Journal Pre-proofs

Compression Behavior of Large-Scaled Cylindrical GFRP Chimney Liner Seg-

ments

Shi Cheng, Peng Feng, Xinmiao Meng, Zhiyuan Li, Jike Du

PII: S0263-8223(19)31846-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111543
Reference: COST 111543

To appear in: Composite Structures

Received Date: 18 May 2019

Revised Date: 24 September 2019
Accepted Date: 4 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Cheng, S., Feng, P., Meng, X., Li, Z., Du, J., Compression Behavior of Large-Scaled
Cylindrical GFRP Chimney Liner Segments, Composite Structures (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2019.111543

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover
page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will
undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing
this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 Compression Behavior of

Large-Scaled Cylindrical GFRP Chimney Liner Segments

Shi CHENGa,b, Peng FENGa,*, Xinmiao Mengc, Zhiyuan LIa, Jike DUd
a. Key Lab of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry,
Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China;
b. China Coal Technology and Engineering Group, Beijing 100013, China;
c. Department of Civil Engineering, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083,
China
d. Northwest Electric Power Design Institute Co., Ltd. Xi’an 710075, China.
* Corresponding author : Tel: +86 10 6277 2456; Email: fengpeng@tsinghua.edu.cn .

ABSTRACT:

As a pivotal anti-corrosion structure in the wet flue gas desulfurization system, the

huge filament-wound GFRP (glass fiber-reinforced polymer) tuber is often employed

as the chimney liner. However, the study on its mechanical properties is rare. Three

large-scale stiffened cylindrical GFRP chimney liner segments were tested under the

axial compression, including an integrated filament-wound chimney liner specimen

with two ring stiffeners, a specimen with two ring stiffeners cut into two segments and

joined by a hand-wound technique, and a specimen with an outside ring bracket. The

failure modes, load-displacement relationships, variation of strains during the loading

process, were acquired by test. The effects of ring stiffeners on the mechanical

behavior, service reliability of the joint between the two segments of the chimney

liner, and the reliability of the ring bracket were examined. Comparisons between

theoretically calculated stiffness and experimentally measured stiffness were

discussed. Finally, finite element analysis was performed to examine the failure

modes and axial load-displacement behavior of the investigated chimney liners.

Different ranges of diameter to thickness ratios and load eccentricity values were

selected to examine their effects on the mechanical behavior of chimney liners.

Finally, suggestions on the design of chimney liner structure were given.

Keywords: GFRP chimney liner; Buckling; Thin-walled structure; Filament-wound;

Joint; Bracket
1 Introduction

The requirements on the emission of clean exhaust gas from coal-fired power plants

(Fig. 1a) are steadily growing due to environmental protective regulations [1]. This

leads to the broader applications of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) [2-4]. FGD is a

process of removing sulfur monoxide (SO) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) produced in

boilers as the by-products of flue gases and combustion at power plants (Fig. 1a).

Through this process, the pollutants of the exhaust gas are removed before being

discharged into the atmosphere. However, the vapor after FGD will condense on the

wall, absorb acidic gases, and then form acid drops, which will decrease the durability

of RC chimney severely. Hence, the FGD technique has created a large demand for a

type of chimney liner material for concrete chimneys with good performance in

protecting the primary outer structure from chemicals, as well as the thermal and

corrosive environment [5]. To meet these demands, GFRP liners have been proposed

to alleviate the flue situations [6-8].

FRP is a kind of composite material made of polymer matrix reinforced with

fibers, where the polymer is usually epoxy, vinyl ester [9] or polyester thermosetting

plastic [10] and phenol-formaldehyde resin [11]. The fibers are usually glass [12-14],

carbon, aramid or basalt [15], among which the glass fiber is the most practical choice

for chimney liners due to the low cost and good performance. The GFRP chimney

liner often adopts the automatic filament-wound technique, and its wall construction

typically consists of three distinctly different layers. The outermost and innermost

layers are both corrosion barriers [16], which consists of one or more laminates of
chopped strand mat. These layers are nonstructural and are designed to protect the

sandwiched structural layer from damage caused by the corrosive flue gas. The

sandwiched structural layer consists several layers of GFRP laminates [17], which are

fabricated by continuous helically wound glass filaments. The desired mechanical

properties can be achieved by the winding angle of the filaments, the thickness and

number of laminates [18] , which meet the required strength to resist gravity, the

lateral loads due to flue gas, wind or earthquakes, and the thermal loads on the

chimney liner.

Generally, each segment of chimney liners is composed of cylindrical sections

with lengths of 6-18 m [17] which are joined together by placing one on top of the

other to construct a continuous conduit inside the primary chimney. The chimney is a

tall and slender structure in compression (above support) or tension (below support)

as shown in Fig. 1a, where the tensile behavior of chimney liner was investigated by

Cheng et al. [19]. The wall of the liner is composed of anti-corrosion, structural, and

protective layers, as shown in Fig. 1b. The structural layer provides sufficient strength

to stand up. The joint between the two segments of the chimney liners is

manufactured by a hand-wounded GFRP to form a circumferential strengthening band.

After the construction of the chimney liners, the installation on a reinforced concrete

primary chimney structure is a substantial procedure that requires the existence of ring

brackets on the GFRP chimney liners for the purpose of lateral support.

Many researchers have studied the dynamic behavior of cylindrical shells, the

flexural vibrations of ring-stiffened cylindrical shells [20], the effects of vibrations

induced by wind on the thin-walled cylindrical structures [21], and the free vibration

characteristics of cylindrical shells using wave propagation methods [22]. Researchers

have also focused on FRP chimney liners, including the prediction of ovalling

frequency for FRP chimney liners with circumferential stiffeners [23], the thermal

analysis of FRP chimney liners in uncontrolled fires [24] and the thermal blistering of

FRP chimney liners [17]. However, few studies have investigated the quasi-static

behavior of GFRP chimney liners, which is a significant and effective way to

understand and design the GFRP chimney liners.

