CC BY
18
https://doi.org/10.21122/2227-1031-2023-22-l-42-47 UDC 678+669.189.21+677.46/.47
Comparative Study of Fiber Glass Reinforced Polymer and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer on Cube and Cylinder
A. M. Sh. Al-obaidi1), S. N. Leonovich1)
1)Belarusian National Technical University (Minsk, Republic of Belarus)
© Белорусский национальный технический университет, 2023 Belarusian National Technical University, 2023
Abstract. A comparative analysis of polymers reinforced with glass fiber and polymers reinforced with carbon fiber was carried out on a cube and a cylinder in the laboratories of Baghdad. 36 samples were taken with fiber percentages of 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 % by weight of cement. The methodology of this study included the use of composite polymer fibers in the external reinforcement of concrete beams for the purpose of improving their performance when bending by gluing polymer fibers to the surface. Group A tests of non-reinforced concrete beams with other reinforced polymer fibers were also implemented. Excellent results were obtained by adding two types of polymer fibers to a concrete sample. It was found that the polymer reinforced with glass fiber showed better results than the polymer reinforced with carbon fiber when testing samples for bending strength. However, in splitting strength, the carbon fiber reinforced polymer achieved higher performance than the glass fiber reinforced polymer. Whereas the results of a group of previous studies conducted to study the effect of fiber additives on the mechanical properties of concrete proved that their addition led to an increase in compression, tensile and bending resistance at rates that reached 25, 75 and 80 %, respectively.
Keywords: fiber, carbon fiber, fiberglass, polymer, bending, splitting, samples, beam, alkali resistance, epoxy resin, stress, composites, mechanical properties, failure
For citation: AL-obaidi A. M. Sh., Leonovich S. N. (2023) Comparative Study of Fiber Glass Reinforced Polymer and Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer on Cube and Cylinder. Science and Technique. 22 (1), 42-47. https://doi.org/10. 21122/2227-1031-2023-22-1-42-47
Сравнительное исследование полимера, армированного стекловолокном, и полимера, армированного углеродным волокном, на кубе и цилиндре
Студ. А. М. Ш. Аль-Обайди1), докт. техн. наук, проф. С. Н. Леонович1)
^Белорусский национальный технический университет (Минск, Республика Беларусь)
Реферат. В лабораториях Багдада проведен сравнительный анализ полимеров, армированных стекловолокном, с полимерами, армированными углеродным волокном, на кубе и цилиндре. Было отобрано 36 образцов с процентным содержанием волокна 1,0, 2,5 и 5,0 % от массы цемента. Методика данного исследования включала использование композиционных полимерных волокон во внешнем армировании бетонных балок для повышения прочности при изгибе при наклеивании полимерных волокон на поверхность. Выполнены испытания группы А неармированных бетонных балок с другими полимерными волокнами. Отличные результаты получены при добавлении двух типов полимерных волокон в бетон. Установлено, что полимер, армированный стекловолокном, имеет более высокие результаты, чем полимер, армированный углеродным волокном, при испытании образцов на прочность при изгибе. Однако прочность на раскалывание армированного углеродным волокном полимера достигла более высоких показателей, чем, армированного стекловолокном. Результаты группы предыдущих исследований, проведенных с целью изучения
Адрес для переписки
Леонович Сергей Николаевич
Белорусский национальный технический университет
просп. Независимости, 65,
220013, г. Минск, Республика Беларусь
Тел.: +375 17 368-61-56
sleonovich@mail.ru
Address for correspondence
Leonovich Sergey N.
Belаrasian National Technical University
65, Nezavisimosty Ave.,
220013, Minsk, Republic of Belarus
Tel.: +375 17 368-61-56
sleonovich@mail.ru
Наука
итехника. Т. 22, № 1 (2023)
влияния добавок фибры на механические свойства бетона, показали, что их добавка приводила к повышению сопротивления сжатию, растяжению и изгибу при скоростях, достигавших 25, 75 и 80 % соответственно.
