Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
DOI 10.1617/s11527-012-9960-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 1 June 2012 / Accepted: 16 October 2012 / Published online: 23 October 2012
RILEM 2012
1 Introduction
Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite
materials are increasingly used for load-bearing
structures because of their excellent physical and
mechanical properties, including low weight, high
strength-to-weight ratio and corrosion resistance [1].
However, some less advantageous properties also
exist, which may hinder more widespread use. One
unfavorable aspect is the relatively low Youngs
modulus of these materials, which makes the serviceability of GFRP structures the most significant design
parameter and prevents full use of the material
strength [2]. Furthermore, the low modulus also
increases possibility to buckling failure, in general
and in particular due to more significant second order
effects [3]. Another characteristic of concern is the
low ratio of shear to compressive strength due to
the materials orthotropic nature [4]. Especially at the
web-flange junction of pultruded GFRP profiles, a
much lower shear strength has been reported [5, 6]
because of the presence of a roving-rich core at the
heart of the web and flange junction.
1144
Concerning GFRP profiles under axial compression, a low shear-to-compressive strength ratio and
significant second order effects induce shear failure
prior to material compressive failure or even buckling
[7, 8]. The results support the hypothesis that global/
local buckling-interaction failure modes observed in
open thin-walled cross sectionssuch as I-profiles
[911]can be induced by shear failure in the webflange junction. Formulations to take shear failure into
account have been developed in [4] for the prediction
of the ultimate loads of columns made of pultruded
GFRP profiles. Based on the above results, similar
delamination shear failure at the web-flange junction
may also occur in the compressive zone of pultruded
GFRP beams subjected to bending because of similar
stress states at the junction to those in columns.
Various failure modes of pultruded GFRP beams
are identified and summarized in [11]. In addition to
longitudinal material failure because of compression
or tension (bending failure), particular failure modes
such as lateral-torsional buckling [1214], web crushing and web buckling in transverse direction at
concentrated loads or reactions [15], and local buckling of walls due to in-plane compression [16, 17] have
been reported. Elements that significantly influence
the stress state and failure mode are lateral supports,
which prevent global lateral buckling. In practice,
such supports are provided in many cases by slabs that
are connected to the upper (compressed) flanges. In the
presence of lateral supports, a GFRP beam subjected
mainly to a bending deformation may fail because of
the maximum tensile or compressive stress at flanges.
However, due to a low shear-to-compressive (or
tensile) strength associated to GFRP materials, shear
failure is more likely to occur. In a recent study [18],
pultruded GFRP I-beams were subjected to concentrated loads at the mid-span in the plane of the web.
The beams were constrained in the lateral direction to
avoid any lateral/torsional instability. All beams
exhibited a wedge-like shear failure at the upper
web-flange junction. On the other hand, pultruded
GFRP I-beams loaded without lateral supports exhibited separation of the flange and web during lateral
post-buckling [17]. The failure mode was numerically
analyzed and traced back to high transverse tensile
stresses [19]. A certain shape of the initial imperfection was assumed in the analysis. However, the
sensitivity of the numerical results to the selection of
this shape was not investigated and, based on [6], it is
1145
Fig. 1 Eye-catcher
building and its three
structural GFRP frames
1146
Pultruded shapes
Adhesive
I (9106 mm4)
45.0
110.1
5.68 (6.00)
1.52
T1-1
U 240 9 72 9 12
Sikadur 330VP
T1-2
P 144 9 10
Sk-8 LVP
T2-1
T2-2
U 240 9 72 9 12
I 160 9 80 9 8
Sikadur 330VP
Sk-8 LVP
10.4
95.8
5.68 (6.00)
1.52
60.7
124.3
2.64 (3.00)
1.28
T3-1
U 240 9 72 9 12
Sikadur 330VP
T3-2
P 144 9 10
Sk-8 LVP
P 192 9 12
U U-shaped cross-section, I I-shaped section, P plate section, dimensions in (mm)
a
Web area ratio was obtained by area of webs over area of whole cross-section
1147
Table 2 Experimental results and comparison of deflections at ultimate load to FEA results
Girder
Ultimate
load (kN)
Experim.