In this paper, experiments on three scaled-down specimens of GFRP chimney

liners with the scaled-down ratio of 3:1 (practical to experimental size) subjected to

axial compression were carried out. This experimental investigation determined the

failure modes, axial load-axial displacement relationships, axial load-lateral

displacement responses, variations of axial strains along specimen height, and

variations of lateral strains during the loading process. The effects of ring stiffeners on

the mechanical behavior, service reliability of the joint between the two segments of

the chimney liner, and the reliability of the ring bracket were examined. In addition,

comparisons between theoretically calculated stiffness and experimentally measured

stiffness were discussed. Finally, FEM analysis was performed using the software of

MSC. Marc 2010 to examine the failure modes and axial load-displacement behavior

of the specimens. Different diameter to thickness ratios and load eccentricity values

were used to examine their effects on the mechanical behavior of chimney liners.

Based on the experimental investigation and FEM analysis, suggestions on the design
of chimney liner structure were given.

2 Experimental Investigation

2.1 Material Properties

The filament-wound GFRP specimens were prefabricated using an automated

filament-winding technique with a thickness of 5.6 mm composed of Derakane epoxy

vinyl ester resin [25] and ECR glass fibers. In total, nine layers with different fiber

densities and resin percentages were employed, including the surfacing mat for

protection, hoop winding roving, chopped strand mat, and unidirectional cloth. The

stacking sequence and details of the specimens are listed in Table 1. The direction of

fiber is 0° in the hoop direction and 90° in the axial direction. It is noted that most

fibers were aligned close to the circumferential direction, which is perpendicular to

the axial compressive direction. According to the standard of fiber-reinforced plastics

composites-determination of compressive properties [26], 12 test specimens for the

material properties were cut from the plates which had the same layers as the chimney

liner specimens, as shown in Fig. 2. These test specimens were 53 mm in the test

direction (longitudinal), 13 mm thick, and 38 mm wide. Strains were measured by two

strain gauges centered on each specimen in the compressive direction. The averaged

results show the values of 12.3 GPa for the compressive elastic modulus, 146.2 MPa

for the compressive ultimate compressive stress, and 0.012 for the corresponding

ultimate strain. Additionally, to understand the material properties of FRP better, the

material property tests of fiber reinforced composites subjected to tension, bending

and shear were all conducted, according to the relative standards of GB/T 1447-2005

for tension [27], GB/T 1449-2005 for bending [28] and GB/T 1450.1-2005 for shear

[29], respectively. All the results are listed in Table 2.

2.2 Specimens

Due to limitations of the experimental instruments, a total of 3 cylindrical GFRP

chimney liner specimens were fabricated with the scaled-down ratio of 3:1 (practical

to experimental size): YT-1, YT-2 and YT-3 (Figs. 3 a, b and c). The diameter and

wall-thickness of the GFRP chimney liners were both scaled down by a 3:1 ratio to

ensure the ratio of the diameter to wall thickness was a constant value. All specimens

had the same height of 3000 mm, diameter of 2800 mm, and thickness of 5.6 mm and

the section of longitudinal direction is shown in Fig. 3d.

As shown in Figs. 3a, b and c, three specimens were designed according to

their applied conditions in a chimney liner, including the regular segment of YT-1,

connecting segment of YT-2, and supporting segment of YT-3. Specimens shown in

Fig. 3 are the original filament-wounded specimens, which were not stiffened and

thus required further manufacturing. For the purpose of avoiding premature buckling,

two stiffeners were installed at the distance of one third and two thirds from top tip of

the specimen on specimen YT-1 and YT-2, which adopted the technique of foaming

polyurethane, as shown in Figs. 4a, b and c.

The specimen YT-1 was designed to evaluate the load-bearing capacity and

ductility of a regular segment, which is an integrated cylindrical GFRP chimney liner,

as shown in Fig. 4a. The specimen YT-2 was designed to estimate the safety and

serviceability of the connecting measure, which is commonly used to connect

different segments of a GFRP chimney liner due to the length limitation for a single

segment. The stiffened specimen YT-2 was manufactured by cutting the specimen

into two parts at the middle cross-section, then joining by the hand-wound GFRP to

form a ring band with a width of 100 mm and a thickness of 12 mm as the inside and

outside connection layers, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3d; this served as the final

experimental specimen, YT-2 (Fig. 4b). The specimen YT-3 (Fig. 4c) was designed to

validate the load-bearing capacity of the supporting measure, which was fabricated

with a ring bracket at the middle height of the specimen along the longitudinal

direction, as shown in Fig. 3d.

2.3 Set-up and Instrumentation

For the specimens YT-1 and YT-2, five longitudinal strain gauges with a length of 10

mm were attached towards the east, north, west and southward surfaces of the

specimen, and five transversal strain gauges with a length of 10 mm were installed

towards the northeast, northwest, southwest and southeastward surfaces of the

specimen, as shown in Fig. 5. Furthermore, five axial displacement transducers (DTs)

were installed on the east side at distances of 410, 1245, 1500, 1755 and 2590 mm

from the bottom of specimens YT-1 (Fig. 6a) and YT-2 (Fig. 6b). Eight lateral DTs

were installed at a distance of 1500 mm from the bottom of the specimens and

towards the east, north, west, south, northeast, northwest, southwest and
southeastward surfaces of YT-1 (Fig. 7a) and YT-2 (Fig. 7b). For specimen YT-3, the

strain gauges were attached at distances of 1500, 1755 and 2590 mm from the bottom

of the specimen and correspond to the same locations as for specimens YT-1 and

YT-2. The axial DTs were installed on the eastward surface of the specimen and at

distances of 2100 and 2550 mm (Fig. 6c). Six additional axial DTs were installed

around the middle of the specimen with a spacing of one-sixth of the circumferential

perimeter (Fig. 6d). The measurement ranges of all DTs, except DT3 to DT8 of

specimen YT-3 (Fig. 6d) were from the locations of DTs installed on the bottom of

the brackets. The measurement ranges of DT3 to DT8 (Fig. 6d) of specimen YT-3

were from the locations of DTs installed on the top of the specimen.

For convenient loading on the specimen, a total weight of 7,000 kg of the steel

cap and base were manufactured according to the size of the specimens. The steel cap

was made of three straight steel I-beams and one ring steel I-beam, as shown in Fig.