Ключевые слова: волокно, углепластик, стекловолокно, полимер, изгиб, раскалывание, образцы, балка, щелоче-стойкость, эпоксидная смола, напряжение, композиты, механические свойства, отказ
Для цитирования: Аль-Обайди, А. М. Ш. Сравнительное исследование полимера, армированного стекловолокном, и полимера, армированного углеродным волокном, на кубе и цилиндре / А. М. Ш. Аль-Обайди, С. Н. Леонович // Наука и техника. 2023. Т. 22, № 1. С. 42-47. https://doi.org/10.21122/2227-1031-2Q23-22-1-42-47
Introduction
Polymer fibers have been successfully used for a long time in the aircraft and vehicle industries. Currently polymer fibers have found their use in civil engineering applications [1, 2] where external reinforcement was used to improve the performance of structures, such as strengthening concrete columns by a collar with polymer fibers is made around the outer circumference of the shaft to increase resistance and ductility, as well as it is used to increase the resistance to bending and shearing by attaching polymer fibers to the outer surface of the beams of the bishop [3-5].
There are usually three types of polymer fibers that are used in civil engineering, namely glass, aramid, and carbon fibers. Physical and mechanical properties differ not only between the types of these fibers but also for the same type of fiber [6-8].
According to the shape and length glass fiber can be divided into continuous fiber, fixed-length fiber and glass wool fiber [9-11] and according to the composition of the glass it can be divided into non-alkali, chemical resistant, high alkali, medium alkali, high strength, high elastic modulus and alkali resistant [12-14].
Polymer fibers alone are of limited use in civil engineering applications because they can transfer loads from one surface to another, and for this the matrix material plays a role [15-18].
Important in the function of polymer fibers as it works to bind polymer fibers together is to enable them to transporting loads and providing them with
Fig. 1. U-1
protection against various environmental influences and damages resulting from handling. Binders are of several types such as polyester and epoxy. It is one of the most common polymeric materials and is usually used with high performance fibers [19-21].
Material and method
In this study 36 samples were collected from laboratories and distributed according to cube and cylinder with percentage of added fiber (1.0, 2.5, 5.0 %) from weight cement.
Flexural strength is defined as the maximum stress that the material exhibits at failure due to the three or four point elastic load. According to literature review studied bending behavior of concrete with compressive strength and density ranging from 10 to 25 MPa. By using the modified polymer and the test device it is possible to measure the flexural modulus in polymer composites.
In general, the strength of fiber-reinforced composites depends on the properties of the components and the interactions of the interface. It is well known that for fiber-reinforced composites, as the interfacial region plays a leading role in transferring the load between the fibers and the matrix, thus affecting mechanical properties such as strength, the flexural failure depends mainly on the adhesion of the fibers and the matrix. The tests were relied on to examine the cubes and the cylinder (Fig. 1) where the U-test device was used to test the samples (Tab. 1).
device
Наука
итехника. Т. 22, № 1 (2023)
Table 1
Results of cylinder 11x15 cm applying splitting strength
Symbol sample of concrete Stress, MPa Load, kN Range of splitting strength Time, s Area, mm2 Pace, kN/s
Without fiber
C1 2.10 57.2 2.050 5 17671.459 11.44
C2 1.95 55.0 5 17671.459 11.00
C3 1.90 52.0 1.850 4 17671.459 13.00
C4 1.80 50.0 4 17671.459 12.50
C5 1.80 55.1 1.865 4 17671.459 13.70
C6 1.93 53.0 5 17671.459 10.60
Fiber glass reinforced polymer
C1 (1 %) 7.05 124.64 7.080 12 17671.459 10.30
C2 (1 %) 7.11 125.50 12 17671.459 10.45
C3 (2.5 %) 6.93 130.00 7.385 13 17671.459 10.0.
C4 (2.5 %) 7.84 132.00 12 17671.459 11.00
C5 (5 %) 7.90 137.60 7.505 13 17671.459 10.58
C6 (5 %) 7.11 135.00 13 17671.459 10.38
Carbon fiber reinforced polymer
C1 (1 %) 7.11 126 7.55 11 17671.459 11.4
C2 (1 %) 7.99 127 11 17671.459 11.5
C3 (2.5 %) 7.22 128 7.28 12 17671.459 10.6
C4 (2.5 %) 7.34 130 12 17671.459 10.8
C5 (5 %) 7.50 132 7.85 11 17671.459 12.00
C6 (5 %) 8.20 134 11 17671.459 12.18
The diagram below shows the comparison of control samples cylinder against glass fiber reinforced polymer and carbon fiber reinforced polymer in splitting strength. The highest value was obtained when carbon fibers were mixed with 5 % |o, as shown in (Fig. 2).
