FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER (FRP)

A MINI PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

Abhishek L S 6176AC21UCE001

Mohammed Atif Z 6176AC21UCE006

Vijay S 6176AC21UCE017

In partial fulfilment for the award o degree

of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

ADHIYAMAAN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

(AUTONOMOUS)

(Accredited by NBA-AICTE New Delhi

Accredited NAAC-UGC New Delhi with ‘B’ grade)

Hosur – 635 109

ANNA UNIVERSITY: CHENNAI 600 025

NOV & 2024

 BONAFIDE CERTIFICATION

Certified that this mini project report “FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER

(FRP)”

is the bonafide work of ABHISHEK L S, MOHAMMED ATIF Z & VIJAY S

who carried out he mini project work under my supervision

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

MR. KATHIRVEL DR.G BASKAR

Assistant professor Head of the Department
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
ACE - Hosur ACE - Hosur

Submitted for the project work held on ……………… at Adhiyamaan college of Engineering
(Autonomous), Hosur.

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, out thank are to the almighty the great architect of he
universe, who blessed us to successfully pursue our bachelor of engineering and to
successfully accomplish our mini project.

We would like to express our sincere thanks and regards to out beloved
principal DR. RADHAKRISHNAN, M.E., Ph. D Adhiyamaan College of
Engineering, for his keen interest and affection towards us.

We are highly indebted to Dr.G. BASKAR Professor and head Department of

Civil Engineering, Adhiyamaan College of Engineering, for permitting and
encouraging us to do this project wok.

We are also grateful to Mr Kathirvel Assistant professor, for his valuable

guidance throughout our mini project and successfully completed.

Last but not east, we express our deep gratitude to our parents and to our
friends for their encouragement and support.
 ABSTRACT

Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) comprising of either carbon and glass fibres
or glass and aramid fibres are universally bonded on the surfaces of the existing
concrete structures, walls and RC beams (RCBs) for seismic upgrading and
overcoming the existing issues like inferior construction, faults in design, increased
lake demand, damage of structural elements, degradation due to aging, and so on.
Such FRPL bonding is being extended to new concrete structures with a view of
achieving improved performances in recent years.

The problem of optimally designing new RCBs and the choice of appropriate
FRPs have not been blended and algorithms for solving the composite problem have
been hardly found in the literature. In addition, mathematical model relating the
parameters of FRPL strengthened RCBs (FRCBs) with their performances is not
available in the existing literature to the best knowledge of the researcher.

KEY WORDS: RC beams; FRP bonding; artificial neural networks;

regression analysis; flower pollination-based optimization.
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL

Fibre reinforced concrete is relatively a new construction material developed

through extensive research and development work during the last two decades. It
has already found a wide range of practical applications and proved to be reliable
construction material having superior performance characteristics compared to
conventional concrete.
Retrofitting of concrete members is usually accomplished by construction of
external reinforcement concrete or concrete jackets, by epoxy bonding steel plates
to the tension face of the members or by external post tensioning. One of the fast
replacements for steel reinforcement is FRP. This Fiber Reinforced Polymer show
greater advantage over the conventional materials such as steel and other materials,
Glass Fiber reinforced Polymer (GFRP) composite posses high strength to weight
ratio, tensile strength compared to Tor steel. The other enhancing properties of
GFRP are it is non reactive for chemicals such as chlorides, alkalis and thermally
non-conductive in nature and hence durability of structures is increased. This calls
for the use of GFRP as reinforcement for concrete structures in which corrosion is
the primary concern.
FRP composite mats, fabrics and rods can be effectively applied externally
and internally over the RC elements for Retro-fitting purpose. These composites
are, hence, used in the larger scale for the rehabilitation of earthquake-affected
structures.
The FRP composite is an additional material with reinforcements. Mats and
fabrics are used for Retro-fitting purpose of RC members. They are applied
externally as an additional reinforcement in RC structures and behaviour is
studied subsequently.
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Garden et al, (1997) investigated the efficiency of CFRP plate bonding

system for RCBs by casting sixteen RCBs and testing under four-point bending. The
RCBs were strengthened with CFRP plates. It was noticed that the RCBs
strengthened using CFRP plates reduce the concrete strains and raise the ultimate
capacity of the RCBs. The authors also reported that the debonding potential of
CFRP plate increased significantly with an increase of FRP plate thickness.

Muthopadhyaya et al, (1998) investigated the behaviour of GFRP-plated

RCBs. Six beams were cast in size of 150x250x3000mm and tested under four-
point bending. The RCBs were strengthened by gluing steel and 1.5 and 2.5 mm
thicknesses GFRP plates. It was observed that the beams strengthened using GFRP
laminates show a 15% raise in UL while comparing with that of the control RCB.
The authors stated that the strengthened beams offer sufficient ductility to make
sure a ductile type of failure.

Lau at al. (2001) analysed with the fibre-optic Bragg grating (FBG) sensor
that was commonly used as a structural health monitoring device for FRPLs by
fixing on the structures. They revealed that the experimental study confirmed the
theoretical 13 predictions of lowered stress levels with increased thickness of
FRPLs and the FBG sensor can be effectively used as a structural health monitoring
equipment.