8a, and the top 300 mm region was fixed with an inner ring steel clamp (Fig. 8b) and

an outer ring steel clamp (Fig. 8c) which were connected by 24 bolts with a radius of

22 mm. The steel base was used to fix the specimen along with an inner ring steel

clamp (Fig. 8b) and an outer ring steel clamp (Fig. 8c) that were connected by 24

bolts with a radius of 22 mm. The steel base was fixed to the floor with mortar. The

bottoms of specimens YT-1 and YT-2 were placed on the floor. In contrast, the

bottom of specimen YT-3 was suspended 50 mm above the floor. YT-3 was supported

half way up the specimen by a bracket in order to test the service reliability of the ring

bracket.
 The axial compressive experiments for the three GFRP chimney liner

specimens were simultaneously carried out using two 2,500 kN Universal Loading

Machines. The two machines were loaded at any two locations along the same straight

steel I-beam as shown in Fig. 8d, with a manually controlled displacement rate of 1

mm/min.

3 Experimental Results

The conventional signs of axial compressive displacement as well as strain and lateral

inward deformation are symbolized by the plus sign (+), whereas the axial tensile

displacement, and strain and lateral outward deformation are denoted by the minus

sign (-). The top 25% region, the middle region between the two stiffeners, and the

lower 25% region are conventionalized as part I, part II and part III, respectively.

3.1 Experimental Observation and Failure Modes

In general, three chimney liner specimens showed similar mechanical behavior when

subjected to axial compression, which failed due to overall buckling that developed

from local buckling. However, the major locations of buckling were different, which

were induced due to the existence of a joint band for YT-2 and the existence of a

bracket for YT-3.

Initially, the loading of axial compression was carried out on specimen YT-1.

The specimen did not show any clear lateral deformations on the surface until the load

reached 70% of the maximum load-bearing capacity. At this loading level, inward
local buckling was observed on the northeastward surface in the center of the

specimen (part II). During the loading process, lateral deformation of local buckling

developed, and outward local buckling was observed in addition to the inward local

buckling. This local buckling was mainly produced in the center of the specimen (part

II), particularly along the height direction and on the northwest, east and southward

surfaces, until the local buckling developed to a continuous sine-wave shape on the

circumferential surface in the center of the specimen (part II) (Fig. 7a). In addition,

significant local buckling was observed on the surface of the top 25% region (part I)

and lower 25% region (part III) (Fig. 7a). The loading process of the YT-1 specimen

was manually terminated when the load-bearing capacity was reduced to 75% of the

maximum load-bearing capacity during the period after maximum load. Subsequently,

during the unloading process, the axial and lateral deformations due to axial loading

gradually decreased and the specimen almost regained its original state, even the

blenching traces due to wrinkles could be visually recognized (Fig. 7b). This

demonstrated that the specimens were restored to their original shape without residual

deformation after unloading and the buckling of FRP is mainly elastic buckling.. The

failure mode of specimen YT-2 was similar to YT-1; however, the location of

buckling was concentrated on the top 25% region of the specimen (part I) (Figs. 7c

and d). This deformation resulted from the strengthening of the joint in the middle

region of the specimen. Additionally, specimen YT-3, with a bracket at its center,

displayed a similar behavior to specimens YT-1 and YT-2, developing buckling in the

same region (part I) (Figs. 7e and f) as YT-2. The overall failure mode of YT-3 was
buckling, rather than the strength failure of the ring bracket; this indicates that the

strength-bearing capacity of the bracket can meet the reliable service requirements.

3.2 Axial Load-Axial Displacement Relationships

Axial load-axial displacement relationships are shown in Figs. 6a, b, c and d for

specimens YT-1, YT-2 and YT-3. Each of the axial displacements was obtained from

one corresponding displacement transducer (DT).

Fig. 6a shows five axial load-axial displacement relationships for YT-1, where

the positive and negative displacements signify the compressive and tensile

deformations, respectively. As shown in Fig. 6a, DT1, DT2, DT3 and DT4 were

installed along the same longitudinal line and at distances of 410, 1245, 1500, and

1755 mm from the top of the specimen respectively, through which similar axial

load-axial displacement responses were measured. These four curves started from an

elastic period and reached a peak load of 662.3 kN and followed by a softening

period. Until the load-bearing capacity decreased to 75% of the maximum

load-bearing capacity, loading was manually terminated. The specimen entered the

unloading period and terminated when the load-bearing capacity reached 0 kN.

According to the observations, local buckling started to occur when the load-bearing

capacity reached around 70% of the maximum load-bearing capacity. Buckling then

developed and eventually formed a shape similar to a sinewave in the middle of the

specimen (Fig. 9a). Moreover, both the maximum axial displacement and the slope of

the elastic period obtained from each axial load-axial displacement curve decreased
with an increase in distance from the top of the specimen. In addition, the four curves

show that the corresponding measured regions were in a state of compression.

However, DT5, which was installed below DT4 at a distance of 2590 mm from the

top of the specimen, measured a state of tensile deformation. This curve had an

ascending bi-linear shape, which indicated slight tensile displacement occurred (from

DT5) before the axial load reached 70% of the maximum load-bearing capacity, and a

significant increase in the development of axial displacement. This met the visual

observations of the specimen under axial compression loading. From 70% of its

maximum load-bearing capacity, the development of inward buckling was observed at

the region of part II (Fig. 9a) and the bottom of the specimen.

Fig. 6b illustrates five axial load-axial displacement relationships of YT-2,

which were measured using five displacement transducers. The transducers were

installed along the same longitudinal line, and DT1 to DT5 were distributed at 410,

1245, 1500, 1755 and 2590 mm from the top of the specimen, respectively. All curves

except the curve measured by DT1 show a similar shape developed from an elastic

period to a plateau period; the peak load was reached at 710.3 kN. Subsequently, an

unloading period below the loading curve occurred. The curve measured by DT1

indicated an elastic period under compression occurred before reaching 65% of its

maximum load-bearing capacity. The axial strain had a reverse of 200  during the

loading process. This reverse resulted from the displacements measured by DT2 to

DT5 and had a significant increase from the point corresponding to 65% of its

maximum load-bearing capacity. During the loading process, when the load-bearing
capacity reached 78% of its maximum of capacity, the local buckling was first

observed at the top 25% region (part I) (Fig. 9d) and then relative local buckling was

observed from the lower 25% region (part III). With further loading, the local

buckling developed and formed a circumferential shaped buckling similar to a

sinewave, corresponding to the plateau period. The end of the plateau period was the

peak load-bearing capacity. Finally, the unloading process was carried out until the

load reached 0 and the residual deformation could be obtained to a certain degree. It is

worth noting that the residual displacements of DT2 to DT5 sustained low levels

compared to that of DT1.

