test method for tensile strength of frp like brittle materials · test method for tensile strength...

94
Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials

Upload: duongtuyen

Post on 21-Jul-2018

235 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials

Page 2: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre Reinforced Polymer behaviour is still a huge area of investigation because of the

complexity and difficulties in analysis of this material. Available tensile test standards methodology

does not accurately account for FRP’s nature as current test results, presented in many research papers,

show a large scatter and give lower tensile parameters than expected or specified by the manufacturers.

Therefore, the aim of this research was to improve the existing and most common industry standard of

tensile testing ASTMD3039/D3039M-08 of FRP by developing a reliable test method that captures more

accurately FRP’s tensile parameters: the ultimate strain, the ultimate stress and the Young’s modulus.

This research is a thorough study of tensile testing of FRP like brittle materials and is based on a

population of 44 specimens that were tested in tension until failure according to the specification

contained within the ASTM D3039. The research provided improvements to both experimentation

procedures in order to increase the quality control of the CFRP coupons as well as to the analysis by

accounting for the bending effects induced in the specimens during testing. Five analysis methods are

introduced, which consist of both existing (ASTM D3039, the Rule of Mixtures) and proposed

(Method ‘1’ – Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 as well as Method B&B and Axial Method – both being

proposals of the Author) methods. Lastly, the validity of the results is checked by the statistical analysis

and how closely they represent the predictions produced by the Rule of Mixtures.

Overall, the analysis described by the Method B&B is recommended to replace the existing standard

method ASTM D3039 by giving higher values for ultimate strain and stress by 8.22 % and 8.31 %

accordingly, whereas it adopted the approach for Young’s modulus determination with 7.51 %

dispersion.

It can be concluded that the aim of the project, to introduce improvements to the existing industry

standard of tensile testing ASTM D3039, was successfully achieved by meeting all defined objectives.

Therefore, this research is believed to have far reaching implications and the beneficiaries will include

FRP design specialists and FRP manufacturers as the tensile parameters are fundamental for

underpinning any structural design and analysis work.

Page 3: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 3 of 94

Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Notation ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Tensile Parameters ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Rule of Mixtures ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

ASTM D3039 Method........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Method ‘1’ ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Method B&B ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 1 - Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................... 9

1.2. Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Chapter 2 - Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................. 12

2.1. What is Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composite? .................................................................................................. 12

2.1.1. Fibres ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.1.2. Polymer Matrix ............................................................................................................................................. 13

2.1.3. Interface ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

2.1.4. Curing Procedures ......................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2. Mechanical Properties of FRP Composite ........................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1. Ways of Analysing Mechanical Properties of FRP Composite ....................................................................... 16

2.2.1.1. Macromechanics of a Lamina ............................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1.2. Micromechanics of a Lamina................................................................................................................ 16

2.2.2. Rule of Mixtures ............................................................................................................................................ 17

2.3. Methods of Forming FRP Composites ................................................................................................................. 17

2.3.1. Wet Lay-up Method ...................................................................................................................................... 17

2.3.2. Prefabrication of FRP Composites................................................................................................................. 18

2.4. FRP Application ................................................................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1. Strengthening and Retrofitting of Structures ............................................................................................... 18

2.4.2. Flexural Strengthening of Beams .................................................................................................................. 18

2.4.3. Shear Strengthening of Beams ...................................................................................................................... 19

2.4.4. Seismic Retrofitting of Walls and Columns ................................................................................................... 19

2.4.5. Flexural Strengthening of Slabs..................................................................................................................... 19

2.5. FRP Test Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 20

2.5.1. Flat Coupon Test - ASTM D3039/D3039M .................................................................................................... 20

2.5.2. Failure Criteria............................................................................................................................................... 21

2.5.2.1. Intralaminar Failure .............................................................................................................................. 21

Page 4: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 4 of 94

2.5.2.2. Interlaminar Failure .............................................................................................................................. 22

2.5.3. Failure Modes according to ASTM D3039 ..................................................................................................... 22

2.5.4. Split Ring Test ................................................................................................................................................ 23

2.5.5. Novel Methods of FRP Testing ...................................................................................................................... 23

2.5.6. Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 24

2.6. Tensile Testing of FRP-like Brittle Materials ....................................................................................................... 25

2.6.1. Tensile Testing Proposed Methods ............................................................................................................... 25

2.6.2. Improved Analysis Methods ......................................................................................................................... 26

2.6.2.1. Method ‘1’ ............................................................................................................................................ 26

2.6.2.2. Method ‘2’ ............................................................................................................................................ 27

2.6.2.3. Method ‘3’ ............................................................................................................................................ 27

2.6.3. Results Comparison ...................................................................................................................................... 27

2.6.4. Report’s Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 28

2.7. Relevant Researches ........................................................................................................................................... 29

2.7.1. Possible Enhancements to Tensile Testing of FRP ........................................................................................ 29

2.7.1.1. Geometrical Improvements ................................................................................................................. 29

2.7.2. Standard ASTM D3039 Testing ..................................................................................................................... 30

2.8. Chapter Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 3 – Experimental Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 31

3.1. Specimen Preparation and Experimental Set-up ................................................................................................ 31

3.1.1. Safety Precautions & Requirements ............................................................................................................. 31

3.1.1.1. Key Watch Points ................................................................................................................................. 31

3.1.1.2. Required PPE ........................................................................................................................................ 31

3.1.2. Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 31

3.1.3. Preparation of CFRP Specimens .................................................................................................................... 31

3.1.3.1. Materials .............................................................................................................................................. 32

3.1.3.1.1. Fibres ............................................................................................................................................... 32

3.1.3.1.2. Epoxy Resin ..................................................................................................................................... 33

3.1.3.1.3. Mould .............................................................................................................................................. 33

3.1.3.1.4. Tabs ................................................................................................................................................. 33

3.1.3.2. Preparation Procedure ......................................................................................................................... 34

3.1.3.2.1. Filling the Moulds ............................................................................................................................ 34

3.1.3.2.2. Curing, Inspection & Bonding of Aluminium Tabs ........................................................................... 36

3.1.4. Strain Gauge Application .............................................................................................................................. 37

3.1.5. Testing of CFRP Coupons .............................................................................................................................. 38

3.1.5.1. Improvements to Testing ..................................................................................................................... 38

3.1.5.2. Experimental Set-up and Test Procedure............................................................................................. 38

Page 5: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 5 of 94

3.2. Chapter Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 39

Chapter 4 – Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 41

4.1. Control Tests ....................................................................................................................................................... 41

4.2. Failure Modes ..................................................................................................................................................... 42

4.3. Environmental Adjustment of the Raw Data ...................................................................................................... 44

4.4. Rule of Mixtures .................................................................................................................................................. 44

4.4.1. Analysis Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 44

4.4.2. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 45

4.4.3. Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 45

4.5. ASTM D3039 ....................................................................................................................................................... 46

4.5.1. Analysis Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 46

4.5.2. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 47

4.5.3. Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 48

4.6. Method ‘1’ .......................................................................................................................................................... 49

4.6.1. Analysis Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 49

4.6.2. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 50

4.6.3. Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 52

4.7. Proposed Improvements .................................................................................................................................... 53

4.7.1. Method B&B ................................................................................................................................................. 53

4.7.1.1. Analysis Approach ................................................................................................................................ 53

4.7.1.2. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 55

4.7.1.3. Results .................................................................................................................................................. 55

4.7.2. Axial Method for Ultimate Strain’s Calculation............................................................................................. 56

4.7.2.1. Analysis Approach ................................................................................................................................ 56

4.7.2.2. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 57

4.7.2.3. Results .................................................................................................................................................. 58

4.8. Chapter Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 59

Chapter 5 - Reanalysed Data from Jakubowski & Rycerz 2012 Research ........................................................................... 60

5.1. Coupons with 3 Strain Gauges ............................................................................................................................ 60

5.2. Coupons with 4 Strain Gauges ............................................................................................................................ 61

5.3. Chapter Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 63

Chapter 6 – Statistical Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 64

6.1. Statistical Comparisons ....................................................................................................................................... 64

6.2. Chapter Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 71

Chapter 7 – Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................ 72

7.1. Overall ................................................................................................................................................................. 72

7.2. Project Planning Review ..................................................................................................................................... 73

Page 6: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 6 of 94

7.3. Future Work ........................................................................................................................................................ 74

Chapter 8 – Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................... 75

References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 77

Appendix A - Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................................ 80

Appendix B - Required Resources ....................................................................................................................................... 81

Appendix C - SikaWrap Hex 230C Properties ...................................................................................................................... 82

Appendix D - Sikadur 330 Properties .................................................................................................................................. 82

Appendix E - Failure Modes for CFRP Coupons .................................................................................................................. 83

Appendix F - Author Research Results ................................................................................................................................ 84

F1. Rule of Mixtures ........................................................................................................................................................ 84

F2. ASTM D3039 .............................................................................................................................................................. 85

F3. Method ‘1’ ................................................................................................................................................................. 86

F4. Method ‘B&B’ ............................................................................................................................................................ 87

Appendix G - Jakubowski & Rycerz 2012 Reanalysed Data Results .................................................................................... 87

G1. Coupons with 3 Strain Gauges .................................................................................................................................. 87

G1.1. Rule of Mixture .................................................................................................................................................. 87

G1.2. ASTM D3039 + Axial Method ............................................................................................................................. 88

G1.3. Method ‘1’ ......................................................................................................................................................... 88

G2. Coupons with 4 Strain Gauges .................................................................................................................................. 89

G2.1. Rule of Mixture .................................................................................................................................................. 89

G2.2. ASTM D3039 + Axial Method ............................................................................................................................. 89

G2.3. Method ‘2’ ......................................................................................................................................................... 90

G2.4. Method ‘3’ ......................................................................................................................................................... 90

Appendix H - Test Data vs. Predictions for Dataset of 29 Coupons .................................................................................... 91

Appendix I - Project Planning .............................................................................................................................................. 92

I1. Critical Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 92

I2. Milestones.................................................................................................................................................................. 92

I3. Gantt Charts ............................................................................................................................................................... 93

Page 7: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 7 of 94

NOTATION

TENSILE PARAMETERS

RULE OF MIXTURES

[

⁄ ]

ASTM D3039 METHOD

Page 8: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 8 of 94

METHOD ‘1’

METHOD B&B

Page 9: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 9 of 94

1. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been an ever-growing interest in the use of innovative methods in structural

and civil engineering industries. One particular group of materials dominates in these fields. These are

composite materials, which have been around for a long time and solved many technological problems.

They captured the attention of the construction industry in the year 1960 with the introduction of

polymeric-based composites. They have a great potential to replace widely used materials in

engineering, such as steel or aluminium. For example by replacing steel with composite elements, 60 to

80% of component weight can be saved (Mazumdar, 2002). This introduces huge advantages, such as

lower application costs, smaller additional permanent loading when strengthening, or shifted design

boundaries, which are usually limited by weight of the structure.

Among all, there is one particular composite material prevailing in our modern society – Fibre

Reinforced Polymer (FRP). It was developed in the 1990s (Teng et al., 2002) and is widely used in

automotive, aerospace, recreational and marine industries (Jain et al., 2012). The main reasons for

moving away from the universally known materials like steel are demand for increase in profits,

improvement in productivity and decrease in failings as well as accidents. Other factors that drive

construction industry towards fibre-reinforced polymers are improved durability and safety along with

reductions in labour costs and construction time (Hollaway, 2009a). Therefore, FRP brings a lot of

advantages over commonly used construction materials. There is a growing need for composite

materials and production expected to reach ten million tonnes at the end of 2025 (Bunsell, 2005). Thus,

FRP has already been very well received by the market. The UK Department of Trade and Industry

stated that “the UK fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite industry produces 240 000 t of FRP

products a year, with 11% of this being used in the construction industry” (Conroy et al., 2005).

1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT

There are several Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP) applications in civil engineering industry. FRP is

used in the new construction as reinforcement in bridge decks and concrete, or as a formwork for

manufacturing entire elements (Jain et al., 2012). The alternative methods such as FRP strengthening

show their merits in the large number of ageing structures that require increased maintenance. Cost is

the main influencing factor whilst deciding on strengthening structural components with FRP because a

complete replacement of the structure often leads to a large financial burden. The most common way of

strengthening existing structures to increase their load carrying capacity is an external bonding of FRP

to structural members i.e. bonding FRP plates to beams or wrapping the columns (Darby, 1999).

A high demand and new manufacturing techniques have steadily decreased the initially very high costs

of FRP material (Teng et. al., 2002). This became possible thanks to great amount of research work

happening over recent decades, which produced a constantly growing number of research papers

(Rycerz, 2012). However, understanding FRP behaviour is still a huge area of investigation because of

the complexity and difficulties in analysis of FRP (Yu et al., 2009). The majority of research concentrates

mainly on material behaviour under loading, internal interaction between FRP’s constituents (fibres vs.

matrix) as well as FRP behaviour with other materials like concrete i.e external FRP plating of RC

members (Hollaway and Leeming, 1999).

The presented research looks into behaviour of FRP under tensile loading and will investigate the

current state of tensile testing of FRP as this property underpins all of its applications in the industry.

Available tensile test standards are based on the knowledge of a common construction material - steel.

Page 10: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 10 of 94

Therefore, the methodology does not accurately account for FRP’s nature as current test results,

presented in many research papers, show a large scatter and give lower tensile parameters than

expected or specified by the manufacturers (Rycerz, 2012). Therefore, the development of a reliable

test method that captures FRP’s tensile parameters is required and will be identified in this research. It

is going to be accomplished by providing more accurate measurement data through improvements

made to both specimens’ preparation and analysis in order to validate an improved method of tensile

testing previously proposed by Jakubowski and Rycerz in their BEng report 2012. This method will be

compared to the current standard – ASTM ASTMD3039/D3039M-08 and cross checked with theoretical

values obtained using the Rule of Mixtures. The outcome of this research is believed to have far

reaching implications and the beneficiaries will include FRP design specialists and FRP manufacturers

as the tensile strength is a fundamental property underpinning any design work.

1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research is to improve the existing and most common industry standard of tensile

testing ASTMD3039/D3039M-08 of FRP by developing a reliable test method that captures more

accurately FRP’s tensile parameters. FRP’s properties are very sensitive to fabrication because of

material complexity; therefore a lot of care needs to be taken in sample preparation and testing

(Jakubowski, 2012). Hence, it has been identified that the improvements can be made to both the test

method and data analysis in order to increase the accuracy, repeatability, and reliability of derived

tensile parameters i.e. tensile strength, ultimate strain and chord modulus, which ultimately leads to

improved and more accurate structural design and analysis.

To achieve the aim of the project, a number of objectives need to be satisfied. They were identified

based on those proposed by Jakubowski and Rycerz in their report 2012 and updated to meet the

improvements proposed by the Author:

Undertake a comprehensive literature review in order to gather broad knowledge on the

investigated subject;

Obtain raw data from the tests carried out by Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012;

Prepare a series of CFRP rectangular test specimens according to the guidelines given in

ASTMD3039/D3039M-08 with slightly altered preparation techniques to identify any

improvements or recommendations to the standard technique (Section 3.1.);

Test the specimens according to the ASTMD3039/D3039M-08 standard for Flat Coupon Tests

using Instron 4505 Universal Testing Machine with introduced improvement to account for

laboratory varying conditions or heating from the current supplying power to the data logger

(Section 3.1.5.) and record the stress-strain response for each coupon using strain gauges and

data logger;

Analyse the tension test data obtained from a number of tensile tests according to:

o The Rule of Mixtures (Section 4.4.)

o The ASTM D3039 standard (Section 4.5.)

o The Method ‘1’ proposed by Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 (Section 4.6.)

o Proposed any further improvements to the analysis methods (Section 4.7.)

Review, reanalyse, compare and critically evaluate the previous work completed by Jakubowski

2012 and Rycerz 2012 in the light of this research (Chapter 5);

Provide a comparison of the results obtained from the proposed methods by performing

statistical analysis to validate any differences in the analyses (Chapter 6);

Page 11: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 11 of 94

Provide overall discussion and draw conclusions with recommendations to the choice of the

method that provides the most reliable test results and tensile parameters, in a format that will

be used for publication purposes (Chapter 7);

Identify and propose any improvements or requirements for future analysis.

The above objectives are presented in the chronological order. The key objectives to satisfy the aim of

the project are testing a wide range of CFRP specimens and obtaining the raw test results from

Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 in order to have a statistically significant database from which conclusions

and proposed changes to the ASTMD3039/D3039M-08 standard can be drawn.

Page 12: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 12 of 94

2. CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides a comprehensive literature overview in order to provide broad knowledge on

Fibre Reinforced Polymers as a composite material with the aim to identify possible improvements to

the preparation as well as analysis procedures. The composite components’ properties as well as

structural composition at micro level determine the mechanical and physical properties of the FRP that

this research looks into. Therefore, the chapter will look into different levels of FRP formation and

properties as well as its applications in the industry. For this purpose various test methods are

introduced and discussed that will aid better understanding of the aim of the research and provide a

base for comparison.

2.1. WHAT IS FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMER COMPOSITE?

Fibre reinforced polymer or fibre-reinforced plastics (abbreviated as FRP) is a composite material,

which consists of two or more substances in order to create a new matter exhibiting a combination of

properties that are far more efficient than functions of a single substance. The properties as well as a

microscopic structural composition of those components determine the mechanical and physical

properties of FRP. Therefore, a good knowledge of the material properties is required to perform the

design and analysis of FRP structural section (Hollaway, 2009a).

FRP is composed of fibres and a matrix, hence it exhibits anisotropic properties. The function of the

fibre is to produce stiffness and strength of the material, while the matrix provides a bonding medium

and shield against environmental impact (Tuakta, 2005).

FRP is more preferable than other materials because, in comparison to steel, it is lighter and stronger,

which is why it became a huge success in the construction industry for reinforcing or retrofitting

structures by replacing standard methods like steel plates. Table 1 looks into the main properties of

FRP and compares them with common civil engineering materials such as steel and concrete. It can be

concluded that FRP is most favourable in terms of tensile strength, weight and corrosion. Its drawbacks

lie in compressive strength and ductility.

Table 1 - FRP vs. Common Civil Engineering Materials

2.1.1. FIBRES

Conventional types of fibres that make up the vast majority of the market and research are Carbon

(CFRP), Glass (GFRP) and Aramid (AFRP) fibres (Ku H. et al., 2011). Fibres are the main load carrying

component of the composite (70 to 90% load carried by fibres), which is due to high modulus of

Page 13: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 13 of 94

elasticity (Table 2 for reference). Their main functions are providing strength of the order of 3000 MPa,

stiffness equivalent to aluminium or even steel and thermal stability. Moreover, they are durable by

being non-corrosive and resistant to chloride attack. Fibres’ light weight can significantly decrease

labour cost and by being non-magnetic and non-toxic at the same time, makes them beneficial in niche

applications. Fibres can also provide electrical conduction or insulation, which purely depends on the

type of fibre used (Mazumdar, 2002 and Burgoyne, 2009). A comparison of the properties of different

fibres vs. bulk materials is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 - Properties of Fibres vs. Conventional Bulk Materials (Mazumdar, 2002)

It is worth pointing out that all types of fibres presented in Table 2 have higher tensile strength, specific

modulus and strength, as well as relative cost when compared to steel or aluminium alloys. Despite

many advantages, fibres also have their weaknesses shown in Table 3 below. The main is brittleness

due to small per cent of elongation at break when compared to bulk materials.

