 tube
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
Ec
0.80 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00

174
EJ Guades
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.70 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
Damage parameter, D
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.73 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.70 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
175
EJ Guades
Damage parameter, D
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ec
0.60
0.74 x Ec
0.40
0.60 x Ec
0.40 x Ec
0.20
0.20 x Ec
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Figure 7.19 Damage evolution curves of GE-S1 tube
7.6 Discussion on the repeated impact and damage evolution curves of FRP
composite tubes
The repeated impact (fatigue) curve and the damage response of composite tubes
made of vinyl ester, polyester, and epoxy reinforced by glass fibre have been
characterised. This curve provided information on the incident energy and number of
impact relationship indicating their maximum values when the tube apparently will
start to fail. The curve indicates that no failure would likely to occur if the number of
impacts at a corresponding level of energy drops below this curve. On the other
hand, the tube is expected to fail at a single impact if the applied impact energy
exceeds the value of the critical energy Ec. This indicates that the effect of the
increase of energy above Ec value becomes insignificant on the failure of the tube.
Incident energy with value below Ec needs to be associated to several numbers of
impacts to collapse or fail the composite tube. The repeated impact curve traces three
regions that define the impact damage tolerance of the impacted tubes. These regions
characterise the rate of damage or failure of the tube which starts from a rapid
initiation of failure (low cycle) to the region of endurance whereby the effect of the
impact event is almost insignificant.
From the equation of the repeated impact curve, one can notice that its
intercept (at Nf = 1) is mainly dependent on the value of Ec. The higher is the specific
energy absorption value, the higher is the value of Ec. Studying the effect of tube
dimensions, it can be inferred that the crush zone fracture mechanisms are influenced
by the tube dimensions and these fracture mechanisms determine the overall energy
absorption capability of the composite tubes. The result showed that for common
176
EJ Guades
geometries considered in this study, tube having circular cross section exhibited
better energy absorption performance compared to comparable square and
rectangular tubes. The specific absorption values of the latter can be reduced as much
as 20% and 50%, respectively to that of the former. A much lower specific energy
value of the square and rectangular sections is generally credited to the presence of
the corners acting as a stress concentrators leading to the formation of splitting
cracks. If we plot the repeated impact curves of these tubes, apparently we can
observe that the location of the curve of circular tube in the graph is above relative to
the curves of tubes with square and rectangular sections. In a similar way, the value
of the incident energy that falls in the repeated impact curve of the circular tube is
much higher compared to the other two sections. This indicates that the former has
better damage tolerance under repeated impact loading than the latter.
Tubes made of vinyl ester, polyester, and epoxy with glass fibre
reinforcement are the main interest of this study. In characterising the energy
absorption capability of an FRP composite material, one can ascertain that the higher
inter-laminar fracture toughness would increase its energy absorption response.
Glass/vinyl ester exhibited much specific absorption energy value compared to
glass/polyester tube due to its better inter-laminar strength and higher failure strain.
An increase in matrix failure strain causes greater energy absorption capabilities in
brittle reinforcement such as glass fibres (Jacob et al., 2002). In the contrary, changes
in matrix stiffness have very little effect on the energy absorption capability of
composite materials with ductile fibre reinforcement. As a result, glass/vinyl ester
tubes have higher Ec value due to their better energy absorption performance than
glass/polyester tubes. On the other hand, glass/epoxy composite tubes absorbed more
energy than the glass/polyester tubes. Therefore it is expected that tubes made of
epoxy matrix has better impact damage resistance due to its higher Ec value than
glass/polyester tubes.
The density of the glass fibres in the composite tubes has a lot to do with their
energy absorption characteristics. As the density of the fibre is reduced from a higher
to lower value, the specific energy of the FRP composite tubes increased from lower
to a higher value, respectively. Moreover, tubes reinforced with fibres having higher
failure strain result in greater energy absorption, thus provides higher Ec value. The
effect of the fibre content on the energy absorption (or Ec value) of FRP composite
tubes is not straightforward since the increase of fibre might not always necessarily
177
EJ Guades
improve the absorption behaviour. It should be noted that as the fibre fraction
increases, the volume of the matrix between the fibres decreases. As a result, the
inter-laminar strength of the composite material will be reduced (Jacob et al., 2002).
The reduction contributed to the formation of the inter-laminar cracks at relatively
lower impact load resulting in a reduction in the energy absorption capability.
The damage evolution curve provides an idea on the degree of damage in the
non-collapsed region unlike the repeated impact curve. This curve demonstrates the
quantitative damage provided by the impact event on the tube from the start of
loading up to its failure state. Generally the slope of the damage evolution curve in
the region where failure of the tube is not observed (N < Nf and Ein < Ec) decreases
when the applied incident energy is reduced. The reduction rate, however, is not
constant since Ein-Nf relationship found to be non-linear (i.e., power function). At a
relatively higher incident energy (i.e., 80% to 60% of Ec), the deviation of the
reduction rate within this range is minimal regardless of the geometrical sections
(circular, square, or rectangular) and the type of matrix materials (vinyl ester,
polyester, or epoxy). The deviation becomes apparent only at relatively lower
incident energy (i.e. 20% of Ec) which implies that at this energy level the impact
damage is not imminent. Similarly, the change in slope will be faster since in this
region the failure of the tube is dominated by the number of impact rather than the
incident energy as expected.
7.7 Discussion on the application of FRP composite tubes in piling system and
the practical implication of the results obtained from the present study
The application of glass FRP composite tubes in piling system has been reported in
the present study. Their application offered an alternative solution for traditional pile
materials especially in harsh environmental condition. Aside from providing an
excellent structural performance, they also offer better durability characteristic.
Environmentally, these materials refute the need for further chemical treatment or
protection due to their inherent anti-corrosive property. In general, the common FRP
composite materials used in this application is a thermosetting matrix (i.e., vinyl
ester, polyester, and epoxy) with glass fibre reinforcement. Although preference as to
the suitable matrix materials may varies for each design requirement. Relative to the
other types of fibre reinforcements (e.g., Carbon, Kevlar), glass fibres are the choice
of reinforcement due to their relatively minimal cost while still meeting the structural
178
EJ Guades
requirements of the design. The application of the FRP composite tubes in piling
system has been the subject of some recent studies. Likewise, their structural
properties have been sufficiently investigated. Issue such as their driving
performance, however, needs to be carefully investigated since it affects their
optimum use for widespread application. It was emphasised that one of the factors
affecting their driving performance is the impact behaviour of the fibre composite
materials and was the focus of this study. The characterisation of the response of
these materials under repeated axial impact loading ascertains their performance
when they are driven and especially during the encounter of hard soils or boulders.
This investigation also provided insights on the effects of impact stresses on the postimpact bearing capacity of the composite tubes which is vitally important as a
supporting structure in bridge construction. This allows whether the impact-driven
FRP tubes still serve their purpose in supporting design loads or whether their
structural integrity is compromised.
This study presented the behaviour of FRP composite tubes subjected by
repeated axial impact loading. Tubes made of thermosetting matrix with glass fibre
reinforcement were the subject of interests in the investigation. Although FRP
composite tubes with a relatively smaller section were considered in the experimental
investigation (i.e., 100 mm square section), it is considered suitable to characterise
the impact behaviour of a full-scale hollow FRP pipe piles used in piling application.
As highlighted in Section 4.1, the damage behaviours (e.g., failure modes) between
FRP composite tubes with smaller and bigger geometrical sections are similar. .
Generally, a relatively shorter specimen (375 mm length) was used in this study in
characterising the impact behaviour of FRP composite tubes. As reported in Section
2.4 (Chapter 2), the rupture of the FRP composite materials during impact driving
happened when they encounter hard soil or boulders (no penetration). The present
study considered this worst scenario during the conduct of the impact tests on FRP
composite tubes. The damage was observed to be imminent at the top of the pile (end
crushing) with not much more on mid-height collapse (buckling failure). This was
also supported by some results on the progressive collapse behaviour whereby the
length does not affect the progressive crushing behaviour of the composite tubes. As
a result, a 375 mm length is reasonable to characterise the impact behaviour of FRP
composite tubes.
179
EJ Guades
There are results obtained from the present study which have practical
significance in driving hollow FRP pipe piles. For instance, the shape of the curve
Incident energy vs. Nf curve of repeatedly impacted tubes shown in Figure 4.10
would be similar when it will be driven and penetrating into the soil until the
occurrence of damage. It should be noted that Nf illustrates damage into the impacted
composite materials and therefore the tube penetrating into the soil should be
continuously driven until the occurrence of damage or failure. In general, the
repeated impact (fatigue) curve of mostly impacted composite materials whether it is
laminate or tube axially or transversely impacted follows a power function (i.e.,
Figure 4.10). This result might be true whether the tube is impacted at different end
support (fixed or penetrating, in the case of the driven tube) as long as it is impacted
up to failure. One thing that might be different from these support conditions is that
for tubes impacted with fixed support, the value of the incident energy at a
corresponding Nf will be lower than that of a penetrating tube due to its relatively
lower impact tolerance. This means that the curve of the former will be located
below the curve of the latter when they are plotted at same Nf values. This
assumption, however, needs to be verified in actual test and is considered as potential
research work in the future.
It is clear that the impact damage provided significant effect on the
performance of the FRP composite materials during the impact event. The
degradation of residual properties caused by the impact event is imminent. The
present study, however, is performed on a small-scale specimen and therefore a
residual properties testing on a full length pile might be beneficial to provide
additional information on the effect of axial impact loading.
FRP composite tubes having circular, square and rectangular geometries are
the typical cross sections used in piling application although the first one is
considered the most efficient as it exhibits better energy absorbing performance. On
the other hand, square or rectangular sections have the advantage over the other
section as they can be easily connected to the other structural components in the
system. By understanding the impact behaviour of FRP composite materials of the
tubes, one can realise their actual response during impact driving when used in piling
system. Additionally, the understanding on the residual properties of the driven
(impacted) composite tubes provided a reference on their structural carrying
capacity. A systematic information on the impact behaviour on these tubes leads to
180
EJ Guades
an efficient and improved driving performance for a wide acceptance of their

application.
7.8 Conclusions
The application of the damage evolution model to other composite tubes of different
sizes, cross sections, and different types of matrix material was discussed. The
application included tubes made from glass/vinyl ester, glass/polyester, and
glass/epoxy composites. Moreover, tubes of different cross sections are the interests
of this study. The critical energy values Ec of the composite tubes were derived using
dynamic or quasi-static compressive tests. When using the latter, the critical energy
used in the model was calculated using a correlation factor. By carefully selecting
suitable parameters, the model was able to demonstrate the damage evolution curves
of the composite tubes.
The result showed that the energies describing the low cycle, high cycle, and
endurance fatigue regions of the composite tubes are mainly dependent on their
critical energy. As the critical energy increase, the range of energies describing these
regions also increases. The rate of reduction on the failure of the tubes in the low
cycle fatigue region is comparably faster than the other two regions. On the other
hand, the rate of failure in the endurance fatigue region was very slow indicating that
the effect on the variation of incident energy in this region is minimal. It was found
that the change of slope of the damage evolution curve of glass/vinyl ester composite
tubes between Ec and 60% of Ec is comparably small. However, the reduction is
apparent when they are impacted until failure by at least 20% of Ec. This result was
also observed in tubes made of glass/polyester and glass/epoxy composite materials.
The repeated impact curves (or Ec) of tubes made from glass/epoxy is higher
compared to the other matrix materials. Similarly, circular tubes have greater Ec
values of comparable square and rectangular tubes.
From this study, an understanding of the behaviour of glass fibre FRP
composite tubes under repeated axial impact can be obtained. The information on the
impact behaviour on these tubes leads to an efficient and improved driving
performance for a wide acceptance of their application. Similarly, the yield of this
study will help in developing efcient techniques and guidelines in driving
composites piles.
181
Chapter 8 Conclusions
EJ Guades
Chapter 8
Conclusions
8.1 Summary
The deterioration of traditional pile materials such as concrete, steel, and timber
resulted in deep foundation industry to look for alternative materials suitable in harsh
and corrosive environment application. Hollow FRP composite piles provided
significant advantages in terms of cost efficiency and structural capabilities. There
are, however, several challenges needed to overcome for hollow FRP composite piles
for their optimum use especially on their installation. This includes lack of
information on the behaviour of the fibre composite materials under impact loading,
which is the main focus of this study. This work studied the impact behaviour of FRP
composite tubes. Particularly, the effects of impact loading on the instantaneous and
post-impact structural performances of the FRP material were investigated. The
conclusions gathered from the various studies conducted towards understanding the
behaviour of the fibre composite materials (i.e., composite tubes) are presented in
this chapter. Additional research studies are suggested to facilitate their acceptance in
piling application.
8.2 Main conclusions from the study

8.2.1. Behaviour of composite tubes subjected by impact loading
This study has experimentally investigated the behaviour of a square composite tube
subjected by repeated axial impact. The conclusions related to this study are
summarised below:
In general, the failure mode of square composite tube repeatedly impacted

was characterised by progressive crushing at the upper end. This failure was
manifested by inter and intra laminar cracking and glass fibre ruptures.
Moreover, this failure shows bunches of lamina splaying into the outside and
inside of the tube.
There is no significant difference exists on the shapes of the load and energy
curves for non-collapsed tubes. The load and energy responses of the non-
182
EJ Guades
collapsed tubes are comparably similar to that of the collapsed tubes before
the initiation of failure occurs.
The peak load evolution of collapsed tubes constitutes two regions. The peak
load in the pre-collapse region is in decreasing trend, whilst they become
constant after the initiation of failure. The rate of load degradation is more
rapid when the tube was impacted by higher incident energy.
The number of impacts played an important role on the peak load evolution in
the pre-collapse region; however, its effect becomes less significant in the
post-collapse region.
The effects of incident energy and number of impacts were found to be

significant on the rate of energy absorption in the pre-collapse region only
and not in the post-collapse region.
The drop mass and impact velocity (or drop height) have pronounced effects
on the collapse of tubes at lower incident energies; however, their effects
gradually decrease at relatively higher energies.
Incident energy is the major damage factor in the collapse of tubes for lower
number of impacts; however, the number of impacts becomes the key reason
as soon as the value of incident energy decreases.
8.2.2. Effects of impact loading on the residual properties of composite tubes

