Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)

Wrapped Hollow Steel Tubes Under Axial

Impact Loading

1
 Content
Background

Literature on CFRP wrapped tubes

Finite element modelling and validation

Results

Conclusions

2
 Background
Tubular steel members are widely used due to light weight and excellent load
carrying capacity. However attention is needed for repairing and rehabilitation
of such structures to ensure their long term usefulness.

Structural use of tubular steel

3
 Need of strengthening Background

Increase in loading conditions

Damage to structural parts
Improvements in structural parts
Modification of structural system Supporting structures

Errors in planning or construction

Transmission
towers

Bridge Piers
4
 Background
Existing strengthening techniques

Steel plate welding External post tensioning

Section enlargement

Span shortening

CFRP strengthening
5
 Advantages of CFRP materials Background

High strength to weight ratio

High stiffness to weight ratio
Chemical resistance
Corrosion resistance
Weatherproof
Thermally insulating
Fire resistance
Easy application

6
 Background
Impact loading conditions

7
 Axial Impact loading on tubular structures Background

Tubular sections are commonly used

Axial impact loads lead to severe damages
Post strengthening may need and the impact behaviour is unknown

8
 Literature review
Steel members under axial impact

Mamalis A.G et al. 2003

quasi static test

Tai Y. S. et al. 2010 (FEM)

impact test
Tarigopula V. et al. 2003
Dynamic structural behaviour is different from the static conditions

9
 Literature review
CFRP under axial impact

Obradovic C. et al. 2011

Mamalis A.G et al. 2003

Bussadori B. P. et al. 2014

10
Zhang P. et al. 2013
 Literature review
CFRP strengthened tubes under axial impact loading

Increased peak impact force

Increased dynamic mean crushing force
Reduce axial deflection
Increased energy absorption

Bambach M. R. et al. 2009 11

 Literature review

Research gap
Very limited knowledge in CFRP wrapped steel tubes under dynamic or impact

loading

12
 Aim of the current study
The aim of this study is to

Evaluate the effect of impact mass on the

behaviour of CFRP wrapped steel tubes under
axial impact loading

13
 FE modelling and validation
FE model definition and specimen dimensions (Bambach M.R. 2009)
Type Model SHS column Length (mm)
identification (mm)
Bare steel tube ST50 50502 300
models ST65 65652 300
ST75 75752 300
CFRP FRP50 50502 300
strengthened steel FRP65 65652 300
tube models FRP75 75752 300

Material properties (Bambach M.R. 2009)

Material properties steel CFRP Epoxy

Density 7850 kg/m3 1700 kg/m3 1100 kg/m3

Poissons ratio 0.3 0.2 0.25

Youngs modulus 210 GPa 230 GPa 1900 MPa

Strength 350 MPa 3790 MPa 36 MPa

Geometries
Thickness 2 mm 0.176 mm 0.1 mm
Simplified FE modelling and
meshing Impact mass 574 kg
Impact velocity 6 m/s
14
 FE modelling and validation
FE modelling
Four node shell elements with Belystchko-Tsay formulation
Orthotropic input properties
Control type hourglass

Contact surfaces Automatic single surface contact

Impactor-steel
Steel-CFRP Surface to surface contact with tiebreak
CFRP-CFRP Penalty based contact formulation

15
 FE modelling and validation
Material models
Steel MAT024_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY

Cowper and Symonds model to include strain rate effects which scales
the yield stress with the factor 1+(/C)1/P C=40 and P=5

CFRP MAT0 54_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE (Chang-Chang failure

criteria)considers the orthotropic properties of CFRP material

tensile failure in fibre direction

compressive failure in fibre direction Material parameter Value

tensile failure in matrix direction Density 1700 kg/m3

compressive failure matrix direction Longitudinal elastic modulus 147 GPa

Transverse elastic modulus 9.2 GPa
Shear modulus 4.5 GPa
Strength in direction a 970 MPa
Strength in direction b 271 MPa
Shear strength 292 MPa

16
 FE modelling and validation
Validation of bare steel tube models

250 300
Experiment Experiment
ST65
LS-DYNA LS-DYNA
FRP65
200 250

200
Impact force (kN)

Impact force (kN)

150

150
100

100

50
50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Axial displacement (mm)
Axial displacement (mm)

Model Peak impact force (kN) PFE/ Pexp

Experimental FE model (PFE)