Weaknesses Reasons

“Cost

o In comparison to steel - glass FRP reinforcing bars cost 3 times more whilst aramid or carbon fibres for pre-stressing tendons cost up to 10 times more;

o The FRP manufacturing industry decided to target low-volume hi-cost aerospace industry, rather than low-cost high-volume construction industry.

Brittleness

o Need for application of high safety factors as consequences of failure are severe. This largely increases the costs;

o Inapplicability of plasticity theory that is virtually used in all current codes with the assumption that all materials can deform plastically.

Anchorage o Very difficult to grip fibres, which introduces very high costs.

Durability

o Glass and aramid fibres can hydrolyse in the presence of high alkalinity, which is present in concrete;

o The epoxy resin is prone to various mechanisms of degradation.

Creep & Stress Rupture

o Fibres do not behave in a constant manner. They are prone to stress rupture in which fibres can creep to failure”

Table 3 - Fibre Weaknesses (Burgoyne, 2009)

2.1.2. POLYMER MATRIX

A matrix (polymer) is composed of molecules formed by a chemical combination of identical and much

smaller units of large molecular mass called monomers. The process of polymer formation is called

polymerisation. There are many polymer materials on the market, but they all consist of two main

Page 14: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 14 of 94

components: the resin and the curing agent (hardener) (Hollaway, 2009b). In comparison to fibres, a

matrix has low-modulus and low-strength. In the same respect as fibres, polymer has also crucial

functions to fulfil as part of the composite material, presented in Table 4.

Matrix’s Functions

“to bind together the fibres and protect their surface from abrasion and environmental corrosion; to wet out the fibre and to cure satisfactorily in the manufacturing process; to disperse the fibres and separate them in order to avoid any catastrophic propagation of crack; to transfer stresses to the fibres efficiently by adhesion and/or friction, and in addition, to reduce the

chance of failure in the matrix (..); to be thermally compatible with fibres; to be chemically compatible with the fibres over long periods of time; to have appropriate fire resistance and limit smoke propagation; to provide finish colour and surface finish for connections.”

Table 4 - Matrix's Functions (Hollaway, 2009b)

The two types of polymers that can be distinguished are thermoplastic and thermoset polymers.

Preferred type of matrix in structural applications is thermoset resins. This category encloses epoxies,

unsaturated polyesters, vinylesters, aminos, phenolics, and urethane resins (Mosallam, 2002).

Thermoplastic matrices, however, consist of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene and poly vinyl chloride

(PVC) (Ku et al., 2011).

2.1.3. INTERFACE

It is a surface interaction (physical and chemical bond) between fibres and a polymer. This is the region

where the anisotropic properties of the material are exhibited. Therefore, the quality of the fibre–matrix

interface constitutes the final mechanical and physical properties as well as performance of a composite

(Hollaway, 2009c & Tuakta, 2005). Two assumptions are made when it comes to the analytical and

experimental analysis of a composite material. The first one assumes a perfect bond between fibre and

matrix, hence no strain discontinuity occurs at the interface, which is used in the Rule of Mixtures

approach (Section 4.4). The second assumption says, however, that fibres are arranged in a regular and

repeatable array (Gdoutos et al., 2003).

2.1.4. CURING PROCEDURES

There are two types of curing procedures for fibre-polymer composites. The cold cure method is

undertaken in situ and uses cold cure resin that has two main functions: “to impregnate dry fibres to

form the FRP composite, or to produce an adhesive” (Hollaway, 2009b). This method provides great

flexibility in the application process. The second curing methodology is for automated manufacturing

purposes of structural members with a use of hot cure resin, either for pultrusion, or for the fibre pre-

impregnation, which allows better quality control (Hollaway, 2009b & Teng et al., 2002).

2.2. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF FRP COMPOSITE

Fibre-reinforced composites possess high specific strength and moduli through taking an advantage of

low-density continuous fibre embedded in the matrix (Callister, 2007). These desirable mechanical

properties of an FRP composite depend for instance, on the properties of the two component materials

(i.e. the fibre and the polymer) (Yu et al., 2009). Therefore, it is important to understand the behaviour

of a composite in relation to each component that is presented in Fig. 1. Initially both a fibre and a

matrix deform elastically under applied load as seen on Graph (a). When overlapping this behaviour

with the composite stress-strain relationship, it can be noticed that composite roughly yields with the

Page 15: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 15 of 94

matrix, which begins to deform plastically, whereas fibre still stretches elastically - Stage II, Graph (b).

Thus, the yield strength of a matrix is significantly lower than tensile strength of a fibre. Therefore, it

can be concluded that the fibre strain dominates the failure and composites strain-stress relationship is

somewhere in between both FRP constituents (Callister, 2007).

Figure 1 - Stress-strain curves for brittle fibre, ductile matrix material and aligned fibre-reinforced composite

(Callister, 2007)

In general all FRP composites exhibit the same stress-strain behaviour under tension, linear elastic until

brittle rupture. Stress-strain curves for GFRP and CFRP are illustrated on Fig. 2 and are contrasted with

ductile nature of mild steel. The main drawback of strengthening with FRP is its brittle nature, which

limits ductile behaviour of RC members. Secondly, brittleness puts restrictions on the redistribution of

stresses within a member or a structure (Teng et al., 2002).

Figure 2 - Typical stress-stain curves showing CFRP, GFRP & mild steel (Teng et al., 2002)

Page 16: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 16 of 94

For typical values of FRP composite’s properties refer to Table 5, however it is important to bear in

mind that presented values are only valid for a specific fibre content considered (Teng et al., 2002). It is

also worth mentioning that in obtaining those tensile values, either the fibre sheet thickness (Ahmed,

1999) or a nominal thickness provided by the manufacturer is commonly used. (Teng et al., 2000).

Table 5 - Typical mechanical properties of most common FRP composites (Teng et al., 2002)

2.2.1. WAYS OF ANALYSING MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF FRP COMPOSITE

Fibre-reinforced polymer composite is created by embedding the continuous fibres in the matrix, which

forms laminae. Then FRP laminate is formed by applying two or more unidirectional laminae on top of

each other. These laminates make the majority of FRP products used in the construction industry. There

are two ways of analysing a unidirectional FRP lamina’s mechanical properties. Macroscopically lamina

is quasi-homogeneous meaning that it has uniform mechanical properties everywhere. On the other

hand, lamina is a combination of two constituents; hence at a microscopic level it is heterogeneous (Yu

et al., 2009). FRP composites are widely used for structural applications; therefore civil engineering is

mainly concerned with mechanical properties at macroscopic level. In order to determine those

properties a two-step analysis is commonly undertaken. The first step looks into mechanical properties

of two constituent materials and their volume fraction by performing micromechanical analysis.

Secondly, by using classic lamination theory the mechanical properties of the laminate are established

by undertaking macromechanical analysis (Yu et al., 2009).

2.2.1.1. MACROMECHANICS OF A LAMINA

FRP lamina at this level has different elastic modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratios which vary

with direction. It is because of different mechanical properties of the fibres in a longitudinal direction in

comparison to other two orthogonal directions. Therefore, unidirectional FRP lamina is taken to be

treated as an orthotropic material (Yu et al., 2009).

2.2.1.2. MICROMECHANICS OF A LAMINA

It has been said that FRP lamina is heterogeneous, which means that it is formed from two constituents:

a fibre and a polymer. Hence, the mechanical properties are obtained from those two materials and

their volume fraction. Considering the local stresses, deformations and interactions of fibres and a

matrix, the micromechanics approach is undertaken in mechanical properties determination (Jones,

1999; Daniel and Ishai, 2006). There are many of them available, but only two are regarded as simple

and hence are used widely (Yu et al., 2009):

1. Mechanics of materials approach

2. Semi-empirical approach

However, detailed overviews of these two methods are outside the scope of this research. Only a basic

method of mechanics of materials approach is presented below, which will be used as one of the

Page 17: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 17 of 94

theoretical methods of analysis to produce predictions of results, which will be compared to ASTM

D3039 standard.

2.2.2. RULE OF MIXTURES

The fibres and the matrix have the same strain in a particular direction under the assumption that two

constituents of the FRP lamina with uniaxial loading applied deform compatibly in the longitudinal

direction (fibre direction). This means that Bernoulli’s assumption of ‘plane sections remain plane’

stays valid. Hence, based on the above assumptions, the rule of mixtures allows estimating the

longitudinal modulus of laminae E1 – an upper limit of the elastic modulus of the composite. The

fundamental Rule of Mixture’s equation is:

(2.1)

The above relationship shows a linear relation between the longitudinal modules of lamina (Ef & Em)

and the volume fractions of fibres, Ef, and matrix, Em. Knowing that fibres are much stiffer than the

matrix, the E1 value is dominated by fibre property. The research results confirmed that Eq. 2.1

produces good estimations (Yu et al., 2009). It is important to keep in mind that the above Eq. 2.1 is

based on the assumption of uniform distribution of fibres within the matrix. However, in reality, under

laboratory conditions the fibres come into contact with each other as well as are randomly scattered in

the matrix (Jones, 1999). To account for these effects, other approaches are taken into consideration

such as the Halpin-Tsai equation; however they introduce complexity and are not a part of this paper’s

investigation.

2.3. METHODS OF FORMING FRP COMPOSITES

There are two methods of application that are most commonly used in civil engineering for

strengthening structures with FRP composite: the wet lay-up method and the prefabrication process.

They differ in terms of place of fabrication, cost of application/production and quality of the final

product (Teng et al., 2002).

2.3.1. WET LAY-UP METHOD

It is an in-situ method pictured in Fig. 3, which requires skilled labour and involves direct application of

a resin to a unidirectional carbon tow sheet or a woven glass fabric. This method is versatile as it allows

wrapping different shapes like corners and curved surfaces etc. (Teng et al., 2002). It is also the

cheapest alternative to all other bonding methods. However, it is difficult to control the quality of FRP

composite application (Pham et al., 2005).

Figure 3 - Beam FRP wet lay up (CPS Construction Group, 2012)

Page 18: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 18 of 94

2.3.2. PREFABRICATION OF FRP COMPOSITES

Prefabrication results in a very good quality control as it is done in a controlled, factory environment. It

is thanks to computer-controlled machinery that also allows for a high productiveness (Ye et al., 2010).

However, the use of technology leads to increase in the cost of the material. This method is used for

example for flexural strengthening by pultrusion for plates as well as for column strengthening by

filament winding for FRP shells for confining the columns (Teng et al., 2002). Some common shapes of

FRP Products are shown on Fig. 4 below.

Figure 4 - Different shapes of FRP products (T&D Publications, 2013)

2.4. FRP APPLICATION

Advanced polymer composites are used widely in the construction industry for rehabilitation and

retrofitting of metallic, masonry, and timber structural members as well as prestressed and reinforced

concrete (abbreviated as PC and RC respectively). Apart from restoration possibilities in construction,

FRP is also used in prestressed and post-tensioned tendons or as FRP rebar reinforcement for RC

(Hollaway, 2009a).

2.4.1. STRENGTHENING AND RETROFITTING OF STRUCTURES

Every structure reaches the end of its design life or becomes deficient for various reasons. These can

happen in a result of an environmental attack (corrosion, cracking), change of design codes and loads,

or alteration of the structure by changing its function, removing columns etc. Therefore, there is always

a question whether the place should be demolished or strengthened. The latter seems often more

attractive. For this purpose FRP becomes very effective and advantageous as it has high strength, low

weight, very good corrosion resistance and it is easy to apply. There are number of ways and purposes

of strengthening deficient structural members which are presented below (Hollaway, 2009d).

2.4.2. FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING OF BEAMS

Traditionally, there are two methods for this type of strengthening: external post-tensioning or bonding

of steel plates. The main shortcomings of these methods are difficult application and low durability. In

recent years, flexural strengthening with FRP plates became more popular, resulting in replacement of

steel plates. The replacing material offers higher strength and lightness, which led to a substantial

research in this field. As mentioned previously, the FRP plate may be prefabricated or applied in a wet

lay-up process to the tensile face of an RC beam. However, before any application takes place, the

surface needs to be adequately prepared in order to remove weak surfaces, expose aggregate for better

bonding and even-up the surface.

Page 19: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 19 of 94

The soffit plates might be either unstressed or prestressed, however in each scenario the type of

anchorage system plays very important role, so U strips at the plate ends or steel bolts are in interest of

reducing the risk of debonding (Teng et al., 2002). However, there are number of failure modes

associated with this type of strengthening technique such as:

Flexural failure that involves FRP rupture or concrete compression failure;

Beam shear failure;

Debonding failure occurring through concrete cover separation or plate end interfacial

debonding;

Intermediate crack induced interfacial debonding (Teng et al., 2002).

Out of all, flexure failure is the best scenario because of its ductile behaviour, which means that the

stress redistribution is possible and a warning is given before catastrophic failure happens, which may

be a threat to occupants’ life (Teng et al., 2002).

2.4.3. SHEAR STRENGTHENING OF BEAMS

Along with flexural failures discussed above, shear failures are the second most common types of

failures of unstrengthened RC beams. They are greatly undesirable as they lead to brittle failure that is

sudden and catastrophic to both the structure, and its residents. Knowing that flexural failure is

preferred over shear failure implies that the beam must have shear capacity exceeding flexural capacity.

The proposed methods to accomplish that include side bonding, U jacketing, or wrapping. Use of FRP

strips or sheets along with different orientation or distribution of fibres can lead to many different

strengthening schemes. All of the above should be carefully considered to produce the best possible

strengthening solution. The typical failure modes associated with shear strengthening technique are

shear failure with or without FRP rupture and shear failure due to FRP debonding (Teng et al., 2002).

2.4.4. SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF WALLS AND COLUMNS

Vertical elements of the building such as walls or columns are very susceptible to cyclic lateral motion

of the ground. This type of loading is experienced by the structural element during an earthquake event.

Hence, the structural members or a whole structure have to behave in ductile manner in order to

diminish the possibility of collapse. For this reason retrofitting is used, which is divided into retrofitting

for strength and retrofitting for ductility. The former is achieved by bonding FRP sheets, so that the

fibres are aligned in the longitudinal direction. The latter is achieved by external FRP jackets, which can

be formed in a wet lay-up process through wrapping, filament winding or application of prefabricated

shell jackets. The purpose of these strengthening techniques is to mitigate the following failure modes:

shear failure, flexural plastic hinge failure, or lap splice failure (Teng et al., 2002).

2.4.5. FLEXURAL STRENGTHENING OF SLABS

There is much less research done in the field of flexural strengthening of slabs. The reasons for that are

complexity and cost involved in a laboratory slab preparation and testing. Moreover, the failure

mechanism is much more complex than in the RC beam testing. The strengthening scheme of slabs

involves either FRP strips, or FRP sheets, which are bonded to the tensile face of the slab. Use of wider

strips is preferred over narrow strips because of the larger contact area (Teng et al., 2002).

Page 20: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 20 of 94

2.5. FRP TEST METHODS

There are many test methods available to determine the properties of composite materials. However

they are not fully exploited and standardised yet as it is with metals. The differences in the properties of

two testing media are presented in the Table 6 below. Other reasons for variations in the test data are:

the chosen test method, the specimen’s design, the composite fabrication method and the void content

(Munjal, 1989).

Table 6 - Metals vs. Composite Testing (Munjal, 1989)

A comprehensive overview of existing methods for determination of tensile properties of FRP materials

was compiled by Ashok K. Munjal and is presented in Table 7 below.

Test Method Overview

ASTM D638

o Dog-bone shape specimens with dimensions of 165.1 mm x 19.05 mm and thickness of 3.2 mm;

o Problems arise with the testing machine and load transfer due to the unique shape (Hylton, 2004).

ASTM D2290 o Split disk test method for apparent tensile strength; o Recommended quality control – initial fibre/resin screening (Davé et al., 2000).

ASTM D2585 o Method of preparation and tension testing of filament-wound pressure vessels; o Relatively expensive (Davé et al., 2000).

ASTM D3039

o Rectangular flat coupons test; o Standardised method for testing composites in industry; o Recommended for designs (ASTM D3039, 2008).

Table 7 – Different Methods Overview

2.5.1. Flat Coupon Test - ASTM D3039/D3039M

Standard test method for testing polymer matrix composites that allows in-plane tensile properties to

be determined. Rectangular coupons are placed in the grips of the mechanical testing machine (for

example Instron 4505) and monotonically loaded. The maximum force before specimen’s failure allows

for an ultimate strength calculation. When using strain gauges, the stress-strain response can be

recorded and this allows deriving the ultimate tensile strain, the tensile modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s

ratio, and transition strain for specimens that show a bilinear response. Tensile unidirectional specimen

Page 21: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 21 of 94

geometry recommendations are 25 mm in length, 15 mm in width and 1.5 mm in thickness. The

standard method also emphasises the use of tabs when testing unidirectional specimens to prevent

gripping damage and premature failure (ASTM D3039, 2008). However, for detailed guidelines refer to

the complete ASTM D3039 standard which goes step by step through sample preparation and testing.

Standard method described by ASTM D3039 gives also guidance for analysing tensile data for three

strain gauges set up that is summarised in Section 4.5. It is important to mention that close attention

has to be paid to factors affecting the tensile response and any deviations needed to be reported as they

can have a significant impact on the final results. These include, but are not limited to:

the material itself;

the material’s preparation and lay-up;

the specimens curing;

the environment of preparation of specimens and testing;

the specimens alignment and gripping;

the rate of testing;

the void content (ASTM D3039, 2008).

It is important to recognise that one of the crucial factors in determining FRP parameters is its failure.

Therefore, general overview of the FRP failure in terms of its structure is described below at different

levels, with a discussion leading to failure modes issues associated with the Tensile Testing of FRP

Composites according to ASTM D3039 standard.