The residual properties of square composite tubes under repeated axial impact was
characterised using experimental investigation. Based on the results of this
investigation, the following conclusions are drawn:
The levels of impact energy, number of impacts, and the mass of the impactor
significantly influenced the residual strength degradation of the impacted
tubes. Their effects, however, are almost negligible in the residual modulus
property.
The decrease of residual strength values is more substantial when the

composite tubes collapsed.
The rate of residual strength degradation between increasing impact number

becomes rapid when impact energy increases.
The maximum reductions of residual compressive and flexural strengths are

6.8% and 10%; respectively. On the other hand, the maximum reduction in
183
EJ Guades
the tensile strength is roughly 0.3%. The reduction in tensile strength is

within the standard deviation of the baseline value, thus can be neglected.
The effect of impact damage on the reduction of residual compressive

strength of the tube is concentrated only in region closer to where the source
of impact originates.
8.2.3. Prediction on the damage evolution of composite tubes

A prediction model was established in describing the damage evolution of the
composite tubes. The model was verified through experimental investigation on a
100 mm square pultruded tube. The model was applied to composite tubes made
from vinyl ester/polyester/epoxy matrix reinforced with glass fibres. It was also
applied to composite tubes with different cross sections. The conclusions of the
theoretical prediction on the damage behaviour of composite tubes are summarised
as follows:
The critical energy Ec obtained from quasi-static compressive test can be used
in determining (Ec)Dynamic by carefully selecting a suitable value of the
correlation factor .
The repeated impact (fatigue) curve (Ein-Nf) of the composite tubes subjected
by axial impact loading followed a power function relationship. The variation
of incident energies Ein between the fitting curve and experimental data points
for a 100 mm square specimen loaded up to failure is less than 3%.
A good agreement was observed between the experimental results and the
calculated values using the proposed damage model. Their difference is less
than 10%, thus, the model can be used in predicting the damage evolution of
square composite tubes under repeated impact loading.
The energies describing the low cycle, high cycle, and endurance fatigue
regions of the composite tubes are largely dependent on their corresponding
Ec. The higher the Ec values, the higher the range of energies characterising
these regions.
In general, the repeated impact curves (or Ec) of tubes made from glass/epoxy
is comparably higher than the tubes made from glass/vinyl ester and
glass/polyester composites. Moreover, tubes of circular sections have higher
Ec values of comparable square and rectangular tubes.
184
EJ Guades
8.3 Recommendations for future study

The following areas need to be studied in more detail for a widespread acceptance of
composite tubes in piling application and to improve their driving performance:
Systematic evaluation of the behaviour of glass FRP composite tubes under

actual pile driving considering the effect of soil. This study will characterise
the impact behaviour (i.e., failure mode, load evolution curve, etc.) associated
to the depth of penetration into the ground. The output of this study will
provide additional information as to the variation of impact stresses along the
height of the tube and its residual properties. This information is considered
important in determining the effect of soil profiles on the failure mode of the
impacted tube.
A more rigorous FE analysis is needed using sophisticated FE software

package to accurately predict the impact behaviour of composite tubes. This
analysis will provide other important information such as the simulated
failure mode caused by the impact event. This will deliver as an alternative to
a more-expensive experimental study in determining the impact behaviour of
composite tubes.
Experimental investigation on the repeated axial impact behaviour of

composite tubes made of glass/polyester and glass/epoxy. Moreover, the
experiment should include other cross sections aside from square since
various geometries are considered in piling application. The information that
will be obtained from this test will double check the results in the damage
evolution curve using the prediction model.
The present study investigated the residual properties of composite tubes

using coupon tests. It is also worth to investigate the residual properties of
driven hollow FRP piles using full scale specimen. This will provide a more
realistic and reliable output on the effect of impact stress on their load bearing
capacities. The yield will provide design engineers information in choosing
suitable safety factors in installing these piles using impact driving.
Finally, continuous research and development are essential to develop the

market and increase the confidence in using the composite tubes in piling
application. The development of local and international standards on their
installation technique will encourage their adoption worldwide.
185
References
EJ Guades
References
Abdallah E.A., Rivallant S., Bouvet C., Barrau J.J., and Buchin J.M. (2007). The
influence of composite tubes damage tolerance on compressive residual
strength: experimental observations. AI4IA First International Conference, 1925.
Abdewi E.F., Sulaiman S., Hamouda A.M.S, and Mahdi E. (2006). Effect of
geometry on the crushing behaviour of laminated corrugated composite tubes.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 172(3), 394-54.
Al Galib D. and Limam A. (2004). Experimental and numerical investigation of
static and dynamic axial crushing of circular aluminium tubes. Thin Walled
Structures, 42(8), 1103-1137.
Aljibori H.K.S., Badruddin I.A., Badaruddin A., and Chong W. T. (2008).
Experimental study of composite structures in automotive applications.
International Journal of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, 3(1), 47-54.
Ambur D.R. and Starnes J.H. (1998). Effect of curvature on the impact damage
characteristics and residual strength of composite plates. 39th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference, 20-23 April, Long Beach, California.
Aravinthan, T. and Manalo, A. (2012). Field applications and case studies of FRP in
civil infrastructures: The Australian experience. Proceedings of the Composites
in Civil Engineering, 13-15 April, Rome, Italy, Paper no 13-210
Arenz R.J. (1964). Theoretical and experimental studies of wave propagation in
viscoelastic materials. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.
Ashford S.A. and Jakrapiyanun W. (2001). Driveability of glass FRP composite
piling. Journal of Composites for Construction, 5(1), 58-60.
ASTM D 4945 (2008), Standard test method for high strain dynamic testing of deep
foundations, ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA.
ASTM D 695 (2010), Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid
plastics, ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA.
Aurrekoetxea J., Sarrionandia M., Mateos M., and Aretxabaleta L. (2011). Repeated
low energy impact behaviour of self-reinforced polypropylene composites.
Polymer Testing, 30(2), 216-221.
Australian Standards 132.3 (1993), Australian standard on boat and ship design and
construction, Part 3: Fibre-reinforced plastics construction.
Azouaoui K., Rechak S., Azari Z., Benmedakhene S., Laksimi A., and Pluvinage G.
(2001). Modelling of damage and failure of glass/epoxy composite plates
subject to impact fatigue. International Journal of Fatigue, 23(10), 877-885.
Azouaoui K., Ouali N., Ouroua Y., Mesbah A., and Boukarohba T. (2007). Damage
characterisation of glass/polyester composite plates subjected to low-energy
impact fatigue. Journal of Sounds and Vibrations, 308(3-5), 504-513.
186
References
EJ Guades
Bakis, C.E., Bank, L.C., Brown, V.L, Cosenza, E., Davalos, J.F., Lesko, J.J.,
Machida, A., Riskalla, S.H., and Triantafillou, T.C. (2002). Fibre-reinforced
polymer composites for construction: State-of-the-art review. Journal of
Composites for Construction, 6(2), 73-87.
Ballinger, C. (1994). Composites poised to make inroads as highway structural
materials. The Journal: Roads and Bridges, April 1994, 40-44.
Barbero, E.J. (2011). Introduction to composite materials design, Taylor and Francis
Group, USA.
Bardi F.C., Yun, H.D., and Kyriakides S. (2003). On the axisymmetric progressive
crushing of circular tubes under axial compression. International Journal of
Solids and Structures, 40(12), 3137-3155.
Baxter, C.D. P., Marinucci, A., Bradshaw, A.S., and Morgan, R.J. (2005). Field
study of composite piles in the marine environment. University of Rhode Island
Transportation Center. (URITC No.536153), 61.
Behesty M.H., and Harris B. (1998). A constant-life model of fatigue behaviour for
Carbon-fibre composites: The effect of impact damage. Composite Science and
Technology, 58(1), 9-18.
Belingardi G., Cavatorta M., and Paolino D. (2008). Repeated impact response and
hand lay-up and vacuum infusion thick glass reinforced laminates.
International Journal of Impact Engineering, 35(7), 609-619.
Belingardi G., and Vadori R. (2003). Influence of the laminate thickness in low
velocity impact behaviour of composite material plate. Composite Structures,
61(1-2), 27-38.
Belingardi G., Cavatorta M.P., and Paolino D.S. (2009). Single and repeated impact
tests in fibre composite laminates: Damage index vs. residual flexural
properties. The 17th International Conference on Composites (ICCM17), 27-31
July, Edinburgh, UK. Paper no. F10:8.
Berry J. and Hull D. (1984). Effect of speed on progressive crushing of epoxy-glass
cloth tubes. The 3rd International Conference on the Mechanical Properties
and High Rates of Strain, Oxford, 463.
Boscato G. and Russo S. (2008). On vibration of pultruded FRP sheet piles.
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil
Engineering, 22-24 July, Zurich, Switzerland.
BS EN ISO 527-2 (1996), Plastics: Determination of tensile properties.
Chotard T.J., Pasquiet J., and Benzeggagh M.L. (2001). Residual performance of
scarf patch-repaired pultruded shapes initially impact damaged. Composite
Structures, 53(3), 317-331.
Coban, O., Bora, M.O., Sinmazcelik, T., Curgul I., and Gunay, V. (2009). Fracture
morphology and deformation characteristics of repeatedly impacted
thermoplastic matrix composites. Materials and Design; 30(3):628-634.
Czaplicki M.J., Robertson R.E., and Thornton P.H. (1991). Comparison of bevel and
tulip triggered pultruded tubes for energy absorption. Composite Science and
Technology, 40(1), 31-46.
187
References
EJ Guades
Datta D.A., Krishna V., and Rao R.M. (2004). Low velocity impact damage
tolerance studies on glass-epoxy laminates effects of material process and
test parameters. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 23(3), 327345.
Davies G.A.O., Hitchings D., and Zhou G. (1996). Impact damage and residual
strengths of woven fabric glass/polyester laminates. Composites Part A:
Applied Science and Manufacturing, 27(12), 1147-1156.
Delfosse D. and Poursartip A. (1997). Energy-based approach to impact damage in
CFRP laminates. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing,
28(7), 647-655.
De Morais, W.A., Monteiro S.N., and dAlmeida J.R.M., (2005). Effect of laminate
thickness on the composite strength to repeated low energy impacts. Composite
Structures; 70(2):223-228.
Deniz M.E., Karakuzu R., Sari M., and Icten B.M. (2012).On the residual
compressive strength of the glass-epoxy tubes subjected to transverse impact
loading. Journal of Composite Materials, 46(6), 737-745.
Dutta P. and Devinder, S (1998). Ice action on sheet piles made of composite
material. Draft Technical Report (U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory (CRREL).
Einde, L.V.D, Zhao, L., and Seible, F. (2003). Use of FRP composites in civil
structural applications. Construction and Building Materials, 17(6-7), 389-403.
Fam A.Z. and Rizkalla SH. (2001). Confinement model for axially loaded concrete
confined by circular fibre-reinforced polymer tubes. ACI Structural Journal,
98(4), 451-461.
Fam A.Z. and Rizkalla SH. (2002). Flexural behaviour of concrete-filled fibrereinforced polymer circular tubes. Journal of Composites for Construction,
6(2), 123-132.
Fenske, C.W. and Hirsch, T.J., (1986). Pile driveability analysis. Planning and
Design of Fixed Offshore Platforms, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York.
Found M.S. and Howard I.C. (1995). Single and multiple impact behaviour of a
CFRP laminate. Composite Structures, 32(1), 159-163.
Freitas M. and Reis L. (1998). Failure mechanisms of composite specimens
subjected to compression after impact. Composite Structures, 42(4), 365-373.
Frost J.D. and Han J. (1999). Behaviour of interfaces between fibre-reinforced
polymers and sands. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental
Engineering, 125(8), 633-640.
Ghasemnejad H., Blackman B.R.K., Hadavinia H., and Sudall B. (2009).
Experimental studies on fracture characterisation and energy absorption of
GFRP composite box structures. Composite Structures, 88(2), 253-261.
Gning P.B., Tarfaoui M., Collombet F., and Davies P. (2005).Prediction of damage
in composite cylinders after impact. Journal of Composite Materials, 39(10),
917-928.
188
References
EJ Guades
Guess T.R., Reedy E.D., and Stavig M.E. (1995). Characterisation of E-glass
polyester woven fabric composite laminates and tubes. SANDIA REPORT:
SAND95-2352 UC-704.
Greve L., Pickett A.K., and Payen F. (2001). Experimental testing and
phenomenological modelling of the fragmentation process of braided
carbon/epoxy composite tubes under axial oblique impact. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 39(7-8), 1221-1232.
Han J. and Frost JD. (1999). Buckling of vertically loaded fibre-reinforced polymer
piles. International Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 18(4), 290318.
Han J. and Frost JD. (2000). Load-deflection response of transversely isotropic piles
under lateral load. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics, 24(5), 509-529.
Han H., Taheri F., Pegg N., and Lu Y. (2007). A numerical study on the axial
crushing response of hybrid pultruded and 450 braided tubes. Composite
Structures, 80(2), 253-264.
Hanc J. and Taylor E. (2004). From conservation of energy to the principle of least
action: A story line. American Journal of Physics, 72(4), 514-521.
Helmi K., Fam A., Mufti A., and Hall M.J. (2006). Effects of driving forces and
bending fatigue on structural performance of a novel concrete-filled fibre
reinforced polymer tube flexural pile. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
33(6), 683-691.
Heyder F. and Paulu F (2012). A laminated glass wall will protect Warnemunde from
high water. Conference on Architectural and Structural Applications of Glass,
28-29 June, TU Delft, Netherlands.
Ho K.C., Hwang J.R., and Doong J.L. (1997). Impact fatigue of short glass fibre
reinforced polycarbonate. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,
16(10), 903-925.
Holloway, L (2002). The development and the future of advanced polymer
composites in the civil infrastructures. International Conference on Advance
Polymer Composites in Construction (ACIC), April 15-17, University of
Southampton, UK.
Hosur, M.V., Karim, M.R., and Jeelani, S. (2003). Experimental investigations on
the response of stitched/unstitched woven S2-glass/SC15 epoxy composites
under single and repeated low velocity impact loading. Composite Structures;
61(1-2):89-102.
Hsu, S.S. and Jones, N. (2004). Dynamic axial crushing of aluminium alloy 6063-T6
circular tubes. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures; 1(3):277-296.
Huang, X. and Lu, G. (2003). Axisymmetric progressive crushing of circular tubes.
International Journal of Crashworthiness; 8(1):87-95.
Hussein MH, Woerner WA, Sharp M, and Hwang C. (2006). Pile driveability and
bearing capacity in high-rebound soils. Geo Congress 2006: Geotechnical
Engineering in the Information Technology Age, Atlanta, Georgia.
189
References
EJ Guades
Im K.H., Cha C.S., Kim S.K., and Yang I.Y. (2001). Effects of temperature on
impact damages in CFRP composite laminates. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 32(8), 669-682.
Iskander M.G. and Stachula A. (2002). Wave equation analyses of fibre-reinforced
polymer composite piling. Journal of Composites for Construction, 6(2), 8896.
Iskander, M.G. and Stachula, A. (1999). FRP Composite Polymer Piling: An
alternative to timber piling for waterfront applications, Geotechnical News, 2729.
Iskander M.G. and Hassan M. (2002). State of the practice review in FRP composite
piling. Journal of Composites for Construction, 2(3), 116-120.
Ismail A.E. and Ahmad A. M.G. (2007). Crushing behaviour of pultruded
composites. Jurnal Mekanikal, 24, 15-31.
ISO 14125 (1998), Fibre-reinforced plastic composites: Determination of flexural
properties.
ISO 527-2 (1996), Plastics: Determination of tensile properties.
ISO 1172 (1996), Textile-glass-reinforced plastics, prepegs, moulding compounds
and laminates: Determination of the textile-glass and mineral-filler contentCalcination methods.
Jacob G.C., Fellers J.F., Simunovic S., and Starbuck J.M. (2002). Energy absorption
in polymer composites for automotive crashworthiness. Journal of Composite
Materials, 36(7), 813-850.
Jones N. (1995). Quasi-static analysis of structural impact damage. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 33(3), 151-177.
Jones N. (1995). Structural impact. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Jang B.P., Kowbel W., and Jang B.Z. (1992). Impact behaviour and impact-fatigue
testing of polymer composites. Composites Science and Technology, 44(2),
107-118.
Johnson, M.L. (2000). Characterization of geotechnical surfaces via stylus
profilometry. MSc Thesis, Georgia Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Kim C.H. and Arora J.S. (2003). Development of simplied dynamic models using
optimization: Application to crushed tubes. Computational Methods in Applied
Mechanical Engineering, 192(16-18), 2073-2097.
Kim, D.H. (1995). Composites structures for civil and architectural engineering, E
and FN Spon, United Kingdom.
Kim J.S., Yoon H.J., Lee H.S., and Kwon T.S. (2009). Energy absorption
characterisation of composite tubes for railway application. The 17th
International Conference on Composites (ICCM17), 27-31 July, Edinburgh,
UK.
Kindervater C.M. (1990). Energy absorption of composites as an aspect of aircraft
structural crash resistance. 4th European Conference on Composite Materials,
Stuttgart, Germany, 25-28 September.
190
References
EJ Guades
Kinsey A., Saunders D.E.J., and Soutis C. (1995). Post-impact compressive