Fanning and Kelly, (2001) experimentally investigated CFRP glued RCBs

by casting ten beams and testing under four-point bending. The RCBs were
strengthened with CFRP plates of varying thicknesses 1.0, 0.65, 0.58 and 0.45mm
respectively. It was noticed that the CFRP glued RCBs exhibit a raise in ultimate
strength and stiffness of 70% and 40% while comparing with that of control RCB.
The authors concluded that the CFRP glued RCBs offer sufficient ductility to make
sure a ductile type of failure.
 Rabinovitch and Frostig, (2003) investigated the performances of CFRP
glued RCBs. The investigation was carried out to compare the experimental results
with closed form high order model (CFHO model) results. Five beams were cast
with several reinforcement ratios and experimentally measured the performances
under two-point loading. It was observed that the CFRP glued RCBs exhibit a
significant increase in flexural strength and stiffness while comparing with that of
control RCB. The authors inferred that the strengthened beams provide adequate
ductility, and the predicted results show good correlation with the experimental
performances.

Xiong et al, (2004) investigated the performances of RCBs strengthened with

externally bonded hybrid GFRP. A total of six RCBs were cast with a size of
125mmX200mmX2300mm and experimented under four-point bending. Two
unstrengthen RCBs with 15% and 0.76% steel reinforcement ratios were used as
control beams and two types of strengthening were used. All the strengthened RCBs
had the same steel reinforcement ratio. The authors observed that the UL of FRCBs
was larger than the control RCB and reported that the deflection ductility of hybrid
strengthened RCBs was smaller than the reference beam.

Pellegrino and Modena, (2006) evaluated the effectiveness of unstressed

and pre- tensioned CFRP laminates on the performances of RC and pre-stressed
RCBs. Five RCBs were built and experimentally measured the performances under
four point bending. It was seen that the CFRP glued RCBs produce 49.6% raise in
UL capacity while comparing with that of control RCB. The authors also revealed
that the CFRP glued RCBs show reduced crack width.

Wu et al, (2006) studied the FRPL glued RCBs. The performance of hybrid
FRPL glued RCB was evaluated using the theory of strain compatibility and
equilibrium conditions. T-glass fiber sheets, high strength carbon sheets and steel
rebars were used as composite materials. The experimental study consisted of six
strengthened beams of size 200mm x 150mm x 2000mm. The beams were equipped
with two linear variable displacement transducers for measuring the load, deflection
and strain. The authors reported that after cracking behaviour, the specimens A1 &
A2 became linear. The load- deflection behaviour of the specimens was proportional
to the reinforcing ratio of RCBs.
Hosny et al, (2006) investigated the performance of RCBs strengthened by
HYFRPLs. The experimental program consist of twelve T-beams of size 460 x 300
x 3250mm. Different steel reinforcement ratios were used. The longitudinal
reinforcement of the specimens at top and bottom consist of two-10mm and two-
16mm diameters bars were provided. The thickness of CFRP and GFRP laminates
were 0.117mm and 0.315mm respectively. The ultimate strain and modulus of
elasticity for CFRP strips were 1.55% and 240Gpa and that for GFRP were 2.88%
and 65Gpa. The specimens were provided with U shaped configuration of 100mm
width. It was concluded that the failure of specimens were brittle and ductile in
nature.

Sing-ping Chiew, (2007) presented experimental and numerical studies on

behavioural characteristics of GFRP bonded RCBs. The author concluded that both
strength and stiffness of RCBs could be enhanced through gluing GFRP laminates
on the tension face of the beams, in addition to linearly increasing the strengthening
ratio with axial rigidity of the GFRP strips. The interfacial shear stress concentration
due to flexural cracking was less. All the strengthened beams failed by de-bonding
of GFRP laminates.

Barros et al. (2007) studied the effects of the equivalent reinforcement ratio
and FRPLs on the efficiency of the near surface mounted technique. They also
analysed the applicability of the FRPLs for strengthening RCBs, and inferred that
the near surface mounted technique was not as brittle as the externally bonded
reinforcement technique for strengthening RCBs by FRPLs.

Li et al. (2008) investigated the performances of two FRPL strengthened

RCBs by testing them using four-point bending test-bench. RCBs strengthened with
polypropylene fibre and polypropylene fibre with steel fibre were studied, and
found that restraining crack propagation and reforming crack distribution can be
enhanced if small polypropylene fibre with large steel fibre were glued on RCBs, in
addition to enhancing a high load carrying capacity of RCBs.

Galal and Mofidi (2009) experimentally studied the performances of four

FRPL strengthened half-scaled RCBs under four-point bending. Both conventional
epoxy- bonding and hybrid FRPL were used in strengthening the beams. They
found that an External bonding of FRPL without end anchorage raised the YL by
16% and UL by 5% relative to that of unstrengthen beam but UL of the
strengthened T-beam was 54% lower than the control beam. They revealed that
unbonded hybrid FRPL 16 anchorage strengthening increased the T-beam strength
by 21% higher than the control beam.

Hashemi et al, (2009) studied high strength RCBs with different layouts of
external CFRP laminates. Six beams were cast and tested under four-point bending.
It was observed that the RCBs with CFRP laminates show 44.4% raise in flexural
strength while comparing with control RCB. The authors also reported that the
RCBs with CFRP laminates show a gain in ultimate flexural strength and energy
ductility values.