2.5.2. FAILURE CRITERIA

When describing FRP composite, it is necessary to know its failure modes, and why particular

phenomenon occurs and its implications. In general, as for any composite material, the FRP has a

complex failure mechanism that depends on factors such as a stress state, the properties of the fibres

and the matrix, and a direction as well as layered arrangement of fibres (Jones, 1999 & Daniel and Ishai,

2006). At the microscopic level the FRP failure can be associated with three elements or their various

combinations. These are fibre failures like rupture, buckling or splitting, matrix failure (transverse

tension, transverse compression, shear) (Soden et al., 1998) and fibre-matrix failure. The prediction of

the strength and the failure of an FRP composite is therefore very difficult despite numerous

microscopic approaches, which have their attributes in predicting mechanical properties of the FRP

composite (Daniel and Ishai, 2006). From macroscopic point of view, there are two common failure

modes: the intralaminar and the interlaminar failure.

2.5.2.1. INTRALAMINAR FAILURE

This type of failure is associated with the failure inside individual laminae that is caused by stresses and

strains in each layer. There are four most popular failure criteria for that: the maximum stress criterion,

the maximum strain criterion, the Tsai-Hill criterion, and the Tsai-Wu criterion. They are based on the

strength parameters of lamina subjected to in-plane loading. These parameters are the longitudinal

tensile or compressive strength, transverse tensile or compressive strength, and in-plane shear strength

(Yu et al., 2009).

According to experimental studies, the best effectiveness in predicting the strength parameters has the

Tsai-Wu criterion. However, the maximum stress and strain criterion creates significant errors (Soden

et al., 1998). The interaction between four different criterions is illustrated on Fig. 5 underneath.

Page 22: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 22 of 94

Figure 5 - Comparison of four different failure criteria (Yu at al., 2009)

2.5.2.2. INTERLAMINAR FAILURE

It is associated with the failure between adjacent laminae that can occur through either a separation of

the bonded laminae, or sliding of adjacent laminae. They are caused respectively by interlaminar

normal and interlaminar shear stresses (Yu et al., 2009). These stresses occur near free edges and

hence are called ‘free-edge stresses’. Common places of occurrence may be bolt holes or various

geometrical breaches. Free-edge stresses depend on material properties and moulding sequence,

occurring because of a mismatch in the effective properties of neighbouring laminae (Tuttle, 2004).

2.5.3. FAILURE MODES ACCORDING TO ASTM D3039

Having a detailed, background knowledge on failure modes at the microscopic and macroscopic levels

with associated factors, it is necessary to introduce typical failure modes associated with tensile testing

of FRP Coupons. ASTM distinguishes nine typical failure modes presented in Fig. 6 below.

Figure 6 - Tensile Test’s Typical Failure Modes (ASTM D3039, 2008)

Page 23: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 23 of 94

These modes are classified according to the failure type, the failure area and the failure location. When

these three characteristics are determined, the sample is assigned a three letter code, where each letter

corresponds to specific failure character (Table 8).

First Character Second Character Third Character

Type Code Area Code Location Code

Angled A Inside grip/tab I Bottom B Edge Delamination D At grip/tab A Top T Grip/tab G <1 W from grip/tab W Left L Lateral L Gage G Right R Multi-mode M Multiple areas M Middle M Long. Splitting S Various V Various V eXplosive X Unknown U Unknown U

other O

Table 8 - Tensile Test’s Failure Codes (ASTM D3039, 2008)

2.5.4. SPLIT RING TEST

Typically tensile properties of Fibre Reinforced Polymers are determined with a use of flat coupon test

method described in depth above. However, for prefabricated FRP tubes, split ring test is more

commonly used, which is believed to give better estimates of tensile strength (Teng et al., 2002). It is

most commonly used to obtain the hoop strength and the rupture’s strain (Chen, 2011). This standard

test method uses the tubular ring–shaped specimens, which are placed in the recommended test

fixtures (Fig. 7). When fixtures are loaded (pulled apart), they apply tensile stress to the test ring, and

consequently to the specimen. This testing allows determination of the comparative apparent tensile

strength (ASTM D2290, 1987).

Figure 7 - Schematic split ring test device (left) & fixtures

(right) (Henninger et al., 2002)

Figure 8 - Definitions of AE event (Huang et al., 1998)

2.5.5. NOVEL METHODS OF FRP TESTING

Acoustic Emission (AE) is a non-destructive testing method that can be defined as “the class of

phenomena where transient elastic waves are generated by the rapid release of energy from localised

sources within a material, or the transient waves so generated” (Miller, 1987). AE technique examines

the internal structure of the material with the use of resonance transducer through monitoring the

signal waves travelling away from the geometrical discontinuity (Fig. 9 below) (Huang et al., 1998). The

typical frequency sensitivity of such device is between 150 to 500 kHz. The transducer measures

Page 24: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 24 of 94

parameters such as the amplitudes, the total emission counts, the duration time, the energy etc. These

parameters are then used in the analysis to classify the failure modes of the specimens (Johnson, 2000).

The peak of the signal is said to be the amplitude, and the area below the acoustic emission event is the

energy. The duration time is calculated between the rising edge of the first count and the falling edge of

the last count (Huang et al., 1998). The commonly used parameters of AE technique are presented in

Fig. 8 above.

Figure 9 - Specimen for AE testing (Rajendraboopathy, 2008)

In Rajendraboopathy, Sasikumar, Usha & Vasudev experiment, an acoustic emission technique was used

to predict failure strength of composite tensile coupons. They tested a total of 18 coupons loaded to

failure with arrangement presented in Fig. 9. The test was divided into three batches with different

loading levels of 30%, 40% and 50% of theoretical collapse load. The results were plotted and

compared to the actual failure load, which can be seen in Fig. 10. It can be concluded that 50 % loading

level was found to be close enough to actual failure load with 1.22 % error of tolerance

(Rajendraboopathy, 2008).

Figure 10 - Results Plot (Rajendraboopathy, 2008)

2.5.6. FINDINGS

Presented Section 2.5 on FRP Test Methods, focused on the Flat Coupon Method, the Split Ring Method

and the Novel Method (use of Acoustic Emission) for FRP Testing. It has been identified that tensile

testing is important and the accurate estimates of tensile parameters are crucial because they are not

only used for research or development, but also in engineering designs, quality control, as well as for

acceptance or rejection under specifications (ASTM D2290, 1987).

Page 25: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 25 of 94

2.6. TENSILE TESTING OF FRP-LIKE BRITTLE MATERIALS

Tensile Testing of FRP coupons was undertaken by Jakub Rycerz and Jakub Jakubowski in their

Bachelor’s research in 2012. Their aim was to develop alternative method of analysis of carbon epoxy

coupons from one proposed in ASTM D3039, which determines material’s ultimate strength, ultimate

strain and elastic modulus. As a result, their developed alternative method that gave a smaller scatter,

hence better tensile parameters’ estimates. Therefore, the intention of this research is to build upon

Jakubowski and Rycerz findings by reanalysing their data and combining it with the new set of

experimental results, which will allow further validation of methods proposed and provide valid

recommendations (Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012).

2.6.1. TENSILE TESTING PROPOSED METHODS

Jakubowski and Rycerz began work with preparation of ten control specimens. They were tested in

Instron 4505 machine to determine the typical failure mode (Fig. 6) and typical ultimate tensile

strength (Table 9). This resulted in an average ultimate strength of 850 MPa with 10% coefficient of

variation. The failure area was around tabs, so the tab thickness was increased from 1.5 mm to 3 mm to

limit premature failure due to gripping pressure (Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012).

Table 9 - Control Tests (Jakubowski, 2012)

After control tests, a number of specimens were prepared according to specifications and only twenty

two of them passed a quality control check. Eleven specimens were fitted with three strain gauges

according to ASTM D3039 and another eleven with proposed alignment of four strain gauges

(Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012). The comparison of the set-up of the strain gauges to the surface of CFRP

coupon is presented in Figs. 11 & 12.

Figure 11 – Cross section with 3 strain gauge set-up (Rycerz, 2012)

Page 26: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 26 of 94

Figure 12 – Cross section with 4 strain gauge set-up (Rycerz, 2012)

2.6.2. IMPROVED ANALYSIS METHODS

ASTM D3039 analysis calculates the average strain from all three strain gauges on both faces of CFRP

specimen (look up Chapter 2.5.1 for reference). However, this approach does not take into account

stresses and strains that are being non-uniformly distributed. This is due to composites being

orthotropic in nature, having imperfections created during a preparation phase, and possible bending

effects due to eccentricity when samples in the testing machine are wrongly aligned. Therefore, the

alternative method to ASTM standard is based on the assumption that the actual strain can be resolved

into three independent components (Eq. 2.2), which aims to increase the reliability of the tensile

parameters of Fibre Reinforced Polymer composites (Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012). It is important to

note that the principle axis for the analysis below is set at the coupon’s centre point, C (Figs. 11 & 12).

| | | | | | (2.2)

2.6.2.1. METHOD ‘1’

This method proposes that for the specimens with three strain gauges the strain is resolved according

to the Eq. 2.3:

(…)

(2.3)

(...)

Figure 13 - Set of Equations for three strain gauges (Rycerz, 2012)

The above set of Equations (Fig. 13) can be represented in the matrix form (Fig. 14) with

,

which will allow solving for three unknowns

{

} [

] {

} (2.4)

Figure 14 - Matrix form for 3 strain gauges system (Rycerz, 2012)

Page 27: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 27 of 94

2.6.2.2. METHOD ‘2’

The proposed Method ‘2’ deals with four strain gauge set up and uses the same set of equations as for

three strain gauge approach (Method ‘1’), but there is a fourth redundant equation introduced to the

matrix (Fig. 13). In order to solve such a system a least square method is used that deals with over-

determined systems and improves the accuracy of the results (Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012).

{

} [

] {

} (2.5)

Figure 15 - Matrix form for 4 strain gauges system (Rycerz, 2012)

The above matrix gives four equations with only three unknowns, which entails an overdetermined

system. The way to solve such system is using a least square rule method, which gives an approximate

solution. The general form of the above matrix can be expressed as: { } { }.

In order to calculate 3x1 matrix - ɛab, the steps underneath are followed:

{ } { } (2.6)

{ } { } (2.7)

{ } { } (2.8)

Using Eq. 2.8 allows solving for

2.6.2.3. METHOD ‘3’

Last approach proposed by Jakubowski and Rycerz is to take the specimen with four strain readings

and to analyse it with the Method ‘1’ by excluding the strain readings one at a time. The set of results

will be produced and the ultimate strain will be taken as the average of these four results of

(Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012).

2.6.3. RESULTS COMPARISON

Method ‘1’ which analyses specimens with three strain gauges gives the results that in comparison to

ASTM values exhibit 20 % higher ultimate strength and 18 % larger strain values, but only 1 % increase

in elastic modulus. The method decreased the scatter of the results by improving the coefficient of

variation by 2.86 %, 2.66 % and 0.64 % for ultimate strength, the ultimate strain and the elastic

modulus correspondingly.

For Methods ‘2’ and ‘3’, a significant increase in tensile parameters was also noticed. When compared to

ASTM values, the average ultimate tensile strength, the ultimate strain and the elastic modulus

increased respectively for:

Method ‘2’ by 11%, 16% and 13%

Method ‘3’ by 14%, 20% and 11%

However, these eleven samples with four strain gauges, analysed according to Methods ‘2’ and ‘3’ did

not show a reduction in coefficient of variance meaning there was no reduction in an average scatter

(Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012).

Page 28: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 28 of 94

Table 10 - Statistical analysis (Rycerz, 2012)

The Table 10 above summarises the results for various methods with different parameters. The scatter

of all results combined into three different categories is also presented in the Fig. 16 below:

Figure 16 - Comparison of all results analysed according to different methods (Rycerz 2012)

2.6.4. REPORT’S CONCLUSIONS

The presented research work aimed to develop a method that can produce more reliable and repeatable

results of tensile parameters for CFRP composites. Jakubowski and Rycerz proposed three methods for

determining the ultimate tensile strength, the ultimate strain and the elastic modulus parameters. They

were based on the assumption that the maximum strain due to bending occurs at the corners of the

specimen with the Bernoulli’s assumption of ‘plane sections remain plane’ still valid.

The obtained parameters were all compared against the ASTM D3039 standard. In overall, the methods

produced an average increase in the tensile properties, however the additional use of strain gauge did

not decrease the scatter of the results for Methods ‘2’ and ‘3’, and hence there is no significant benefit

from using this set-up for tensile testing of FRP materials. Researchers identified premature failure of

the strain gauges as a significant problem associated with their experiments. Therefore, they adopted

the solution of extrapolation beyond the point of failure based on the linear best fit. Moreover, the

researchers identified that the accuracy of their strain gauge readings, hence its sensitivity using

different methods, was the main limitation of the proposed methods (Jakubowski & Rycerz, 2012).

Page 29: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 29 of 94

2.7. RELEVANT RESEARCHES

In general the past investigations conducted on the FRP properties, nature, and the standard test

methods led to improved methods for the tensile testing of fibre reinforced composites. Three areas can

be identified:

the set-up of the experiment: limiting any imperfections, which are a prime reason for

premature failures;

the specimen's geometry: to be again in a control of failure modes;

the analysis method of the results (Maheri, 1995).

The following two research papers are introduced with the aim of providing the data and statistical measurements, which our test results will be compared to. The author also gives recommendations on improvements that will inform the approach.

2.7.1. POSSIBLE ENHANCEMENTS TO TENSILE TESTING OF FRP

2.7.1.1. GEOMETRICAL IMPROVEMENTS

A study carried out by M. R. Maheri in 1995 looked at two ways of improving the tensile test method for

unidirectional FRP composites. The changes were implemented to the specimen preparation and its

physical shape in order to improve the repeatability, reliability and efficiency of the tensile testing of

composite materials. The investigation consisted of three different tensile specimens (Fig. 17). Each of

them was moulded using 8 layers of carbon woven fabric

Figure 17 - Geometrical Overview of Specimens (Maheri, 1995)

Table 11 - The comparison between three types of specimens and their test results (Maheri, 1995)

Page 30: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 30 of 94

It is clear that uniform thickness tabs exhibit the lowest strength (Table 11). These types of coupons are

prone to fracture near the ends, where the compressive gripping pressure is applied. Therefore, the

tensile properties of unidirectional FRPs are in general underestimated. On the other hand, the tapered

specimens show up to 14 % increase in measured strength with much less data scatter. This increase in

the load carrying capacity is believed to be due to the failure mechanism. In case of exposed-taper

specimens, this failure was shifted to the middle because of splitting of the taper interface.

Furthermore, the covered-taper coupons failed at the outer layer due to stress concentration, which

caused a strength reduction by 4 % in comparison to exposed-taper specimens (Maheri, 1995).

2.7.2. STANDARD ASTM D3039 TESTING

A paper written by L. Lam and J. G. Teng also provides results from the flat coupon tests which have

been carried out according to the ASTM D3039 standard. The dimensions of the samples are provided

below and they were tested in a screw-driven material testing machine under 2 mm/min cross-head

movement. The stresses and elastic moduli were calculated by using a nominal thickness and the actual

widths as well as stress-strain curves respectively.

Figure 18 - Flat Coupon Arrangement & Test Results (Lam et al., 2004)

All 36 CFRP coupon tests (presented in Fig. 18) display a lower scatter with the average ultimate strain

of 1.515 % with a standard deviation of 0.063 %. It has been found that the lower strains were

attributed to misalignment of the fibres implying that a very precise guidance and execution of the

specimen preparation is essential (Lam et al., 2004).

2.8. CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS

It has been identified that tensile testing and accurate estimation of tensile parameters are crucial for

obtaining data used not only for research or development, but also for engineering designs, quality

control, and acceptance or rejection under specifications (ASTM D2290, 1987). Presented broad

literature overview along various studies provided deep understanding of the subject and reference

data to which the results of this project analysis are aimed to be compared. It was found that the

improvements can be made to both the test method and the data analysis in order to increase the

accuracy and the reliability of derived tensile parameters i.e. tensile strength, ultimate strain and chord

modulus.

Page 31: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 31 of 94

3. CHAPTER 3 – EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The aim of the tests is to determine the stress-strain response of FRP specimens subjected to a tensile

force. These experimental data will then allow calculation of the tensile parameters of the FRP like

brittle materials such as the ultimate strength, the ultimate strain and the elastic modulus. The

following research follows the ASTM D3039/D3039M-08 guidance of coupons preparation; however,

the following improvements were investigated to obtain better quality of samples and, subsequently

test data:

Three different types of tapes were considered when covering the mould in order to minimise

sticking of the FRP coupons and producing even, clean edges and uniform surface areas for

strain gauges tapping.

15 mm wide brush was used for aligning fibres in the longitudinal direction when placing each

layer of carbon fibre sheets in a slit.

Stainless steel spatula together with the pressure of a finger was adopted to remove the air

bubbles and excess of the epoxy resin.

This chapter looks clearly and deeply into every stage of laboratory preparation and subsequent testing

of CFRP coupons. The aim of the following discussion is to allow anyone to reproduce the samples and

testing procedures with all health and safety precautions in mind.

3.1. SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

3.1.1. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS & REQUIREMENTS

All experimental work requires careful consideration of the risks (Appendix A) and the ways to

overcome them. Therefore, two following elements should be kept in mind and used at all times during

the laboratory work:

3.1.1.1. KEY WATCH POINTS

Good ventilation is required at all times, especially when mixing and using the adhesive, and any skin

contact must be avoided (use PPE for instance gloves). Secondly, safe and clean working area is needed

during mixing, bonding with adhesives and beyond.

3.1.1.2. REQUIRED PPE

The main PPE required are glasses, gloves, mask, safety boots and lab coat. It must be worn at all times.

In order to perform the experiment safely and accurately the training by experienced staff is needed on

the use of Instron Testing Machine, the Data Logger and application of the Strain Gauges.

3.1.2. RESOURCES

Every experiment requires a good set-up before any work can commence. The inconsistency in

specimen preparation in Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 work serves as an example of a bad set-up and its

consequences. Hence, the full list of necessary resources is presented in Appendix B. The specimens’

preparation procedure is explained below, in order to successfully, reliably and repeatedly prepare

specimens in the future.

3.1.3. PREPARATION OF CFRP SPECIMENS

The procedure for CFRP preparation follows closely the ASTM D3039/D3039M-08. The Tables 12 & 13

outline the adopted values for coupon as well as tab requirements.

Page 32: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 32 of 94

Parameters’ signage was marked on the cross-sectional drawings of a coupon as shown in Fig. 19 & 29.