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
18 samples were collected for the flexural strength assay, where a comparison was made between the control samples and the samples to which fiber was added, and the highest percentage was found when fiber glass reinforced polymer was added with 5 % (Tab. 2).
7.08
2.05
1.85 1.865
1.865
С1.2
С3.4
С5.С6
7.385 7.505
7.55
.28
.85"
С1.2 C3.4 C5.C6 C1.2 C3.4 C5.C6
with with with with with with
1 % 2.5 % 5 % 1 % 2.5 % 5 %
fiber fiber fiber fiber fiber fiber
Range splitting of glass Range splitting of
fiber polymer carbon fiber polymer
Range splitting of control sample
Fig. 2. Comparison of control samples cylinder against glass fiber reinforced polymer and carbon fiber reinforced polymer in splitting strength
Наука
итехника. Т. 22, № 1 (2023)
Table 2
Results of cube 15x15x45 cm by applying to flexural strength
Symbol sample of concrete Stress, MPa Load, kN Range flexural strength Time, s Area, mm2 Pace, kN/s
Without fiber
C1 4.522 34.14 4.375 3.4 7500 10.040
C2 4.230 33.00 3.2 7500 10.310
C3 5.634 42.90 5.202 5.0 7500 8.580
C4 4.770 40.00 5.0 7500 8.000
C5 4.900 44.70 4.955 4.0 7500 11.175
C6 5.010 41.00 6.0 7500 8.200
Fiber glass reinforced polymer
C1 (1 %) 6.11 55 6.405 6 7500 9.16
C2 (1 %) 6.70 52 6 7500 8.66
C3 (2.5 %) 6.82 58 6.960 6 7500 9.66
C4 (2.5 %) 7.10 56 6 7500 9.33
C5 (5 %) 7.50 57 7.690 5 7500 10.60
C6 (5 %) 7.88 57 5 7500 11.40
Carbon fiber reinforced polymer
C1 (1 %) 6.40 52 6.395 6 7500 8.66
C2 (1 %) 6.39 49 5 7500 9.80
C3 (2.5 %) 6.80 56 6.700 7 7500 8.00
C4 (2.5 %) 6.60 50 6 7500 8.33
C5 (5 %) 6.99 57 6.895 7 7500 8.14
C6 (5 %) 6.80 51 6 7500 8.50
Each two samples were collected separately depending on the added percentage to know the resulting differences as shown in (Fig. 3).
The mean value was taken to the three samples with respect to the cylinder and the cube without the fibers, and the mean value for splitting strength
test for the cylinder samples was 1.92 MPa, while for the cube was 4.844 MPa (Fig. 4).
The amount of addition was determined during the examination of the splitting strength samples and compared with the control samples, and developments and increases were found when adding fibers at all levels as shown (Fig. 5, 6).
Range splitting of control sample
Range splitting of glass fiber polymer
C5.C6 with 5 % fiber
Range splitting of carbon fiber polymer
Fig. 3. Comparison between control samples cubes against fiber glass reinforced polymer and carbon fiber reinforced polymer in flexural strength
HayKa
«TexHMKa. T. 22, № 1 (2023)
4.844
Cube mean value flexural strength
Cylinder mean value splitting strength
Fig. 4. Means value of flexural and splitting strength
Discussion
Samples were collected in this study where they depend on added fibers of carbon polymer and fiberglass where the percentage of added fibers was 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 % and then the samples were tested by U-test for flexural and splitting strength. The samples were distributed depending on the type of examination that was used in this study. The samples were collected from cylinders and with dimensions of 11x15 cm, and 18 samples were collected with dimensions of 15x15x45 cm.