The axial load-axial displacement relationships of YT-3 are plotted in Figs. 6c

and d. Fig. 6c shows the axial load-axial displacement curves measured by the two

DTs installed along the same longitudinal line. It illustrates both the curves following

a same path from 0 to 400 kN (60% of the maximum load-bearing capacity), entering

a slight deviation. The curve measured by DT1 had a larger increase than that of DT2.

This indicates that the axial deformation measured by DT1 had a 4 mm larger

maximum axial displacement than that of DT2. Additionally, Fig. 6d illustrates the

axial load-axial displacement curves measured by the six axial DTs installed around

the specimen at the top 25% region (part I) with a spacing of one-sixth of the

circumferential perimeter. The measurement ranges of these six DTs were from the

top of the specimen to the top of the bracket. Therefore, the axial displacements

towards the specimen (including east, northeast, north, northwest, west, southwest,

south and southeastward) could be obtained, which showed that all curves followed a
similar shape. Specifically, the curves followed the elastic axial load-displacement

relationships until 400 kN (60% of the maximum load-bearing capacity) and then the

curves branched out. With further loading, the load reached a maximum load-bearing

capacity of 662.1 kN and then entered the softening period until 522 kN (78% of the

maximum load-bearing capacity). Subsequently, it entered the unloading process until

the axial load reached 0 kN, in which the axial compressive deformation of the

specimen was almost reversed to the original state. In general, the maximum axial

displacements measured by DT3, DT4, DT5, DT6, DT7 and DT8 decreased, and the

corresponding initial compressive stiffness increased.

3.3 Axial Load-Lateral Displacement Relationships

The axial load-lateral displacement relationships of YT-1 and YT-2 are plotted in

Figs. 7a and b, respectively. Each figure shows eight curves measured by eight DTs as

well as the locations of all DTs installed. Moreover, each figure is divided into two

parts, including the right part illustrating the inward buckling and the left part

indicating the outward buckling. The curves in each figure have a similar shape.

When loading started, the curves followed an elastic path until they reached the

maximum load-bearing capacity. During this period, a lower level of lateral

displacements was received. A softening period followed and occurred until 75% of

the maximum load-bearing capacity was obtained; this was followed by the unloading

process. The initial period of unloading had a lower lateral deformation before the

load decreased to 200 to 300 kN, then the lateral deformation started to reverse to the
original state before loading. During the unloading process, the decrease in lateral

displacement suddenly lessened and the unloading stiffness increased significantly,

which resulted from most of the lateral deformations concentrated on part II nearly

regaining their original condition. However, this stiffness was lower than the

corresponding loading stiffness, which resulted from cumulative damage. Fig. 7b

shows similar curves to Fig. 7a, which developed the elastic periods until the axial

load-bearing capacity decreased gradually to 65% of the maximum load-bearing

capacity. The unloading process followed and occurred until the load reached 0 kN.

All curves showed residual deformation to a certain degree, especially DT11 and

DT12, which measured significant lateral displacements in the inward buckling area.

3.4 Variation of Axial Strain

Figs. 10a, b, c and d show the distance from the bottom of specimen YT-1 against

axial strain towards the specimen including east, north, west and southward surfaces,

respectively. According to the arrangements of the axial strain gauges attached on the

surface of YT-1, each curve was determined by five points corresponding to the axial

strains measured by five axial strain gauges at certain stress levels, which were

attached along the same longitudinal line and at distances of 410, 1245, 1500, 1755

and 2590 mm from the bottom of the specimen. All curves show a common

conclusion that the strain gauges attached at the distances of 1245 and 1755 mm

obtained larger maximum strains (2500 to 7500  respectively) compared to other

heights. The strains measured at 2590 mm show a significantly lower level. Compared
to the visual observations, hardly any deformations were observed. The strains

measured at 1500 mm indicate a much lower value than the strains measured by the

adjacent strain gauges. This is due to the two adjacent gauges corresponding to the

locations of maximum lateral deformation. The strain gauge at 1500 mm was in a

transition region between the two inward buckling regions. Therefore, much lower

axial strain values were obtained. Particularly, the strain values measured at 410 mm

were negative values, as shown in Fig. 10a, which resulted due to the tension in this

part of the specimen.

Similarly, Figs. 10e, f, g and h show the distance from the bottom of YT-2

against axial strain towards the specimen including east, north, west and southward

surfaces, respectively. The arrangement of the axial strain gauges was the same as

YT-1. From the curves shown in Figs. 10e, f, g and h, it can be concluded that the

maximum strain values measured from the strain gauges attached at 2590 mm (1800

to 7000 ) were larger than the strains obtained from the other heights. The

secondary large strain values were obtained from the strain gauges attached at 410

mm from the bottom. The minimum strain values were obtained from the middle of

YT-2, corresponding to 1245, 1500 and 1755 mm from the bottom of the specimen.

This resulted due to the existence of the joint. Therefore, the effects of strengthening

decreased the axial strain, especially at the distance of 1500 mm, where a significantly

lower level of axial strain was obtained. The strain values measured at 410 mm were

negative values (as shown in Fig. 10f), which resulted due to the tension in this part of

specimen.
 In Figs. 10i, j, k and l, the distance from the bottom tip-axial strain relationships

of YT-3 towards the specimen including east, north, west and southward surfaces,

respectively, are shown. The arrangement of axial strain gauges at 1500, 1755 and

2590 mm were the same as YT-1 and YT-2. The results show that the values obtained

from the strain gauge attached at 1755 mm were the largest. Moreover, this maximum

axial strain value at 1755 mm was within the range of 8000 to 11000  on the north,

west and southward surfaces. However, the strain values at 1755 mm on the eastward

surface were negative, which indicates the tension in this part of the specimen. The

strain measured at 2590 mm was the second largest compared to the strain observed

elsewhere. The strain values measured at 1500 mm were almost close to 0 , as they

corresponded to the location of the bracket.