Parameter ASTM Recommendation Adopted

Shape Constant Rectangular Cross-section Constant Rectangular Cross-section

Minimum Length, l [mm] 250 250

Specimen Width, w [mm] 15 15

Specimen Thickness, t [mm] 1.0 2.0

Specimen Thickness Tolerance 1% of thickness 1% of thickness

Specimen Flatness Flat with light finger pressure Flat with light finger pressure

Table 12 - CFRP Coupon Requirements (ASTM D3039, 2008)

Parameter ASTM Recommendation Adopted

Tab Material Continuous E-glass fibre-reinforced polymer matrix or steel tabs Aluminium

Fibre Orientation 0ᵒ unidirectional 0ᵒ unidirectional

Tab Length, a (mm) 56 56

Tab Width, c (mm) Not specified 20

Tab Thickness, b (mm) 1.5 3

Tab Bevel Angle (ᵒ) 90 90

Table 13 - Tab Requirements (ASTM D3039, 2008)

It can be concluded that in terms of the dimensions of the coupons the ASTM standard has been

followed closely with only one diversion - slightly higher specimen’s thickness of 2 mm due to moulds

dimensions. Secondly, the tab’s material is unique with exactly specified width and two times higher

thickness than ASTM specifications. These tab arrangements were found to prevent as much as possible

the premature failure due to gripping pressure, which was confirmed through control testing

(Chapter 4.1.).

Figure 19 - Coupon's cross section in x-direction

3.1.3.1. MATERIALS

3.1.3.1.1. FIBRES

Roll of unidirectional carbon fibre sheet called SikaWrap Hex 230C was used from which 250 FRP strips

of the dimensions of 250 x 15 x 1.5 mm were cut out. The material properties adopted in the rule of

mixtures method (Section 4.4) are provided by the manufacturer in Appendix C .

Page 33: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 33 of 94

3.1.3.1.2. EPOXY RESIN

Fibre sheets were saturated in Sikadur330 and layer by layer fitted into the mould (Fig. 20). Before

mixing of the adhesive, the MSDS and instructions were closely studied. Manufacturer specifies mixing

ratio 4:1 of components A to B. It was found out that 150 grams of mixture is sufficient for a batch of ten

coupons with 5 layers. The manufacturer’s data is presented in Appendix D that should be referred to

when using the Rule of Mixtures (Section 4.4).

3.1.3.1.3. MOULD

Stainless mould (Fig. 20) was used with perfectly laser cut slits matching adopted dimensions of the

CFRP coupons. This technique allowed better quality control, like homogeneity and increased the

repeatability of the specimens’ preparation. It can also be noticed in Fig. 20 that each slit in the mould is

open at one end for any excess of the resin and the air to be removed during pressure application.

Figure 20 - Stainless Steel Mould

3.1.3.1.4. TABS

Aluminium tabs of dimensions 56 x 20 x 3 mm (length, width & thickness respectively) were cut from

long aluminium rods. They were then sand graved and cleaned with propyl alcohol (Fig. 21) for better

bonding between the CFRP coupon and the aluminium surface (Jakubowski, 2012).

Figure 21 - Sand graved Aluminium Tabs

Page 34: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 34 of 94

3.1.3.2. PREPARATION PROCEDURE

3.1.3.2.1. FILLING THE MOULDS

The mould was carefully cleaned with propyl alcohol, placed on a piece of glass for smooth bottom

surface and covered in electrical tape (PVC Insulation Tape), which was found to be the most effective

in giving smooth surfaces and edges, illustrated on Fig. 22. No gaps should be left behind as epoxy sticks

to the steel mould and the extraction of the specimens becomes then a major difficulty, which can cause

disturbance or even damage to the coupons. Bond between the epoxy resin and the steel is very strong

as was stated in “FRP Strengthened RC Structures” book by Teng et al., 2002. Ones the two moulds were

masked with the tape; everything should be sprayed with Palm Oil to prevent any further sticking. For a

good implementation, the mould should be firmly attached to the surface of the glass to have stable, safe

working environment (Jakubowski, 2012).

Figure 22 - Preparation of the mould

In the meantime, precise strips of carbon fibre sheets of 250 mm in length and 15 mm in width were cut

from SikaWrap Hex 230C unidirectional carbon fibre fabric with Kevlar Scissors, which is illustrated in

Fig. 23 below. Firstly, carbon mat was closely inspected for any defects or permanent bends as this

could affect the tensile parameters calculation or premature failure of the coupons. Secondly, each strip

was very precisely cut out to make sure that fibres are not mechanically damaged or separated. As can

be seen in Fig. 23, each strip consisted of 4 bundles of fibres allowing quantity of carbon fibres in each

strip to be precisely controlled.

Once the mould and CFRP strips were ready, an amount of 150 grams of epoxy was mixed in a plastic

cup according to manufacturer’s specifications and stirred for at least 3 minutes until a uniform colour

was achieved. The stated weight of epoxy resin was sufficient for one batch of 10 FRP coupons each

Page 35: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 35 of 94

consisting of 5 layers. This was due to the fact that after a while the epoxy became more firm and tough

in application due to its ongoing curing process, hence each batch of 10 specimens was done separetely.

Figure 23 - Cutting out procedure for carbon fibre strips

Each carbon strip was closely inspected again for any fibres cuts or pull outs and then soaked in the

epoxy resin. Subsequently, each strip was carefully placed in one of the mould’s slits with special care

taken to align fibres in the longitudinal direction with the aid of a paint brush and then any air voids

were squezeed out by means of a spatuala and finger pressure. This procedure was repeated for each

layer until CFRP specimens of 5 layers were formed.

Figure 24 - CFRP specimens covered with strips of electric tape for even surface

Once all 20 specimens were completed, the top surface of each sample was covered with a strip of

electrical tape to obtain an even surface once the sample cured (Fig. 24). Then, the mould with

Page 36: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 36 of 94

specimens was sprayed with Palm oil, covered in thick foil and glass sheet and loaded with a stack of

books with single cubical weights on top as seen in Fig. 25 . This further loading aimed to remove any

air in the coupons through an open end in every slit of the mould and also create uniformly bonded

CFRP coupons. All the tools were also immediately cleaned by solvent wipe and adhesive was disposed

via the normal waste route.

Figure 25 - Two batches of CFRP coupons pressured during curing

3.1.3.2.2. CURING, INSPECTION & BONDING OF ALUMINIUM TABS

After at least 24 hours, samples were removed from the moulds and cured in a room temperature and

relative humidity for at least seven days to develop full strength. Each sample was also labelled with the

sample batch number Fig. 27. Before application of the aluminium tabs, each sample went through a

very carefull quality check to reject any samples with uneven surface area, disturbed fibre orientation in

the matrix, or peeled fibres (Fig. 26).

Figure 26 - Fatigued CFRP coupons

Having the right samples, sand graved aluminium tabs with dimensions of 56 x 20 x 3 mm (length x

width x thickness) were bonded with the Sikadur 330 adhesive to the ends of CFRP samples in order to

prevent gripping pressure during testing. The tabs once attached to the coupon were taped around to

prevent them from sliding away as shown in Fig. 28. The samples with bonded aluminium tabs were left

for curing under loading for at least seven days.

Page 37: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 37 of 94

Figure 27 - Numbered, Fully Cured Samples

Figure 28 - Samples with Tapped Aluminium Tabs

3.1.4. STRAIN GAUGE APPLICATION

In order to obtain the stress-strain diagrams for each of the FRP coupons, specimens were assembled

with three TML, FLA-5-11 strain gauges with gauge factor of 2.11 ± 1 %, gauge length of 5 mm, and

gauge resistivity of 120 ± 0.3 Ω. They were placed in the middle of the coupon,

, with two

strain gauges on one face placed a distance of m = 2 mm from the edges and one gauge on opposite side

in the middle,

, as seen in Fig. 29.

Figure 29 - Coupon's Cross Section in y-direction

Gauge application required graving surface of tapping with sand paper to obtain an even surface

(remove oil & impurities) without damaging the fibres underneath epoxy, which could cause premature

Page 38: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 38 of 94

failures or defects to the coupons. Then surfaces were cleaned with an alcoholic liquid (propyl alcohol).

Furthermore, exact locations of strain gauges were carefully marked with a black, thin marker by

determining the middle of each coupon in longitudinal direction and 2 mm positions from the edges.

The strain gauges were carefully soaked in adhesive and placed at marked locations. Same was done to

the terminals that needed to be placed as closely as possible to strain gauges as the connecting wires

are very brittle (Jakubowski, 2012). The final result of strains gauges and terminals placed on coupons

can be seen in Fig. 30.

Figure 30 - Tapped Strain Gauges

Figure 31 – Connecting Cables

3.1.5. TESTING OF CFRP COUPONS

3.1.5.1. IMPROVEMENTS TO TESTING

In order to obtain more accurate strain measurements from the tested coupons with strain gauges

1, 2 & 3, an additional strain gauge was attached to one of the controlled samples with the aim to

measure the strain at all times to account for any laboratory varying conditions or heating from the

current, which supplies power to the data logger. These readings were then subtracted away from the

strain gauges readings for each time increment (Section 4.3).

3.1.5.2. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND TEST PROCEDURE

Fully assembled FRP coupons with aluminium tabs at each end and strain gauges with terminals tapped

in the middle of the samples to measure strains across middle cross-section were equipped with the

cables one at a time. This was accomplished by soldering strain gauge’s brittle wires to one end of the

terminal and cables from the memory card, which forms part of a data logger, to the other end (Fig. 31

above).

CFRP coupon was then carefully placed in the grips of the Instron 4505 machine and aligned with the

long axis of testing by means of a spirit level. The aligning procedure is a crucial moment, so any

bending effects due to misalignment can be minimised. The grips were then lightly tightened on the

aluminium tabs and all cables were connected to the memory card of the data logger. It is important to

note that the cables were connected for each sample in the same order, so strain gauges’ names directly

transferred to the naming created in the data logger spreadsheet, which is important for consistency in

results. Plastic shield was placed around the FRP coupon to contain explosive failures and allow for

reassembling of the sample and identifying failure modes (Section 4.2).

Page 39: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 39 of 94

The test was carried out under room temperature with head displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min. The

required input data to the Instron software consists of the specimen’s dimensions (Table 12, Section

3.1.3), sample information, cross head speed and load threshold. Later, the Instron 4505 was

synchronised with external data logger with 10 V corresponding to both 40 kN applied force limit and

10 mm head extension. Moreover, the initial force and displacement were zeroed. The power supplied

to the strain gauges was 5 V as any higher voltage caused overheating of the strain gauges and its

damage. Furthermore, the test was running until brittle failure of each coupon with strains,

displacements and forces being measured every second by a data logger, which later on was used to

perform different types of analysis presented in Chapter 4. The whole set up is shown in Fig. 32.

Figure 32 - Experimental Set-up

3.2. CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 50 specimens were prepared according to the guidelines given in ASTMD3039 for obtaining the

test data in order to perform the statistical verification of the proposed methods of analysis, but only 44

of those were deemed to be suitable for testing after a quality check. It was found that 150 grams of

mixture is required for a batch of ten coupons with 5 layers. The preparation techniques were slightly

altered, which were found to provide improvements to the standard technique.

It is recommended that Powerlink Plus PVC Insulation Tape 19 mm x 33 m is used to provide an even

surface of epoxy on either surfaces of the FRP sample in order to minimise the sticking effect, thus

making the procedure more reliable and repeatable.

Another recommendation is to use 15 mm paint brush to spread the fibres in longitudinal direction and

stainless steel spatula together with the pressure of a finger to remove air voids and produce uniform

samples.

Furthermore, the flat coupon test was performed with the use of Instron 4505 Universal Testing

Machine at room temperature with head displacement rate of 0.5 mm/min. Moreover, the stress-strain

Page 40: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 40 of 94

response was obtained for each coupon with the strain gauges and the data logger synchronised with

the machine (10 V corresponding to both 40 kN applied force limit and 10 mm head extension). The

power supplied to the strain gauges was 5 V as any higher voltage caused overheating of the strain

gauges and its damage. An improvement to the accuracy of strain measurements was also introduced

during testing stage and it consisted of an additional strain gauge attached to the data logger, which

constantly produced strain readings due to laboratory varying conditions or heating from the current,

which supplies power to the data logger.

Page 41: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 41 of 94

4. CHAPTER 4 – DATA ANALYSIS

After careful preparation of CFRP coupons discussed above, the tensile testing was conducted on 44

samples that comprised of 10 control tests and 34 tests with 3 strain gauges according to ASTMD3039

for flat coupon testing.

Initially, control tests were undertaken to obtain an approximate idea of the ultimate strengths of the

samples and examine their failure modes. Finally, remaining coupons were tested, their failure modes

examined and different types of analysis methods (Rule of Mixtures – 4.4, ASTM D3039 – 4.5,

Method ‘1’ – 4.6, Method B&B – 4.7.1 and Axial Method – 4.7.2) implemented to obtain the material

properties for CFRP coupons. The procedure of derivation of these tensile parameters is shown step by

step for CFRP coupon 4-2 regarded as ‘perfect’ – no strain gauges failure and 3-1 specimen that had one

strain gauge failing before ultimate coupon’s failure.

4.1. CONTROL TESTS The initial step in CFRP coupons testing was simple tensile control tests. Control tests aimed to check

the adequacy of each batch of samples prepared, derive ultimate strengths of samples, examine their

failure modes as well as familiarize with the use of equipment. The results are presented in Table 14

below.

Sample Average

Thickness [mm]

No. of CFRP

Layers

Extension [mm]

Max. Load [kN]

Ultimate Tensile Strength [MPa]

Failure Type

Failure Area

Failure Location

1 2.37 5 4.99 28.81 809.27 L G M

2 2.65 5 6.22 24.31 611.57 S G M

3 2.58 5 8.49 29.45 760.49 S G M

4 2.81 5 5.88 33.39 792.17 L G M

5 2.60 5 6.00 33.14 848.66 S A T

6 2.68 5 6.04 33.23 825.59 S G M

7 2.62 5 5.71 27.87 710.06 L G M

8 2.65 5 4.80 27.43 690.06 S G M

9 2.67 5 5.29 31.39 783.77 S G M

10 2.71 5 5.17 28.01 689.90 S A T

Table 14 - Control Tests Results

The tested samples comprised of 5 layers of FRP sheets giving an average coupons’ thickness of

2.63 mm. This resulted in achieving average ultimate tensile strengths of 752.15 MPa with 9.90 %

coefficient of variance. The maximum loads that the CFRP coupons resisted were on average around

29.70 kN at the extension around 5.86 mm. It is important to note that the extensions are for the whole

system rather than only elongation of the sample, because the results accord to the Instron readings,

which take into account slippage of the aluminium tabs, grip deflection and time for grips to become

effective. This means that the machine’s arm extends more than the actual sample’s elongation.

It can be concluded that the failure occurred in 80 % of samples in the middle around the gauges with

either lateral or longitudinal splitting failure type, Table 14. Only two samples had failure at the grip or

the tab. Therefore, the dimensions of aluminium tabs can be confirmed to be sufficient in resisting

and/or uniformly distributing the gripping pressure and/or local bending near the grips which could be

a cause of premature failure.

Page 42: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 42 of 94

4.2. FAILURE MODES

Every tested sample was photographed and its failure was carefully examined by determining the mode

and location of failure. Three-part failure mode code (Table 15) was adopted from the ASTM D3039

specifications. The results for each of the specimen are presented in Appendix E, which was based also

on tensile test typical modes presented in Fig. 6 in Section 2.5.3. Failure depictions were chosen for each

coding type and are presented in Fig. 34 to 41 below.

First Character Second Character Third Character

Type Code Area Code Location Code

Angled A Inside grip/tab I Bottom B Edge Delamination D At grip/tab A Top T Grip/tab G <1 W from grip/tab W Left L Lateral L Gage G Right R Multi-mode M Multiple areas M Middle M long. Splitting S Various V Various V eXplosive X Unknown U Unknown U

Other O

Table 15 - Tensile Test Failure Codes (ASTM D3039, 2008)

Figure 33 - LGM failure mode (Ideal Gauge Failure)

Figure 34 - SGM failure mode (Long splitting failure started in the middle)

Figure 35 – SAT failure mode (Longitudinal failure likely started at the tab at the top)

Figure 36 – SIT failure mode (Longitudinal splitting started inside the tab at the top)

Page 43: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 43 of 94

Figure 37 – SAV failure mode (Longitudinal splitting started inside the tab in various locations)

Figure 38 – MWT failure mode (Multi-mode failure from the tab at the top)

Figure 39 – XIT failure mode (Explosive failure likely initiated in the grip at the top)

Figure 40 – XWT failure mode (Explosive failure likely initiated from the tab at the top)

Figure 41 - XGM failure mode (Explosive failure likely initiated at the gage in the middle)

It can be concluded that 39 out of 44 samples failed either laterally or by longitudinal splitting with

failure mostly at the gauge with a couple of samples failing inside or at the grip/tab. Subsequently the

failure location was determined to be the middle or the top of the CFRP coupon. Only three samples

were identified to fail in an explosive manner.

Page 44: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 44 of 94

4.3. ENVIRONMENTAL ADJUSTMENT OF THE RAW DATA

The first stage of each sample analysis required strains adjustment for any environmental variations at

each time increment, and conversion of extension and force into SI units. In order to obtain more

accurate strain measurements, control strain readings were subtracted at each time step from each of

the coupon’s gauge readings to account for any laboratory varying conditions or heating from the

current, which supplies power to the data logger. Secondly, knowing that 10 V corresponds both to

40 kN force and 10 mm extension, the extensions and forces were converted. Initial five seconds for

CFRP coupon 4-2 is given in Tables 16 and 17 to show the procedure’s results.

Time [Secs] Gauge 1 [μɛ] Gauge 2 [μɛ] Gauge 3 [μɛ] Control Strain [μɛ] Extension [V] Force [V]

14:57:40 0.0419 -9.0769 9.0518 -0.0188 0.0063 0.0025

14:57:41 0.0419 -9.0769 18.0849 -0.0188 0.0088 0.0050

14:57:42 9.0771 -0.0419 36.1517 -0.0188 0.0113 0.0152

14:57:43 45.2193 36.0996 72.2873 -0.0210 0.0175 0.0325

14:57:44 81.3644 54.1715 99.3909 -0.0210 0.0263 0.0450

Table 16 - Raw Data from Data Logger (4-2 Coupon)

Time [Secs] Gauge 1 [%] Gauge 2 [%] Gauge 3 [%] Extension [mm] Force [N]

14:57:40 6.07E-06 -0.00091 0.00091 0.00000 0

14:57:41 6.07E-06 -0.00091 0.00181 0.00250 10

14:57:42 0.00091 -2.3E-06 0.00362 0.00500 50

14:57:43 0.00452 0.00361 0.00723 0.01125 120

14:57:44 0.00814 0.00542 0.00994 0.02000 170

Table 17 - Adjusted/Converted Readings (4-2 Coupon)

4.4. RULE OF MIXTURES

4.4.1. ANALYSIS APPROACH

The rule of mixtures allows estimating the longitudinal modulus of a laminae E1 – an upper limit of the

elastic modulus of the composite under the Bernoulli’s assumption of ‘plane sections remain plane’ and

compatible deformation in longitudinal direction (fibre direction) of two constituents of the FRP lamina

with uniaxial loading applied. Hence, based on the above assumptions, the rule of mixtures is derived by

following steps (for variables descriptions refer to Notation’s section):

Assuming that total strain in the composite is equal to:

(4.1)

.: the stress in fibres, , and matrix, , is described respectively as:

(4.2)

The total area of the composite is defined as: (4.3)

Remembering that where

and knowing that , we can show

that equals to (University of Cambridge, 2012):

Page 45: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 45 of 94

(4.4)

.: where

which leads to the fundamental Rule of Mixtures equation1:

(4.5)

4.4.2. DATA ANALYSIS

Based on the close inspection of failed CFRP coupons and knowing that the yield strength of a matrix is

significantly lower than tensile strength of a fibre, it was assumed that the failure was controlled by

brittle failure of fibres; hence the ultimate coupon’s strain was assumed to be the one of manufacturer’s

fibre strain of the order of ɛult. = 1.5% (Appendix C).