behaviour of low temperature curing woven CFRP laminates. Composites,
26(9), 661-667.
Lackey E., Vaughan J.G., and Wimbrow W. (2007). Examination of mechanical test
methods for pultruded sheet piling. Composites and Polycon Conference, 1719 October, Tampa, Florida USA.
Lampo R., Maher A., Bushel J., and Odelio R. (1997). Design and development of
FRP composite piling systems. Proceedings of the International Composites
Expo, 27-29 January, Nashville, Tennessee.
Lampo R., Nosker T., Barno D., Bushel J., Maher A., Dutta P., and Odelio R. (1998)
Development and demonstration of FRP composite fender, load-bearing, and
sheet piling systems. USACERL TR-98/123, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(CERL).
Lhymn C. (1985). Impact fatigue of PPS/glass composites. Journal of Materials
Science Letters, 4(10), 1221-1224.
Lindsay K. (1996). Composite piling market heats up. Composite Design and
Application (CDA-Summer issue). New York: Dredging and Port
Construction, 1996, 12-13.
Liu D. (2004). Characterisation of impact properties and damage process of
glass/epoxy composite laminates. Journal of Composite Materials, 38(16),
1425-1442.
LMS Test.Xpress (2012). How are time traces visualized in LMS Test.Xpress?, LMS
Test.Xpress User Guide, Leuven, Belgium.
Mamalis A.G., Manolakos D.E., Demosthenous G.A., and Ioannidis M.B. (1997a).
The static and dynamic axial crumbling of thin-walled fibreglass composite
square tubes. Composites Part B: Engineering, 28(4), 439-451.
Mamalis A.G., Robinson M., Manolakos D.E., Demosthenous G.A., Ioannidis M.B.,
and Carruthers J. (1997b). Review: Crashworthy capability of composite
material structures. Composite Structures, 37(2), 109-134.
Mamalis A.G., Manolakos D.E., Demosthenous G.A., and Ioannidis M.B. (1996).
The static and dynamic axial collapse of fibreglass composite automotive
frame rails. Composite Structures, 34(1), 77-90.
Mamalis A.G., Manolakos D.E., Demosthenous G.A., and Ioannidis M.B. (1994).
Axial collapse of thin-walled fibreglass composite tubular components at
elevated strain rates. Composites Engineering, 4(6), 653-677.
Mamalis A.G., Manolakos D.E., Ioannidis M.B., and Papapostolou D.P. (2006). The
static and dynamic axial collapse of CFRP square tubes: Finite element
modelling. Composite Structures, 74(2), 213-225.
Mamalis A.G., Manolakos D.E., Ioannidis M.B., and Papapostolou D.P. (2005). On
the response of thin-walled CFRP composite tubular components subjected to
static and dynamic axial compressive loading: experimental. Composite
Structures, 69(4), 407-420.
Marsh G. (2002). Reinforced plastics prevail in the waterfront. Reinforced Plastics,
46(6), 30-35.
191
References
EJ Guades
Melo J.D., Silva A.S., and Villena J.N. (2008). The effect of processing on the
energy absorption capability of composite tubes. Composite Structures, 82(4),
622-628.
Minak G., Abrate S., Ghelli D., Panciroli R., and Zucchelli A. (2010). Residual
torsional strength after impact of CFRP tubes. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 41(8), 637-645.
Mirmiran A. and Shahawy M. (1996). A new concrete-filled hollow FRP composite
column. Composites Part B: Engineering, 27(1), 263-268.
Mirmiran A., Shahawy M., El Khoury C., and Naguib W. (2000). Large beamcolumn tests on concrete-filled composite tubes. ACI Structural Journal, 97(2),
268-277.
Mirmiran A., Shao Y., and Shahawy. (2002). Analysis and field tests on the
performance of composite tubes under pile driving impact. Composite
Structures, 55(2), 127-135.
Mouritz A.P., Gallagher J., and Goodwin AA. (1997). Flexural strength and interlaminar shear strength of stitched GRP laminates following repeated impacts.
Composite Science and Technology, 57(5), 509-522.
Muralikannan R., Velmurugan R., and Eswaraprasad G.L. (2010). Energy absorption
characteristics of circular composites in quasi static and compression loading.
Proceedings of the IMPLAST Conference, 12-14 October, Providence, Rhode
Island, USA.
Neff, T.L. (2003). Predicting the life cycle costs of structures based on accelerated
corrosion testing: A framework for incorporating Reliability Concepts. The 9th
International Bridge Management Conference, Transportation Research Board,
Orlando, Florida.
Ochelski S. and Gotowicki P. (2009). Experimental assessment of energy absorption
capability of carbon-epoxy and glass-epoxy composites. Composite Structures,
87(3), 215-224.
Palanivelu S., Paepegem W.V., Degrieck J., Kakogiannis D., Ackeren J.V.,
Hemelrijck D.V., Wastiels J., and Vantomme J. (2010). Experimental study on
the axial crushing of pultruded composite tubes. Polymer Testing, 29(2), 224234.
Palanivelu S., Paepegem W.V., Degrieck J., Kakogiannis D., Ackeren JV.,
Hemelrijck D.V., Wastiels J., and Vantomme J. (2010). Parametric study of
crushing parameters and failure patterns of pultruded composite tubes using
cohesive elements and seam, Part I: Central delamination and triggering
modelling. Polymer Testing, 29(6), 729-741.
Pando M.A., Filz G.M., Dove J.E., and Hoppe E.J. (2002). Interface shear tests on
FRP composite piles. ASCE International Deep Foundations Congress, 14-16
February, Orlando, Florida.
Pando M.A., Ealy C.D., Filz G.M., Lesko J.J., and Hoppe E.J. (2006). A laboratory
and field study of composite piles for bridge substructures. Federal Highway
Publication, FHWA-HRT-04-043.
QDMR (2006). Fibre composite projects. Technical Note 54, March 2006.
192
References
EJ Guades
Rausche, F., Likins, G. E., and Hussein, M. (1988), Pile Integrity by High and Low
Strain Impacts, 3rd International Conference on the Application of Stress Wave
Theory to Piles, B. H. Fellenius, Editor, Bitech Publishers, Vancouver, Canada,
44-55.
Richardson M.O.W. and Wisheart M.J. (1996). Review of low-velocity impact
properties of composite materials. Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing, 27(12), 1123-1131.
Roy R., Sarkar B.K., and Bose N.R. (2001). Impact fatigue of glass fibre-vinyl ester
resin composites. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing,
32(6), 871-876.
Roy R., Sarkar B.K., Rana A.K., and Bose N.R. (2001). Impact fatigue behaviour of
carbon fibre-reinforced vinyl ester resin composites. Bulletin of Material
Science, 24(1), 79-86.
Saito H., Inai R., and Hamada H. (2000). Crushing of pultruded glass reinforced
square tubes. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 7(1), 21-34.
Sakr M., Naggar M.H., and Nehdi M. (2004). Load transfer of fibre-reinforced
polymer (FRP) composite tapered piles in dense sand. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 41(1), 70-88.
Sakr M., El Naggar M.H., and Nehdi M. (2005). Interface characteristics and
laboratory constructability tests of novel fibre-reinforced polymer/concrete
piles. Journal of Composites for Construction, 9(3), 274-283.
Sanchez-Saez S., Barbero E., Zaera R., and Navarro C. (2005). Compression after
impact of thin composite laminates. Composite Science and Technology,
65(13), 1911-1919.
Santos A.J. (2008). Stress Waves. 8th International Conference on the Application of
Stress Wave Theory in Piles, Lisbon, Portugal.
Santuiste C., Sanchez-Saez S., and Barbero E. (2010). Residual flexural strength
after low-velocity impact in glass/polyester composite beams. Composite
Structures, 92(1), 25-30.
Schmuesser D.W. and Wickliffe L.E. (1987). Impact energy absorption of
continuous fibre composite tubes. Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, 109, 72-77.
Schultz M.R. and Hyer M.W. (2001). Static energy absorption capacity of graphiteepoxy tubes. Journal of Composite Materials, 35(19), 1747-1761.
Schweitzer, P.A. (1995). Corrosion resistance table, Dekker, New York, NY.
Sevkat E., Liaw B., Delale F., and Raju B. (2010). Effect of repeated impacts on the
response of plain-woven hybrid composites. Composites Part B: Engineering,
41(5), 403-413.
Shao Y. (2006). Characterization of a pultruded FRP sheet pile for waterfront
retaining structures. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 18(5), 626-633.
Short G.J., Guild F.J., and Pavier M.J. (2002). Post-impact compressive strength of
curved GFRP laminates. Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing, 33(11), 1487-1495.
193
References
EJ Guades
Sinmazcelik T., Arici A.A., and Gunay V. (2006). Impact fatigue behaviour of
unidirectional carbon fibre reinforced polyetherimide (PEI) composites.
Journal of Materials Science, 41(19), 6237-6244.
Sirimanna CS (2011). Behaviour of fibre composite piles for timber pile
rehabilitation. Master of engineering dissertation, University of Southern
Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia.
Song H.W. and Du H.W. (2002). Off-axis crushing of GFRP tubes. Composites
Science and Technology, 62(15), 2065-2073.
Song H.W., Du H.W., and Zhao G.F. (2002). Energy absorption behaviour of
double-chamfer triggered glass/epoxy circular tubes. Journal of Composite
Materials, 36(18), 2183-2198.
Stamenovic M., Putic M., Zrilic M., Milovic L. J., and Pavlovic-Krstic (2011).
Specific energy absorption capacity of glass-polyester composite tubes under
static compressive loading. Metalurgija, 50(3), 197-200.
Strand7 Web Notes (2012).
http://www.strand7.com.
Modelling
shock
problems
in
Strand7.
Sugun B.S., and Rao R.M. (2004a). Lowvelocity impact characterization of glass,
carbon and Kevlar composites using repeated drop tests. Journal of Plastics
and Composites, 23(15), 1583-1599.
Sugun B.S. and Rao R.M. (2004b). Impactor mass effects in glass/epoxy composites
subjected to repeated drop tests. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites, 23(14), 1547-1560.
Teng, J.G. and Hu, Y.M. (2007). Behaviour of FRP-jacketed circular steel tubes and
cylindrical shells under axial compression. Construction and Building
Materials, 21,827-838.
Thornton P.H. (1990). The crush behaviour of pultruded tubes at high strain rates.
Journal of Composite Materials, 24(6), 594-615.
Velmurugan R., Gupta N.K., Solaimurugan, S., and Elayaperumal A. (2004). The
effect of stitching on FRP cylindrical shells under axial compression.
International Journal of Impact Engineering, 30(8-9), 923-938.
Vinh H. and Kim Jr. R.(2011). The dynamic study of drive-in racks under horizontal
impact load. Research Report R915, University of Sydney, Australia.
Wang S.X., Wu L.Z., and Ma L. (2010). Low-velocity and residual tensile strength
analysis of carbon fibre composite laminates. Materials and Design, 31(1),
118-125.
Wyrick D.A. and Adams A.F. (1998). Residual strength of a Carbon/epoxy
composite material subjected to repeated impacts. Journal of Composite
Materials, 22(8), 749-765.
Xiao X. (2009). Modelling energy absorption with a damage mechanics-based
composite material model. Journal of Composite Materials, 43(5), 427-444.
Yang Y., Nakai A., Sugihara S., and Hamada H. (2009). Energy absorption
capability of multi-axial warp-knitted FRP tubes. International Journal of
Crashworthiness, 14(5), 407-418.
194
References
EJ Guades
Zhang Z.Y., and Richardson M.O.W. (2007). Low velocity impact damage
evaluation and its effect on the residual flexural properties of pultruded GRP
composites. Composite Structures, 81(2), 195-201.
195
Appendix A
EJ Guades
Appendix A Summary of results of the coupon and full scale tests

