Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct
Necmettin Erbakan University, Seydisehir Ahmet Cengiz Engineering Faculty, Dept. of Metall. and Material Eng., 42370 Seydisehir, Konya, Turkey
Selcuk University, Engineering Faculty, Dept. of Metall. and Material Eng., 42075 Konya, Turkey
c
Selcuk University, Engineering Faculty, Dept. of Mechanical Eng., 42075 Konya, Turkey
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 16 December 2014
Keywords:
Polymer-matrix composites (PMCs)
Impact behavior
Mechanical testing
Burst strength
Failure behavior
Composite patch repair
a b s t r a c t
Repairs made with composite patches on impact damaged ber reinforced composite pipes offer distinct
advantages over traditional repairs in addition to reduced cost. In this study, effects of number of patch
layers on the burst pressure of low velocity impact damaged tubes that have been repaired with composite patches were investigated. The tubes were pressurized up to 32 bar prior to impact. The pre-stressed
glass ber reinforced plastic tubes were damaged by applying low velocity impacts at different energy
levels (5, 10 and 15 J). The damaged areas of the affected tubes were repaired with 2, 4 and 6 layers of
glass/epoxy fabrics. The repaired tubes were then failed catastrophically by being subjected to monotonic
internal burst tests based on ASTM D 159999 standards. Changes in the tubes burst pressures were
recorded and the resulting damages on the tubes were studied. It was found that, for all the energy levels
employed in this study, a six-layered patch repairing is suitable for the retrotting of impact damaged
tubes.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Generally, metals subjected to low-velocity impact show plastic
behavior before failure and it may be possible to remove the effects
of deformation/damage by annealing and/or reworking the material. However; depending on the nature of the impact, non-visible,
barely visible and visible irreversible failures may be occurred in
the ber reinforced layered composites [1]. The repairs made on
damaged areas in order to achieve the original mechanical properties tend to vary depending on the type of failure. Once damage is
detected and the effects on the residual properties of the structure
have been predicted, a decision must be made as to whether this
composite part should be repaired or replaced. There are cases
where damage cannot be repaired. For instance, members that
highly stressed may not have sufcient strength after repair [2].
If the damage level is small enough to be mended, then the
repair is executed. Several methods such as bolted collars and
welded collars are used for repairing damaged pipe lines. Recently,
composite patches have seen an increasing usage in the repairing
process too [36]. These patches are lighter, more resistant to
corrosion and easier applied than the conventional repairing
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mkara@konya.edu.tr (M. Kara), muyaner@selcuk.edu.tr
(M. Uyaner), aavci@selcuk.edu.tr (A. Avci).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.12.017
0263-8223/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Table 1
Mechanical properties of the ber and the resin.
E-glass
Epoxy resin
E (GPa)
rTS (MPa)
q (g/cm3)
et (%)
73
3.4
2400
5060
2.6
1.2
1.52
45
Table 2
Mechanical properties of the GRP tubes.
h: Fiber winding angle
rt: Tangential failure stress (MPa)
my: Poissons ratio
Ey: Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
Vf: Fiber volume fraction
55
428.96
0.53
20.48
0.50
Fig. 1. Low velocity impact test rig and hydraulic pump [18].
Table 3
Mechanical properties and dimensions of the composite patches.