Each specimen was prepared from 5 layers of CFRP, where each FRP strip weighed 0.82 grams. The

dimensions of all coupons were carefully measured with micrometre and the only variations were in

thickness with Average = 2.62 mm and CoV = 6% (Appendix F1).

The Young’s modulus, Eult., was calculated using Eq. (4.5), with the manufacturer’s data

(Appendix C & D) of: Ef = 230000 MPa, Em = 4500 MPa, ρf =0.0018 g/mm3, wstrip = 0.82 g and sample’s

4-2 data of Vcoupon=250*15*2.52 = 9450 mm3:

( )

(4.6)

Therefore, for specimen 4-2: Vf = 0.24 and Vm = 0.76 that gives ultimate Young’s modulus of 58.85 GPa.

Finally, the stress for each coupon is:

(4.7)

.: hence for 4-2 CFRP coupon, σult. = (1.5/100) * (58.85*1000) = 882.80 MPa.

4.4.3. RESULTS

The results for the rule of mixtures analysis according to procedure in section (4.4.2) are presented in

the in Appendix F1. These are the values that predict the ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus for

each individual tested CFRP coupon. It is important to note that the specimens marked in purple had at

least one of the strain gauges failing before brittle failure of CFRP coupon. The remaining samples can

be regarded as ‘perfect’ and are suitable for ASTM D3039 analysis. This is a set of 17 samples which is

summed up by a simple statistical analysis presented in Table 18 below that gives average value,

coefficient of variance and standard deviation. Subsequently, the whole range of 29 samples is also

statistically summarised in Table 19.

It can be noted that for more samples the ultimate stress and Young’s modulus increase with

coefficients of variance for both variables also increasing. The strain remains constant because of the

assumption of brittle fibres failure. The volume fractions stay constant for both batches with average

value of 0.77 and 0.23 for matrix and fibres respectively. However, a detailed results discussion and

comparison with other methods will be presented in Chapter 6.

1 Yu et al., 2009

Page 46: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 46 of 94

Variables

17 Specimens

Average SD CoV [%]

Vm 0.77 0.01 1.71

Vf 0.23 0.01 5.73

ɛult. [%] 1.50 0.00 0.00

Eult. [GPa] 56.34 2.97 5.27

σult. [MPa] 845.16 44.50 5.27

Table 18 - Statistical Result’s Summary (Rule of Mixtures)

Variables

29 Specimens

Average SD CoV [%]

Vm 0.77 0.02 1.89

Vf 0.23 0.02 6.28

ɛult. [%] 1.50 0.00 0.00

Eult. [GPa] 56.74 3.28 5.78

σult. [MPa] 851.08 49.19 5.78

Table 19 - Statistical Result’s Summary (Rule of Mixtures)

4.5. ASTM D3039

4.5.1. ANALYSIS APPROACH

Standard method described by ASTM D3039 gives guidance on how to analyse tensile data for three

strain gauges set up. In order to analyse any sample with ASTM method, one primary assumption needs

to be valid: all strain gauges must fail at the moment of ultimate, brittle sample failure.

Figure 42 - Typical stress vs. strain CFRP coupon response (ASTM D3039)

Firstly, in order to determine the ultimate strain of the sample, the three strain gauge readings need to

be graphed and readings closely inspected, so that they are increasing until maximum failure stress

(Fig. 42). Firstly, the ultimate strain, , is the average value of the three maximum strain gauge

readings at the failure load (for variables descriptions refer to Notation’s section):

(4.8)

Page 47: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 47 of 94

Secondly, ultimate tensile elastic modulus, , is the ratio of sums of differences in tensile stresses to

the differences in strains for the lower portion of σ-ɛ response (Fig. 42).. The strains are for 3000μɛ and

1000μɛ points for each gauge (ASTM D3039, 2008) and stresses are the corresponding values at these

strain points. can be calculated accordingly:

(4.9)

Finally, the ultimate stress, , is the maximum/failure load divided by the cross-sectional failure

area:

(4.10)

4.5.2. DATA ANALYSIS

The adjusted raw data for the environmental strain as shown in Section 4.3 is plotted in Fig. 43. The

strain gauges 1, 2 & 3 readings are respectively represented by blue, red and green lines. The point of

failure of the coupon is determined from the graph as well as from the data as coloured in Table 20. The

average value of all three strains at failure Eq. (4.8) is the ultimate strain of the sample according to

ASTM D3039 and for sample 4-2 this value is 1.32%.

Figure 43 – Stress vs. Strain Response for Specimen 4-2

Furthermore, the ultimate tensile Young’s modulus Eq. (4.9) is calculated using a lower part of the

curves, hence there are no significant changes in the slopes of the stress-strain curves. The values

required for this calculation are marked by vertical and horizontal dash lines in the Fig. 43. For

sample 4-2 ultimate Young’s modulus for range of strains of 0.2 % and their corresponding stresses is

57.35 GPa.

Page 48: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 48 of 94

Lastly, the ultimate tensile strength Eq. (4.10) is found by determining the failure load, 29740 N

(Table 20) and subsequently the ultimate stress is 786.77 MPa for 4-2 specimen, which agrees with the

curves’ ends seen in Fig. 43.

Load [N] Stress [MPa] ɛ1 [%] ɛ2 [%] ɛ3 [%]

29700 785.7143 1.3389 1.1932 1.4235

29740 786.7725 1.3398 1.1950 1.4245

29710 785.9788 1.3389 1.1969 1.4180

-240 -6.3492 1.2974 3.8074 -3.8039

Table 20 - Data at Failure Point for 4-2 Coupon

4.5.3. RESULTS

The results according to ASTM D3039 analysis are shown in Fig. 44. Each point corresponds to the

result of each coupon’s ultimate strain and stress. This set of 17 samples is summed up by a simple

statistical analysis presented in Table 21 that gives average value, coefficient of variance and standard

deviation. All the results for ASTM D3039 analysis are presented (along with Axial Method results

marked in purple that are discussed in Section 4.7.2) in tabular form in Appendix F2.

Figure 44 - ASTM D3039 Analysis's Results

It can be noted that ASTM D3039 analysis gives an average ultimate stress of 770.42 MPa with an

average 1.28 % ultimate strain. The Young’s modulus has been found out to be approx. 58.48 GPa. All

three tensile parameters have a coefficient of variance lying between 7.5 % and 8.7 %. However, a

detailed results discussion and comparison with other methods is presented in Chapter 6.

Page 49: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 49 of 94

Variables

17 Specimens

Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.28 0.10 7.97

Eult. [GPa] 58.48 4.39 7.51

σult. [MPa] 770.42 66.10 8.58

Table 21 - Statistical Result’s Summary (ASTM D3039)

4.6. METHOD ‘1’

4.6.1. ANALYSIS APPROACH

The alternative method to ASTM standard proposed by Jakubowski & Rycerz 2012 is based on the

assumption that the actual strain can be resolved into three independent components Eq. (4.11), which

aims to increase the reliability of the tensile parameters of Fibre Reinforced Polymer composites. First

component is axial strain, , caused by the applied stress and assumed to be uniform across the

coupon’s cross-section. Two remaining components, , are caused by the induced bending about

major and minor axis, here y & z-axis respectively (Rycerz & Jakubowski, 2012). The following

approach is specifically adjusted to the sign and numbering convention used (Figure 45), therefore it

differs from that summarised in Section 2.6.1.

Figure 45 - Cross-section of CFRP coupon

The maximum strain2, , is found at one of the four cross-section’s corners according to (for

variables descriptions refer to Notation’s section):

| | | | | | (4.11)

Method ‘1’ proposes that for the specimens with three strain gauges the strain is resolved according to

the following set of equations3:

(...)

(4.12)

(…)

2 Rycerz, 2012 3 Rycerz, 2012

Page 50: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 50 of 94

The above set of Eq. (4.12) can be represented in the matrix form (4.13) with

. Subsequently, the

matrix properties (4.14) will allow solving for three unknowns

(

) (

)(

) (4.13)

.:

(

) (

)

(

) (4.14)

Once we know can be determined by using Eq. (4.11). Having all variables,

graphs of and lines of best fit are fitted to the linear part of each

curve. It is crucial to remember that for those samples that any of the strain gauges failed before the

final failure of the whole sample, all the curves are plotted up to the point of the first strain gauge

failure. By rearranging the equations of lines of best fit, strains for each strain gauge can be found for

failure strains, . Then the ultimate strain, , of the sample is averaged between those

n – numbers of failure strains.

Secondly, the ultimate Young’s modulus, , is proposed to be the gradient of the line of best fit of a

curve of .

Finally, the ultimate tensile strength, , is calculated accordingly:

(4.15)

4.6.2. DATA ANALYSIS

Adjusted data logger’s strain readings are resolved at each time increment into

according to Eq. (4.14) using Excel spreadsheet. This allows calculating the maximum strain, ,

using Eq. (4.11) at each time step. Since all the variables are calculated, graphs of can

be plotted (Fig. 46). Finally, lines of best fit are fitted to linear part of each of the curves. The derived

relationships shown next to the curves (Fig. 46) allow prediction of the ultimate strain of the CFRP

sample.

Page 51: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 51 of 94

Figure 46 - Relationship of Gauge Strain Readings vs. Max. Strain for 4-2 CFRP Coupon

In case of specimen 4-2, all three strain gauges took measurements up to failure point; hence the

ultimate strain will be the average of the three maximum strain values. From the Table 20, the failure

strains are 1.34, 1.20 & 1.42 respectively.

(4.16)

(4.17)

(4.18)

Equations 4.16, 4.14 & 4.18 give maximum strains of 1.51%, 1.52% & 1.50% respectively that allow

determining the ultimate tensile strain of 1.51% for specimen 4-2.

In order to find out the ultimate Young’s modulus, , a graph of tensile stress vs. axial strain is plotted

(Fig. 47) and linear relationship found for the linear part of the curve. The slope of the line

y = 614.06x - 25 is said to be the ultimate Young’s modulus of the sample, here equal to 61.41 GPa for

4-2 specimen.

Finally, the ultimate tensile strength, , can be determined assuming the linear relationships between

. Hence, for coupon 4-2, it is 925.18 MPa, which is established according to Eq. (4.15).

Page 52: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 52 of 94

Figure 47 - Tensile Stress vs. Axial Strain for 4-2 CFRP Coupon

4.6.3. RESULTS

The above analysis procedure was applied to every sample and its summary is shown in Figure 48

below. Each point corresponds to the result of coupon’s ultimate strain and stress. Samples marked in

purple represent 12 samples that had any of the strain gauge failing before ultimate failure of the CFRP

coupon. The remaining 17 samples in marine colour represent samples that are suitable for ASTM

D3039 analysis and those will be accordingly compared. All the results for Method ‘1’ analysis with

12 samples marked in purple are presented in tabular form in Appendix F3. Two sets of results,

17 samples & 29 samples, are summed up by a simple statistical analysis and presented in Tables

22 and 23. It can be noted that for more samples the ultimate strain, Young’s modulus and stress are

increasing. The coefficient of variance for strain is dropping, whereas CoV for the Young’s modulus and

stress slightly increases. However, a detailed results discussion and comparison with other methods

will be presented in Chapter 6.

Variables

17 Samples

Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.39 0.11 7.87

Eult. [GPa] 61.21 4.31 7.05

σult. [MPa] 847.67 83.71 9.88

Table 22 - Statistical Result’s Summary (Method ‘1’)

Variables

29 Samples

Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.43 0.11 7.65

Eult. [GPa] 61.33 4.38 7.14

σult. [MPa] 880.01 92.99 10.57

Table 23 - Statistical Result’s Summary (Method ‘1’)

Page 53: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 53 of 94

Figure 48 - Method '1' Analysis Results

4.7. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

4.7.1. METHOD B&B

4.7.1.1. ANALYSIS APPROACH

Looking closer through the analysis proposed by Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 (Method’1’ – Section

4.6), new changes have been proposed to optimise the results for determination of tensile properties of

FRP like brittle material and match them as closely as possible to the results given by the Rule of

Mixture (Section 4.4).

The ultimate strain analysis is adopted from Method ‘1’ proposed by Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 and

is based on the assumption that the actual strain can be resolved into three independent components

Eq. (4.11). This seems to give best results for ultimate strain estimation by giving significantly close

values to those predicted by the Rule of Mixture.

The ultimate tensile Young’s modulus is advised to be predicted with the use of ASTM D3039 method

through Eq. (4.9) as those values match the closest the Rule of Mixture.

The proposed change concerns determination of the ultimate tensile stress. It is known that the stresses

and strains are not uniform through the coupon’s cross-section, which is due to material’s orthotropic

nature (Yu et al., 2009), sensitivity to any imperfections (Maheri, 1995) and bending effects due to

eccentricity caused by inappropriate alignment of the specimen in the grips (Jakubowski, 2012).

Page 54: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 54 of 94

Therefore, the following is recommended that accounts for bending strains and is also based on the

pure failure load:

Figure 49 - Cross-section of CFRP coupon

The standard equation for determination of stress, is (for variables descriptions refer to Notation’s

section):

(4.19)

Knowing that the samples are subjected to bending effects that are caused by the eccentricity (Fig. 49)

of the applied load, the moment can be expressed as:

(4.20)

.:

(4.21)

or

(4.22)

Eq. (4.22) can be represented as (4.23), therefore ignoring at a time either y or z

component, the following ratio can be determined:

(4.24)

.: correspondingly,

(4.25)

Substituting Eq. (4.24) & Eq. (4.25) into Eq. (4.22), the following relationship is derived:

(4.26)

Finally, the ultimate stress, , can be expressed in terms of failure force, cross-sectional area and

bending strains at failure that are taken as absolute values as their signage is difficult to determine:

( |

| |

|) (4.27)

Page 55: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 55 of 94

The bending strains about z and y axis are calculated according to the ASTM D3039 (Eq. 4.28 & Eq. 4.29

respectively) and the magnitude of bending is obtained from the samples results for each time

increment:

(4.28)

(4.29)

.: where

(4.30)

4.7.1.2. DATA ANALYSIS

Initially the axial strain Eq. (4.30) is found for each time step and then the bending strains about z

(Eq. (4.28)) and y (Eq. (4.29)) axis are determined accordingly. Knowing the bending strains along with

the load at the failure point (Table 24) allows calculating the ultimate stress of the sample Eq. (4.27).

Load [N] ɛa [%] By [%] Bz [%]

29700 1.320 -1.136 11.843

29700 1.320 -1.153 11.603

29740 1.320 -1.135 11.546

29710 1.320 -1.189 11.139

-240 0.650 -99.730 -781.174

Table 24 - Improved Ultimate Stress Determination Process

For sample 4-2, it is as follows:

( |

| |

|)

As stated in Section 4.7.1.1, the ultimate strain is calculated according to Method ‘1’ (Section 4.6.1) and

for sample 4-2 is . Subsequently, the ultimate Young’s modulus is recommended to be

determined according to ASTM D3039 method (Eq. (4.9)). For sample 4-2 ultimate Young’s modulus is

57.35 GPa for a range of strains of 0.2 % and their corresponding stresses

4.7.1.3. RESULTS

The summary of results according to Method B&B is shown in Fig. 50 below. It is important to note that

determination of stress according to Eq. (2.27) can be only done for those samples where strain gauges

give reliable readings until brittle failure of the CFRP coupon, hence method’s limitation. Therefore,

Method B&B worked only on 17 samples as shown in Fig. 50, which are summed up by a simple

statistical analysis presented in Table 20. The Appendix F3 presents all results according to

specifications of Method B&B along with the failure bending strains about z & y-axis for each specimen.

Detailed results discussion and comparison with other methods is presented in Chapter 6.

Page 56: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 56 of 94

Variables

17 Samples

Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.39 0.11 7.87

Eult. [GPa] 58.48 4.39 7.51

By [%] 1.21 4.05 335.18

Bz [%] 0.36 6.36 1790.29

σult. [MPa] 834.42 74.48 8.93

Table 25 – Statistical Results Summary (Method ‘B&B’)

Figure 50 - Method B&B Analysis Results

4.7.2. AXIAL METHOD FOR ULTIMATE STRAIN’S CALCULATION

4.7.2.1. ANALYSIS APPROACH

Axial Method for strain calculation is introduced to supplement the ASTM D3039 analysis for those

specimens where any gauge fails before failure of the whole coupon. As it was stated in Section 4.5,

ASTM D3039 allows only estimation of ultimate strains for those coupons, which have reliable strain

readings up to the point of brittle failure of the specimen. In order to improve this method, a prediction

of the ultimate strain at failure stress after any of the strain gauges breaks can be done according to

axial strain equation4:

(4.31)

4 ASTM D3039, 2008

Page 57: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 57 of 94

The remaining tensile parameters, the Young’s modulus and the ultimate stress, are predicted with the

use of ASTM D3039 method through using the Eq. 4.9 and 4.10 respectively as described in

Section 4.5.1.

4.7.2.2. DATA ANALYSIS

Figure 51 below shows a stress vs. strain relationship for 3-1 specimen. It is clear that the strain gauge

one failed just before brittle failure of the coupon; hence prediction of ultimate strain Eq. (4.8) using

ASTM D3039 method is impossible. The purple line represents the axial strain according to Eq. (4.31)

that is plotted for each time increment until failure of gauge one. By fitting line of best fit into the linear

part of the axial strain curve a linear relationship is determined that can be projected to the failure load

and used to estimate the ultimate strain as presented below:

Figure 51 – Stress vs. Strain Response for Specimen 3-1

For 3-1 CFRP coupon, by rearranging the equation of line of best fit (Fig. 51), the ultimate strain is:

Furthermore, the ultimate tensile Young’s modulus (4.9) is calculated using a lower part of the curves,

hence there are no significant changes in the slopes of the stress-strain curves. For sample 3-1 ultimate

Young’s modulus is 51.71 GPa.