(Pexp)

ST65 208 213 1.024

FRP65 256 268 1.047

Mean 1.035

COV 0.01

17
 FE modelling and validation

Validation of CFRP wrapped tube

300
Experiment
FRP65 LS-DYNA
250

200
Impact force (kN)

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Axial displacement (mm)

18
 FE modelling and validation

Failure mode of CFRP strengthened tubes

(a)

(b)

Fibre breakage during failure

19
 FE modelling and validation

Stress distribution of CFRP layers

(a) (b)

Stress distribution of FRP65 model CFRP layers during failure initialisation

(a) longitudinal CFRP layer (b) transverse CFRP layer

20
 Key parameters for parametric study
Model identification Impact mass (kg) Impact velocity (ms-1)

ST65M1V 150 6
ST65M2V 450 6
ST65M3V 574 6
ST65M4V 650 6
FRP65M1V 150 6

FRP65M2V 450 6

FRP65M3V 574 6

FRP65M4V 650 6

21
 Parametric study
Effect of impact mass
300 300
266 kN FRP65M1V Peak impact force (kN)
290
268 kN FRP65M2V
250 268 kN FRP65M3V 280
267 kN FRP65M4V
270

Peak impact force (kN)

200
Impact force (kN)

260

150 250

240
100
230

220
50
210

0 200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (ms) Impact mass (kg)

180 260
240 Maxaimum deflection (mm)
160
220
140 200

Maxaimum deflection (mm)

Axial displacement (mm)

180
120
160
100 140
FRP65M1V
120
80 FRP65M2V
FRP65M3V 100
60 FRP65M4V 80
60
40
40

20 20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Masss (kg)
Time (ms)
22
 Parametric study
Effect of impact mass
Bare steel models CFRP strengthened steel models
300 300
Peak impact force (kN) Peak impact force (kN)

250 250

Peak impact force (kN) (kN)

Peak impact force (kN)

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
STM1V STM2V STM3V STM4V FRPM1V FRPM2V FRPM3V FRPM4V
Model identification Model identification
200 200
Maxaimum deflection (mm) Maximum deflection
180 180
Maxaimum deflection (mm) (mm)

160 160

Maxaimum deflection (mm)

140 140

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
STM1V STM2V STM3V STM4V FRPM1V FRPM2V FRPM3V FRPM4V
Model identification Model identification 23
 Parametric study
Effect of impact mass
12000
14 Total absorbed energy (kJ)

10000
12

Total absorbed energy (kJ)

8000 10
Internal energy (J)

FRP65M1V
FRP65M2V 8
6000
FRP65M3V
FRP65M4V
6
4000

4
2000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (ms) Impact mass (kg)

300 90
FRP65M1V Average crushing force (kN)
FRP65M2V 80
250 FRP65M3V
FRP65M4V 70

Average crushing force (kN)

200 60
Impact force (kN)

50
150
40

100 30

20
50
10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 100 200 300 400 500 600
24700
Axial displacement (mm) Impact mass (kg)
 Parametric study
Effect of impact mass
Bare steel models CFRP strengthened steel models
14 14
Total absorbed energy
Total absorbed energy
12 12
Total absorbed energy (kJ)

Total absorbed energy (kJ)

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
STM1V STM2V STM3V STM4V FRPM1V FRPM2V FRPM3V FRPM4V
Model identification Model identification

90 90
Average crushing force (kN) Average crushing force (kN)
80 80
Average crushing force (kN) (kN)

70 70

Average crushing force (kN)

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
STM1V STM2V STM3V STM4V
FRPM1V FRPM2V FRPM3V FRPM4V
Model identification 25
Model identification
 Conclusion
1. Both the axial displacement and absorbed internal energy
increased significantly with increased impact mass. But,
impact mass (considered in the study) did not have a
major effect on the peak impact force.
2. The average crushing force of the tubes increased during
axial crushing as a result of CFRP wrapping. The axial
deformations were not significantly reduced, but wrapped
tubes are capable of absorbing the impact energy through
folding failure.
3. The specific energy absorption is increased by wrapping
with CFRP, and hence wrapped tubes can be effectively
used as energy absorption devices.
However, the variation of specific energy absorption did not
show a consistent pattern during this simulation and needs
to be investigated further.
26
Thank you!

27
28