3.5 Variation of Lateral Strain

Radar graphs were adopted (Figs. 11) to express the variation of lateral strain at a

certain section. Each figure presents six curves, which represent the corresponding

strains to six strength levels, including 25, 50, 75 and 100% of the maximum axial

stress during the strength increasing period, and 80% of the maximum axial stress

during the strength decreasing period, as well as the ultimate strength. The ultimate

strength corresponds to the maximum lateral strain. The radar graph has four radiative

axes, which represent the lateral strain values towards the specimen, including the

northeast, northwest, southwest and southeast-facing surfaces. Each axis ranges from

negative strain values to positive values, which correspond to the outward and inward
buckling from visual observations.

Figs. 11a, b, c, d and e illustrate the variation of lateral strain of YT-1 at five

sections including 410, 1245, 1500, 1755 and 2590 mm from the top of the specimen,

respectively. In general, the maximum lateral strain was measured at 1245, 1500 and

1755 mm, which all correspond to the middle region (part II) of the specimen. The

maximum positive lateral strain of these three sections was within the range of 5900

to 6100  which was measured from the southwestward surface of the specimen.

The maximum negative lateral strain of these three sections was within the range of

-140 to -4600  and were obtained from the northeastward surface of the specimen.

Thus, the significant inward buckling mainly occurred on the southeast, southwest and

northwestward surfaces in the center (part II) of YT-1. The lower part (part III) of the

specimen are in tensile state, for that the strain values measured from the southeast,

southwest and northwestward surfaces were negative values (Fig. 11e). In addition,

significant lower strain values were obtained at 410 mm, which was in accord with the

visual observations. Moreover, Fig. 11a shows the inward buckling on the southeast

and northwestward surfaces, but the buckling is relatively lower than that of other

locations.

Figs. 11f, g, h, i and j show the variation of lateral strain of YT-2. The

arrangement of the lateral strain gauges was the same as specimen YT-1. Generally,

the maximum lateral strain was concentrated at the heights of 410 mm and 2590 mm,

which correspond to the top 25% region (part I) and lower 25% region (part III). The

maximum positive lateral strain was measured from the southeastward surface; the
values were within the range of 2500 to 4000  The strain was measured from the

southwest and northeastward surfaces at 410 mm and 2590 mm, respectively, and

show positive values; however, the values are relatively lower than that of the

southeastward surface. By contrast, the strains obtained from the northwestward

surface at 410 mm and 2590 mm mainly show negative values, which occurred due to

the outward buckling at these locations. Apart from this, the strains measured at 1245,

1500 and 1755 mm show significantly lower values, which are consistent with the

visual observations that little lateral deformation was observed. Figs. 11 also shows a

trend of inward buckling on the southwest and northeastward surfaces; the maximum

lateral strain was below 40  

The variation of lateral strain obtained from YT-3 is shown in Figs. 11k, m and

n; the arrangement was the same as described previously. From Fig. 11k, it can be

seen that the maximum lateral strain was 3800  on the northwestward surface and

the negative strain values on southwest and northeastward surfaces decreased with an

increase in load. The maximum lateral strain on the southeast and northeastward

surfaces were within the range of 4000 to 5000  at 1245 mm, which is in agreement

with visual observations of significant inward buckling. The strains observed at 1500

mm height show significantly lower values, all of which were below 150  and result

from the bracket.

4 Analysis and Discussion

4.1 Stiffness
The initial compressive stiffness of GFRP chimney liners is a significant factor

affecting the mechanical behavior and the resistant ability of elastic deformation. The

comparisons of initial compressive stiffness among the three cylindrical GFRP

chimney liner specimens reflect the effects of different fabrications on the initial

compressive stiffness. The measured stiffness from the experiments can be obtained

as the tangent value at the point when the axial load reached 10% of the maximum

load. The theoretically calculated stiffness can be achieved by the product of the

sectional area of the specimen and the compressive modulus obtained from the

material property test, as previously discussed.

Figs. 12 shows the comparisons between the theoretical and experimental

results, where the theoretical results show the lowest stiffness value and a 10%

increase in YT-3, a 63% increase in YT-1, and a 166% increase in YT-2 compared

with the stiffness of the theoretical values. Results show that the stiffness of YT-3 is

the closest to the theoretical value, which resulted from YT-3 without stiffeners. In

addition, the 10% increase is due to the existence of the ring bracket. The stiffness

values of YT-2 and YT-3 illustrate a significant increase, which resulted from the

existence of the stiffeners and the joint band.

4.2 Comparisons

The comparison between YT-1 and YT-2 reflects the effects of the joint on the

mechanical behavior of GFRP chimney liners. According to the failure modes, it

shows that the locations of buckling were congregated mainly in the middle region

(part II) of YT-1. However, the existence of a joint caused the locations of buckling to
congregate in the top 25% region (part I). Therefore, the locations of buckling were

transferred, and the stiffness of the specimen increased due to the existence of the

joint. The maximum strength was also improved; the maximum strengths of YT-1 and

YT-2 were 13.5 MPa and 14.4 MPa, respectively, where a 7% strength increase was

achieved. Fig. 6a illustrates the strength of YT-1 after maximum strength enters a

softening period. The strength of YT-2 after the maximum strength slightly increased

is illustrated in Fig. 6b. Therefore, the existence of a ring joint is an effective method

to construct a continuous chimney liner. A comparison between YT-1 and YT-3

illustrates the effects of a ring bracket on the mechanical behaviour of GFRP chimney

liners. The maximum strengths of YT-1 and YT-3 were both 13.5 MPa, which

illustrates that the existence of ring bracket barely affects the axial strength. The

effects of a ring joint on axial strength and the failure mode should be considered in

future design [30]. However, the effects of a bracket on axial strength can be ignored.

4.3 Finite Element Modelling

To examine the reliability of the experimental investigation, a finite element method

was used to model the mechanical behaviors of specimens using MSC software, Marc

2010. Three models were established, including models of YT-1, YT-2 and YT-3, to

simulate the mechanical behaviors of an integrated specimen, a specimen with a joint

band at a height of 100 mm, and a specimen with a ring bracket; these models

correspond to the specimens of YT-1, YT-2 and YT-3 in the experimental

investigation, respectively.
 In the modelling process, the size of the model was the same as the

experimental specimen with a height of 3000 mm and a diameter of 2800 mm.