Xue et al, (2010) experimentally studied on RCBs with prestressed CFRP

plates. Five RC beams with 12, 14 and 16 mm steel reinforcement were cast and
examined under two-point loading. It was noticed that beams strengthened using
CFRP plates show 15% raise in cracking moment than that of unstrengthen beam.
They also reported that beams strengthened with CFRP laminates provided adequate
ductility. The results predicted through FEM based modelling were similar to the
experimental results.

Glodkowska and Ruchwa (2010) simulated the static analysis of RCBs with
CFRP composite strips. Six RCBs with 3-5mm thick CFRP strips and another six
without any external strengthening were cast and studied under two-point loading.
The experimental results were compared with results obtained through ANSYS
software. The authors concluded that the results obtained through FEM modelling
were similar to experimental performances.

Hai et al. (2010) studied the behaviour of hybrid FRPL strengthened RCBs
comprising of carbon and glass fibres experimentally by conducting tests under four
Point bending test-bench. They found that the ratio of flange to web width plays a
17 significant role in their structural behaviour and recommended for use in bridge
structures.

Ebead (2011) suggested a mix of the externally glued and mechanically

fastened FRPLs for strengthening of RCBs. The method required insertion of nylon
anchors inside the concrete before fixing fasteners. It was portrayed that the partial
length strengthening resulted in premature detachment and advocated to use FRPLs
on the entire length of the RC structures.

Jadhav and Shiyekar, (2011) experimentally investigated the effect of

length, width and number of layers of GFRP strips applied to the tension side of
RCBs. The authors concluded that RCBs strengthened with different width and
number of layers of glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) strips exhibited
relatively good ductile behaviour. However the beams showed same load at yielding
of steel. This was because the glass fibre reinforced polymer had higher initial
stiffness. Hence, it contributed to strengthening more effectively. The load carrying
ability of the strengthened RCBs raised by 7% to 35% while comparing with that of
the control RCB.

Damodar and Satish, (2011) experimentally investigated the behavioural

characteristics of continuous RCBs strengthened by GFRP sheets with static
loading. The authors reported that the flexural strength was enhanced by attaching
the GFRP sheet on the tension face of the RCB. It was observed that the epoxy
bonded GFRP sheet increased the resistance to cracking of RCBs by slowing down
the formation of visual cracks and evading larger crack widths at high load levels.
The interfacial shear and normal stresses in the adhesive layer were given by
analytical uncoupled cohesive zone model involving nonlinear fracture mechanics.
The authors also reported that the proposed concept increases the computational
efficiency of FE study.

Kim and Shin, (2011) investigated the performances of RCBs glued with
hybrid FRPLs under static loads. The experimental part consisted of a reference
RCB and thirteen strengthened RCBs of size 150mm x 250mm x 2400mm. The
control beam was not preloaded; the remaining beams were retrofitted with FRPs
and also preloaded. The load was increased until the RCBs reached rupture. The
authors concluded that the retrofitted RCBs failed prior to the hybrid FRPLs could
reach rupture point, which becomes the limiting factor for the hybrid FRPLs.

Ravichandran et al, (2012) experimentally examined the usefulness of

GFRP laminates on the performances of high strength RCBs by casting ten beams
and testing under four-point bending. The RCBs were strengthened with two types
of GFRP laminates of varying thicknesses of 3 and 5 mm respectively. It was seen
that the RCBs strengthened using GFRP laminates show a raise in UL ranging from
24to 88% while comparing with that of the control RCB. The authors also reported
that the GFRP glued RCBs offer sufficient ductility to make sure a ductile kind of
failure.

Attari et al, (2012) have investigated the strengthening of RCBs using CFRP,
GFRP and hybrid FRPLs. The authors examined the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of external strengthening system for RCBs using glass and carbon
FRPLs. The experimental part consisted of seven beams. Among these, one beam
served as the control RCB and six RCBs were strengthened using FRP sheets with
different strengthening schemes. The size of the beams was
100mmx160mmx1500mm. The different strengthening configurations
(unidirectional and bidirectional glass and carbon fibres) were considered. The
control RCB was experimented to find the ductility and load carrying ability. The
failure of control specimen was set to happen when the concrete reaches its ultimate
strain in compression and steel in tension. In the case of FRPL glued RCBs, failure
was taken as the complete damage of the 19 composite material. The authors
concluded that the RCB with two layers of U-shape wrapped CFRP showed an
increase of 114% in strength when compared with the reference beam. The U-
anchorage strengthening gave the best performances. The authors reported a good
correlation similar to that of the experimental results.

He et al, (2013) studied the crack arresting and strengthening mechanism of

RCBs using hybrid FRPLs. The main aim of the investigation was to retard the
crack propagation in RCBs using hybrid FRPLs. Two types of beams were cast. One
was conventional RCB and the other was strengthened with hybrid glass and carbon
FRPLs. The beams were experimented under four- point bending. Finite element
modelling analysis was also conducted to substantiate the crack arresting and
strengthening mechanism of RC beams using HFRP composite. It was observed that
the hybrid glass/carbon FRP composite changed the linear elastic characteristics of
CFRP which enhances the ductility of strengthened RCBs. It was also seen that the
strengthened RCBs exhibit larger cracking load, UL and better ductility than normal
RC beams.