on CT1 and CT2 specimens
The details of the result of the entire tests discussed in Chapter 3 are presented here.
The equations used in determining the specific mass, glass content, peak stress,
elastic modulus, and strain at peak are discussed.
A.1 Fibre fraction test
Tables A.1 and A.2 show the detailed results of the fibre fraction test performed
using ISO 1172 (1996). The specific mass and glass content Mg were calculated
using Equations A.1 and A.2, respectively.
= m0 /vff
(A.1)
Mg = (m3m1)/(m2m1) x100
(A.2)
where m0 is the mass of the specimen, vff is the volume of the specimen, m1 is the
initial mass of the dry crucible, m2 is the initial mass of the dry crucible plus dried
specimen, and m3 is the final mass of the crucible plus residue after calcination.
Table A.1 Summary of results of fibre fraction test for CT1
Specimen
no
1
Width
(mm)
22.61
Length
(mm)
31.69
Thickness
(mm)
5.29
Specific mass
(kg/m3)
1,929
Glass content
(%)
75.77
22.66
31.65
5.30
1,967
78.61
22.52
32.11
5.14
1,944
76.59
22.71
31.63
5.23
1,894
73.75
Average
22.63
31.77
5.24
1,934
76.21
Standard
deviation
0.07
0.20
0.02
26
1.78
Table A.2 Summary of results of fibre fraction test for CT2

Specimen
no
1
Width
(mm)
24.88
Length
(mm)
29.29
Thickness
(mm)
5.16
Specific mass
(kg/m3)
1,947
Glass content
(%)
76.03
24.65
28.83
5.17
1,943
75.64
24.62
28.64
5.20
1,949
75.95
24.69
29.03
5.20
1,932
75.74
Average
24.71
28.95
5.18
1,943
75.84
Standard
deviation
0.10
0.24
0.02
0.16
Appendix A
EJ Guades
A.2 Compressive test on coupon specimen

The summary of result of the coupon test under compression loading is displayed in
Tables A.3 and A.4. The compressive test was conducted following ASTM D 695
(2010). The peak stress pc, elastic modulus Ecomp, and strain at peak pc were
calculated using Equations A.3, A.4 and A.5, respectively.
pc = Ppc/A
(A.3)
Ecomp = (12)/(1 2)
(A.4)
pc = pc/Ec x 100
(A.5)
where Ppc is the peak compressive load, A is the average cross sectional area of the
specimen, 1 and 2 are the stresses measured at the strain values 1 = 0.0005 and 2 =
0.0025, respectively. Figures A.1 to A.2 show the typical load-displacement curves
of the specimen tested under compression loading.
Table A.3 Summary of results of coupon compressive test for CT1

Specimen
no
1
Width
(mm)
12.67
Length
(mm)
140.73
Thickness
(mm)
5.40
Peak stress
(MPa)
482.77
Modulus
(MPa)
48,551
Strain at
peak (%)
0.99
12.45
140.95
5.38
455.80
53,612
0.85
12.31
141.00
5.12
424.20
12.44
140.90
5.16
450.87
12.49
140.75
5.41
482.06
Average
12.47
140.87
5.29
459.14
51,081
0.92
Standard
deviation
0.12
0.11
0.13
21.84
2,531
0.07
Table A.4 Summary of results of coupon compressive test for CT2

Specimen
no
1
Width
(mm)
12.05
Length
(mm)
113.90
Thickness
(mm)
5.09
Peak stress
(MPa)
432.85
Modulus
(MPa)
51,813
Strain at
peak (%)
0.84
12.59
114.26
5.27
441.55
47,567
0.93
12.07
114.86
5.07
449.96
12.20
114.10
5.19
438.83
12.03
114.72
5.12
444.08
Average
12.19
114.39
5.15
441.45
49,690
0.88
Standard
deviation
0.21
0.37
0.07
5.65
2,123
0.05
Appendix A
EJ Guades
40
1
2
Load (kN)
30
3
4
5
20
10
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Displacement (mm)
Figure A.1 Compressive load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT1)

40
1
2
Load (kN)
30
3
4
20
10
0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Displacement (mm)
(b) CT2
Figure A.2 Compressive load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT2)
A.3 Tensile test on coupon specimen

The procedure defined in ISO 527-1 (1996) was adopted in performing the tensile
test on coupon specimens. Tables A.5 and A.6 summarise the results of the coupon
tensile test. In the tables, Equations A.6, A.7, and A.8 were used to calculate,
respectively, the values of the peak stress pt, elastic modulus Et, and strain at peak
pt. The typical load-displacement relationship of the specimen subjected to tensile
loading is displayed in Figures A.3 to A.4.
pt = Ppt/A
(A.6)
Et = (12)/(1 2)
(A.7)
pt = pt/Et x 100
(A.8)
Appendix A
EJ Guades
where Ppt is the peak tensile load, A is the average cross sectional area of the
0.0025, respectively.
Table A.5 Summary of results of coupon tensile test for CT1
Specimen
no
1
Width
(mm)
25.05
Length
(mm)
251.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.09
Peak stress Modulus

(MPa)
(MPa)
570.76
39,842
Strain at
peak (%)
1.43
25.16
251.00
5.34
651.88
38,625
1.69
25.20
251.00
5.09
619.88
25.23
250.50
5.01
637.59
24.69
249.50
5.26
612.29
Average
25.07
250.60
5.16
618.48
39,234
1.56
Standard
deviation
0.20
0.58
0.12
27.56
609
0.13
Table A.6 Summary of results of coupon tensile test for CT2

Specimen
no
1
Width
(mm)
25.44
Length
(mm)
231.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.09
Peak stress Modulus

(MPa)
(MPa)
622.07
42,099
Strain at
peak (%)
1.48
25.46
230.50
5.31
585.94
39,297
1.49
25.37
231.00
5.21
636.53
25.36
230.50
5.30
596.98
25.65
229.50
5.31
574.48
Average
25.45
230.50
5.24
603.20
40,698
1.48
Standard
deviation
0.10
0.55
0.09
22.93
1,401
0.01
100
1
80
Load (kN)
2
3
60
40
20
0
0
Displacement (mm)
10
12
14
Figure A.3 Tensile load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT1)
Appendix A
EJ Guades
100
1
80
Load (kN)
2
3
60
40
20
0
0
Displacement (mm)
10
12
14
Figure A.4 Tensile load-displacement relationship of coupon specimens (CT2)

A.4 Flexural test on coupon specimen
Tables A.7 and A.8 illustrates the summary of results of the coupons subjected to
flexural loading following ISO 14125 (1998). The values of the peak stress pf and
elastic modulus Ef were calculated using Equations A.9 and A.10 respectively. On
the other hand, the value of the strain at peak pf was taken directly from the machine.
pf = (3Ppf ls)/(2tb2)
(A.9)
Ef= 500(12)
(A.10)
where Ppf is the peak flexural load, ls is the span length (see Figure 3.10), t and b are
the thickness and width of the specimen, respectively. 1 and 2 are the stresses
measured at the deflections, s1 (Equation A.11) and s2 (Equation A.12) respectively.
s1= (1 ls 2)/(6t)
(A.11)
s2= (2 ls 2)/(6t)
(A.12)
where 1 and 2 are the strains having values of 0.0005 and 0.0025, respectively.
Table A.7 Summary of results of coupon flexural test for CT1
Specimen
no
1
Width
(mm)
14.47
Length
(mm)
151.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.25
Peak stress
(MPa)
1,051.46
Modulus
(MPa)
36,858
Strain at
peak (%)
2.57
14.43
150.85
5.23
1,000.56
37,440
2.44
14.23
150.71
5.16
1065.97
35,195
2.70
14.65
150.32
5.25
1031.02
35,091
2.65
14.60
151.31
5.22
1,038.68
35,878
2.67
Average
14.48
150.84
5.22
1,037.54
36,092
2.61
Standard
deviation
0.15
0.33
0.03
22.00
923
0.09
Appendix A
EJ Guades
Table A.8 Summary of results of coupon flexural test for CT2

Specimen Width
no
(mm)
1
15.28
Length
(mm)
150.95
Thickness
(mm)
5.04
Peak stress Modulus

(MPa)
(MPa)
944.90
37,520
Strain at
peak (%)
2.56
15.22
150.46
5.21
952.90
38,975
2.51
15.01
151.52
5.18
1,043.79
39,134
2.73
15.21
147.50
5.18
975.00
37,195
2.61
15.36
151.51
5.23
1,055.61
39,891
2.61
Average
15.22
150.39
5.17
994.44
38,534
2.60
Standard
deviation
0.12
1.50
0.07
46.34
1,021
0.07
Figures A.5 to A.6 shows the curve that relates the load and the midspan
deflection of the coupons tested under flexural loading.
4
1
Load (kN)
2
3
4
0
0
Displacement (mm)
Figure A.5 Flexural load-midspan deflection relationship of coupon specimens (CT1)
4
1
Load (kN)
2
3
4
Displacement (mm)
Figure A.6 Flexural load-midspan deflection relationship of coupon specimens (CT2)
Appendix A
EJ Guades
A.5 Compressive test on full scale specimen

The summary of test results on full scale specimen under compression loading is
shown in Tables A.9 to A.11. The peak stress pc, elastic modulus Ecomp, and strain at
peak pc were calculated using Equations A.13, A.14 and A.15, respectively.
pc = Ppc/A
(A.13)
Ecomp = (12)/(1 2)
(A.14)
pc = pc/Ec x 100
(A.15)
where Ppc is the peak compressive load, A is the average cross sectional area of the
0.0025, respectively. In this study, the cross sectional area of the tube was
approximated as the area of a simplified square section neglecting the
added/subtracted areas due to the chamfered corners of the tube (Figure A.7). Note
that the simplified cross section was also used in the calculation of peak flexural
stress of the composite tube presented in Section A.6. Figures A.8 to A.10 displays
the load-displacement curves of the full scale specimen subjected to compression
loading.
Figure A.7 Simplified cross section of the tube
Table A.9 Summary of results of full scale compressive test for CT 1 (L = 100 mm)
Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.85
Width
(mm)
100.60
Length
(mm)
100.39
Thickness
(mm)
5.39
Peak stress
(MPa)
281.17
Modulus
(MPa)
41,574
Strain at
peak (%)
0.68
100.77
100.39
100.51
5.29
268.74
38,366
0.70
100.93
100.40
100.78
5.21
283.86
100.32
100.98
102.19
5.18
294.18
100.93
100.88
102.71
5.17
290.75
Average
100.65
100.65
101.31
5.25
284.14
39,970
0.69
Standard
deviation
0.25
0.24
10.95
0.08
8.75
1,604
0.01
Appendix A
EJ Guades
Table A.10 Summary of results of full scale compressive test for CT1 (L = 200 mm)
Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.72
Width
(mm)
100.50
Length
(mm)
199.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.06
Peak stress
(MPa)
261.73
100.49
100.75
200.50
5.45
255.33
100.58
100.81
200.00
5.07
266.08
Average
100.59
100.68
199.83
5.19
261.05
Standard
deviation
0.09
0.13
0.62
0.18
4.41
Table A.11 Summary of results of full scale compressive test for CT2 (L = 100 mm)
Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.46
Width
(mm)
100.53
Length
(mm)
102.31
Thickness
(mm)
5.15
Peak stress
(MPa)
265.97
Modulus
(MPa)
41,311
Strain at
peak (%)
0.65
100.50
100.51
103.87
5.22
253.92
37,120
0.64
100.60
100.49
98.44
5.22
289.30
100.42
100.51
99.54
5.26
288.55
100.54
100.50
106.37
5.27
254.32
Average
100.50
100.50
102.10
5.22
270.41
39,215
0.65
Standard
deviation
0.06
0.23
2.88
0.04
15.73
2,096
0.01
600
1
500
Load (kN)
2
400
3
4
300
200
100
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Displacement (mm)
Figure A.8 Compressive load-displacement relationship of full scale specimens