Furthermore, two stiffeners were modelled at a distance of one-third and two-thirds

from the top of the specimen. There were 1500 elements for the FRP chimney liner

tube and 480 elements for the outer stiffeners. The elements of these two different

materials shared the same nodes in the interface based on the full bond assumption.

The 4-node quadrilateral thick shell element (#75 shell) was used to simulate the FRP

tube and the 8-node hexahedral solid element (#7 solid) was used to simulate the

stiffeners. The material property of the model was determined according to the

experimental material property results and the values provided by the manufacturer

based on the fiber percentage.

The boundary conditions for specimens YT-1 (Fig. 13a) and YT-2 (Fig. 13b)

included: (1) all nodes on the bottom section were fixed on all degrees of freedom; (2)

all nodes on the top section were fixed on all degrees of freedom, except for the

displacement in the z-axis (longitudinal direction). The boundary conditions for

specimen YT-3 (Fig. 13c) included: (1) all nodes in the lower half-height region of the

specimen were fixed on all degrees of freedom; (2) the nodes on the top section were

fixed on all degrees of freedom, except for the displacement in the z-axis (longitudinal

direction). In addition, all specimens were loaded using a stepwise vertical

displacement on one additional top node above the specimen, which is linked and tied

to all the nodes at the top section of the specimen, as shown in Figs. 13a, b and c. The

progressive failure analysis option was initiated with a residual stiffness coefficient of
0.01 to achieve a gradual degradation of the elastic modulus during the failure

process. The iteration process used the Newton-Raphson method.

In Figs. 14a, b, c and d, the failure modes of simulated specimens, which agree

well with the experimental specimens (Fig. 9a, b and c), are illustrated. All specimens

subjected to axial compression failed due to overall buckling, which developed from

local buckling. However, the major locations of buckling were different, which were

induced due to the existence of a joint for YT-2 and the bracket for YT-3. Figs. 14a

and b show the first and second mode of eigenvalue analysis for specimen YT-1,

which present the alternative inward and outward buckling between the two stiffeners

under different models. Fig. 14c indicates the first mode of eigenvalue analysis of

YT-2, which shows the alternative inward and outward buckling concentrated on the

upper and lower segments of the specimen due to the strengthening effects by the

joint band. Fig. 14d illustrates the first mode of eigenvalue analysis of YT-3, which

shows the inward buckling within the upper region of the specimen due to the

strengthening effects inducing by the ring bracket.

Figs. 15a, b and c show the comparisons of axial load-displacement

relationships between the simulated and experimental results, which agree well in

terms of the initial stiffness, peak load-bearing capacity and softening stiffness.

For further investigation on the effects of the ratio of diameter to thickness (D/t)

of FRP tubes on the mechanical behavior, a larger range of ratios (D/t) were chosen

and analysed, including 100, 200, 300, 400, 600, 700, 800, 900 and 1000, which

correspond to the FRP thicknesses of 28.0, 14.0, 9.3, 7.0, 4.7, 4.0, 3.5, 3.1 and 2.8 mm,
respectively. Results show that the failure modes were different for the specimens

with thickness lower than 3.5 mm (Fig. 16a) and higher than 14.0 mm (Fig. 16a),

which illustrates the inward and outward buckling of the entire surface in the

middle-height region of the specimen, rather than the inward-outward alternate

buckling as shown in the experimental tests (Figs. 9a and 14a). The axial

stress-displacement curves are plotted in Fig. 17, which show all specimens have the

same initial stiffness and increasing level of peak stress and corresponding strain with

increases in FRP thickness. To examine the relationship of peak stress-FRP thickness,

results were plotted in Fig. 18, which shows an approximately linear relationship.

The load eccentricity is a significant parameter for such structures. Therefore, a

large range of load eccentricity values were chosen to examine the effects of

load-eccentricity on the mechanical behavior, including the ratios of load eccentricity

to radius of specimen sections at 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8, which correspond to load

eccentricities of 140, 280, 560, 840 and 1120 mm, respectively. The load eccentricity

was simulated by covering a rigid plate on top of the simulated specimen, as shown in

Figs. 19 a and b, and the load point was carried out at the desired node on the rigid

plate. From Fig. 20, results show the significant effects of load eccentricity on the

axial stress, which presents an approximately negative relationship. Therefore, it is

advised that high quality manufacturing of FRP tubes as well as the exact alignment

in engineering applications are required to achieve the objective design load-bearing

capacity.
5 Conclusions

This paper studied the mechanical behavior of GFRP chimney liners subjected to

axial compression with three scaled-down specimens. The failure modes, axial

load-axial displacement relationships, axial load-lateral displacement responses,

variation of axial strain along the specimen height, and the variation of lateral strain

during the loading process, were determined. Additionally, the effects of ring

stiffeners on the mechanical behavior, service reliability of a joint between two

segments of chimney liners, and reliability of a ring bracket, as well as comparisons

between theoretically calculated stiffness and experimentally measured stiffness, were

discussed. Finally, FEM analysis was performed using MSC software, Marc 2010, to

examine the failure modes and strength of the specimens. The method of design was

also examined. The following conclusions were drawn:

(1) The three chimney liner specimens showed similar mechanical behavior

when subjected to axial compression, which failed due to overall buckling that

developed from local buckling. The existence of the joint on specimen YT-2 between

two chimney liner parts was able to support enough axial strength and generate better

stiffness compared to specimen YT-1. The good service reliability of the ring bracket

was also examined.

(2) According to the discussion on variation of lateral strain, the lateral

deformation consisted of alternate inward and outward buckling, which corresponds

to the visual observations. Results indicate that the axial deformation congregated at

regions with lower stiffness, such as the larger axial strain in the middle of specimen
YT-1. However, hardly any axial strain was measured at the region where the joint

and bracket of specimens YT-2 and YT-3, respectively, were located.

(3) Compared to the theoretical results of stiffness, the existence of the ring

bracket increased the stiffness by 10%, and the existence of two stiffeners increased

the stiffness by 63%. The existence of both stiffeners and the joint increased the

stiffness by 166%.