Rajesh Guna et al, (2014) examined the significance of GFRP laminates on

steel fibre RCBs and proposed a RM for estimating the performances of steel fibre
RCBs with GFRP laminates. Four beams were cast with a fibre volume fraction of
1% and tested under two-point loading. The RCBs were strengthened with two
kinds of GFRP laminates of varying thicknesses of 3 and 5mm respectively. It was
observed that the beams strengthened using GFRP laminates show a raise of 47.6%
in load carrying capacity, enhanced ductility up to 27.66% and decrease in
deflection up to 50%. The proposed regression equations provided the satisfactory
results.

Parthiban et al, (2014) experimentally studied the effectiveness of GFRP on

hybrid fibre RCBs by casting four beams with 1% fibre volume fraction (80% of
steel fibre and 20% of polyolefin fibre) and testing under four-point bending. Two
types of GFRP laminates of varying thicknesses of 3 and 5 mm respectively used. It
was noticed that the RCBs strengthened using GFRP laminates show a 43.86% raise
in UL while comparing with that of the control RCB. The authors also observed that
GFRP bonded RCBs offer sufficient ductility to make sure a ductile type of failure.

Hawileh et al, (2014) investigated the behaviour of RCBs bonded with

hybrid glass and carbon FRPLs. The investigation was carried out to compare the
experimental results with results predicted through ACI 4402R-08 by casting five
RCBs and testing under four-point bending. The RCBs were strengthened with
GFRP and CFRP laminates of varying thickness. It was observed that the RCBs
strengthened with CFRP and GFRP strips show a raise in the load carrying capacity
in the range of 30-98% when compared to the control beam. The authors also
reported that the RCBs bonded with GFRP and CFRP sheets offer sufficient
ductility to make sure a ductile type of failure. The ACI predicted performances
were similar with those of the experimental performances.

Nurbaiah, (2010) examined the flexural behaviour of RCBs strengthened

with external bonding of CFRP laminates. Four RCBs were strengthened with
externally mounted CFRP laminates in single ply and double ply at the centre of
soffit of the beams with 0.14 mm thickness. The RCBs were cast and studied under
four-point bending. It was seen that RCBs with CFRP laminates exhibit reduced
deflection at UL and smaller crack width due to larger stiffness. The authors
reported 26-38% increase in stiffness for beams with CFRP laminates.

Norhafizahsalleh et al, (2015) examined the effectiveness of CFRP plates on

the performances of glass fibre strengthened RCBs. Ten beams of size 200 x 250 x
2800mm with different tensile reinforcement were experimented under four- point
bending. They observed that the GFRP beams strengthened with CFRP plates
exhibited an 70% increase in load-carrying capacity than that of control RCB.

Moshiur Rahman et al, (2015) combined plate bonding and near surface
mounting to form hybrid bonding for strengthening RCBs in flexure. Seven RCBs
were cast and tested. Among these, one beam was used as the control RCB and six
beams were glued with composites. The plates selected for strengthening the beams
had two different thicknesses of 2mm and 2.76mm. It was observed that bonding of
steel bars and laminates increase the ultimate moment capacity. The failure load of
strengthened RCBs was larger than that of the plate bonded beams. The failure load
increased with increased plate thickness. The deflection of the strengthened RCB
was smaller than that of the control RCB. The load at first crack for Hybrid
Strengthened 1 and Hybrid Strengthened 2 beams raised by 14.65% over the plate
bonded beams. In the hybrid bonding method, the load carrying capacity increased
by 65%.

Amirtha et al, (2015) performed an investigation on the behaviour of RCBs

wrapped with Hybrid FRPL under static loading. In this study, five RCBs with
dimensions of (100 X 150 X 1700) mm were cast and tested under two-point
loading. Out of five beams, one was a control RCB and four beams were reinforced
with various hybrid configurations. The beams were laminated with hybrid fiber
reinforced polymer on different zones. The performance of hybrid FRPL glued
RCBs for compression and flexural behaviour along with mode of failure was
investigated. The crack pattern of hybrid FRPL beams was observed during the test.
It was revealed that 22 the compressive strength of hybrid FRPL beams was greater
than that of the reference RCB. It was seen that there was a raise in the crack
propagation and the number of cracks while the load applied on beam specimen was
increased.

Gopinathan et al, (2016) examined the effectiveness of GFRP laminates on

the performances of high strength RCBs by casting fourteen RCBs of size 150 x 250
x 300 mm and testing under static and cyclic loadings. Different configuration of
GFRP laminates (CSM, WR and UDC) of varying thicknesses of 3 and 5mm were
used. It was observed that the beams strengthened using GFRP laminates show a
raise of 80% in UL while comparing with that of control RCB. The authors also
concluded that the GFRP sheets offer adequate ductility in RCBs.
 Kh Mahufuz ud and Akter, (2016) investigated the flexural behaviour of
externally glued or near surface fixed CFRP fabrics on RCBs. Six different sized
RCBs with various sized steel bars were cast and experimentally studied under four
point bending. Two types of CFRP fabrics with thicknesses of 0.17 and 0.34 mm
were used. It was exhibited that CFRP fabric significantly increased first crack, YL
and UL and reduced crack spacing when compared to the control RCB.

Rambabu et al, (2016) investigated the characteristics of RCBs strengthened

with continuous glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) sheets by casting two sets of
RCBs. The first set contained three RCBs with weak flexure, one was the control
RCB and the other two were GFRP strengthened RCBs. The second set contained
three RCBs with weak shear, one was the control RCB and the other two were
GFRP strengthened RCBs in shear. All the RCBs were tested under four-point
bending. An increase of 33 % in UL.