deflection (mm)
Experim. slope
(kN/mm)
Calculated
deflection (mm)
T1-1
103
253
0.41
247.8
T1-2
112
275
0.41
268.8
97.7
T2-1
64
177
0.36
205.6
126.0
T2-2
62
175
0.35
199.1
113.8
T3-1
268
56
4.8
51.1
89.5
T3-2
308
61
5.0
58.7
96.2
dE
aP PL3 3a 4a3
GA 24EI L
L3
Deflection
ratio (%)
97.9
rx y
1148
36.4 MPa respectively, average values of two specimens) in comparison to strength, indicating the
potential shear failure there. The scenario T1 possessed a high level of normal axial stress (221.2 MPa,
average values of two specimens) in combination with
still significant shear stress (15.3 MPa) at the webflange junction.
T1-1
14.7
-212.1
T1-2
15.9
-230.2
T2-1
39.1
-75.4
T2-2
37.8
-73.1
T3-1
33.8
-163.0
T3-2
38.9
-187.3
1149
1150
Fig. 8 Post-buckling
deformation based on initial
imperfections: a for shape 1;
b for shape 2
1151
Fig. 10 Stress distribution at failure initiation based on initial imperfection shape 2: a transverse normal stress at section AA; b shear
stress at section CC
1
4
fcx
fs
fcy
where fs is the interlaminar shear strength, fcx is the
axial compressive strength and fcy is the transverse
normal strength; sxy, rx, and ry are the corresponding
stresses. The resulting normalized failure criterion
1152
Fig. 11 Comparison of
critical stress states with
failure criterion for girders
T1T3, post-buckled beams
[17] with two shapes of
initial imperfections, and
laminates in compression
from [7] (solid symbols are
projections of hollow
symbols on coordinate
planes)
1
5
fcx
fs
It is important to mention that in most practical
cases lateral supports are present, for example in the
form of a slab that is connected to the upper girder
flange, which prevents lateral buckling and the
accordingly high transverse tensile stresses at the
web-flange junction, which arise in the post-buckling
phase. In all the cases with lateral supports investigated above, however, web-flange separation occurred
due to high combined shear/axial compressive stresses
in the pre-buckling phase, whereby shear dominated in
most cases (with the exception of girders T1).
1153
(3)
References
5 Conclusions
Four-point bending experiments were carried out on
pultruded GFRP girders with built-up cross-sections.
Lateral buckling was prevented by the use of lateral
supports. Web-flange separation failure was observed
for all beams before any buckling was observed. Beam
theory was used to identify the critical stress states at
the failure locations. Furthermore, nonlinear FEA was
performed to identify the critical stress states of GFRP
beams from the research literature, without any lateral
supports in the post-buckling phase. Based on this
work, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1)
(2)
1154
12. Mottram JT (1992) Lateral-torsional buckling of a pultruded
I-beam. Compos Sci Technol 23(2):8192
13. Turvey GJ (1996) Effects of load position on the lateral
buckling response of pultruted GRP cantileverscomparisons between theory and experiment. Compos Struct
35(1):3347
14. Davalos JF, Qiao P (1997) Analytical and experimental
study of lateral and distortional buckling of FRP wideflange beams. J Compos Construct 1(4):150159
15. Mottram JT (1991) Evaluation of design analysis for pultruded fibre-reinforced polymeric box beams. Struct Eng
69:211220
16. Barbero EJ, Fu SH, Raftoyiannis I (1991) Ultimate Bending
Strength of Composite Beams. ASCE J Compos Constr
34:292306
17. Bank LC, Nadipelli M, Gentry TR (1994) Local buckling
and failure of pultruded fiber-reinforced plastic beams.
J Eng Mater Technol 116:233237
18. Borowicz DT, Bank LC (2011) Behavior of pultruded fiberreinforced polymer beams subjected to concentrated loads
in the plane of the web. ASCE J Compos Constr 15(2):
229238