By examining the splitting strength to the cylinder, the average value of 6 samples without fiber was 1.92 MPa, and in the next stage, fiber glass reinforced polymer was added with (1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 %), respectively. Excellent results were obtained when examining the splitting strength and when adding fibers with 5 % of the splitting strength (7.505 MPa).
As for the second side of the comparison with carbon fiber reinforced polymer, the splitting strength
rates were high when they were compared with fiber glass reinforced polymer, and the rates were the highest when 5 % was added with 7.85 MPa. Tab. 2 shows the results of cube 15x15x45 cm by applying to flexural strength at 7 days. Where 18 cubes were collected, including 6 samples without fibers, 6 samples of fiber glass reinforced polymer, and 6 samples of carbon fiber reinforced polymer.
The mean value of the cube samples without fiber was 4.844 MPa, and the flexural strength value increased when fiber glass reinforced polymer was added, and it achieved the highest rates of flexural strength to 7.69 MPa with 5 %, and the same was the case when carbon fiber reinforced polymer was added and it was higher flexural strength ratings at 6.895 MPa.
Fig. 5 and 6 show the amount of increase in splitting strength and flexural strength when adding types of fiber. A comparison was made between the two types of fibers with the control group used in these shapes, and it was noted that the percenttage of increase in splitting strength was higher when carbon fiber reinforced polymer was added when adding the three percentages[18, 22].
But it was not the case when examining the cubes, so the amount of increase in flexural strength rates when adding fiber glass reinforced polymer is higher than carbon fiber reinforced polymer (Fig. 3, 4).
carbon fiber reinforced polymer
Fig. 5. Аmount of increase in splitting strength when add types of fibers 3.0
carbon fiber reinforced polymer
Fig. 6. Amount of increase in flexural strength when add types of fibers
Наука
итехника. Т. 22, № 1 (2023)
CONCLUSION
The conclusion was drawn based on the amount of evolution in ratio splitting strength of cylinder and flexural strength to the examination of cubes. When comparing the two types of fibers, we notice that splitting strength. It was higher when added carbon fiber reinforced polymer compare fiberglass reinforced polymer [23, 24]. But when examining the flexural strength, we found that fiberglass reinforced polymer had achieved higher results than carbon fiber reinforced polymer [25], although the differences were slight between the two types of fibers [26-28].
REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute (1996) State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. ACI440R-96. Farmington Hills, Mich. 65.
2. Saadatmanesh H., Ehsani M. R. (1991) RC Beams Strengthened with GFRP Plates. Parts I, II. Journal of Structural Engineering, 117 (11), 3417-3455. https://doi.org/10.1061/ (asce)0733-9445( 1991)117:11(3434).
3. Alfarabi S., Al-Sulaimani G., Basunbul I., Baluch M., Ghaleb B. (1994) Strengthening of Initially Loaded Reinforced Concrete Beams Using FRP Plates. ACI Structural Journal, 91 (2), 160-169. https://doi.org/10.14359/4594.
4. Al-Sulaimani G. J., Sharif A. M., Basunbul I. A., Baluch M. H., Ghaleb B. N. (1994) Shear Repair for Reinforced Concrete by Fiberglass Plate Bonding. ACI Structural Journal, 91 (4), 458-464. https://doi.org/10.14359/4153.
5. Malek A. M., Saadatmanesh H., Ehsani M. (1998) Prediction of Failure Load of Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with FRP Plate Due to Stress Concentration at Plate Ends. ACI Structural Journal, 95 (2), 142-152. https: //doi.org/10.14359/534.
6. He J. H., Pilakoutas K., Waldron P. (1997) Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Beams with CFRP Plates. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Sapporo, 343-350.
7. Takahashi Y., Sato Y., Ueda T., Maeda T., Kobayashi A.
(1997) Flexural Behavior of RC Beams with Externally Bonded Carbon Fiber Sheet. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Nonmetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Sapporo, 327-334.
8. Swamy N., Mukhopadhyaya P., Lynsdale C. (1997) Ductility Consideration in Using GFRP Sheets to Strengthen and Upgrade Structures. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Nonmetallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Sapporo, 637-644.