GEOMETRY CREATION IN ABAQUS

1. Open Abaqus/CAE: -
Go to the Part Module.
2. Create a New Part: -
Click "Create Part".
Choose dimensionality (2D/3D/Axisymmetric) and type (Deformable/Rigid).
Set the approximate size.
3. Sketch the Geometry:
Use tools like lines, circles, rectangles, and arcs to draw a 2D profile.
Apply dimensions and constraints as needed.
4. Generate 3D Features:
Extrude, revolve, or sweep the 2D sketch to create a 3D shape.
5. Refine the Geometry:
Add features like fillets, chamfers, or holes.
6. Validate Geometry:
 Use Check Geometry to ensure correctness.

Creating geometry in Abaqus involves building a model's geometric features using

the CAE (Complete Abaqus Environment) module. Here’s a step-by-step guide to
creating geometry in Abaqus:
Creating geometry in Abaqus involves building a model's geometric features using
the **CAE (Complete Abaqus Environment) module. Here’s a step-by-step guide
to creating geometry in Abaqus:

1.Open Abaqus/CAE and Start a New Model

 Launch Abaqus/CAE.
 Create a new model or select an existing one.
 Go to the Part Module (the module where geometry creation happens)

2. Create a New Part

 Go to Part Module:
 Click on "Create part” in the toolbar or go to `Part > Create`.
 Set Part Parameters:
 Provide a name for the part.
 Select the Dimensionality (2D Planar, 3D, or Axisymmetric).
 Select the Type (Deformable, Rigid, or Discrete Rigid).
 Specify the Approximate Size (ensures the workspace fits the part).

3. Draw the Geometry

 Sketching Tools:
 Use the sketch tools provided to draw 2D profiles. Common tools include:
 Lines: Straight and connected lines.
 Circles and Arcs: Create circular or arc-shaped features.
 Rectangle: Quickly define rectangular shapes.
 Spline and Polygon: For more complex shapes.
 Access the sketch tools via the Sketcher Toolbox.
  Dimensioning and Constraints:
 Apply dimensions to control size and position.
 Use constraints (e.g., perpendicular, tangency) to ensure relationships
between entities.

4. Modify the Geometry

 After creating a sketch, you can use tools like:
 Fillet/Chamfer: Round or bevel edges.
 Trim/Extend: Modify line segments.
 Offset/Mirror: Create symmetrical features or replicate entities.

5. Create 3D Features (For 3D Parts)

 After completing the 2D sketch:
 Extrude: Convert a 2D profile into a 3D shape.
 Revolve: Rotate the sketch around an axis to create a revolved part.
 Sweep: Move the sketch along a defined path.

6. Refine the Geometry

 Use the Feature Module for additional refinement:
 Add fillets, chamfers, or holes.
 Combine multiple parts to form an assembly.

7. Validate Geometry
 Ensure there are no open edges, intersections, or other issues.
 Use tools like Check Geometry to verify the integrity of the part.
 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Material used for beams are: -
1. Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
2. Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)
3. Aramid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (AFRP)
4. Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (BFRP)
5. Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (NFRP)

1. Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP):-

CFRP is a composite material made of carbon fibres embedded in a polymer
matrix. It is renowned for its exceptional mechanical and physical properties,
making it a high-performance material used in critical engineering applications.

 Mechanical Properties: -
 Tensile Strength: 1200–4000 MPa (high compared to other materials like
steel or aluminium).
 Elastic Modulus: 120–600 GPa (provides excellent stiffness).
 Compressive Strength: Slightly lower than tensile strength due to fibre
buckling (~1000–2500 MPa).
 Shear Strength: Typically, between 30–70 MPa (limited by the polymer
matrix).

 Physical Properties: -

 Density: ~1.6–2.0 g/cm³ (lighter than steel, which is ~7.8 g/cm³).

 Thermal Expansion: Near zero or negative in fibre direction, ensuring

dimensional stability.
  Thermal Conductivity: Moderate (fibre-dominated); typically 5–25
W/m·K.

 Durability: -
 Moisture Resistance: Low water absorption, ensuring long-term stability.
 UV Resistance: Limited; often requires surface treatments or coatings to
avoid degradation.

 Thermal Properties: -
 Operating Temperature Range: Can tolerate temperatures up to 250–
300°C with high-temperature resins.
 Fire Resistance: Inherent resistance depends on the matrix; specialized
fire-retardant matrices improve performance.

 Manufacturing Properties: -
 Tailor ability: Fiber orientation and layering can be customized for
specific strength and stiffness requirements.
 Ease of Fabrication: Manufactured using methods like hand layup,
vacuum bagging, or pultrusion.

 Applications of CFRP: -
 Structural Strengthening: Beams, columns, and slabs in civil engineering.
 Aerospace: Aircraft fuselages, wings, and components.
 Automotive: High-performance car parts (e.g., chassis, body panels).
 Renewable Energy: Wind turbine blades.
 Sports Equipment: Bicycles, tennis rackets, and golf clubs.

 Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP):-

Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) is a composite material made
of glass fibres embedded in a polymer matrix. It is widely used due to its
cost-effectiveness, good mechanical properties, and corrosion resistance.
 Mechanical Properties: -
 Tensile Strength: 500–1500 MPa (depending on the type of glass fibre and
matrix).
 Elastic Modulus: 30–50 GPa (lower than CFRP but adequate for many
structural applications).
 Compressive Strength: Comparable to tensile strength (~500–1000 MPa).

 Physical Properties
  Density: ~1.8–2.0 g/cm³ (lighter than metals like steel, ~7.8 g/cm³).
 Thermal Expansion: Higher than CFRP (~5–10 × 10⁻⁶ /°C).
 Thermal Conductivity: Low (~0.2–0.4 W/m·K), making it a good thermal
insulator.

 Durability
 Corrosion Resistance: Excellent resistance to corrosion from chemicals,
saltwater, and industrial environments.
 Moisture Resistance: Low water absorption (~0.1–0.5%), but prolonged
exposure can degrade the matrix.
 Thermal Properties
 Operating Temperature Range: Can handle temperatures up to 100–200°C,
depending on the matrix.
 Fire Resistance: Limited; flammable unless combined with fire-retardant
additives.
 Manufacturing Properties
 Ease of Fabrication: GFRP is easily shaped and manufactured using
various methods, including pultrusion, hand layup, and injection
moulding.
 tailor ability: Fiber orientation and layering can be customized to meet
specific design requirements.
 Applications of GFRP
 Construction: Reinforcement bars (rebars), bridge decks, cladding, and
roofing.
 Marine: Boats, docks, and water tanks.
 Transportation: Vehicle body parts, railways, and road barriers.

2. Aramid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (AFRP)

Aramid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (AFRP) is a composite material made of aramid
fibres (such as Kevlar) embedded in a polymer matrix. It is widely known for its
high toughness, impact resistance, and lightweight nature.
Mechanical Properties
 Tensile Strength: 2000–3000 MPa (comparable to CFRP, but slightly lower).
 Elastic Modulus: 70–120 GPa (higher than GFRP but lower than CFRP).
 Compressive Strength: Lower than tensile strength (~1000–1500 MPa) due to
fibre buckling under compression.

Physical Properties
 Density: ~1.4–1.5 g/cm³ (lighter than GFRP and CFRP).
 Thermal Expansion: Very low, ensuring good dimensional stability.
 Thermal Conductivity: Low, making it a good insulator

Durability
 Corrosion Resistance: Excellent resistance to chemicals, acids, and alkalis.
 Moisture Resistance: Moderate; prolonged exposure to water or high
humidity can reduce performance over time.

Thermal Properties
 Operating Temperature Range: Can perform well in temperatures up to
~200°C.
 Fire Resistance: Aramid fibres are inherently fire-resistant, char rather than
melting, and maintain integrity at high temperatures.

Manufacturing Properties
 Ease of Fabrication: AFRP can be manufactured using methods like
pultrusion, filament winding, and hand layup.
 Flexibility: Aramid fibres are flexible and can be woven into complex shapes

Applications of AFRP
 Construction: Seismic retrofitting of buildings, cables, and structural
reinforcement.
 Défense: Bulletproof vests, helmets, and protective shields.
 Automotive: Crash-resistant vehicle components.
 Aerospace: Components requiring high toughness and lightweight properties.
Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (NFRP)
Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (NFRP) composites use natural fibres like
jute, hemp, flax, coir, or sisal embedded in a polymer matrix. These materials are
gaining popularity due to their sustainability, lightweight properties, and cost-
effectiveness.

Mechanical Properties
 Tensile Strength: 200–1000 MPa (varies significantly with fibre type and
quality).
 Elastic Modulus: 5–30 GPa (lower than synthetic FRPs like CFRP or GFRP).
 Compressive Strength: Generally lower than tensile strength (~100–500
MPa).

Physical Properties
 Density: ~1.2–1.5 g/cm³ (lightweight, significantly lower than synthetic
FRPs).
 Thermal Expansion: Moderate (~10–15 × 10⁻⁶ /°C), higher than synthetic
fibres.


Durability
 Corrosion Resistance: Good, but less effective in highly alkaline or acidic
environments.
 Moisture Resistance: Susceptible to water absorption, leading to swelling and
reduced mechanical properties unless treated.

Thermal Properties
 Operating Temperature Range: Moderate (~100–200°C depending on the
polymer matrix).
  Fire Resistance: Limited; natural fibres are combustible, but fire-retardant
treatments can improve performance.

Manufacturing Properties
 Ease of Fabrication: Easily processed using conventional FRP manufacturing
techniques like hand layup, injection moulding, or vacuum infusion.
 tailor ability: Fiber orientation and volume fraction can be optimized for
specific applications

Applications of NFRP
 Automotive: Door panels, dashboards, and lightweight parts.
 Construction: Partition panels, roofing, and temporary structures.
 Furniture: Eco-friendly composite chairs, tables, and decorative items.

MESHING: -
It is the process of dividing a complex structure into smaller, simpler
elements for use in simulations like Finite Element Analysis (FEA). These elements
help model the physical behaviour of the structure under various conditions. The
finer the mesh (more elements), the more accurate the analysis, but it also requires
more computational resources.