Lastly, the ultimate tensile strength Eq. (4.10) is found by determining the failure load, 31130 N and

subsequently the ultimate stress is 738.55 MPa for 3-1 specimen, which agrees with the Fig. 51.

Page 58: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 58 of 94

4.7.2.3. RESULTS

The results of supplemented ASTM D3039 method (Section 4.5) are shown in Fig. 52 below. Purple

triangles represent specimens analysed with axial method and the remaining 17 orange samples show

ASTM results. Set of 29 results is presented in tabular form in Appendix F2 with samples analysed with

axial method (marked in purple) along with ASTM D3039 results. Both sets are summed up by a simple

statistical analysis presented in Tables 26 and 27. It can be noted that the Axial Method drops down the

coefficients of variance for ultimate strain, ultimate stress and Young’s modulus. However, the detailed

results comparison is presented in Chapter 6.

Figure 52 – ASTM (orange) + Axial Method (purple) Analysis Results

Variables

17 Samples

Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.28 0.10 7.97

Eult. [GPa] 58.48 4.39 7.51

σult. [MPa] 770.42 66.10 8.58

Table 26 - Statistical Summary (ASTM D3039)

Variables

29 Samples

Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.29 0.09 6.92

Eult. [GPa] 58.28 4.31 7.39

σult. [MPa] 772.16 61.88 8.01

Table 27 - Statistical Summary

(ASTM + Axial Method)

Page 59: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 59 of 94

4.8. CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS

Out of 34 tests, four samples reached a premature failure of one or multiple gauges, whereas one

sample had slippage at the tabs. Controlled tests confirmed that the dimensions of aluminium tabs are

sufficient in uniformly distributing the gripping pressure eliminating in most cases premature failure.

CFRP coupons failed mostly laterally or through longitudinal splitting with failure mostly occurring at

the gage with couple samples failing inside or at the grip/tab.

Only 17 results produced reliable strain readings up to coupon’s failure and hence were deemed to be

analysed according to ASTM D3039 and proposed Method B&B. The remaining 12 coupons, with one

strain gauge failing before ultimate condition, were analysed with proposed Axial Method, which is

regarded as a supplementary method for ASTM D3039. It was found that it slightly drops the coefficient

of variance for tensile parameters therefore it fits well within the ASTM’s results’ range. The dataset of

29 samples was also analysed according to the Rule of Mixtures and Method ‘1’. The procedures, results

and statistical analysis were presented along each method and the comparison with thorough

discussion is followed in the Chapter 6.

Page 60: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 60 of 94

5. CHAPTER 5 - REANALYSED DATA FROM JAKUBOWSKI & RYCERZ 2012 RESEARCH

One of the objectives of this research paper is to review, reanalyse, compare and critically evaluate the

previous work completed by Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012. Both researches presented a set of 11

samples with three strain gauges and 11 specimens with four strain gauges (all 22 samples had 6 layers

of FRP sheets, which make them unfeasible to be combined with this research that is based on CFRP

coupons with 5 layers). This chapter is divided into two sections: first one focuses on analysis of

coupons with 3 strain gauges and the second - with 4 strain gauges. On top of what Jakubowski and

Rycerz presented in their work, additional comparison has been introduced to the results given by the

Rule of Mixtures.

5.1. COUPONS WITH 3 STRAIN GAUGES

Researchers could not analyse their samples according to ASTM D3039 standard (Section 4.5) as they

identified premature failure of the strain gauges as a significant problem associated with their

experiments. Therefore, they adopted the solution of extrapolation beyond the point of failure based on

the linear best fit (Rycerz & Jakubowski, 2012). Therefore, the CFRP coupons with 3 strain gauges were

analysed by Jakubowski and Rycerz using ASTM D3039 combined with Axial Method (in this research

proposed supplementary method to ASTM, Section 4.7.2) and compared to their proposed, improved

Method ‘1’ (Section 4.6).

Figure 53 presents the plot of reanalysed results for ultimate stress vs. ultimate strain for coupons that

were analysed with ASTM D3039 (blue diamonds), Axial Method (green triangle) & Method ‘1’ (orange

squares). The dashed, blue lines give mean values for samples under investigation for ultimate strain

and stress predicted using the Rule of Mixtures (Section 4.4). These are the theoretical tensile

properties that the analysis methods aim for. It can be concluded by looking at the plot that Method ‘1’

gives clearly closer values to Rule of Mixture’s mean.

The 11 specimens with 3 strain gauges (Table 28) analysed with ASTM and Axial Method compared

against Method ‘1’ yielded higher values for mean ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus by

12.43 %, 18.51 % and 10.49 % respectively. Secondly, the Rule of Mixtures is compared against mix of

ASTM D3039 with Axial Methods and Method ‘1’. The ASTM D3039 plus Axial Method analysis gave on

average by 27.10 %, 34.74 % and 10.87 % lower results for ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus

respectively, whereas for Method ‘1’ had mean ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus by 13.05 %,

13.70 % and 0.34 % lower than results provided by the Rule of Mixtures.

All the results for coupons with 3 strain gauges that were analysed with Rule of Mixtures, ASTM D3039,

Axial Method and Method ‘1’ are presented respectively in a tabular form in Appendix G1 .

Variables ASTM + Axial Method Method ‘1’ Rule of Mixtures

Average SD CoV [%] Average SD CoV [%] Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.18 0.11 9.58 1.33 0.09 6.44 1.50 0.00 0.00

Eult. [GPa] 70.79 5.17 7.31 78.21 6.30 8.05 78.48 6.50 8.29

σult. [MPa] 873.68 95.10 10.89 1035.39 77.85 7.52 1177.20 97.55 8.29

Table 28 - Statistical Analysis of Results for Coupons with 3 Strain Gauges for 11 coupons

Page 61: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 61 of 94

Figure 53 - Comparison of ASTM with Axial Method to Method '1'

5.2. COUPONS WITH 4 STRAIN GAUGES

Subsequently, Jakubowski and Rycerz proposed two more methods (Sections 2.6.2.2 & 2.6.2.3) used to

analyse coupons with four strain gauges. Two comparisons are shown in this section.

The first plot (Fig. 54) gives ultimate stress vs. ultimate strain for coupons analysed with ASTM + Axial

Method (red diamonds) & Method ‘2’ (blue triangles). Secondly, the Fig. 55 shows the same type of plot,

but this time for coupons that were analysed with ASTM + Axial Method (red diamonds) & Method ‘3’

(blue squares). In both cases the dashed, orange lines present mean values for coupons under

investigation for ultimate strain and stress predicted with the use of Rule of Mixtures (Section 4.4).

These are the theoretical tensile properties that the analysis Methods ‘2’ & ‘3’ aim for. It can be

concluded from the plots that Method ‘2’ as well as Method ‘3’ give clearly closer values to the Rule of

Mixture’s mean, hence all the results shifted closer to the dashed lines predicting the tensile parameters

more accurately than ASTM + Axial Method.

When 11 specimens with 4 strain gauges (Table 29) are compared to the mix of ASTM and Axial Method

than Method ‘2’ yielded higher values for mean ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus by 9.64 %,

14.70 % and 11.36 % respectively, whereas for Method ‘3’ they were also higher by 12.67 %, 17.81%

and 10.88% accordingly. Secondly, those three methods are compared in respect to the Rule of

Mixtures. The ASTM + Axial Method analysis gave on average 24.25 %, 40.36 % and 19.80 % lower

results for ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus respectively. For Method ‘2’, mean ultimate

strain, stress and Young’s modulus were lower by 13.32 %, 22.38 % and 7.57 % as well as for

Method ‘3’ the results are lower by 10.27 %, 19.14 % and 8.04 % accordingly.

All the results for coupons with 4 strain gauges that were analysed with the Rule of Mixtures, ASTM

D3039, Axial Method, Method ‘2’ and ‘3’ are presented respectively in a tabular form in Appendix G2.

Page 62: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 62 of 94

Figure 54 - Comparison of ASTM with Axial Method to Method '2'

Figure 55 - Comparison of ASTM with Axial Method to Method '3'

Page 63: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 63 of 94

Variables ASTM D3039 + Axial Method Method ‘2’ Method ‘3’

Average SD CoV [%] Average SD CoV [%] Average SD CoV [%]

ɛult. [%] 1.21 0.11 8.77 1.32 0.14 10.59 1.36 0.11 8.37

Eult. [GPa] 68.10 4.95 7.27 75.84 5.63 7.42 75.51 5.25 6.96

σult. [MPa] 872.00 62.50 7.17 1000.00 89.13 8.91 1027.00 110.98 10.81

Variables

Rule of Mixtures

Average SD CoV [%]

Vm 0.67 0.03 4.29

Vf 0.33 0.03 8.67

ɛult. [%] 1.50 0.00 0.00

Eult. [GPa] 81.58 3.65 4.47

σult. [MPa] 1224.00 54.73 4.47

Table 29 - Statistical Analysis of Results for Coupons with 4 Strain Gauges

5.3. CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS

After careful study of Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 raw data and its repeated analysis, it was found from

a set of specimens with three strain gauges that only two samples (3-3 & 3-7) were suitable for ASTM

D3039 standard analysis and the remaining coupons had at least one of the strain gauges failing before

ultimate condition, hence the specimens where analysed according to the Axial Method presented in

this research paper as an improvement and supplementary method to the ASTM D3039.

The 11 specimens with 3 strain gauges were analysed with ASTM + Axial Method and compared against

Method ‘1’ and the Rule of Mixtures. Subsequently, the remaining 11 specimens with 4 strain gauges

were also analysed with ASTM + Axial Method, Method ‘2’, and Method ‘3’ as well as the Rule of

Mixtures.

In the light of above findings, it was found that the results agree with those discussed in the literature

review chapter, Section 2.6. Jakubowski and Rycerz identified that their premature failure of the strain

gauges was a significant problem associated with their experiments. Therefore, they adopted the

solution of extrapolation to supplement the only two possible ASTM results. Hence, it can be concluded

that Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 did not meet their objective of truly comparing ASTM D3039

standard with their proposed Methods for determining the tensile properties of CFRP coupons.

However, they developed methods that can produce more reliable and repeatable results of tensile

parameters for CFRP composites and give closer results to the prediction given by the Rule of Mixtures.

However, for Methods ‘2’ and ‘3’ the coefficients of variance significantly increased and only Method ‘1’

gave much more reliable data by also decreasing the CoV. Hence, this is why this research concentrated

on further investigating the reliability, repeatability of Method ‘1’ as well as had a strong focus on

development of improvements to the preparation as well as testing stage in order to overcome

limitations identified by Jakubowski and Rycerz.

Page 64: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 64 of 94

6. CHAPTER 6 – STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Conducted research is based on a population of 44 specimens which were tested in tension until failure

according to the specification contained within ASTM D3039. Group of 10 coupons was chosen as

control tests; hence, a total of 34 specimens provided raw data for further analysis according to the set

aim. However, only 29 of them gave a representative set of data for analysis because 4 specimens had

one of the strain gauges flawed and 1 sample had clear tab slippage. This dataset was narrowed further

to 17 coupons, which were identified to provide full range of strain readings up to failure point, hence

satisfying the ASTM D3039 analysis requirements.

The results for subsequent methods were shown in the Results sections in Chapter 4. Therefore, the

intention of this chapter is to sum up all the experimental results and give comparisons between

existing and proposed methods through normal distribution, scatter plots and results vs. predictions

plots as well as statistical analysis.

6.1. STATISTICAL COMPARISONS Two types of comparisons were provided to prove different types of improvements to the proposed

methods. The first comparison is based on the dataset of 17 coupons, whereas the second, on all 29

specimens. The below comparisons can be identified on the normal distribution plots as shown in Fig.

56, 57 and 58 as well as through Table 30.

For 17 CFRP coupons, firstly ASTM D3039 is compared against Method ‘1’ and Method B&B. Therefore,

when compared to ASTM D3039 (blue curve on normal plots), Method ‘1’ (black curve on normal plots)

yielded higher values for mean ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus by 8.22 %, 10.03 % and

4.66 % respectively, whereas Method B&B gave mean ultimate strain higher by 8.22 %, the same

Young’s modulus and by 8.31 % higher mean ultimate stress.

Secondly, the Rule of Mixtures (purple curve on normal plots) is compared against ASTM D3039,

Method ‘1’ and Method B&B. The ASTM D3039 analysis gave approximately 14.62 %, 8.84 % lower

results for ultimate strain and stress respectively, and 3.79 % higher values when it comes to Young’s

modulus. For Method ‘1’, mean ultimate strain was 7.61 % lower, whereas ultimate stress and Young’s

modulus were 0.30 % and 8.63 % higher than results provided by the Rule of Mixtures.

Lastly, proposed Method B&B provided mean ultimate strain and stress values to be 7.61 % and 1.27 %

lower, and 3.79 % higher for Young’s modulus than those given by the Rule of Mixtures.

Therefore, Method B&B provides the best estimates of the tensile properties of FRP as well as gives the

greatest improvements in comparison to the ASTM D3039.

Page 65: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 65 of 94

Figure 56 - Normal Plot for Strain (based on μ & SD for 17 coupons - Table 30)

Figure 57 - Normal Plot for Young's Modulus (based on μ & SD for 17 coupons - Table 30)

Page 66: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 66 of 94

Figure 58 - Normal Plot for Stress (based on μ & SD for 17 coupons – Table 30)

For 29 CFRP coupons, combination of ASTM and Axial Method results is compared against Method ‘1’

results that yielded higher values for mean ultimate strain, stress and Young’s modulus by 11.58 %,

13.97 % and 5.24 % respectively.

Secondly, the Rule of Mixtures is compared against mix of ASTM and Axial Methods as well as

Method ‘1’. The ASTM D3039 plus Axial Method analysis gave about 16.66 % and 10.22 % lower results

for ultimate strain and stress respectively and by 2.64 % higher value for Young’s modulus. For Method

‘1’, mean ultimate strain was by 4.54 % lower, whereas ultimate stress and Young’s modulus were

higher by 3.29 % and 7.49 % accordingly than the results provided by the Rule of Mixtures.

Data Series

Ultimate Strain, ɛult. Ultimate Young’s

modulus, Eult. Ultimate Stress, σult.

Mean

[%] SD [%]

CoV [%]

Mean [GPa]

SD [GPa]

CoV [%]

Mean [MPa]

SD [MPa]

CoV [%]

17

Co

up

on

s

Rule of Mixtures 1.50 0.00 0.00 56.34 2.97 5.27 845.16 44.50 5.27

ASTM D3039 1.28 0.10 7.97 58.48 4.39 7.51 770.42 66.10 8.58

Method ‘1’ 1.39 0.11 7.87 61.21 4.31 7.05 847.67 83.71 9.88

Method B&B 1.39 0.11 7.87 58.48 4.39 7.51 834.42 74.48 8.93

29

Co

up

on

s Rule of Mixtures 1.50 0.00 0.00 56.74 3.28 5.78 851.08 49.19 5.78

ASTM + Axial Method

1.29 0.09 6.92 58.28 4.31 7.39 772.16 61.88 8.01

Method ‘1’ 1.43 0.11 7.65 61.33 4.38 7.14 880.01 92.99 10.57

Table 30 - Statistical Analysis of Obtained Results

Page 67: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 67 of 94

Therefore, for the dataset of 29 coupons Method ‘1’ is most appropriate for estimation of the tensile

properties of FRP giving greatest improvements in comparison to the ASTM D3039.

To check the validity of the results, the statistical analysis was conducted on these two sets of coupons,

summarising all methods in Tables 30 above and 31 below.

Data Series

Ultimate Strain, ɛult. Ultimate Young’s

modulus, Eult. Ultimate Stress, σult.

Min. [%]

Median [%]

Max. [%]

Min.

[GPa] Median [GPa]

Max. [GPa]

Min.

[MPa] Median [MPa]

Max. [MPa]

17

Co

up

on

s

Rule of Mixtures

1.50 1.50 1.50 51.19 57.11 61.57 767.92 856.70 923.56

ASTM D3039 1.12 1.28 1.42 52.27 57.90 66.12 654.63 765.59 886.77

Method ‘1’ 1.17 1.39 1.57 55.39 61.81 71.29 733.90 849.03 974.09

Method B&B 1.17 1.39 1.57 52.27 57.90 66.12 727.33 811.66 950.81

29

Co

up

on

s

Rule of Mixtures

1.50 1.50 1.50 51.19 57.11 62.62 767.92 856.70 939.31

ASTM + Axial Method

1.12 1.29 1.43 51.35 58.48 66.12 654.63 778.96 900.69

Method ‘1’ 1.17 1.44 1.65 52.96 61.94 71.29 733.90 903.23 1050.55

Table 31 – Minimum, Median and Maximum values for each Method

Now the two datasets of 17 and 29 CFRP coupons were represented on stress vs. strain plots to discuss

the scatter of the results given by various methods in respect to each other.

For dataset of 17 coupons (Fig. 59), it was found that Method ‘1’ gave lower dispersion for ultimate

strain by 1.34 % and for Young’s modulus by 6.10 %, and yielded higher data scatter for ultimate stress

results by 15.09 % in comparison to ASTM D3039. Therefore, Method B&B was proposed by giving

lower dispersion for ultimate strain by 1.34 %, the same scatter for Young’s modulus and only slightly

higher scatter for ultimate stress by 4.04 % when compared to ASTM D3039.

In comparison, for 29 coupons shown in Fig. 60, Method ‘1’ provided higher dispersion for ultimate

strain by 10.45 % and stress by 31.87 % and slightly lower for Young’s modulus by 3.29 % when

compared to the combination of ASTM with Axial Method.

Ultimately, the Rule of Mixture is more closely matched through Method B&B for a dataset of 17

specimens and through Method ‘1’ for dataset of 29 coupons.

Page 68: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 68 of 94

Figure 59 – Ult. Stress vs. Ult. Strain Scatter Plot for 17 CFRP Coupons

Figure 60 – Ult. Stress vs. Ult. Strain Scatter Plot for 29 CFRP coupons

Page 69: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 69 of 94

Closeness of the results to their predictions is shown through plotting test data against predictions. The

perfect match would result in a straight line through the origin and this line is shown in the Fig. 61, 62

and 63 for the Rule of Mixtures predictions. Additional conclusions that can be drawn are whether or

not the methods indicate a tendency to over- or under- estimate.

The ultimate Young’s modulus plot (Fig. 61) indicates how the data scatters around the Rule of

Mixtures’ predictions showing that ASTM D3039 matches the predictions closer (scattered on both

sides of perfect match line) than Method ‘1’, which provides overestimated results. Therefore, ASTM

D3039 procedure for ultimate Young’s modulus estimation was adopted in Method B&B. The same

conclusions were made for a dataset of 29 specimens, which is shown in Appendix H on Graph 2.