(4) The maximum strength of YT-1 increased by 7% due to the existence of a

ring joint in specimen YT-2. In addition, the locations of buckling were transferred to

the top 25% region from the one-half region of the specimen due to the existence of

the joint. Therefore, the effects of a ring joint on the axial strength and failure mode

should be considered in design. The effects of a bracket on the axial strength can be

ignored due to the slight difference in strength and failure mode found between YT-1

and YT-3.

(5) FEM analysis was used to examine the reliability of the experimental

investigation; the results of the FEM analysis agree well with the results of the

experimental specimens. Therefore, the experimental investigation is reliable.

Different ranges of diameter to thickness ratios and load eccentricity values were

chosen to examine the effects of corresponding parameters on the mechanical

behavior of chimney liners.

Based on the experimental investigation and FEM analysis, suggestions on the

design of this type of structure are provided as follows:

(1) The filament-wound GFRP is prefabricated according to the proposed

layouts in this study, and the ratio of the diameter to wall-thickness is 500; thus, the

regular segment is competent to bear the axial compressive stress of 13.5 MPa.

(2) The round stiffeners could effectively avoid premature buckling of the

chimney liner. In practical applications, the height of each chimney liner segment is

around 9 m, in which two stiffeners are advised to be installed on each segment at one

third and two thirds distance from the top of the chimney liner.

(3) The method to connect different GFRP chimney liner segments proposed

in this study could strengthen the chimney liner. In practical applications, the

thickness of the GFRP sheet used to connect two segments is generally more than 2

times the thickness of the chimney liner.

(4) The ring bracket proposed in this study could effectively provide the

support needed to the chimney liner. The support stress is larger than the buckling

stress of a GFRP chimney liner (13.5 MPa). In practical applications, the ring bracket

can be scaled up or down in design according to the practical size of the chimney

liner.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development

Program of China, China (No. 2017YFC0703000), the National Natural Science

Foundation of China, China (Nos. 51708330, 51522807 and 51661165016) and the

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, China (No. 2017M610902).

REFERENCES

[1] Chambers RE. ASCE design standard for pultruded fiber-reinforced-plastic (FRP)

structures. J. Compos. Constr. 1997;1(1): 26-38.

[2] Chen L, Dick WA, Nelson S. Flue gas desulfurization by-products additions to

acid soil: alfalfa productivity and environmental quality. Environ. Pollut.

2001;114(2): 161-168.

[3] Tang Z, Zhou C, Chen C. Studies on flue gas desulfurization by chemical

absorption using an ethylenediamine-phosphoric acid solution. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2004;43(21): 6714-6722.

[4] Bigham JM, Kost DA, Stehouwer RC, Beeghly JH. Mineralogical and engineering

characteristics of dry flue gas desulfurization products. Fuel. 2005;84(14): 1839-1848.

[5] Feng P, Wang J, Wang Y, Loughery D, Niu DT. Effects of corrosive environments

on properties of pultruded GFRP plates. Compos. Part B. Eng. 2014;67:427-433.

[6] Kelley D. The use of FRP in FGD applications. Reinf Plast. 2005;51(1): 14-19.

[7] McConnell VP. Resurgence in corrosion-resistant composites. Reinf. Plast.

2005;49(10): 20-25.

[8] Kelley, D. H. 1994. “Pollution control of wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD)

environments with fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) equipment.” NACE

International, Houston, TX (United States).

[9] Taillemite S, Pauer R. Bright future for vinyl ester resins in corrosion applications.

Reinf. Plast. 2009;53(4): 34-37.

[10] Shanoski H, Reichenbach DF. Thermosetting resins, polyesters, polyurethanes.

U.S. Patent 4,222,929, Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 1980.

[11] Sreekala MS, George J, Kumaran MG, Thomas S. The mechanical performance

of hybrid phenol-formaldehyde-based composites reinforced with glass and oil palm

fibres. Compos. Sci. and Technol. 2002;62(3): 339-353.

[12] Feng P, Cheng S, Bai Y, Ye LP. Mechanical behavior of concrete-filled square

steel tube with FRP-confined concrete core subjected to axial compression. Compos.

Struct. 2015;123: 312-324.

[13] Cheng S, Feng P, Bai Y, Ye LP. Load-strain model for

steel-concrete-FRP-concrete columns in axial compression. J. Compos. Constr.

2016;20 (5): 04016017.

[14] Feng P, Cheng S, Yu T. Seismic performance of hybrid columns of

concrete-filled square steel tube with FRP-confined concrete core. J. Compos. Constr.

2018;22(4): 04018015.

[15] Bank LC. Progressive failure and ductility of FRP composites for construction:

review. J. Compos. Constr. 2012;17(3): 406-419.

[16] Banks J. The performance record of liners for power chimneys using

fiberglass-reinforced plastics. In: Proceedings of the American Power Conference.

Illinois Institute of Technology. 1983;45: 855-859.

[17] Zarghamee MS, Brainerd ML, Tigue DB. On Thermal Blistering of FRP

Chimney Liners. J. Struct. Eng. 1986;112(4): 677-691.

[18] Bank LC, Gentry TR, Thompson BP, Russell JS. A model specification for FRP

composites for civil engineering structures. Constr Build Mater. 2003;17(6): 405-437.

[19] Cheng S, Feng P, Li ZY, Du JK. Mechanical behavior of cylindrical GFRP

chimney liners subjected to axial tension. Compos. Part B. Eng. 2019;177: 107411.

[20] Wah T. Flexural vibrations of ring-stiffened cylindrical shells. J. Sound. Vib.

1966;3(3): 242-251.

[21] Dooms D, Degrande G, De Roeck G, Reynders, E. Wind induced vibrations of

thin-walled cylindrical struc-tures. Proceedings for ISMA 2004, 2004;781-796.

[22] Ghoshal A, Parthan S, Hughes D, Schulz MJ. Free vibration characteristics of

cylindrical shells using a wave propagation method. Shock. Vib. 2001;8(2): 71-84.

[23] Li S, Eisenman JD, Mikulec D. Prediction of ovalling frequency for FRP

chimney liners with circumferential stiffeners. J. Thermoplast Compos. Mater.

2011;doi: 10.1177/0892705711411342.

[24] Agelaridou-Twohig A, Tamanini F, Ali H, Adjari A. Vaziri A. Thermal analysis

of reinforced concrete chimneys with fiberglass plastic liners in uncontrolled fires.

Eng Struct. 2014;75: 87-98.