Ex = Ey: Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
ry: Tensile strength (MPa)
mxy = ey /ex: Poissons ratio
22
292
0.16
wp (mm)
tp (mm)
2 Layered patches
4 Layered patches
6 Layered patches
0.30
0.60
0.90
100
100
100
Impact
energy [J]
Impact
velocity [m/s]
Maximum contact
force [N]
Contact
time [ms]
Maximum
displacement [mm]
Maximum internal
pressure [bar]
Impulse
force [Ns]
Absorbed
energy [J]
5
10
15
1.26
1.78
2.18
2033.98 117.68
2255.96 24.03
2658.46 101.16
9.10 0.26
11.48 0.12
12.10 0.29
3.67 0.17
6.02 0.06
7.83 0.31
11.82 0.61
16.14 0.58
20.14 0.71
3.81 0.36
8.14 0.45
11.96 0.13
32
5
10
15
1.26
1.78
2.18
2250.68 131.80
2962.49 106.41
3572.38 99.44
7.56 0.33
8.48 0.70
9.24 0.19
3.20 0.11
4.94 0.23
6.38 0.20
33.98 0.13
35.56 0.32
37.82 0.37
11.24 0.63
15.74 0.74
19.92 0.48
4.16 0.32
8.43 0.52
12.06 0.43
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3. Transverse cross sections of damaged areas of the GRP specimens under impact energy levels of (a) 5 J (b) 10 J (c) 15 J.
Impact energy = 5 J
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
Non-damaged
Without patch
(a)
Impact energy = 10 J
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
Non-damaged
Without patch
6-layered patch
(b)
Impact energy =15 J
3.3. Monotonic internal burst pressure tests of the repaired GFRP tubes
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
Non-damaged
Without patch
(c)
Fig. 4. Variations of burst pressure with number of patches for damaged specimens
under energy levels of (a) 5 J, (b) 10 J and (c) 15 J.
pressure reaches 170 bar. The whitening progressed as the internal pressure kept increasing. Radial cracking and delamination
which are the results of impact damage propagated and ber separations occurred on the matrix interfaces. When the internal
pressure reached the value of 260 bar, the specimen impacted
with 5 J of energy failed catastrophically without experiencing
leakage or formation of strong oil jet. The main reason for the
burst of the specimen is the low damage level inicted by the
imposed impact. On the other hand, the specimens impacted with
higher levels of 10 J and 15 J did not failed catastrophically. In
these specimens, as the internal pressure increase the radial
cracks and the delamination progressed rapidly through the cross
section of the tube and the pressurized oil lled in the delamination region and nally reached to the surface. The matrix cracks
on the surface progressed and oil leakage started at the impact
area. For the specimen impacted with 10 J, a strong oil jet formed
at a pressure of 221 bar and reached an ultimate failure while the
specimen with 15 J impact damage experienced the same situation at a pressure of 195 bar.
The repair must restore the strength of the part to withstand
the design ultimate loads. The repair patch must carry the load
across the hole and restore stiffness and strength to the damaged
area [2]. Two-layered patch did not meet these expectations,
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 5. Ultimate failure photographs for the specimen under the inuence of 5 Joules of impact energy; the damaged areas are (a) no repaired; repaired with (b) double
patches, (c) 4-layered patch and (d) 6-layered patch.
to 283 bar. Because the highest stress on the pipe under internal
pressure occurs on the circumferential direction, splitting of the
patches under the inuence of this stress took place on axial direction. The region of the patch ruptured is the place where the
impact damage occurred. During the monotonic internal burst
pressure test, the specimen experienced the ultimate failure without undergoing leakage initiation or formation of strong oil jet. The
main reason for this is the low level of formation of the radial
cracks and delamination on the specimen due to the 5 J impact
damage. Debonding and delamination are shown in Fig. 5(c). In
addition, it is seen that the patch and the specimen have split along
the axial direction as a result of the internal pressure due to the
ber breakage. The radial matrix cracks and delamination formed
intensively on the specimens with 10 J and 15 J impact energy levels. For the specimens with four layered patches, leakage initiation
appeared on the impacted area as soon as patches split. This is so
because; the increase in diameter has led to increasing radial
matrix cracks and delamination; where the liquid oil began reaching onto the surface. As the leakage intensied, together with the
splitting of the patches, the ultimate failure took place in terms
of strong oil jet. While the 10 J impacted and then repaired with
4 layered patch specimens experienced ultimate failure at a pres-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 6. Ultimate failure photographs for the specimen under the inuence of 10 Joules of impact energy; the damaged areas are (a) no repaired; repaired with (b) double
patches, (c) 4-layered patch and (d) 6-layered patch.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Fig. 7. Ultimate failure photographs for the specimen under the inuence of 15 Joules of impact energy; the damaged areas are (a) no repaired; repaired with (b) double
patches, (c) 4-layered patch and (d) 6-layered patch.