Types of Mesh Elements:

 1D Elements: Line elements, such as beams.
 2D Elements: Surface elements, such as triangles or quadrilaterals (used in
shell structures).
 3D Elements: Volumetric elements, such as tetrahedrons or hexahedrons (used
for solid structures).

Meshing Guidelines for Each FRP:

1. CFRP:
 Fine mesh in high-stress areas.
 Use layered elements for interlaminar stresses.
 Preferred Elements: Hexahedral (3D), quadrilateral (2D).
2. GFRP:
 Moderate mesh density, refine near complex geometry.
 Preferred Elements: Quadrilateral (plates), tetrahedral (irregular shapes).
3. AFRP:
 Fine mesh near impact zones.
 Use dynamic elements for transient loads.
 Preferred Elements: Shell or solid elements.
4. BFRP:
 Moderate mesh, refine near thermal gradients.
 Preferred Elements: Hexahedral for thermal and structural analysis.
5. NFRP:
 Coarser mesh for low-load areas, finer for critical regions.
 Preferred Elements: Triangular or tetrahedral for complex shapes.

Boundary Conditions & Load Application in FRP (Fiber-Reinforced

Polymer)
In FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymer), boundary conditions and load
applications are critical for accurately simulating the behaviour of FRP components
in engineering analyses (e.g., Finite Element Analysis, FEA). FRP materials are
typically used for structural reinforcement, and understanding how they respond to
different conditions is key to designing durable and efficient systems.
Boundary Conditions in FRP: -
Boundary conditions in FRP applications define how the material is
constrained or interacts with its environment. They are applied to simulate real-
world constraints or conditions during analysis.
Displacement Boundary Conditions:
 Fixed Support: Prevents movement in all directions (used when a part of the
FRP structure is anchored or connected rigidly to a surface).
 Pinned Support: Allows rotation but no translation, often used in FRP
structures that rotate or have hinges (e.g., FRP beams or joints).
 Roller Support: Allows movement in one direction but prevents translation
in the perpendicular direction, useful for applications where expansion or
contraction is expected, such as FRP bridge reinforcement.
Symmetry:
  Used when the structure or load is symmetrical. This reduces the size of the
problem and computational resources required.
Load Application in FRP
The type and application of loads to FRP materials depend on the specific structure
and use case. FRP materials respond differently based on their fiber orientation and
the polymer matrix, so proper load application is essential to simulate real-world
behaviour.

Types of Loads:
 Point Loads: Applied at specific locations (e.g., applied at a node or contact
point, such as weight on a FRP deck or beam).
 Dead Load: - Dead loads are permanent static loads that result from the weight
of the structural components, such as beams, columns, floors, and roofs, as well
as fixed installations like walls and mechanical equipment.
 Live Load: - Live loads are dynamic and temporary loads caused by occupants,
furniture, vehicles, or any movable objects.
 Distributed Loads: Spread across a surface or length (e.g., pressure on a FRP
plate or stress due to wind on FRP panels).
 Cyclic Loads: - FRP materials may experience repeated loading, which is
particularly relevant for applications like bridges or wind turbine blades, where
cyclic fatigue resistance is important.
Load Cases:
 Axial Load: Forces acting along the axis of the FRP structure, such as
tension or compression in FRP rods or beams.
 Bending Load: Forces that induce bending, such as the weight distribution in
an FRP beam or plate.
 Shear Load: Forces that create a shear stress within the material, often
applied in FRP reinforcements or connections.
 Torsional Load: Twisting forces, commonly used in testing the torsional
strength of FRP tubes or pipes.

Summary of Key Points for Boundary Conditions & Load

Application in FRP
  Boundary Conditions: Include fixed, pinned, or roller supports, and use
symmetry to simplify models. Interface conditions account for bonding and
delamination in layered FRP materials.
 Load Application: Includes point, distributed, thermal, dynamic, and cyclic
loads, with specific load types like axial, bending, shear, and torsional,
depending on the structure.
 Fiber Orientation: Proper alignment of loads with fibre directions is crucial
due to the anisotropic nature of FRP.
 Layered FRP: Apply boundary conditions and loads to individual layers,
especially for modelling delamination.
 Failure Criteria: Consider Fiber failure, matrix cracking, and delamination
to predict material behaviour under load..

Material Interaction Modelling in FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymer):

It refers to the process of simulating and analysing the interactions between
the fibres, matrix, and interfaces in FRP composites. This modeling captures how
these different components work together under various loading conditions,
including stress transfer, failure mechanisms (such as fiber breakage or matrix
cracking), and delamination between layers. The goal is to predict the behaviour,
strength, and durability of FRP materials, considering factors like fiber-matrix
bonding, thermal expansion, and environmental effects.
Fiber-Matrix Interaction:
 Bonding: Ensures stress transfer between fibres and matrix.
 Debonding: Models failure at the Fiber-matrix interface.
 Shear Transfer: Describes how the matrix resists shear stress while Fibers
resist normal stress.
Layer-to-Layer Interaction (Delamination):
 Delamination: Simulates separation between layers using cohesive zone
models (CZM) or failure criteria.
Nonlinear Material Behaviour:
 Fiber and Matrix Behaviour: Fibers are linear elastic, while the matrix may
be nonlinear.
 Failure Criteria: Includes Fiber failure, matrix cracking, and delamination,
using models like Tsai-Wu or Hanshin’s.
Thermal and Environmental Effects:
 Thermal Expansion: Differences in expansion between Fibers and matrix.
 Moisture Effects: Water absorption can degrade material properties.
Modeling Techniques:
 Finite Element Analysis (FEA): Uses interface and cohesive elements to
model interactions.
 Multiscale Modelling: Combines micro and macro-level behaviour.