(CT1, L=100 mm)
Appendix A
EJ Guades
600
CT1
500
1
2
Load (kN)
400
3
300
200
100
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Displacement (mm)
3.0
4.0

(CT1, L=200 mm)
600
500
Load (kN)
400
3
4
300
200
100
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Displacement (mm)

(CT2, L=100 mm)
A.6 Flexural test on full scale specimen
Tables A.12 to A.14 summarise, respectively, the results of the full scale CT1 and
CT2 specimens subjected to flexural loading. The values of the peak flexural stress
pf under 3 and 4-point loading were calculated using Equations A.16 and A.17,
respectively.
pf = (Ppf ls c)/(4I)
(A.16)
pf = (Ppf ac)/(I)
(A.17)
I = (bd3 jk3)/12
(A.18)
where Ppf is the peak flexural load, ls is the span length (equals 1000 mm), c is the
neutral axis depth of the tube (equals d/2), a is the distance between one of the end
supports to the location of the nearest applied load, I is the moment of inertia
(Equation A.18). Figures A.11 to A.13 illustrate the specimen cross section lay-out
Appendix A
EJ Guades
and the schematic plan of flexural test (3-point and 4-point loading), respectively, to
aid in the calculation. The typical flexural stress versus cross-head displacement
curve of the full scale specimens tested under 3-point bending is shown in Figures
A.14 to A.15. On the other hand, the comparison of the stress-strain curve between
the middle top (compression) and bottom (tension) sides of the tube using 4-point
bending test is illustrated in Figure A.16.
j
d/2
N.A.
Figure A.11 Specimen cross section lay-out
d
500mm
500mm
ls = 1000mm
l
Figure A.12 Schematic plan of 3-point bending test
200mm
d
a = 500mm
a = 500mm
ls = 1200mm
l
Figure A.13 Schematic plan of 4-point bending test
10
Appendix A
EJ Guades
Table A.12 Summary of results of full scale flexural test (3-point loading) for CT1
Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.58
Width
(mm)
100.46
Length
(mm)
1,195.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.27
Peak stress
(MPa)
131.30
100.68
100.51
1,200.00
5.34
125.72
100.50
100.60
1,203.00
5.32
128.90
Average
100.58
100.52
1,199.33
5.31
128.64
Standard
deviation
0.07
0.06
3.30
0.03
2.29
Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.63
Width
(mm)
100.39
Length
(mm)
1,199.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.14
Peak stress
(MPa)
135.99
100.50
100.56
1,200.00
5.27
127.90
100.55
100.44
1,201.00
5.13
143.00
Average
100.56
100.46
1,200.00
5.18
135.63
Standard
deviation
0.05
0.07
0.82
0.06
6.17
Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.72
Width
(mm)
100.35
Length
(mm)
1,500.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.04
Peak stress
(MPa)
173.35
100.52
100.65
1,502.00
5.33
169.99
100.55
100.59
1,500.00
5.40
165.91
Average
100.60
100.53
1,500.67
5.18
169.75
Standard
deviation
0.09
0.13
0.94
0.16
3.04
160
CT1
Stress (MPa)
120
1
2
3
80
40
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (mm)
Figure A.14 Flexural stress-displacement relationship (3-point bending test) of CT1

11
Appendix A
EJ Guades
160
CT2
Stress (MPa)
120
1
2
3
80
40
0
0
10
15
20
25
Displacement (mm)
Figure A.15 Flexural stress-displacement relationship (3-point bending test) of CT2
50
40
Load (kN)
30
SP1 - Bottom
SP1 - Top
SP2 - Bottom
SP2 - Top
SP3 - Bottom
SP3 - Top
20
10
0
-2000
-1000
1000
2000
3000
Strain (micro)
4000
5000
6000
Figure A.16 Flexural stress-strain relationship (4-point bending test) of CT1
12
Appendix B
EJ Guades

machine/apparatus used in the repeated impact test
The details of the specimen and the machines discussed in Chapter 4 are presented
here. Likewise, snapshots of the apparatus used in observing the damage on the
impacted tubes are also presented.
B.1 Summary on the details of the specimens

Table B.1 Dimension of specimen E630
Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.42
Width
(mm)
100.39
Length
(mm)
374.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.24
100.82
100.37
375.50
5.19
Average
100.62
100.43
374.75
5.22
Standard
deviation
0.20
0.04
0.75
0.02

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.34
Width
(mm)
101.16
Length
(mm)
374.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.11
100.70
100.53
375.50
5.41
Average
100.52
100.85
375.00
5.26
Standard
deviation
0.18
0.31
0.50
0.15

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.53
Width
(mm)
100.47
Length
(mm)
377.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.44
100.48
100.43
374.50
5.30
Average
100.51
100.45
375.75
5.37
Standard
deviation
0.02
0.02
1.25
0.07
Appendix B
EJ Guades

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.32
Width
(mm)
100.55
Length
(mm)
374.50
Thickness
(mm)
4.89
100.52
100.43
375.00
4.91
Average
100.42
100.49
374.75
4.90
Standard
deviation
0.10
0.06
0.25
0.01

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.68
Width
(mm)
100.40
Length
(mm)
376.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.42
100.44
100.42
375.00
5.04
Average
100.56
100.41
375.50
5.23
Standard
deviation
0.12
0.01
0.50
0.19

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.94
Width
(mm)
100.65
Length
(mm)
374.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.30
100.39
100.90
376.00
5.24
Average
100.67
100.78
375.25
5.27
Standard
deviation
0.27
0.13
0.75
0.03
Table B.7 Dimension of specimen E630-1

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.71
Width
(mm)
100.47
Length
(mm)
376.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.18
100.68
100.46
377.00
5.27
Average
100.70
100.47
376.75
5.23
Standard
deviation
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.05
Appendix B
EJ Guades

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.54
Width
(mm)
100.36
Length
(mm)
376.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.05
100.38
100.64
376.00
5.42
Average
100.46
100.50
376.25
5.24
Standard
deviation
0.08
0.14
0.25
0.19

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.54
Width
(mm)
100.44
Length
(mm)
374.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.40
100.59
100.34
375.00
5.32
Average
100.57
100.39
374.75
5.36
Standard
deviation
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.04

Specimen
no
1
Depth
(mm)
100.29
Width
(mm)
100.43
Length
(mm)
374.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.14
100.32
100.40
376.00
5.04
Average
100.31
100.42
375.25
5.09
Standard
deviation
0.01
0.02
0.20
0.05
B.2 Repeated impact testing set-up and specimen snapshots
(a) LMS data logging machine
(b) Mounted accelerometer (c) Mass impactor
Figure B.1 Repeated impact testing set-up data logger and fixtures
Appendix B
EJ Guades
Figure B.2 Condition of the specimen after impact test (Test matrix from Table 4.2)
Figure B.3 Condition of the specimen after impact test (Test matrix from Table 4.3).
Note: these exclude E630-2, E480-3, and E420-2 specimens
B.3 Apparatus used in the micro observation of damage
Figure B.4 MOTIC SMZ 168 Series stereo zoom microscope
Appendix C
EJ Guades
Appendix C Variation of acceleration data and impact stress with

the height of the tube using analytical modelling and finite element
(FE) analysis
The comparison between the acceleration data at the mid-height and at the top most
portion of the FRP tube using analytical study is presented here. The variation of the
stresses on square FRP pultruded tubes under repeated axial impact using FE
analysis is also presented. The stress variations along the longitudinal and transverse
directions are emphasised. Moreover, the peak axial stress degradation of the tubes
impacted by different incident energies and number of impacts are discussed.
C.1 Analytical study on the variation of acceleration data with the height of the
tube
This study used the acceleration recorded by the shock sensor placed at the midheight of the tube to represent its impact response. Particularly, the acceleration
history data was post processed to get the energy history curves needed for further
analysis. The results presented in Section 4.2.3 on the accuracy of using this
assumption (i.e., to use acceleration at the mid-height point as the response of the
impactor) was partly discussed. Specifically, it is reported that the value of the
calculated energy at the mid-height is closed to the applied (incident) energy
indicating that the amplitude of the recorded acceleration history will be likely
similar when the sensor was placed relatively nearer to the impact point (i.e. at the
head of the tube). As a result, the data obtained from the mid-height can be used as a
valid representation of the impact response of FRP composite tubes. Nevertheless,
the author performed a simple analytical modelling study explaining the accuracy of
the assumption to use the data obtained at the mid-height of the tube characterising
its impact behaviour.
The objective of this analytical modelling is to provide information on the
relationship of the accelerations measured in the mid-height and at the top portion of
the tube. The recorded data at the mid-height of the tube by the shock sensor is an
acceleration of the wave propagated from the source (impact load) coming into that
point. Consequently, the analysis of the dynamic behaviour of the FRP composite
tube with the present testing set-up can be treated as one of the conventional wave
propagation problems in solids. For simplicity, the dynamic response of the FRP tube
can be analysed one-dimensionally similar to that of the analysis used in elastic wave
Appendix C
EJ Guades
propagation in a rod. It should be noted that this analysis was also used to investigate
the wave propagation in piles including hollow steel tubes due to impact loading
(Santos, 2008). Evidently, the wave propagation analysis used for rod is also
applicable to the FRP tube.
Figure C.1 shows the schematic view of the impacted FRP tube of length L,
constant cross section A, an elastic modulus E, and a mass density t and the model
used in the analysis. ). It was restrained at the bottom by a rigid base and subjected
by an impact mass m0 dropped at a height h0 (velocity at the contact point is v0). The
tube was modelled as a series of connected element with corresponding properties as
shown in Figure C.1
m0
vm0
0
1
2
A, E, t
..
.
L/2
.
.
.
mth
Ein
s1
ET1, a1, v1
s2
ET2, a2, v2
sL/2
ET(L/2), aL/2, vL/2
sm
ETm, am, vm
Figure C.1 Schematic view of the impacted tube and the idealised model
The widely-accepted principle of conservation of energy was used in the

formulation of the model. This was adopted as this provides a complete description
of the motion of a particle (propagation of waves) and provides relationship of the
acceleration (or velocity) of the traveling wave at different location along the tube.
This principle states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains
constant over time or location (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu). An example of
a relationship obtained from the principle of conservation of energy is shown in
Equations C.1or C.2 (Hanc and Taylor, 2004).
ET = EK + EP
(C.1)
ET = m a s + 0.5 m v2
(C.2)
Appendix C
EJ Guades
where the symbol ET represents the total energy and the symbols EK and EP represent
the kinetic and potential energy, respectively. Alternatively, ET is defined
mathematically using Equations 2. This principle was applied to an FRP composite
tube shown in Figure C.1. Using Equation 1 or 2, we can obtain the total energy
relationship at different location along the tube as shown in Equation C.4. In the
equations, the subscript L/2 and m denote location at the mid-height and at mth
distance (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd position) from the top of the tube, respectively. On the other
hand; m, a, v, and s represents the theoretical mass, acceleration, velocity, and
travelled distance of the propagating wave, respectively. From the figure and from
dynamics, the mass and wave velocity relationships at different location along the
tube can be established (Equations C.4 and C.5).
(C.3)
(C.4)
Appendix C
EJ Guades
(C.5)
The relationship of the acceleration at the mid-height and at the top

(approximately at point 1) can be established using the principle of conservation of
energy (i.e., Equation C.3). The total energy at the mid-height (i.e., ET(L/2)) and at the
top (ET1) is equivalent. This relationship is defined mathematically in Equation C.6.
mL/2 aL/2 sL/2 + 0.5 mL/2 vL/22 = m1 a1 s1 + 0.5 m1 v12
(C.6)
Equations C.7 and C.8 show the relationships of the mass and wave velocity
at point 1 and at the mid-height of the tube. It should be noted that these equations
are derived from Equations C.4 and C.5.
mL/2 = m1 +
= m0 +
(C.7)
vL/2 = v1 + vL/2
(C.8)
Substituting mL/2 and vL/2 to Equation C.6 results in Equation C.9.