sure of 263 bar, similar specimens but impacted with 15 J exhibited theirs ultimate failure at 230 bar. This difference is the outcome of damages from the impact. Ultimate failure images for
the specimens that impacted 10 J and 15 J and then both repaired
with four-layered patches are shown in Fig. 6(c) and Fig. 7(c),
respectively.
The six-layered patch restricted the circumferential expansion
during burst pressure tests. For this reason, whitening initiated at
whitening
patch
(a)
tube
(b)
tube
whitening
whitening
whitening
patch
tube
patch
the outside of the patch region (Fig. 9(a). The damage begun at the
patch region after internal pressure reached a certain value (Fig. 9(b).
The restriction of circumferential expansion for the six-layered
patch is large because it is stiffer than the four-layered one. For all
the energy levels applied in this study, the ultimate failure
occurred by bursting of the specimens. The specimens with six-layered patch reached their ultimate failure at a pressure of 291 bar,
278 bar and 276 bar for the specimens impacted with 5 J, 10 J
and 15 J, respectively.
The specimen exerted with 15 J of impact damage experienced
more damage as compared to the specimens inicted with 5 J or
10 J. However; the damages inicted include no perforations.
Although the specimens had no perforations, their burst pressures
decreased to about 32%. It is therefore, very important to repair
the impact damage or limit the propagation of the damage. The
impact damaged specimen with two layered patch could not bring
any limitation to circumferential expansion. That is why a double
patch repairing is not suitable. As for a four-layered patch repair,
the circumferential expansion on the specimen was restricted. Nevertheless, for a specimen inicted with 15 J of impact damage, this
restriction was not at a desired level. This is so because at 15 J
impact energy the specimen has undergone serious damage and
the pressurized oil had propagated through this damaged area onto
the specimen surface. The best result for specimens with 15 J of
impact was obtained with six-layered patches repairing. Due to
the patch thickness on six layered patches, the circumferential
expansion in the specimens becomes substantially restricted with
respect to the other layer types and hence the value of the burst
pressure that causes ultimate failure becomes very close to the
burst pressure of an undamaged specimen.
4. Conclusions
1. The cross section of the specimen damaged with 5 J of impact
energy is characterized by very little radial matrix cracks and
delamination in between the layers. As the impact energy
increases, the radial cracks and delamination tend to increase
as well. For all the energy levels dealt with in this study, no ber
damages or perforation of the specimens were observed as a
result of imposed impacts.
2. While the ultimate failures of the specimens damaged with 5 J
of impact energy occurred by bursting of the specimens, the
specimens damaged with 10 J and 15 J of impact energy levels
exhibited their ultimate failures by experiencing formation of
strong jets of oil gushing out of the specimens.
3. As the number of patch layers on patch repaired GFRP composite tubes increases, the burst pressure of those specimens tend
to improve as compared with unrepaired ones. However; for all
the energy levels, a double patch repairing did not restore
design burst pressures of the specimens. Two-layered patches
repairing proved unfertile for all the specimens in terms of
burst pressures of the repaired pipe specimens, while application of four-layered patches repairing is fruitful only for specimens damaged with 5 J of energy levels but not for the rest of
the specimens and six-layered patches proved successful for
all the specimens considered in this study.
4. During the monotonic internal burst pressure tests, ultimate
failures for specimens damaged with 5 J of energy occurred by
way of specimen explosion in all of the double, four and six layered patches. However; for specimens affected with 10 J of
impact energy, only the specimens with four- and six-layered
patches exhibited the explosion as their sign of ultimate failure
with those having two layered patches gushing oil jets as their
sign of ultimate failure. In case of specimens with 15 J of impact
energy, the ultimate failure for two- and four-layered specimens occurred by gushing oil jets while the specimens repaired
with six-layered patches experienced bursting as their ultimate
failure sign.