[25] Häg N, Harrison P. Experience with the use of Derakane vinyl ester-based GRP

in flue gas desulphurization plants. Anti-Corros. Method Mater. 1996;43(2): 15-19.

[26] GB/T 1448-2005. Fiber-reinforced plastics composites-Determination of

compressive properties. 2005.

[27] GB/T 1447-2005. Fiber-reinforced plastics composites-Determination of tensile

properties. 2005.
[28] GB/T 1449-2005. Fiber-reinforced plastics composites-Determination of flexural

properties. 2005.

[29] GB/T 1450.1-2005. Fiber-reinforced plastics composites-Determination of

interlaminar shear strength. 2005.

[30] ASTM D 5364. Standard guide for design, fabrication, and erection of fiberglass

reinforced (FRP) plastic chimney liners with coal-fired units. 2014.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1 Cylindrical GFRP chimney liner: (a) GFRP chimney liner and (b) configuration of

GFRP chimney liner section.

Fig. 2 Specimens for axial compressive property testing.

Fig. 3 Cylindrical GFRP chimney liner specimens: (a) YT-1, (b) YT-2, (c) YT-3, and (d)

configuration of longitudinal section of specimen

Fig. 4 Set-up and instrumentation: (a) YT-1, (b) YT-2, and (c) YT-3.

Fig. 5 Layout of strain gauges.

Fig. 6 Axial load–axial displacement relationships of GFRP chimney liner specimens

subjected to axial compression: (a) DT1–DT5 measured for the YT-1 specimen, (b)

DT1–DT5 measured for the YT-2 specimen, (c) DT1 and DT2 measured for the YT-3

specimen, and (d) DT3–DT8 measured for the YT-3 specimen.

Fig. 7 Axial load–lateral displacement relationships of GFRP chimney liner specimens

subjected to axial compression: (a) DT6–DT13 measured for the YT-1 specimen and

(b) DT6–DT13 measured for the YT-2 specimen.

Fig. 8 Steel accessory equipment: (a) steel I-beams for loading, (b) inner steel clamps,
(c) outer steel clamps, and (d) loading locations.

Fig. 9 Failure modes of specimens: (a) failure mode of YT-1 under loading, (b) failure

mode of YT-1 after unloading, (c) failure mode of YT-2 under loading, (d) failure

mode of upper quarter region of YT-2, (e) failure mode of YT-3 under loading, and (f)

failure modes of YT-3 viewed from different directions.

Fig. 10 Variations of the axial strains of the specimens from different towards: (a)

east view of YT-1, (b) north view of YT-1, (c) west view of YT-1, (d) south view of YT-1,

(e) east view of YT-2, (f) north view of YT-2, (g) west view of YT-2, (h) south view of

YT-2, (i) east view of YT-3, (j) north view of YT-3, (k) west view of YT-3, and (l) south

view of YT-3.

Fig. 11 Variations of lateral strains of certain sections at different distances from the

top tips of the specimens: (a) at 410 mm of YT-1, (b) at 1245 mm of YT-1, (c) at 1500

mm of YT-1, (d) at 1755 mm of YT-1, (e) at 2590 mm of YT-1, (f) at 410 mm of YT-2,

(g) at 1245 mm of YT-2, (h) at 1500 mm of YT-2, (i) at 1755 mm of YT-2, (j) at 2590

mm of YT-2, (k) at 410 mm of YT-3, (m) at 1245 mm of YT-3, and (n) at 1500 mm of

YT-3.

Fig. 12 Comparison of the theoretical and experimental initial compressive

stiffnesses.

Fig. 13 Finite element modeling of stiffened GFRP chimney liner: (a) YT-1, (b) YT-2,

and (c) YT-3.

Fig. 14 FEM analysis of stiffened GFRP chimney liner: (a) first mode of eigenvalue

analysis for YT-1, (b) second mode of eigenvalue analysis for YT-1, (c) first mode of
 eigenvalue analysis for YT-2, and (d) first mode of eigenvalue analysis for YT-3.

Fig. 15 Simulated axial load–displacement relationships: (a) YT-1, (b) YT-2, and (c)

YT-3.

Fig. 16 Failure modes of simulated stiffened GFRP chimney liners with different D/t

ratios: (a) specimen with lower level of FRP thickness and (b) specimen with high

level of FRP thickness.

Fig. 17 Simulated axial stress–displacement relationships of specimens with different

D/t ratios.

Fig. 18 Simulated axial stress–FRP thickness relationship.

Fig. 19 FEM analysis of the effects of the load eccentricity on the mechanical

behavior: (a) model for load eccentricity and (b) failure mode under load

eccentricity.

Fig. 20 Simulated axial stress–load eccentricity relationship.

Table 1 Stacking sequence and details of GFRP specimens.

Stacking Fiber Fiber Accumulative

Layer Fiber Thickness
sequenc Fiber density percent thickness
type direction (mm)
e (g/m2) （%） （mm）
Protective Surfacing
1 30 92% - 0.3 0.3
layer mat
Hoop
2 winding 960 35% 0° 0.8 1.1
layer
Chopped
3 450 65% ±45° 0.9 2.0
strand
Structural
Uni-directi
layer 4 430 43% 90° 0.4 2.4
onal cloth
Hoop
5 winding 960 35% 0° 0.8 3.2
layer
6 Uni-directi 430 43% 90° 0.4 3.6
 onal cloth
Chopped
7 450 65% ±45° 0.9 4.5
strand
Hoop
8 winding 960 35% 0° 0.8 5.3
layer
Protective Surfacing
9 30 92% - 0.3 5.6
layer mat
 Table 2 Material property results of specimen.

Tension Compression Bending Shear

Axial Hoop Axial Hoop Axial Hoop Axial Hoop
Strength
127.9 172.5 146.2 195.1 230.7 276.1 48.8 41.6
(MPa)
Modulus
9.2 12.1 12.3 15.4 14.5 18.8 8.4 5.6
(GPa)

Conflict of Interest

We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative

interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection

with the work submitted.

Title: Compression behavior of large-scaled cylindrical GFRP

chimney liner segments

Journal: Composite Structures

Authors: Shi Cheng, Peng Feng, Xinmiao Meng, Zhiyuan Li, Jike

Du