(m0 +
) aL/2sL/2 + 0.5(m0 +
m1 a1 s1 + 0.5 m1 v12
) ( v1 vL/2)2 =
(C.9)
If we divide the tube into equal elements, then we are supposing a uniform
distance travelled by the propagating wave from one point to the other (i.e., s1 = s2=
s3 =sL/2 = sm). Arenz (1964) reported that a constant wave propagation speed is
expected if the input wavelength is either small or large compared to the thickness of
a rod (or tube). In the case of the present study, it was observed that the input
wavelength due to the impact loading on FRP pultruded tube presented in Chapter 4
is higher than its width as shown in Figure 4.2 (wavelength >100 mm). This implies
that at this condition the change in wave velocity from one point to another is
approximately zero (i.e., v1 v2 vL/2 0). Equation C.10 shows the simplified
version of Equation C.9 using the conditions on s and v and considered the equation
of motion of the wave propagation from the top to the mid-height of the tube.
Appendix C
EJ Guades
(m0 +
) aL/2s1 + 0.5(m0 +
) (E/t) =
(m0 + m1) a1 s1 + 0.5 (m0 + m1) (E/t)
(C.10)
where v1 is equal to (E/t)0.5 and can be defined as the one-dimensional wave

propagation speed of the tube (Schwarz et al., 2010). Solving the value of aL/2 in term
of a1 from Equation C.10 yields Equation C.11.
aL/2 = [(m0 + m1) s1] / [(m0 +
+
)] / [(m0 +
) s1] a1 + 0.5 (E/t) [(m0 + m1) (m0
) s1]
(C.11)
Equation C.11 can be considered as one of the general equations of a line. Since the
main interest of the analytical study is to determine the relationship of aL/2 and a1, we
can neglect the intercept of the line and consider only its slope. Therefore the
relationship of aL/2 and a1 can be approximated using Equation C.12.
aL/2 [(m0 + m1) s1] / [(m0 +
) s1] a1
(C.12)
The relationship between aL/2 and a1 can now be obtained using Equation
C.12. In most cases, the weight of the tube in the wave propagation analysis (impact)
can be neglected as its weight is relatively small compared to the weight of the
impacting mass. In the present study, however, the weight of the tube (i.e.,
is considered and is equal to (t A L/2). Assuming that the length of the tube is
divided into 100 uniform slices, then s1 is equal to L/100. Figure C.2 displays the
comparison of the aL/2 and a1 values at three different m0 values (i.e., 16.2 kg, 21.6 kg
and 25.2 kg. The difference between aL/2 and a1 values is 4.1%, 3.1%, and 2.7%;
respectively. It can be noticed that the difference of their respective values decreases
with increasing impact mass. The difference is less than 5% pointing out that the
acceleration taken at the mid-height point is valid to be used in the analysis.
1.20
1.00
0.959
0.969
0.973
16.2 kg
21.6 kg
25.2 kg
aL/2 /al
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Figure C.2 Comparison of aL/2 and a1 values at varying impact mass
Appendix C
EJ Guades
C.2 Finite element modelling on the variation of impact stress with the height of
the tube
The investigation was carried out using the Strand7 finite element analysis
software. A nonlinear transient solver was used to investigate the dynamic
behaviour of the tube subjected to repeated axial impact. The nonlinear transient
solver can calculate the full time history of the response of the structure to
impact (Strand7, 2012). In this case, the maximum amplitude of loading is
applied to the tube. The time history of this load is defined by the input of a load
versus time table. This table is linked to the appropriate load case in the transient
solver panel. The solver is run using a small step to capture the response. Some
of the studies adopting nonlinear transient solver using Strand7 in characterising
the behaviour of the structure or material under impact loading are those
conducted by Vinh and Kim (2011) and Heyder and Paulu (2012).
C.2.1 Material model and support restraints
In this study, the mesh model comprised of 4,928 nodes and 4,840 plate elements;
with meshes of 4.7 x 6.82 mm (sides) and 1.54 x 6.82 mm (corners). Figure C.3
shows the material model of the 100 mm square pultruded tube with a wall thickness
of 5.25 mm and a length of 375 mm. In this modelling, laminate properties were
adopted as property attributes of plate elements. The laminate was modelled as a
stack of several plies as shown in Figure C.4. Table C.1 displays the ply properties
adopted in modelling the laminate. It should be noted that the value of the shear
modulus G12 in the table is calculated approximately using Equation C.1.
G12 = 0.5 E11 / (1+ 12)
(C.1)
where E11 is the elastic modulus at the longitudinal direction; 12 is the Poisson ratio.
In the conducted impact test, the lower end of the tube was in contact with the
rigid surface (i.e., massive concrete) indicating that the displacement along the
longitudinal direction is restrained. On the other hand, the upper end of the tube was
held by a steel cap. As emphasised in Chapter 4, the use of the steel cap is to help in
evenly distributing the load from the impactor and did not necessarily restrain the
translation of the tube at its axes. This was evidenced by the damage mode of the
tube whereby fronds were developed on its upper portion after the test. This indicates
that the upper end of the tube is free to translate or rotate along the three axes. As a
result, the steel cap is not included in modelling resulting to a more simplified model.
Appendix C
EJ Guades
The test set-up (i.e., steel cap held with a spring which was attached to the steel
frame), was considered by properly selecting the maximum amplitude of loading
applied on the tube. The details of the applied load are presented in the next section.
To achieve such support conditions, the supports at the two transverse directions at
the lower end of the tube were held unrestrained to allow movement whilst all the
supports on its upper end remained unrestrained (see Figure C.3).
Figure C.3 Material modelling of the composite tube
Figure C.4 Lamina lay-up arrangement used in FE model

Table C.1 Material properties of the tube wall laminate ply
Material property
Density
Symbol
Property value
1,970a
Unit
kg/m3
Thickness
0.5833
mm
Elastic modulus (longitudinal direction)
E11
39,234a
MPa
Elastic modulus (transverse direction)
E22
12,900
MPa
Poisson ratio
12
0.35c
Shear modulus
G12
14,531d
MPa
a
b
c
d
Table 3.5, WCFT Product specification, from extensometer, from Equation C.1
Appendix C
EJ Guades
C.2.2 Applied static load case

Three incident energies were used in the analysis, namely: 634.51J, 476.77 J, and
423.01 J. These energies correspond to the combinations of drop masses and heights
presented in Table 4.2 (Chapter 4) for specimens E630, E480, and E420;
respectively. These level of energies was chosen as it can characterise both the
collapsed (ruptured) and non-collapsed conditions of the impacted tubes. In the
repeated impact testing, the applied energy remains constant (same drop mass and
height) all throughout until the failure of the composite tubes. This indicates that the
impact energy during the first impact can be used as the applied energy at increasing
number of impacts. Imperatively, there is a need to determine the equivalent static
load for the three incident energies.
Two steps were undertaken to determine the equivalent static load needed in
simulating repeated impact loading. First, the equivalent static load case was
determined at the first impact. Second, this static load case was then combined with
the factor versus time table in Strand7 to provide an instantaneous impulse force
simulating series of unit impact loading.
C.2.2.1 Determination of static load case at the first impact

An iterative process was used in obtaining the static load case equivalent to the
incident energy at the first impact. An edge load (pressure, see Figure C.3) was
applied on the tube depending on the incident energy considered. Only one impulse
period was used in this analysis since it was observed that the occurrence of the peak
load in the first impact obtained from the experimental study is similar for the three
incident energies (Figure 4.5, Chapter 4). From Figure 4.5, the occurrence of peak
load is around 0.02 sec assuming that the load varies from 0 and increase linearly up
to the maximum value (triangular). In the modelling, however, rectangular impulse
load was used and therefore the period was chosen as 0.01 sec. The rectangular shape
was used since this minimises the total impulse period resulting to a relatively shorter
time during running of the solver. Figure C.5 shows the typical factor versus time
table for the impulse period of 0.01 second. The time step used in the analysis is
0.00002 sec and the response was obtained for a period of 0.03 sec (i.e., total steps of
1500). It should be noted that the time step used in the analysis is equivalent to the
sampling rate (i.e., 51.2 kHz) used in the experimental study presented in Section
4.2.2 (Chapter 4).
Appendix C
EJ Guades
Figure C.5 Factor vs. time table for the impulse period of 0.01 second
Selection of the appropriate static load case was established by comparing the
nodal acceleration at the mid-height obtained from the FE analysis to that of the
recorded acceleration by the shock sensor in the impact experiment. It is worth
noting that the data recorded by the accelerometer resemble the results in conjunction
with the current set-up used in the impact testing. Therefore it is imperative that by
using this data in finding the appropriate static load case means that the effect of test
set-up (i.e., steel capping) are also considered in the FE analysis. Figure C.6 displays
the variation of the static load case with the measured acceleration (longitudinal
direction) at the mid-height of the tube using FE analysis. The summary of applied
static load cases used in FE analysis is shown in Table C.2. From this table, the
appropriate static load case for E630, E480, and E420 is 0.3832 MPa, 0.3521 MPa,
and 0.2748 MPa; respectively.
0.60
Edge load (MPa)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
Acceleration (m/s2)
Figure C.6 Variation of the static load case with the measured acceleration
Appendix C
EJ Guades
Table C.2 Summary of applied static load cases used in FE analysis
E630
Edge load
(MPa)
0.3832
Acceleration (m/s2)
FE Analysis
270.34
Acceleration (m/s2)
Experiment
270.71
E480
0.3521
248.40
249.19
E420
0.2748
193.87
193.65
Specimen ID
C.2.2.2 Determination of static load case due to repeated loading

The pressure load from Table C.2 was then linked to factor versus time table to
simulate repeated impact loading. Figures C.7 to C.9 show the factor versus time
table used in combining with the load case. In the analysis, the tube was assumed to
be subjected by 45, 70, and 120 impact repetitions for E630, E480, and E420;
respectively. This number of impact is sufficient to simulate the effect of repeated
impact loading since it was found experimentally that ruptures of the tube occurred at
20, 57, and 95 impacts, respectively. The time interval between successive impacts is
chosen as 0.1 sec.
Figure C.7 Factor vs. time table simulating repeated impact loading (E630)
10
Appendix C
EJ Guades
C.2.3 Repeated impact (fatigue) model for FE analysis

The stress-life method was used in modelling the strength degradation of the
composite tubes subjected by repeated impact loading. This technique used the
principle of similitude in determining the number of cycles to failure (Bishop and
Sherratt, 2010). Failure being defined as some predetermined crack length, loss of
stiffness, or separation of the component being designed. In Figure 4.6 (Chapter 4), it
showed that the peak load (strength/stress or stiffness) of the composite tube under
repeated impact loading initially decreased up to failure and become constant upon
reaching the post-collapse region. The reduction of the strength in the first region can
be assumed to be uniformly decreasing with increasing number of impacts until
failure (20, 57, 95 impacts for E630, E480, and E420; respectively).
In Strand7, the stiffness degradation of the tube was considered by linking it
to its material properties. In the modelling, however, the degradation was associated
to the modulus property of the plate elements of the modelled composite tubes. The
results obtained from Chapter 5 on residual properties of composite tubes revealed
that the maximum degradation of modulus for collapsed or crushed tubes is
approximately 5%. Consequently, this 5% modulus degradation was adopted in the
FE analysis for the three incident energies. It should be noted that the geometric and
mechanical properties of the tubes used in the experiment presented in Chapters 4
and 5 are almost similar. Therefore the data obtained from the test on each tube is
also suitable to be used in the analysis for either of them. A factor versus time table
was made and combined with the modulus property of the tube. Linking of the table
and the modulus property of the tube was achieved by using the command of
Property_Plate_Tables_Time_Modulus vs. time. Figures C.10 to C.12 demonstrates
11
Appendix C
EJ Guades
the factor versus time table used in combination with the property of the composite
tube.
Figure C.10 Factor vs. time table simulating material degradation (E630)
12
Appendix C
EJ Guades
C.2.4 Time step and total steps used in the analysis for repeated loading
The time step used in the nonlinear transient dynamic analysis for repeated loading is
0.005 sec. This was selected to save the time in running the solver. This value is
relatively higher to that used for single impact (Section 2.2.1). However, the time
step adopted found to be still suitable as it did not produce a significant difference in
capturing the peak load compared to a much lower time steps as illustrated in Figure
C.13. The total steps used for E630, E480, and E420 are 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000;
respectively. These means that the response of the tube was obtained for a period of
5.1 sec, 10 sec, and 15 sec; respectively.
2.50
Axial Load (N/mm)
2.00
0.00002 s
0.0002 s
1.50
0.0005 s
0.001 s
0.005 s
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.02
-0.50
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Time (s)
Figure C.13 Comparison of time steps for E630

C.3 Finite element analysis results and discussion
C.3.1 Variation of peak axial stress along the longitudinal direction
Figure C.14 shows the variation of the normalised peak axial stress in longitudinal
direction with its location on the tube for the three incident energies and different
number of impacts. It should be noted that the value in the abscissa was obtained by
dividing the peak axial stress at each location by the value at the extreme top edge
(i.e., 375 mm from the bottom of the tube). It can be observed from the figure that
the peak axial stress varies with its location regardless of the level of incident energy
and impact repetitions.
The stress distribution found to be higher at the extreme top portion and
decreases as the location moves away from the top. In investigating the effect of
impact repetitions, it follows that the trend of the peak stress distribution is same for
specimens corresponding to E630, E480 and E420. It can be observed that the
difference of peak stress between the extreme ends of the tube (i.e., 0 and 375 mm
13
Appendix C
EJ Guades
from the bottom of the tube) increases with increasing number of impacts. This trend,
however, is valid only before the start of rupturing of the tube as the peak stress
difference between the extreme ends was reduced after the 20th, 57th, and 95th impact;
respectively. This shows that at increasing number of impacts, the impact stress at
the upper portion remains constant whilst the lower portion is getting a decreasing
impact stress value. This is the main reason why the physical damage on the tube
after repeated impact test showed that the damage is only concentrated on its upper
portion.
375
Distance from the bottom (mm)
400
300
200
100
1st impact
300
10
15
200
20
100
0
0.992
0.994
0 mm
a) Distance reference
1st impact
10
30
40
50
100
0
0.992
400
20
200
0.998
b) E630
400
300
0.996
Peak axial stress (normalised value)
57
0.994
0.996
0.998
c) E480
1st impact
10
300
20
30
200
40
50
60
100
70
80
94
0
0.992
0.994
0.996
0.998
d) E420
Figure C.14 Variation of peak axial stress in longitudinal direction
C.3.2 Variation of peak axial stress along the transverse direction