Test Scenarios and Analysis for Before FRP

Test Scenarios and Analysis for After FRP
Result Evaluation & Validation

Result Evaluation:
 Stress & Strain: Check the stress distribution and strain levels against
material strength limits.
 Damage & Failure Modes: Use failure criteria (e.g., Tsai-Wu, Hashin) to
predict fiber or matrix failure, and delamination.
 Deformation: Evaluate displacement/deflection and compare with analytical
solutions or experimental data.
 Fatigue & Durability: Assess damage accumulation under cyclic loading
and compare with real-world fatigue data.
 Temperature Effects: Analyse thermal expansion and thermal-induced
stresses using coupled thermal-structural analysis.

Result Validation:
 Comparison with Analytical Solutions: Check deflection, stress, or strain
with basic analytical formulas.
 Experimental Data Comparison: Validate against real-world tests (e.g.,
tensile, impact, and fatigue tests).
 Sensitivity & Mesh Convergence: Test the influence of material properties
and mesh size on results.
  Failure Prediction Validation: Compare predicted failure locations and
types (fiber fracture, delamination) with experimental observations.

Software-Specific Validation:
 Abaqus: Use failure models (Tsai-Wu, Hashin) and CZM for delamination;
validate with experimental tests.
 ANSYS: Validate composite material models, fatigue predictions, and
delamination with real data.

Graph Readings

0 -8.00E-35 26 -0.02652 52 -0.08978 78 -0.17635

2 -0.00114 28 -0.03023 54 -0.09577 80 -0.18364
4 -0.00156 30 -0.03421 56 -0.10189 82 -0.191
6 -0.00257 32 -0.03834 58 -0.10814 84 -0.19842
8 -0.00365 34 -0.04272 60 -0.1145 86 -0.20591
10 -0.00519 36 -0.04725 62 -0.12098 88 -0.21345
12 -0.00688 38 -0.052 64 -0.12757 90 -0.22105
14 -0.00897 40 -0.0569 66 -0.13426 92 -0.2287
16 -0.01123 42 -0.062 68 -0.14105 94 -0.23639
18 -0.01384 44 -0.06723 70 -0.14794 96 -0.24412
20 -0.01661 46 -0.07266 72 -0.15492 98 -0.2519
22 -0.01971 48 -0.07821 74 -0.16198 100 -0.25971
24 -0.02297 50 -0.08393 76 -0.16912 102 -0.26755
 Deflection graph
0.00E+00
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76

-5.00E-02

-1.00E-01

-1.50E-01

-2.00E-01

-2.50E-01

-3.00E-01

-3.50E-01

-4.00E-01

-4.50E-01

-5.00E-01

COMPARISON OF FRP TYPES

CFRP, GFRP, AFRP, BFRP, NFRP
Elastic
Fiber Strength Density Corrosion
Type of FRP Modulus Cost Durability Applications
Material (MPa) (g/cm³) Resistance
(GPa)
CFRP Carbon 1500–3500 120–600 1.6–1.8 High Excellent Excellent High-
(Carbon Fiber performance
Fiber applications
Reinforced (beams,
Polymer) columns,
aerospace)
GFRP Glass 500–1000 35–50 1.8–2.0 Moderate Good Good Infrastructure
(Glass Fiber Fiber (bridges,
Reinforced decks)
Polymer)
AFRP Aramid 1000–3000 50–130 1.4–1.5 Moderate Excellent Good Lightweight
(Aramid Fiber to High applications,
Fiber seismic
Reinforced retrofitting
Polymer)
BFRP Basalt 600–1200 50–90 2.7 Moderate Excellent Excellent Structural
(Basalt Fiber Fiber reinforcemen
Reinforced ts (eco-
Polymer) friendly
option)
Summary of Key Differences:
 CFRP: Best for applications needing high strength, stiffness, and lightweight,
but at a higher cost.
 GFRP: Offers good mechanical properties at a lower cost, commonly used in
construction and automotive applications.
 AFRP: High impact resistance and flexibility, but sensitive to UV
degradation, commonly used in protective gear.
 BFRP: Better resistance to high temperatures and chemicals, a good
alternative for harsh environments, but costlier than GFRP.
 NFRP: Sustainable and biodegradable, but with lower mechanical
performance, suited for eco-friendly applications.

Conclusion Using FRP

Software tools like Abaqus, ANSYS, and COMSOL are essential for
simulating the behaviour of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) materials. These
tools allow for:
1. Accurate Material Modeling: Simulating FRP’s anisotropic behaviour and
failure modes (fiber failure, matrix cracking, delamination).
2. Comprehensive Analysis: Assessing performance under static, dynamic,
thermal, and fatigue loads.
3. Design Optimization: Customizing and optimizing FRP structures for
specific needs like stiffness or impact resistance.
4. Cost-Effectiveness: Reducing physical testing by simulating various
conditions and configurations.
5. Validation: Comparing simulation results with experimental data to ensure
accuracy.
6. Challenges: Accurate material properties and complex modeling are crucial
for reliable predictions.