5. The results show that repairing by external wrapping with composite patch supplied sufcient retrotting of impact damaged
composite tubes.
Acknowledgments
This study was carried out as a PhD thesis by Memduh KARA in
the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science at the University of Selcuk, Konya, Turkey. This work was also supported by Selcuk University Scientic Research Projects under Grant Numbers
09101030.
References
[1] Reid SR, Zhou G. Impact Behaviour of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials
and Structures. United States of America: CRC Press, Woodhead Pub.; 2000.
303 s.
[2] Abrate S. Impact on Composite Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 1998. 135160.
[3] Lukacs J, Nagy G, Trk I. Experimental and numerical investigations of
external reinforced damaged pipelines. Procedia Eng 2010;2:1191200.
[4] Shouman A. An experimental and numerical assessment of composite repaired
pipes under a combined loading state [MS thesis]. Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; 2010.
[5] Toutanji H, Dempsey S. Stress modeling of pipelines strengthened with
advanced composites materials. Thin-Walled Struct 2001;39:15365.
[6] Khawaja IA. Repair techniques for locally buckled energy pipelines using bre
reinforced polymer composites [MS thesis]. University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada; 2003.
[7] Koch GH, Brongers MP, Tompson NG. Corrosion cost and preventative
strategies in the United States. Federal Highway Administration, Ofce of
Infrastructure Research and Development. 2001. p. 26011
[8] Roberts PD. Crack growth retardation by carbon ber composite patching: An
application to steel pressure vessel repair [M.S. thesis], University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta; 1995.
[9] Hu YQ, Li PN, Ju DY, Hong-Liang Pan HL. Experimental investigation on a
cracked body with adhesive bonded reinforcement. Int J Pressure Vessel Piping
1990;41:193206.
[10] Wilson JM. Characterization of a carbon ber reinforced polymer repair system
for structurally decient steel piping [Ph.D. thesis]. University of Tulsa; 2006
[11] Goertzen WK, Kessler MR. Dynamic mechanical analysis of carbon/epoxy
composites for structural pipeline repair. Composites: Part B 2007;38:19.
[12] Duell JM, Wilson JM, Kessler MR. Analysis of a carbon composite overwrap
pipeline repair system. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping. 2008;85:7828.
[13] Gunaydin B, Daghan B, Avci A. Fatigue behavior of surface-notched composite
pipes repaired by composite patches. Int J Damage Mech 2013;22(4):4908.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056789512450596.
[14] Pang SS, Li G, Jerro HD, Peck JA, Stubbleeld MA. Fast joining of composite
pipes using UV curing FRP composites. Polymer Compos ProQuest Sci J
2004;25(3):298.
[15] Peck JA, Jones RA, Pang SS, Li G, Smith BH. UV-Cured FRP joint thickness effect
on coupled composite pipes. Compos Struct 2007;80:2907.
[16] Li G, Davis D, Stewart C, Peck J, Pang SS. Joining composite pipes using hybrid
prepreg welding and adhesive bonding. Polymer Compos ProQuest Sci J
2003;24(6):697.
[17] ASTM Standard D1599-14, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Short-Time
Hydraulic Pressure of Plastic Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D1599-14,
www.astm.org.
[18] Kara M, Uyaner M, Avci A, Akdemir A. Effect of non-penetrating impact
damages of pre-stressed GRP tubes at low velocities on the burst strength.
Composites Part B 2014;60:50714.
[19] ASTM Standard D2584. Standard Test Method for Ignition Loss of Cured
Reinforced Resins. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/D2584-11, www.astm.org.
[20] Venkata MK Akula. Constitutive modeling of damaged unidirectional
composite laminae, University of Wyoming, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations
Publishing, 2007. 3291044. p. 43.