9. Grace N. F., Soliman A. K., Sayed G. A., Saleh K. R.
(1998) Behavior and Ductility of Simple and Continuous Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars and Stirrups. Journal of Composites for Construction, 2 (4), 186-194. https://doi. org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0268(1998)2:4(186).
10. Bentur A., Mindess S. (1990) Fibre Reinforced Cementi-tious Composites. London, Elsevier Applied Science. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781482298512.
11. Vairagade V., Kene K. (2012) Experimental Investigation on Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Concrete. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2 (3), 1037-1041.
12. Soutsos M. N., Le T. T., Lampropoulos A. P. (2012) Flexural Performance of Fibre Reinforced Concrete Made with Steel and Synthetic Fibres. Construction and Building Materials, 36, 704-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.042.
13. Abdalkader A., Elzaroug O., Abubaker F. (2017) Flexural Cracking Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 6 (8), 273-277.
14. Balaguru P. N., Shah S. P. (1992) Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites. McGraw-Hill Inc.
15. Meda A., Minelli F., Plizzari G. A. (2012) Flexural Behaviour of RC Beams in Fibre Reinforced Concrete. Composites Part B: Engineering, 43 (8), 2930-2937. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.06.003.
16. Kang T., Kim W., Massone L. M., Galleguillos T. A. (2012) Shear-Flexure Coupling Behavior of Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Beams. ACI Structural Journal, 109 (4), 435-444. https://doi.org/10.14359/51683863.
17. Altun F., Haktanir T., Ari K. (2007) Effects of Steel Fiber Addition on Mechanical Properties of Concrete and RC Beams. Construction and Building Materials, 21 (3), 654-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.12.006.
18. Shende A., Pande A. (2011) Comparative Study on Steel Fiber Reinforced Cum Control Concrete. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Sciences and Technologies, 6 (1), 116-120.
19. Lok T. S., Xiao J. R. (1999) Flexural Strength Assessment of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 11 (3), 188-196. https://doi.org/10. 1061/(asce)0899-1561(1999)11:3(188).
20. Abbas A., Mohsin S. S., Cotsovos D. (2010) Numerical Modelling of Fibre-Reinforced Concrete. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering ICCCBE. 473.
21. Omrani E., Menezes P. L., Rohatgi P. K. (2016) State of the Art on Tribological Behavior of Polymer Matrix Composites Reinforced with Natural Fibers in the Green Materials World. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 19 (2), 717-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjestch.2015.10.007.
22. Byung H. O. (1992) Flexural Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams Containing Steel Fibers. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 118 (10), 2821-2836. https://doi.org/10. 1061/(asce)0733-9445(1992)118:10(2821).
23. Barros J., Figueiras J. (1999) Flexural Behavior of SFRC: Testing and Modeling. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 11 (4), 331-339. https://doi.org/ 10.1061/(asce) 0899-1561(1999)11:4(331).
24. Chen S. (2004) Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Ground Slabs. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 157 (2), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2004.157.2.157.
25. Dwarakanath H., Nagaraj T. (1992) Comparative Study of Predictions of Flexural Strength of Steel Fiber Concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 88 (6), 714-720. https://doi. org/10.14359/1262.
26. Rtayli N., Enneya N. (2020) Enhanced Credit Card Fraud Detection Based on SVM-Recursive Feature Elimination and Hyper-Parameters Optimization. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 55, 102596. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102596.
27. Wang C., Pan Y., Chen J., Ouyang Y., Rao J., Jiang Q. (2020) Indicator Element Selection and Geochemical Anomaly Mapping Using Recursive Feature Elimination and Random Forest Methods in the Jingdezhen Region of Jiangxi Province, South China. Applied Geochemistry, 122, 104760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .apgeochem.2020.104760.
28. Lepoivre A., Boyard N., Levy A., Sobotka V. (2020) Heat Transfer and Adhesion Study for the FFF Additive Manufacturing Process. Procedia Manufacturing, 47, 948-955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.04.291.
Received:19.08.2022 Accepted: 18.10.2022 Published online: 31.01.2023
HayKa
uTexHMKa. T. 22, № 1 (2023)