The peak axial stress variation with the location along the transverse direction of the
impacted tubes for the three simulated incident energies is displayed in Figure C.15.
It should be noted that the values of the peak axial stress are the values at the top
extreme edge (i.e., 375 mm from the bottom of the tube) of the tube. Furthermore,
the values of the ordinate were obtained by normalising the peak axial stress at each
location by the value at the corner of the tube.
14
Appendix C
EJ Guades
Figure C.15 shows that the peak axial stress varies its distance from the
middle node of the tube for E630, E480, and E420. The peak axial stress induced on
the tube is relatively lower at the middle, however, increases when the location is
approaching to its corner. This indicates that stress concentration is likely to happen
for the square composite tube when it is subjected by repeated impact loading. In
fact, this phenomenon was emphasised by Mamalis et al. (1997b) as the main reason
why square section tubes are generally less effective at absorption energy than
circular ones. Mamalis et al. reported that the square section tubes have 0.5 times the
specific energy absorption of comparable circular specimens.
Figure C.15 also shows that the variation of the peak axial stress with the
location is more pronounced for higher number of impacts. The more is the impact
repetitions, the higher the variations between the values at the middle and at the
corner of the tube. For the three incident energies, the peak axial stress at the middle
(i.e., 0 mm distance) decreases with increasing number of impacts. This indicates
that the effect of impact repetitions plays a significant role in the variation of peak
axial stress. Their effects, however, found to be less influential on the variation of
peak stress at the corner of the tube as their values are similar for all corresponding
number of impacts. This can be evidenced by the figure whereby the peak stress
intersects at one point located at the corner of the tube.
It is worth noting that the stress variation at the middle of the tube between
the first impact and the impact number to initiate collapse becomes less when the
incident energy increases. For instance, at E630 (Figure C.15b), the normalised peak
stress value at the 1st impact is 0.99999 whilst 0.99996 for the 20th impact. On the
other hand, the normalised stressed value at 57th (for E480) and 95th impact (for
E420) is 0.99990 and 0.99984; respectively. This implies that the effect of impact
repetitions on the stress variation at the middle section (top extreme edge) of the tube
is significant for relatively lower incident energies.
15
EJ Guades
Peak axial stress (normalised)
Appendix C
Middle node
0 mm
25
50
1.00002
0.99998
0.99994
0.99990
1st impact
5
10
15
20
0.99986
0.99982
0.99978
0
10
20
30
40
50
Distance from the middle node (mm)
b) E630
1.00002
Peak axial stress (normalised)
Peak axial stress (normnalised)
0.99998
0.99994
0.99990
0.99986
1st impact
30
57
0.99982
10
40
20
50
0.99978
0
10
20
30
40
c) E480
50
1.00002
0.99998
0.99994
0.99990
0.99986
1st impact
40
80
0.99982
0.99978
10
10
50
95
20
20
60
30
30
70
40
50
d) E420
Figure C.15 Variation of peak axial stress in transverse direction
C.3.3 Variation of peak axial strength degradation with the number of impact
Figure C.16 illustrates the peak strength degradation with its axial location on the
tube for the three incident energies. The values in the x-axis were obtained by
dividing the degradation at each location by the value at the extreme top edge. The
degradation of the tube is calculated as the difference of the initial peak strength (or
stress) and the peak strength at corresponding number of impacts. It can be observed
from Figure C.16 that the strength degradation is much higher at the extreme top
edge as compared to the bottom of the tube regardless of the level of incident
energies and number of impacts. It can also be observed from Figure C.16 that the
affected distance from the top of the tube increases when the number of impact
increases. This trend can be witnessed to up to the 15th, 50th, and 80th impacts for
E630, E480, and E420; respectively. When the tube started to fail, however, the
degradation is concentrated on the upper portion of the tube. As an example, at E480,
the degradation extends up to the bottom of the tube when subjected by 50th repeated
impact loading. However when the tube starts to fail or when it is impacted by 57
16
Appendix C
EJ Guades
impact repetitions, a distance of approximately 60 mm from its bottom found not to

be affected. This indicates that after the occurrence of failure, the damage caused by
the succeeding impacts is concentrated on the top of the tube only. It should be noted
that the two other simulated incident energies also follow the same trend. One
interesting result that can be obtained from Figure C.16 is on the comparison of the
distance affected by strength degradation. At the start of collapse (i.e., 20th, 57th, and
95th impact for E630, E480, and E420, respectively), the affected distance from the
top of the tube increases with decreasing incident energy. A detailed discussion to
this effect in terms of damage caused by the increase of incident energy and number
of impacts is presented in Section C.3.5.
375
400
300
200
100
300
200
1st impact
5
100
10
15
20
0
0
0 mm
0.2
0.6
0.8
b) E630
400
400
Distance from bottom (mm)
0.4
Peak axial stress degradation (normalised value)
300
200
100
1st impact
10
20
30
40
50
57
0
300
200
100
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
c) E480
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1st impact
0.2
0.4
0.6
95
0.8
d) E420
Figure C.16 Variation of peak axial strength degradation with number of impacts
C.3.4 Comparison between the absolute peak axial strength degradation of

collapsed and non-collapsed tubes
Figure C.17 shows the comparison of the absolute peak axial strength degradation of
the collapsed (failed) and non-collapsed tubes. It should be noted that the number of
17
Appendix C
EJ Guades
impacts adopted to characterise the non-collapsed tubes are 15, 52, and 90 for E630,
E480 and E420; respectively. These numbers of impacts are 5 impacts prior to the
occurrence of failure for the three incident energies. They are selected since these
numbers of impacts are relatively near on the occurrence of failure and therefore can
give a fairly higher axial strength degradation values. For collapsed tubes (Figure
C.17b), it can be observed that the strength degradation is imminent at the upper
portion with not much on the lower side of the tube. On the other hand, Figure C.17c
shows that strength of the entire axial length of the non-collapsed tubes found to
degrade relative to the extreme top edge. To compare the magnitude of strength
degradation of the impacted tubes, the average value obtained from Figures C.13b
and C.13c was plotted and is shown in Figure 17d. Figure C.17d illustrates that the
strength degradation of the non-collapsed tubes ranges from 4.3% at its extreme top
and 3.7% at the bottom. For collapsed tubes, on the other hand, the degradation
varies from 5% at the extreme top and 4.6% at a distance of approximately 120 mm
from the bottom of the tube.
375
400
300
200
100
E630 at 20th impact

E480 at 57th impact
300
E420 at 95th impact
200
100
0 mm
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
Peak axial stress degradation (%)
b) Collapsed tubes
300
200
E630 at 15th impact
100
E480 at 52th impact

E420 at 90th impact
0
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
c) Non-collapsed tubes
5.00
400
Average (Non-collapsed tubes)
400
Average (Collapsed tubes)
300
200
100
0
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
d) Average values
Figure C.17 Absolute peak axial strength degradation at failure
18
Appendix C
EJ Guades
C.3.5 Simulated damaged length at the corner of the tube

Figure C.18 demonstrates the comparison of the simulated damaged length of the
tube at the start of collapse for the three incident energies. These lengths are
measured from the corner of the tube as schematically shown in Figure C.19. It
should be noted that these lengths are specifically referenced from the corner since it
was found out that the maximum damage occurred in this location as a result of
stress concentration. This was substantiated by Figure C.19 in which the maximum
length of damage for the collapsed tubes occurred at its corner. The length of the
damage on the tube was obtained by setting a limit in the element result display of
the Strand7 output. In this modelling, the strain value at the extreme top edge of the
tube during the start of collapse (20th, 57th, and 95th impact for E630, E480, and
E420; respectively) was used as limit.
Figure C.18 shows that the damaged length of E630 is relatively lower
compared to E480 and E420 at the start of collapse. The damaged length of E480 and
E420 is approximately 2 and 3 times to that of E630, respectively. This result points
out that the damage sustained in the area near the impact point of the composite tube
is higher for a tube failed in several impacts with less energy per impact. This
outcome was also reported by Wyrick and Adams (1998) whereby the specimens
with holes resulting from a single perforating impact exhibited a much lesser damage
compared to those perforations resulted from a number of impacts. Their study,
however, used laminates and not composite tubes as adopted in the present
investigation.
Damaged length from the top of

the tube (mm)
12
E630 at 20th impact
E480 at 57th impact
E420 at 95th impact

8
Figure C.18 Comparison of the damaged length at the start of failure
19
Appendix C
EJ Guades
Damaged length
a) E630
Damaged length
b) E480
Damaged length
c) E420
Figure C.19 Damaged length simulation using FE analysis
20
Appendix C
EJ Guades
C.4 Conclusions
Analytical modelling was performed to verify the accuracy of using the acceleration
at the mid-height point of the tube as its response. The result shows that the
difference of the acceleration values at the mid-height and at the top most portion of
the tube is less than 5% indicating that the former can be used in the analysis. Finite
element analysis using Strand 7 software was carried out to investigate the variation
of peak axial stress and strength degradation of the square composite tubes subjected
by repeated impact loading. The result of the FE analysis showed that the applied
peak axial stress on the tube is concentrated on the impact point and attenuates when
the location moves away from this point. Stress concentration along the corner of the
tube is likely to happen during repeated impact loading. As a result, the damage
during impact loading generally initiates along the corners leading to the formation
of splitting cracks.
The number of impacts significantly affects the stress variation along the
axial length of the composite tube. Its effect, however, found to be less influential on
the stress variation along the corner of the tube.
The strength degradation is higher at the extreme top of the tube as compared
to the bottom edge. The degradation ranges from 3.7% to 4.3% for non-collapsed
tubes and 4.6% to 5% for collapsed/failed tubes. For tubes in which failure is not
achieved within the impact duration, the degradation increases when the number of
impact increases. On the contrary, when failure is achieved, the degradation caused
by the succeeding impacts is concentrated only on the top of the tube. Moreover, the
damaged length near the contact point is higher for a tube failed by a lesser incident
energy with several impacts.
Apart from the effort of the author in attempting to model the repeated impact
behaviour of FRP tube, the FE study presented here is still considered a preliminary
work and as this does not provide other important information such as the simulated
failure mode caused by the impact event. Therefore it is recommended that a
rigorous analysis is needed using sophisticated FE software package to accurately
predict the impact behaviour of glass fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite
tubes.
21
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Appendix D Summary of specimen dimension and results in

residual properties testing
The details of the specimen and the results discussed in Chapter 5 are presented here.
D.1 Summary of the details of the tubes
Table D.1 Summary of the dimension of the tubes
Tube ID
E0-0
Depth (mm)
100.45
Width (mm)
100.38
Length (mm)
375.50
Thickness (mm)
5.19
E160-80
100.58
100.58
373.00
5.10
E320-80
100.68
100.43
374.50
5.28
E480-10
100.69
100.42
374.00
5.30
E630-10
100.54
100.43
377.00
5.15
E480-40
100.42
100.30
376.00
5.24
E480-80
100.60
100.38
375.50
5.25
E630-30
100.29
100.55
376.50
5.27
E740-10
100.32
100.40
375.00
5.28
Average
100.51
100.43
375.22
5.23
Standard deviation
0.14
0.08
1.18
0.06
D.2 Summary of results of coupon compressive test

D.2.1 Top portion (see the location on Figure 5.2)
Table D.2 Coupon dimension and compressive test result for E160-80 (Top)
Width
(mm)
12.15
Length
(mm)
114.22
Thickness
(mm)
5.18
Peak stress
(MPa)
441.82
12.32
113.85
5.12
440.68
12.31
114.15
5.12
419.96
12.21
114.24
5.16
398.25
Average
12.24
114.12
5.14
425.38
Standard deviation
0.07
0.16
0.02
17.82
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.30
Length
(mm)
114.83
Thickness
(mm)
5.23
Peak stress
(MPa)
444.03
12.21
114.79
5.18
431.03
12.24
114.16
5.27
395.48
12.22
114.16
5.30
450.99
Average
12.24
114.60
5.24
430.38
Standard deviation
0.03
0.27
0.05
21.39
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
12.29
Length
(mm)
114.33
Thickness
(mm)
5.24
Peak stress
(MPa)
446.79
12.29
114.19
5.24
425.39
12.27
114.55
5.17
415.32
12.34
114.04
5.23
457.25
Average
12.30
114.28
5.22
436.14
Standard deviation
0.03
0.19
0.03
16.65
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.16
Length
(mm)
113.92
Thickness
(mm)
5.14
Peak stress
(MPa)
426.43
12.25
1143.95
5.36
398.96
12.29
114.15
5.32
452.02
12.10
114.13
5.26
450.66
Average
12.20
114.04
5.27
431.90
Standard deviation
0.07
0.10
0.08
21.63
Specimen no
D.2.2 Middle portion (see the location on Figure 5.2)

Table D.6 Coupon dimension and compressive test result for E160-80 (Middle)
Width
(mm)
12.52
Length
(mm)
113.51
Thickness
(mm)
5.11
Peak stress
(MPa)
437.36
Modulus
(MPa)
51,379
12.20
113.71
5.12
434.39
48,226
12.47
114.20
5.05
440.74
12.37
113.61
5.01
425.02
Average
12.39
113.76
5.07
434.37
49,802
Standard deviation
0.12
0.27
0.04
5.85
1,577
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.45
Length
(mm)
112.64
Thickness
(mm)
5.30
Peak stress
(MPa)
412.29
Modulus
(MPa)
53,318
12.46
112.51
5.35
467.45
46,979
12.49
113.42
5.39
444.44
12.45
112.00
5.22
415.33
Average
12.46
112.64
5.31
434.88
50,149
Standard deviation
0.12
0.51
0.6
22.61
3,169
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
12.43
Length
(mm)
113.76
Thickness
(mm)
5.37
Peak stress
(MPa)
415.58
Modulus
(MPa)
49,694
12.45
114.18
5.20
467.81
50,357
12.43
114.61
5.30
377.39
12.43
114.72
5.22
506.01
Average
12.43
114.32
5.27
441.70
50,026
Standard deviation
0.01
0.38
0.07
49.08
332
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.48
Length
(mm)
115.21
Thickness
(mm)
5.24
Peak stress
(MPa)
431.78
Modulus
(MPa)
43,196
12.47
114.84
5.10
415.22
56,692
12.43
115.01
5.03
467.88
12.37
115.01
5.09
425.54
Average
12.44
115.03
5.11
435.11
49,944
Standard deviation
0.04
0.13
0.08
19.82
6,748
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.31
Length
(mm)
113.73
Thickness
(mm)
5.26
Peak stress
(MPa)
438.58
Modulus
(MPa)
52,025
12.46
113.38
5.37
443.51
48,534
12.44
113.71
5.35
453.93
12.40
113.50
5.21
395.32
Average
12.40
113.58
5.29
432.84
50,279
Standard deviation
0.06
0.15
0.06
22.35
1,746
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.30
Length
(mm)
114.44
Thickness
(mm)
5.33
Peak stress
(MPa)
424.39
Modulus
(MPa)
49,041
12.37
113.38
5.36
426.88
51,679
12.39
113.68
5.20
443.80
12.43
114.27
5.25
407.47
Average
12.37
113.94
5.28
425.64
50,360
Standard deviation
0.05
0.43
0.06
12.87
1,319
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
12.34
Length
(mm)
112.75
Thickness
(mm)
5.21
Peak stress
(MPa)
433.37
Modulus
(MPa)
48,056
12.32
113.20
5.28
410.95
50,008
12.40
113.25
5.35
414.71
12.35
113.24
5.37
407.44
Average
12.35
113.11
5.30
416.62
49,032
Standard deviation
0.03
0.21
0.06
10.01
976
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.45
Length
(mm)
113.74
Thickness
(mm)
5.32
Peak stress
(MPa)
411.66
Modulus
(MPa)
49,862
12.30
113.50
5.25
419.71
51,436
12.44
113.64
5.19
413.38
12.28
114.57
5.33
400.26
Average
12.37
113.86
5.27
411.25
50,649
Standard deviation
0.08
0.42
0.06
7.01
787
Specimen no
D.2.3 Bottom portion (see the location on Figure 5.2)