Figure 61 - Young's modulus Plot (ASTM vs. Method '1')

Furthermore, two plots showing ultimate stress are provided showing comparisons of ASTM D3039

against Method ‘1’ (Fig. 62) and Method B&B (Fig. 63). It is clear that the scatter of the test data for

Method B&B is smaller with minimum and maximum values being 727.33 MPa and 950.81 MPa

respectively, which is directly cross-checked for Method ‘1’ with values of 733.90 MPa and 974.09 MPa

accordingly (Table 31). However, both Methods ‘1’ and B&B give better predictions to the Rule of

Mixtures by being equally scattered on both sides of the black line with ASTM D3039 giving

underestimation of the results. Similar conclusions were drawn for a dataset of 29 specimens, where

ASTM + Axial Method and Method ‘1’ are checked for their match with the Rule of Mixtures that is

presented on the Graph 1 in Appendix H.

Page 70: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 70 of 94

Figure 62 - Stress Plot (ASTM vs. Method '1')

Figure 63 - Stress Plot (ASTM vs. Method B&B)

Page 71: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 71 of 94

6.2. CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS It was validated that the best results for Young’s modulus are produced by ASTM D3039 method with

the use of chord modulus that takes into account lower parts of the σ-ɛ curve. Subsequently,

the Method ‘1’ for predicting strains was validated to give the best results for ultimate strain by

resolving the strain components in the principal directions. Finally, the proposed approach for

calculation of stresses by accounting for bending strains is deemed to give the best predictions of

tensile strength.

Therefore, the proposed Method B&B is the combination of the above three analysis for the specimens

providing full range of strain readings up to the failure point. This method gave much closer estimates

to the predictions obtained by the Rule of Mixtures with increase in mean ultimate strain by 8.22 % and

mean ultimate stress by 8.31 % compared to ASTM D3039 and the same mean result for Young’s

modulus. In contrast to ASTM D3039, Method B&B also yielded lower dispersion for ultimate strain by

1.34 %, the same scatter for Young’s modulus and only slightly higher scatter by 4.04 % for ultimate

stress, which is 11.05 % smaller than the dispersion obtained by Method ‘1’ .

Finally, an Axial Method, for those specimens whose gauges flawed before ultimate failure, gave almost

identical results to the ASTM D3039 method, which suggests valid supplementary method for ASTM

standard and increases the dataset of reliable results.

Page 72: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 72 of 94

7. CHAPTER 7 – DISCUSSION

7.1. OVERALL

All analysis methods described in this research rely on the accuracy of the strain readings. It was also

stated by Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012, who identified premature failure of the strain gauges as a

significant problem associated with their experiments. Therefore, a careful preparation of coupons,

providing even and uniform specimens, was identified to be essential for gauges to record reliable

readings. Hence, special attention was given into experimental stage of the project by introducing

improvements to minimise imperfections, air entrainment and strain gauge’s sensitivity to varying

laboratory conditions, which was successfully achieved through the use of recommended type of tape,

15 mm brush, stainless steel spatula and a finger pressure as well as additional environmental strain

gauge. The result is that 59 % (17 out of 29 coupons with 3 strain gauges) of specimens had reliable

strain readings until the ultimate failure of the CFRP coupons with further 41 % suitable for proposed

method’s analysis, whereas Jakubowski and Rycerz obtained 18 % (2 out of 11 coupons with 3 strain

gauges) of coupons having up-to-failure strain readings.

Overall, the proposed Methods ‘1’ and B&B reflect better behaviour of CFRP coupons than ASTM

analysis, which underestimates their properties. They both yield higher values for tensile properties of

FRP with only slight variations in the dispersion of data that matches closer the predictions given by the

Rule of Mixtures. One of the reasons for that is the fibre alignment in the coupon and its inconsistency;

therefore its quality control is critical (ASTM D3039). The results for strains (Method ‘1’) as well as for

stresses (Method B&B) by providing better results validate the strain distribution assumption within

the sample, which is likely to be due to bending, orthotropic nature or imperfections of the material.

It is important to note that release of strain energy when the FRP fibres break is very violent, which can

potentially damage any of the strain gauges on the CFRP coupon’s surface before ultimate condition is

reached. This can be the case when the specimen is subject to large bending or the fibres’ distribution is

non-uniform. It has been observed that couple of samples had stress values dropping, when hearing the

‘cracking sound’ of fibres in the specimens. This phenomenon was observed as a “kink” in the stress-

strain plot due to sudden load drop. Secondly, large bending induced in the coupon due to poor

alignment in the grips or poor sample preparation can lead to premature failure as well as highly

inaccurate determination of the Young’s modulus (ASTM D3039, 2008)

FRP composites exhibit linear elastic stress-strain curve until brittle failure, however non-linearity of

couple strains was noticed in the upper strain regions, which could be due to the behaviour of two

constituent at the interface caused by the matrix reaching its strength and affecting the linear

stress-strain relationship of CFRP composite (Jakubowski, 2012).

The proposed Method ‘1’ by Jakubowski and Rycerz assumes that the maximum strain occurs at one of

the corners. Therefore, any cross-section’s imperfections, like rounded corners or non-rectangular

coupon’s shape could potentially influence (most likely underestimate) the ultimate strain and stress,

affecting the scatter of the data. This was minimised as much as possible through the use of laser cut

slits in the mould that match adopted dimensions of the CFRP coupons and through uniformly

spreading fibres with the use of brush or a spatula.

Moreover, many tested specimens had identified longitudinal splitting failure, which implies that main

assumption of plane section remain plane was not fully satisfied. It was identified that clusters of fibres

slipped past each other in the longitudinal direction, which led to discontinuities because of potentially

Page 73: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 73 of 94

weak interface. This could be due to poor saturation of FRP strips, gaps or air entrainment at the

interface leading to non-linear re-distribution of stresses.

FRP is highly complex in analysis as opposed to other structural materials like steel. Results scatter can

be due to lack of control over fibres alignment or inappropriate specimen machining (ASTM D3039,

2008). These are only a few out of many factors affecting the test data, which were identified in

Table 32. Therefore, its behaviour is varied and affected by many factors, hence close attention needs to

be paid during the whole tensile experimentation and any deviations need to be reported as they can

have a significant impact on the final results.

Preparation Stage Experimental Stage

Deformation of the FRP mat;

Misalignment of fibres in the coupon, causing distorted array;

Strain discontinuity at the interface due to poor bond between fibre and matrix;

Fibres in contact with each other;

Air entrainment in the specimen;

Discontinuity of fibres due to mechanical damage;

Poor saturation of FRP strips leading to inadequate bonding;

Localised fibres damage during surface preparation for strain gauges application;

Uneven coupons geometry in either direction;

Curing conditions;

Contamination by foreign matter;

o Poor surface preparation under strain gauges; o Single fibre breaking under strain gauge during

testing leading to its damage; o Coupon’s misalignment in the grips leading to

bending; o Gripping pressure causing possible premature

failures; o Tabs slippage; o The rate of testing; o Environment of testing;

Table 32 - Factors potentially affecting the Tensile Response

Each method introduced in this research has its own limitations, which are described in the following

Table 33:

Rule of Mixtures Method ‘1’ Method B&B

Decision on whether the failure is controlled by brittle failure of fibres or failure of matrix is based on the close inspection of failed CFRP coupons, but this decision determines the value of the ultimate strain used for the method.

Prone to strain readings accuracy because any of the strain readings being non-linear affect the strain components - axial strain and bending strains, showing also non-linear tendency.

It adopts analysis methods, hence limitations, for strain from Method ‘1’ and for Young’s modulus from ASTM D3039.

Linear best fit used to arrive at the ultimate strain and Young’s modulus results is purely based on the researcher’s own judgment, which is non-repetitive and prone to error.

Stress calculation uses bending strains, which can be only suitable for those specimens with full range of strain readings.

Table 33 - Limitations of Different Methods

7.2. PROJECT PLANNING REVIEW

In order to succeed with any project, it is necessary to identify the activities needed to be completed

and their logical sequence. This was accomplished through the help of MS Project software and the

outcomes are presented on the Gantt Charts in Fig. 1 & 2 in Appendix I3 for the interim report and the

final report respectively.

Page 74: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 74 of 94

The overall duration of the whole project is estimated to be 188 days. The biggest difference between

two planning sheets is the finalisation of the write-up, as well as changed order of the final activates.

Having deep understanding towards the end of the project and an accurate knowledge of the sequence

of the activities, critical activities (Appendix I1) and milestones (Appendix I2) confirmed to be valid and

will be met on time.

Overall, the project is a success according to the schedule with no major problems identified on the way.

7.3. FUTURE WORK

The coefficient of variance of FRP’s tensile properties through Method B&B did not significantly

decrease, even though the analysis was taking into account the bending effects. Therefore, the

dispersion could be also largely affected by the geometry, experimental preparation, testing etc. Hence,

the discussion of the results brought new light into the research and stated unanswered questions,

which could be tackled in the future study. The following list provides investigation ideas:

It is recommended to have a closer look into geometry improvements to enhance the

repeatability, the reliability and the efficiency of the tensile testing of composite materials as it

was discussed in Section 2.7.1. To begin with the recommended type of geometry would be

exposed-taper, as it has been identified to give the highest strength with low data scatter.

However, there should be identified way of obtaining such shape without cutting the fibres.

Further tensile tests could be carried out with coupons having rotationally self-aligning grips

rather than aluminium tabs, which would possibly highly minimise bending stresses in the

specimens, hence improve the scatter of the test data.

Further investigation into stress calculation improvements could be introduced for Method ‘1’

to account for bending within the samples that had any of the strain gauges failing before

ultimate condition.

Higher order analysis could be undertaken to validate the Bernoulli’s assumption of plane

sections remain plane for the proposed improved methods.

Different types of fibres or polymers could be investigated as well as experimentations could

look into fibre to matrix ratio to identify any correlations and their possible effects on the

methods.

The Rule of Mixtures is based on the assumption of uniform distribution of fibres within the

matrix. However, in the reality, under laboratory conditions the fibres become in contact with

each other as well as they can be randomly scattered in the matrix (Jones, 1999). To account for

these effects, the Halpin-Tsai equation could be taken into consideration rather than the Rule of

Mixtures.

Page 75: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 75 of 94

8. CHAPTER 8 – CONCLUSIONS This research was a thorough study of tensile testing of FRP like brittle materials that was concerned

with the analysis technique of three key parameters: the ultimate strain, the ultimate stress and Young’s

modulus. The report focused on providing deep understanding of the subject through a comprehensive

literature review, problem statement, clear aims and objectives that further led to experimentation and

full analysis with both existing (ASTM D3039, the Rule of Mixtures) and proposed (Method ‘1’, Method

B&B and Axial Method) methods, which was finalised by a statistical validation and comparison.

In respect to the experimental procedure, it is recommended that Powerlink Plus PVC Insulation Tape

19 mm x 33 m is used, while providing an even surface of epoxy on either surface of the FRP sample

after curing, in order to minimise the sticking effect to facilitate procedure of extraction from the mould

and making coupon’s preparation more reliable as well as repeatable. Secondly, application of each

layer of FRP strips should be completed with the help of 15 mm paint brush to spread the fibres in

longitudinal direction and a use of spatula together with the pressure of a finger to effectively remove

the air bubbles and excess of epoxy resin, ultimately producing uniform samples. Lastly, an introduction

of an additional strain gauge, attached to the data logger during testing is advised to improve the

accuracy of the strain readings and to account for laboratory varying conditions or heating from the

current, which supplies power to the data logger.

In relation to the analysis procedures, it is recommended that the proposed Method B&B is used for the

analysis of tensile parameters of FRP for those specimens providing full range of strain readings up to

the failure point. This method gave much closer estimates to the predictions obtained by the Rule of

Mixtures with increase in mean ultimate strain by 8.22 % and mean ultimate stress by 8.31 %

compared to ASTM D3039 and the same mean result for Young’s modulus. In contrast to the ASTM

D3039, Method B&B also yielded lower dispersion for the ultimate strain by 1.34 %, the same scatter

for the Young’s modulus and only slightly higher scatter by 4.04 % for the ultimate stress, which is

11.05 % smaller than dispersion obtained by Method ‘1’ .

Secondly, it is advised to use an Axial Method, for those specimens whose gauges flawed before ultimate

failure, because it gave almost identical results to the ASTM D3039 strain analysis, which suggests valid

supplementary method for ASTM standard. Moreover, the method increases the dataset of reliable

results, which in case of presented 29 coupons reduced the scatter by 1.05 % for the ultimate strain,

0.12 % for the Young’s modulus and 0.57 % for the ultimate stress.

Furthermore, careful reanalysis of Jakubowski and Rycerz 2012 BEng data concluded that the main

objective of truly comparing ASTM D3039 standard with proposed Methods for determining the tensile

properties of CFRP coupons was not achieved. However, they developed methods that can produce

more reliable and repeatable results of tensile parameters for CFRP composites and give closer results

to the predictions given by the Rule of Mixtures.

Overall, the experimental results revealed that the scatter of the tensile properties is still quite

significant by being subjected to both samples preparation and various analyses assumptions. It was

confirmed that the tensile parameters are not only affected by bending that Method B&B accounted for,

but also its orthotropic nature, imperfections and geometry sensitivity as well as non-uniform stress

distribution.

To conclude, the aim of the project, to improve the existing and most common industry standard of

tensile testing ASTMD3039/D3039M-08 of Fibre Reinforced Polymer by developing a reliable test

Page 76: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 76 of 94

method that captures more accurately FRP’s tensile parameters, was successfully achieved through

meeting all the objectives within the time constraints and producing much better estimates for FRP’s

ultimate strain, ultimate stress and Young’s modulus.

Page 77: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 77 of 94

REFERENCES

Ahmed, O. and Van Gemert, D. (1999) ‘Effect of Longitudinal Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic Laminates on Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams’, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement for Reinforced Concrete Structures, edited by C.W. Dolan, S.H. Rizkalla and A. Nanni, pp. 933-944.

ASTM D2290 (1987) Standard Test Method for Apparent Tensile Strength of Ring or Tabular plastics and Reinforced Plastics by Split Disk Method, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, USA, pp. 7-14.

ASTM D3039 (2008) Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia, USA.

Bunsell, A.R. and Renard, J. (2005) Fundamentals of Fibre Reinforced Composite Materials, IOP Publishing Ltd, pp. 2.

Burgoyne, C. (2009) Fibre reinforced polymers – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, FRPRCS-9 Sydney, Australia 2009, pp. 1-6.

Callister, W. D. Jr. (2007) Material Science and Engineering: An Introduction, Seventh Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.

Chen J.F., Li S.Q., Bisby L.A. and Ai J. (2011) FRP rupture strains in the split-disk test, Composites: Part B 42, pp. 962-972.

Conroy, A., Halliwell, S. and Reynolds, T. (2005) Composite Recycling in the Construction Industry. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 37(8), pp. 1216 – 1222.

CPS Construction Group (2012) Beam FRP wet lay-up [ONLINE]. Available at: http://garagerestoration.com/images/services_CarbonFiber_1.jpg [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Daniel, I.M., and Ishai O. (2006) Engineering Mechanics of Composite Materials, Oxford University Press, New York.

Davé, R. S., Loos A. C. (2000) Processing of Composites, 13.6.2 Test Methods, Carl Hanser Verlag, pp. 409 – 411.

Darby, J.J. (1999) 'Role of bonded fibre-reinforced composites in strengthening of structures', in Hollaway, L.C. and Leeming, M.B. (ed.) Strengthening of reinforced concrete structures Using externally-bonded FRP composites in structural and civil engineering, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.

Gdoutos, E.E., Marioli-Riga Z. P. (2003) Recent Advances in Composite Materials: In Honor of S.A. Paipetis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 67-68.

Henninger F, Hoffmann J, Friedrich K. (2002) Thermoplastic filament winding with online-impregnation. Part B. Experimental study of processing parameters, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp. 1684-1695 [ONLINE]. Available at: (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359835X02001367) [Accessed 28 January 2013].

Hollaway, L.C. (2009a) Chapter 50 - Polymer fibre composites: an introduction, ICE Manual of Construction Materials, pp. 599-601.

Hollaway, L.C. (2009b) Chapter 51 – Characterisation of fibre and matrix materials used in construction, ICE Manual of Construction Materials, Thomas Telford Limited., pp. 603-617.

Page 78: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 78 of 94

Hollaway, L.C. (2009c) Chapter 52 – Advanced polymer composites, ICE Manual of Construction Materials, Thomas Telford Limited, pp. 619-632.

Hollaway, L.C. (2009d) Chapter 58 – Application of fibre-reinforced polymer composite materials, ICE Manual of Construction Materials, Thomas Telford Limited, pp. 675-689.

Hollaway, L.C. and Leeming, M.B. (1999) Strengthening of reinforced concrete structures: Using externally-bonded FRP composites in structural and civil engineering, Chapter 2 – Review of materials and techniques for plate bonding, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.

Huang M., Jiang L., Liaw P. K., Brooks C. R, Seeley R., and Klarstrom D. L. (1998) Using Acoustic Emission in Fatigue and Fracture Materials Research, JOM vol. 50, no. 11 [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9811/Huang/Huang-9811.html [Accessed 19 January 2013].

Hylton, D.C. (2004) Understanding Plastics Testing, Chapter 3.2 - The Tensile Test (ASTM D638, ISO 527), pp. 19-21.

Jakubowski, J. (2012) “BEng Thesis: Tensile Testing of FRP-like Brittle Materials”, The University of Edinburgh.

Jain, R., and Lee, L. (2012) Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites for Infrastructure Applications: Focusing on Innovation, Technology Implementation and Sustainability, Springer.

Johnson M., Gudmundson P. (2000) Broad-band transient recording and characterization of acoustic emission events in composite laminates, Composites Science and Technology, 60, pp. 2803-2818.

Jones, M.R. (1999) Mechanics of Composite Materials, PA: Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia.

Ku, H., Wang, H., Pattarachaiyakoop, N., Trada, M. (2011) A Review on the Tensile Properties of Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites, Composites: Part B, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 856-873.

Lam, L., Teng, J.G. (2004) Ultimate condition of Fibre Reinforced Polymer-Confined Concrete, Journal of Composites for Construction, pp. 539-548.

Maheri, M. R. (1995) An improved method for testing unidirectional FRP composites in tension, Composite Structures, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 27-34.

Mazumdar, S. K. (2002) Composites Manufacturing: Materials, Product, and Process Engineering, CRC Press LLC, pp. 3-25.

Miller RK, McIntire P (1987) Non-destructive testing handbook, acoustic emission, vol. 5. 2nd edn. ASNT, Columbus.

Mosallam, A. S. (2002) Chapter 45 Composites in Construction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 1369-1422.

Munjal, A. K. (1989) Test Methods for Design Allowables for Fiber Composites, ASTM STP 1003, Chamis, C. C. and Refsinder, K. L., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 93-110.