Table D.14 Coupon dimension and compressive test result for E160-80 (Bottom)
Width
(mm)
12.33
Length
(mm)
114.44
Thickness
(mm)
5.13
Peak stress
(MPa)
435.92
12.62
114.41
5.10
448.87
12.30
113510
5.02
480.84
12.35
113.48
5.04
403.95
Average
12.40
113.96
5.07
442.39
Standard deviation
0.13
0.46
0.05
27.57
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.33
Length
(mm)
114.83
Thickness
(mm)
5.21
Peak stress
(MPa)
405.33
12.34
114.79
5.29
444.70
12.24
114.16
5.38
469.74
12.21
114.61
5.39
445.18
Average
12.28
114.60
5.31
441.24
Standard deviation
0.06
0.27
0.7
23.07
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
12.35
Length
(mm)
113.76
Thickness
(mm)
5.23
Peak stress
(MPa)
437.28
12.45
114.18
5.30
469.66
12.38
114.61
5.39
462.40
12.40
114.72
5.37
450.02
Average
12.39
114.32
5.32
454.84
Standard deviation
0.03
0.38
0.06
12.33
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.36
Length
(mm)
113.09
Thickness
(mm)
5.05
Peak stress
(MPa)
408.47
12.39
113.15
5.11
479.90
12.40
112.87
5.06
465.44
12.25
112.86
5.09
448.38
Average
12.35
112.99
5.08
450.55
Standard deviation
0.06
0.13
0.02
26.74
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.38
Length
(mm)
114.13
Thickness
(mm)
5.28
Peak stress
(MPa)
408.79
12.24
114.47
5.36
498.92
12.41
114.70
5.36
422.82
12.26
114.25
5.20
434.82
Average
12.32
114.39
5.30
441.37
Standard deviation
0.07
0.22
0.07
34.48
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.18
Length
(mm)
115.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.34
Peak stress
(MPa)
455.84
12.32
114.28
5.37
419.69
12.34
114.21
5.22
445.58
12.38
115.30
5.27
456.30
Average
12.30
114.70
5.30
444.35
Standard deviation
0.08
0.46
0.06
14.87
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
12.17
Length
(mm)
113.92
Thickness
(mm)
5.34
Peak stress
(MPa)
461.82
12.44
113.07
5.38
452.57
12.24
113.70
5.28
442.51
12.44
113.94
5.20
463.02
Average
12.32
113.66
5.30
454.98
Standard deviation
0.12
0.35
0.07
8.25
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
12.32
Length
(mm)
113.60
Thickness
(mm)
5.29
Peak stress
(MPa)
428.21
12.29
113.57
5.30
444.62
12.30
113.32
5.24
470.64
12.32
114.56
5.33
435.75
Average
12.31
113.76
5.29
444.81
Standard deviation
0.01
0.32
0.03
16.01
Specimen no
D.3 Summary of results of coupon tensile test

Table D.22 Coupon dimension and tensile test result for E160-80
Width
Length
Thickness
Peak stress
Specimen no
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
1
25.99
231.00
5.25
618.29
Modulus
(MPa)
42,587
25.86
231.00
5.19
600.60
38,828
25.94
230.00
5.13
627.23
25.76
230.50
5.20
573.80
Average
25.89
230.63
5.19
604.98
40,707
Standard deviation
0.09
0.41
0.04
20.39
1,880
Width
(mm)
25.05
Length
(mm)
231.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.05
Peak stress
(MPa)
571.96
Modulus
(MPa)
44,032
25.95
230.00
5.19
697.56
38,748
25.98
230.50
5.21
585.42
25.98
230.00
5.17
571.71
Average
25.99
230.13
5.16
606.67
41,390
Standard deviation
0.04
0.22
0.6
52.77
2,642
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
26.14
Length
(mm)
231.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.24
Peak stress
(MPa)
634.47
Modulus
(MPa)
40,067
26.03
231.00
5.18
647.81
42,439
26.11
231.00
5.04
552.51
26.06
230.00
5.09
607.32
Average
26.08
230.75
5.09
610.53
41,253
Standard deviation
0.04
0.43
0.08
36.54
1,186
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
26.12
Length
(mm)
232.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.15
Peak stress
(MPa)
594.30
Modulus
(MPa)
45,953
25.89
231.50
5.25
627.23
36,995
26.03
231.00
5.20
642.03
25.69
231.00
5.23
543.32
Average
25.93
231.38
5.21
601.72
41,473
Standard deviation
0.16
0.41
0.04
37.89
4,479
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
25.90
Length
(mm)
230.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.11
Peak stress
(MPa)
625.56
Modulus
(MPa)
38,293
25.88
230.50
5.05
598.15
44,213
25.82
231.00
5.22
639.45
26.01
231.00
5.18
584.27
Average
25.90
230.63
5.14
611.86
41,253
Standard deviation
0.07
0.41
0.07
21.78
2,960
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
25.87
Length
(mm)
231.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.21
Peak stress
(MPa)
623.82
Modulus
(MPa)
41,817
25.93
233.00
5.22
613.08
40,261
26.01
231.00
5.03
614.44
25.93
231.00
5.20
562.65
Average
25.94
231.50
5.16
603.50
41,039
Standard deviation
0.05
0.87
0.08
23.95
778
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
25.85
Length
(mm)
230.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.19
Peak stress
(MPa)
575.54
Modulus
(MPa)
44,595
25.72
231.50
5.20
649.04
38,613
26.10
231.00
5.11
628.49
25.92
230.50
5.02
552.46
Average
25.90
230.75
5.13
601.38
41,604
Standard deviation
0.14
0.56
0.07
38.95
2,991
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
25.99
Length
(mm)
231.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.25
Peak stress
(MPa)
607.02
Modulus
(MPa)
42,242
26.13
231.00
5.15
581.19
39,365
26.13
230.00
5.16
635.05
26.18
230.50
5.04
587.92
Average
26.10
230.63
5.15
602.79
40,803
Standard deviation
0.07
0.41
0.07
20.90
1,438
Specimen no
D.4 Summary of results of coupon flexural test

Table D.30 Coupon dimension and flexural test result for E160-80
Width
Length
Thickness
Peak stress
Specimen no
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(MPa)
1
15.21
152.83
5.10
869.81
Modulus
(MPa)
34,737
15.27
153.51
5.17
975.00
40,767
15.21
152.93
5.17
1,075.65
37,195
15.31
152.28
5.02
901.14
37,058
Average
15.25
152.89
5.11
955.40
37,439
Standard deviation
0.04
0.44
0.06
79.24
2,147
Width
(mm)
15.15
Length
(mm)
150.16
Thickness
(mm)
5.24
Peak stress
(MPa)
965.69
Modulus
(MPa)
37,918
15.24
150.88
5.17
974.95
39,217
15.09
150.93
5.25
881.14
33,619
15.23
150.91
5.31
943.41
40,994
Average
15.18
150.72
5.24
941.30
37,937
Standard deviation
0.06
0.32
0.05
36.57
2,721
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
15.40
Length
(mm)
151.67
Thickness
(mm)
5.26
Peak stress
(MPa)
917.37
Modulus
(MPa)
35,231
15.27
153.24
5.33
946.28
37,362
15.30
153.13
5.23
943.30
38,087
15.22
153.70
5.15
972.21
39,850
Average
15.30
152.94
5.24
944.79
37,633
Standard deviation
0.06
0.76
0.06
19.42
1,656
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
15.27
Length
(mm)
151.54
Thickness
(mm)
5.17
Peak stress
(MPa)
1,031.93
Modulus
(MPa)
38,974
15.16
152.01
5.13
897.24
39,255
15.32
151.29
5.13
984.88
35,571
15.27
151.71
5.08
850.19
37,433
Average
15.25
151.64
5.13
941.06
37,808
Standard deviation
0.06
0.26
0.03
71.34
1,466
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
15.25
Length
(mm)
150.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.26
Peak stress
(MPa)
954.58
Modulus
(MPa)
35,208
15.26
151.00
5.22
902.71
37,748
15.32
152.50
5.26
893.07
34,140
15.25
151.00
5.15
922.96
41,424
Average
15.27
151.25
5.22
918.33
37,130
Standard deviation
0.03
0.75
0.05
23.55
2,804
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
15.18
Length
(mm)
151.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.22
Peak stress
(MPa)
858.71
Modulus
(MPa)
33,167
15.24
150.50
5.29
905.74
38,171
15.24
152.00
5.26
902.58
39,662
15.23
151.00
5.17
913.01
42,849
Average
15.22
151.13
5.23
895.01
38,462
Standard deviation
0.02
0.54
0.04
21.30
3,493
Specimen no
Appendix D
EJ Guades
Width
(mm)
15.20
Length
(mm)
152.00
Thickness
(mm)
5.12
Peak stress
(MPa)
938.65
Modulus
(MPa)
41,056
15.34
152.00
5.29
861.69
37,043
15.24
151.00
5.31
948.43
41,378
15.21
152.00
5.20
851.91
36,721
Average
15.24
151.75
5.23
900.17
39,049
Standard deviation
0.06
0.43
0.07
43.64
2,173
Specimen no
Width
(mm)
15.26
Length
(mm)
150.50
Thickness
(mm)
5.26
Peak stress
(MPa)
945.54
Modulus
(MPa)
39,636
15.24
151.00
5.25
964.23
40,009
15.24
151.00
5.19
878.73
33,435
15.18
151.00
5.27
809.50
38,893
Average
15.23
150.88
5.24
899.50
37,993
Standard deviation
0.03
0.21
0.03
60.91
2,662
Specimen no
10

Guades 2013 Whole PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guades 2013 Whole PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behaviour of Glass FRP Composite Tubes

Under Repeated Impact for Piling Application

A dissertation submitted for the award of

Centre of Excellence in Engineered Fibre Composites

Conference Papers/Poster Presentation

5. E.J. Guades, C. S. Sirimanna, T. Aravinthan & M.M. Islam. (2010).

Investigation on the behaviour of square FRP composite tubes

Residual properties of square FRP composite tubes subjected to

5.3.3 Effects of impact energy............... 108

Application of the damage evolution model to other types of

7.3 Glass/vinyl ester composite tubes.. 158

Appendix D Summary of specimen dimension and results in residual

Figure Figure caption

Review of composite piles and their driving performance

Characterisation of the properties of composite tubes

Actual tube (length varies from 1.2 m to 1.5 m). 63

Investigation on the behaviour of square FRP composite tubes

Residual properties of square FRP composite tubes subjected to

Enlarged view: Residual tensile modulus-number of impacts

Damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP composite tubes

Application of the damage evolution model to other types of

Damage evolution curves of GV-H tube 162

Appendix B Summary of specimen dimension and snapshots of the

Investigation on the behaviour of square FRP composite tubes

Residual properties of square FRP composite tubes subjected to

Characterisation of the properties of composite tubes

Review of composite piles and their driving performance

Damage modelling of repeatedly impacted FRP composite tubes

Application of the damage evolution model to other types of

Table Table caption

Appendix B Summary of specimen dimension and snapshots of the

Appendix D Summary of specimen dimension and results in residual

Initial mass of the specimen used in fibre fraction test

(a) Degraded concrete pile

(b) Corroded steel piles

(c) Deteriorated timber piles (www.majorprojects.vic.gov.au)

1.3 Fibre composites as an alternative in piling applications

1.4 FRP tubes as composite piles

1.5 Challenges in using hollow FRP pipe piles

1.6 Research needs related to their driving performance

might be no damage indication on the surfaces by visual evaluation but internal

1.8 Scope of the thesis

Review on the driving performance of composite piles and recent

Characterisation of the material properties of square GFRP composite tubes;

Testing and evaluation of the behaviour and failure mechanisms of square

Testing and evaluation of the residual properties behaviour of the repeatedly

Development of an energy-based model predicting the impact damage

Comparison of the results from experiment and proposed damage model;

Investigation of the energy absorption behaviour of other FRP composite tube

Application of the proposed model to these FRP composite tubes.

Evaluation of the behaviour of GFRP composite tubes under actual pile

Characterisation of the behaviour of GFRP composite tubes under lateral

1.9 Outline of the thesis

Chapter 1 gives an introduction and objectives of this study. This chapter

Chapter 2 provides an overview on composite pile technologies and their

Chapter 3 presents the characterisation of the mechanical properties of square

Chapter 4 characterises the behaviour of the square GFRP composite tubes

Chapter 5 emphasises on the characterisation of the residual properties of the

Chapter 6 covers the development of a predictive model to characterise the

Chapter 7 discusses the potential application of the proposed model on

recommendations for future work.

Chapter 2 Review of composite piles and their driving performance