Pham, H., Al-Mahaidi R. (2005) ‘Bond Characterisitcs of CFRP fabrics bonded to concrete memebrs using wet lay-up method’ in Seracino R. FRP Composites in Civil Engineering: CICE 2004, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 407-412.

Rajendraboopathy S., Sasikumar T., Usha K.M, and Vasudev E.S. (2008) Artificial neural network a tool for predicting failure strength of composite tensile specimens using acoustic emission technique, Int J Adv Manuf Technol 44:399–404.

Rycerz, J. (2012) “BEng Thesis: Tensile Testing of FRP-like Brittle Materials.” The University of Edinburgh.

Page 79: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 79 of 94

Sika 2013a SikaWrap® Hex-230C [ONLINE]. [Accessed 29 January 2013] Available at: http://usa.sika.com/en/solutions_products/02/02a013/02a013sa06.html

Sika 2013b Sikadur® 300 [ONLINE]. [Accessed 06 April 2013] Available at: http://www.epms-supplies.co.uk/Admin/Products/Documents/Sika/Data/Sikadur%20330%20PDS.pdf

Soden P. D., Hinton M. J. and Kaddoura A. S. (1998) A COMPARISON OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITIES OF CURRENT FAILURE THEORIES FOR COMPOSITE LAMINATES. Composite Science and technology, 58, pp. 1225-1254.

T&D Publications (2013) A guide to Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Trail Bridges [ONLINE], Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm06232824/page03.htm [Accessed 15 January 2013].

Teng, J. G., Chen, J. F., Smith, S. T., and Lam, L. (2002) FRP-Strengthening RC Structures, Wiley, Chichester.

Teng, J.G., Lam, L. Chan, W. and Wang, J. (2000) ‘Retrofitting of deficient RC cantilever slabs using GFRP strips’, Journal of Composite for Construction, pp. 75-84.

Tuakta, C. (2005) Use of fibre reinforced polymer composite in bridge structures, The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the MIT.

Tuttle M. E. (2004) Structural Analysis of Polymeric Composite Materials, New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 396.

University of Cambridge (2012) Derivation of the rule of mixtures and inverse rule of mixtures [ONLINE]. Available at: http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/bones/derivation_mixture_rules.php [Accessed 29 January 2013].

Yu, T., and Teng, J.G., Chen, J.F. (2009) Chapter 54 - Mechanical properties of FRP composites, ICE Manual of Construction Materials, Institution of Civil Engineers, pp. 641-647.

Ye L., Feng P., Yue Q. (2010) Advances in FRP Composites in Civil Engineering: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering (CICE 2010) Sep 27-29. 2010, Beijing, China, pp. 252-256.

Page 80: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 80 of 94

APPENDIX A - RISK ASSESSMENT

Page 81: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 81 of 94

APPENDIX B - REQUIRED RESOURCES

Page 82: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 82 of 94

APPENDIX C - SIKAWRAP HEX 230C PROPERTIES

Fibres’ Properties (Sika, 2013a)

APPENDIX D - SIKADUR 330 PROPERTIES

Matrix’s Properties (Sika, 2013b)

Page 83: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 83 of 94

APPENDIX E - FAILURE MODES FOR CFRP COUPONS

No. Sample Name

Average Thickness

[mm] CFRP Layers

Extension [mm]

Max. Load [kN]

Failure Type

Failure Area

Failure Location

1 1-5 2.45 5 8.30 27.04 S G M

2 1-8 2.40 5 6.42 30.71 L G M

3 1-9 2.59 5 5.27 30.57 S A T

4 2-2 2.88 5 4.34 28.28 S A T

5 2-3 2.67 5 6.15 33.03 S G M

6 2-4 2.86 5 4.82 28.21 L A T

7 2-5 2.85 5 5.20 31.68 L M V

8 2-7 2.93 5 5.59 30.40 L G M

9 2-8 2.88 5 5.63 31.50 S G M

10 2-9 2.79 5 5.80 32.04 L G M

11 2-10 2.93 5 5.41 31.29 M W T

12 3-1 2.81 5 6.43 31.13 S I T

13 3-2 2.41 5 5.16 29.53 S A V

14 3-3 2.36 5 6.02 32.44 L G M

15 3-4 2.50 5 7.11 30.34 S G M

16 3-5 2.58 5 7.47 31.01 S G M

17 3-8 2.51 5 7.38 30.11 S A T

18 3-10 2.64 5 5.93 33.72 X I T

19 4-2 2.52 5 5.97 29.74 L G M

20 4-4 2.55 5 6.27 29.06 L G M

21 4-5 2.63 5 6.13 27.40 L A T

22 4-6 2.42 5 5.94 28.92 L G M

23 4-7 2.43 5 7.29 32.83 X W T

24 4-8 2.60 5 5.93 28.38 S A T

25 4-9 2.52 5 6.85 33.54 S A T

26 4-10 2.36 5 5.90 28.60 S G M

27 5-2 2.62 5 6.26 33.33 S A T

28 5-3 2.68 5 5.84 31.41 S G M

29 5-4 2.60 5 6.85 31.07 S G M

30 5-5 2.63 5 5.79 30.73 S I T

31 5-6 2.56 5 6.13 28.51 S G M

32 5-7 2.63 5 5.60 28.95 L I T

33 5-8 2.48 5 5.17 27.95 L G M

34 5-10 2.48 5 5.63 29.25 X G M

Page 84: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 84 of 94

APPENDIX F - AUTHOR RESEARCH RESULTS

F1. RULE OF MIXTURES

Specimens in purple had one of the gauges failing before brittle failure of the CFRP coupon.

No. Specimen Avg. Thickness [mm] Vm Vf ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 1-8 2.40 0.75 0.25 1.50 61.57 923.56

2 1-9 2.59 0.77 0.23 1.50 57.32 859.75

3 2-2 2.88 0.79 0.21 1.50 52.11 781.71

4 2-4 2.86 0.79 0.21 1.50 52.39 785.88

5 2-5 2.85 0.79 0.21 1.50 52.56 788.40

6 2-7 2.93 0.79 0.21 1.50 51.19 767.92

7 2-8 2.88 0.79 0.21 1.50 52.11 781.71

8 2-9 2.79 0.78 0.22 1.50 53.53 803.02

9 2-10 2.93 0.79 0.21 1.50 51.19 767.92

10 3-1 2.81 0.78 0.22 1.50 53.19 797.79

11 3-2 2.41 0.75 0.25 1.50 61.41 921.19

12 3-4 2.50 0.76 0.24 1.50 59.29 889.32

13 3-5 2.58 0.76 0.24 1.50 57.52 862.81

14 3-10 2.64 0.77 0.23 1.50 56.32 844.76

15 4-2 2.52 0.76 0.24 1.50 58.85 882.80

16 4-4 2.55 0.76 0.24 1.50 58.21 873.21

17 4-5 2.63 0.77 0.23 1.50 56.65 849.69

18 4-7 2.43 0.75 0.25 1.50 60.87 913.00

19 4-8 2.60 0.77 0.23 1.50 57.25 858.73

20 4-9 2.52 0.76 0.24 1.50 58.93 883.88

21 4-10 2.36 0.74 0.26 1.50 62.62 939.31

22 5-2 2.62 0.77 0.23 1.50 56.78 851.68

23 5-3 2.68 0.77 0.23 1.50 55.67 835.08

24 5-4 2.60 0.77 0.23 1.50 57.11 856.70

25 5-5 2.63 0.77 0.23 1.50 56.58 848.70

26 5-6 2.56 0.76 0.24 1.50 58.07 871.11

27 5-7 2.63 0.77 0.23 1.50 56.58 848.70

28 5-8 2.48 0.76 0.24 1.50 59.73 895.95

29 5-10 2.48 0.75 0.25 1.50 59.80 897.06

Page 85: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 85 of 94

F2. ASTM D3039

Specimens in purple had one of the gauges failing before brittle failure of the CFRP coupon.

No. Specimen Avg. Thickness [mm] FMax [N] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 1-8 2.40 30710 1.24 66.12 853.06

2 1-9 2.59 30570 1.25 59.73 786.87

3 2-2 2.88 28280 1.16 54.92 654.63

4 2-4 2.86 28210 1.22 52.27 657.58

5 2-5 2.85 31680 1.31 65.41 741.05

6 2-7 2.93 30400 1.31 52.43 691.70

7 2-8 2.88 31500 1.17 60.96 729.17

8 2-9 2.79 32040 1.39 53.25 765.59

9 2-10 2.93 31290 1.28 53.56 711.95

10 3-1 2.81 31130 1.37 51.71 738.55

11 3-2 2.41 29530 1.29 61.27 816.87

12 3-4 2.50 30340 1.28 61.77 809.07

13 3-5 2.58 31010 1.35 56.09 801.29

14 3-10 2.64 33720 1.40 57.90 851.52

15 4-2 2.52 29740 1.32 57.35 786.77

16 4-4 2.55 29060 1.24 59.93 759.74

17 4-5 2.63 27400 1.29 51.35 694.55

18 4-7 2.43 32830 1.43 62.30 900.69

19 4-8 2.60 28380 1.14 62.75 727.69

20 4-9 2.52 33540 1.42 58.48 887.30

21 4-10 2.36 28600 1.22 63.52 807.91

22 5-2 2.62 33330 1.39 58.98 848.09

23 5-3 2.68 31410 1.36 55.90 781.34

24 5-4 2.60 31070 1.40 54.95 796.67

25 5-5 2.63 30730 1.29 58.50 778.96

26 5-6 2.56 28510 1.14 61.56 742.45

27 5-7 2.63 28950 1.25 55.86 733.84

28 5-8 2.48 27950 1.12 65.03 751.34

29 5-10 2.48 29250 1.28 56.22 786.29

Page 86: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 86 of 94

F3. METHOD ‘1’

Specimens in purple had one of the gauges failing before brittle failure of the CFRP coupon.

No. Specimen Avg. Thickness [mm] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 1-8 2.40 1.31 71.29 933.52

2 1-9 2.59 1.31 64.64 849.03

3 2-2 2.88 1.31 57.72 754.25

4 2-4 2.86 1.31 56.78 745.37

5 2-5 2.85 1.39 55.39 767.59

6 2-7 2.93 1.53 52.96 809.89

7 2-8 2.88 1.50 64.07 963.48

8 2-9 2.79 1.41 55.60 784.77

9 2-10 2.93 1.40 56.01 785.16

10 3-1 2.81 1.44 55.45 796.11

11 3-2 2.41 1.44 64.73 930.14

12 3-4 2.50 1.65 63.24 1041.13

13 3-5 2.58 1.48 61.81 912.99

14 3-10 2.64 1.42 61.94 881.92

15 4-2 2.52 1.51 61.41 925.18

16 4-4 2.55 1.60 62.92 1006.98

17 4-5 2.63 1.44 56.13 810.38

18 4-7 2.43 1.47 64.61 950.35

19 4-8 2.60 1.17 62.49 733.90

20 4-9 2.52 1.50 65.04 974.09

21 4-10 2.36 1.54 68.11 1050.55

22 5-2 2.62 1.54 63.21 972.99

23 5-3 2.68 1.46 59.16 863.00

24 5-4 2.60 1.57 58.33 913.32

25 5-5 2.63 1.51 60.82 917.53

26 5-6 2.56 1.22 63.35 773.86

27 5-7 2.63 1.34 59.49 799.20

28 5-8 2.48 1.37 66.01 903.23

29 5-10 2.48 1.47 65.92 970.31

Page 87: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 87 of 94

F4. METHOD ‘B&B’

No. Specimen ɛult. [%] E [GPa] By (%) Bz (%) σult. [MPa]

1 1-8 1.31 66.12 4.43 -5.20 935.17

2 1-9 1.31 59.73 4.58 -2.66 843.87

3 2-2 1.31 54.92 1.72 -11.21 739.27

4 2-4 1.31 52.27 7.54 3.07 727.33

5 2-5 1.39 65.41 -1.78 -4.81 789.88

6 2-9 1.41 53.25 -0.13 -0.53 770.65

7 2-10 1.40 53.56 3.50 -6.37 782.18

8 3-5 1.48 56.09 8.71 4.48 906.98

9 3-10 1.42 57.90 0.37 0.59 859.70

10 4-2 1.51 57.35 -1.13 11.55 886.54

11 4-8 1.17 62.75 -0.53 2.21 747.69

12 4-9 1.50 58.48 2.91 4.31 950.81

13 5-2 1.54 58.98 2.37 -9.01 944.61

14 5-4 1.57 54.95 1.83 10.55 895.30

15 5-6 1.22 61.56 -4.34 4.98 811.66

16 5-7 1.34 55.86 -2.23 4.59 783.90

17 5-8 1.37 65.03 -7.26 -0.50 809.63

APPENDIX G - JAKUBOWSKI & RYCERZ 2012 REANALYSED DATA RESULTS

G1. COUPONS WITH 3 STRAIN GAUGES

G1.1. RULE OF MIXTURE

No. Specimen Avg. Thickness [mm] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 3-3 1.99 1.50 84.5 1267

2 3-4 2.05 1.50 83.8 1257

3 3-6 1.99 1.50 83.2 1248

4 3-7 2.07 1.50 84.4 1265

5 4-4 2.04 1.50 84.0 1260

6 4-7 2.22 1.50 79.2 1188

7 4-8 2.26 1.50 77.2 1158

8 5-2 2.59 1.50 68.3 1025

9 11 2.34 1.50 74.1 1112

10 14 2.21 1.50 78.3 1175

11 17 2.63 1.50 66.3 995

Page 88: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 88 of 94

G1.2. ASTM D3039 + AXIAL METHOD

ASTM D3039 ASTM D3039 + Axial

Method

No. Specimen Avg. Thickness

[mm]

FMax

[N]

ɛult.

[%]

E

[GPa]

σult.

[MPa]

ɛult.

[%]

E

[GPa]

σult.

[MPa]

1 3-3 1.99 27400 1.17 73.64 919.46 1.17 73.64 919.46

2 3-4 2.05 29625

1.19 79.61 964.98

3 3-6 1.99 27638

1.20 63.94 927.43

4 3-7 2.07 27275 1.10 74.26 881.26 1.10 74.26 881.26

5 4-4 2.04 30875

1.35 72.52 1010.64

6 4-7 2.22 30763

1.20 73.00 923.80

7 4-8 2.26 27463

1.12 67.27 808.91

8 5-2 2.59 29913

1.22 61.32 770.94

9 11 2.34 28713

1.24 71.06 819.19

10 14 2.21 29913

1.28 68.53 903.70

11 17 2.63 26825

0.91 73.51 680.84

G1.3. METHOD ‘1’

No. Specimen Avg. thickness [mm] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 3-3 1.99 1.27 80.61 1023.54

2 3-4 2.05 1.36 83.46 1132.50

3 3-6 1.99 1.25 82.10 1028.56

4 3-7 2.07 1.24 83.19 1033.10

5 4-4 2.04 1.38 80.23 1109.74

6 4-7 2.22 1.33 76.93 1022.64

7 4-8 2.26 1.28 76.23 973.23

8 5-2 2.59 1.34 73.12 982.76

9 11 2.34 1.54 65.47 1007.26

10 14 2.21 1.35 87.31 1175.58

11 17 2.63 1.26 71.70 900.41

Page 89: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 89 of 94

G2. COUPONS WITH 4 STRAIN GAUGES

G2.1. RULE OF MIXTURE

No. Specimen Avg. thickness [mm] FMax [N] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 3-1 2.30 26188 1.50 75.9 1138

2 3-2 2.00 29075 1.50 86.5 1298

3 3-5 2.00 28363 1.50 86.0 1290

4 4-1 2.22 26375 1.50 78.6 1180

5 4-2 2.12 27088 1.50 82.0 1230

6 4-3 2.06 28575 1.50 84.2 1262

7 4-5 2.16 29213 1.50 80.7 1211

8 4-6 2.18 26800 1.50 79.8 1197

9 4-9 2.22 29650 1.50 78.5 1178

10 4-10 2.01 26150 1.50 86.1 1292

11 20 2.21 30225 1.50 79.0 1185

G2.2. ASTM D3039 + AXIAL METHOD

No. Specimen Avg. thickness [mm] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 3-1 2.30 1.11 64.5 758

2 3-2 2.00 1.20 73.0 967

3 3-5 2.00 1.18 73.0 937

4 4-1 2.22 1.16 63.3 793

5 4-2 2.12 1.17 67.9 851

6 4-3 2.06 1.37 63.0 905

7 4-5 2.16 1.24 68.5 903

8 4-6 2.18 1.13 68.3 819

9 4-9 2.22 1.23 69.0 890

10 4-10 2.01 1.07 77.4 865

11 20 2.21 1.42 61.2 902

Page 90: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 90 of 94

G2.3. METHOD ‘2’

No. Specimen Avg. thickness [mm] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 3-1 2.30 1.12 73.0 815

2 3-2 2.00 1.33 81.2 1078

3 3-5 2.00 1.15 85.0 978

4 4-1 2.22 1.24 71.5 884

5 4-2 2.12 1.41 77.8 1095

6 4-3 2.06 1.48 73.1 1079

7 4-5 2.16 1.42 75.6 1072

8 4-6 2.18 1.28 76.1 978

9 4-9 2.22 1.43 74.2 1059

10 4-10 2.01 1.18 82.0 970

11 20 2.21 1.54 64.7 994

G2.4. METHOD ‘3’

No. Specimen Avg. thickness [mm] ɛult. [%] E [GPa] σult. [MPa]

1 3-1 2.30 1.19 72.0 857

2 3-2 2.00 1.37 81.0 1106

3 3-5 2.00 1.41 83.4 1173

4 4-1 2.22 1.22 71.8 877

5 4-2 2.12 1.49 75.3 1124

6 4-3 2.06 1.48 74.3 1102

7 4-5 2.16 1.48 76.2 1124

8 4-6 2.18 1.31 76.5 1002

9 4-9 2.22 1.43 73.9 1056

10 4-10 2.01 1.20 81.5 978

11 20 2.21 1.39 64.8 900

Page 91: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 91 of 94

APPENDIX H - TEST DATA VS. PREDICTIONS FOR DATASET OF 29 COUPONS

Graph 1 - Ultimate Stress

Graph 2 – Young’s Modulus

Page 92: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 92 of 94

APPENDIX I - PROJECT PLANNING

I1. CRITICAL ACTIVITIES

Table 1 – Critical Activities

I2. MILESTONES

Table 2 - Milestones

Page 93: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 93 of 94

I3. GANTT CHARTS

Figure 1 – Interim Report

Page 94: Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials · Test Method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 2 of 94 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding Fibre

Test method for Tensile Strength of FRP like Brittle Materials Page 94 of 94

Figure 2 – Final Report