Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/283487870
CITATIONS READS
2 2,397
3 authors:
34 PUBLICATIONS 417 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Hussien Abdel Baky on 08 December 2015.
ABSTRACT
Key words: Fiber Reinforced Polymers, FRP Structural Shapes, FRP poles,
Flexural behavior, Filament Winding, Design procedure.
__________
Slimane Metiche, NSERC Industrial-Postdoctoral Fellow, FRE Composites (2005) Inc., 75
Wales Street, Saint André d’Argenteuil, Québec, J0V1X0, CANADA, and Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, J1K2R1, CANADA.
Department
Radhouane of Masmoudi,
Materials Engineering
P.E., PhD., &Professor,
AMPEL, University of of
Department British
Civil Columbia, Vancouver,
Engineering, UniversityBC,
Canada
of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, J1K2R1, CANADA
Hussien M. Abd El Baky, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, J1K2R1, CANADA.
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test prototypes
Each type of pole tested in this study is constituted by three zones, where the
geometrical and the mechanical properties are different in each zone. The difference
of these properties is due to the different number of layers used in each zone and the
fiber orientation of each layer (Figure 1). The stacking sequence as well as the
average thickness and length for the three zones of poles are presented in Table III
and Table IV, respectively. The fiber content of each prototype, expressed in
volume ratio Vf was determined experimentally by pyrolysis tests [10] and is
presented in Table IV.
It should be mentioned that all the prototypes presented in this study are single
segment and were fabricated with extra reinforcing provided around the principal
holes except for the prototypes 17-B-3-C and 17-A-3-C. On the other hand, there
was no extra reinforcing provided around the hole located under the ground line.
All the holes were cut at the manufacturer site, after the poles were fabricated.
Total length
FRP pole
TABLE IV. AVERAGE THICKNESS AND LENGTH FOR THE THREE ZONES OF THE
POLES
Zone I Zone II Zone III
Vf Average Average Average
Prototypes
(%) Length thickness
Length
thickness
Length
thickness
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
17-B-3-C 49 2133 4.78 2219 4.30 740 5.18
17-A-3-C 49 2133 4.78 2219 4.30 740 5.18
18-B-3-C 51 1220 3.27 980 7.20 3198 3.04
18-B-3-T 51 1220 3.27 980 7.20 3198 3.04
20-B-4-C 50 2000 2.81 1200 6.73 2794 2.84
33-B-5-C 59 2200 4.56 1000 8.35 6858 5.97
35-B-5-C 57 2200 3.87 1000 9.69 7366 5.37
40-A-5-C 51 2200 4.72 1000 9.80 8890 6.70
40-B-5-T 55 2200 5.54 1000 10.44 8890 7.73
40-B-5-C 55 2200 5.54 1000 10.44 8890 7.73
18-B-4-C 51 1220 3.27 980 7.20 3198 3.04
18-B-4-T 51 1220 3.27 980 7.20 3198 3.04
Test setup
A 225 KN load-capacity cell was used while the displacement rate of the bridge
crane was 12 mm/sec (Figure 2). The deflection of the FRP poles was measured
with a draw wire transducer (DWT) at hc/4; hc/2 as well as under the load
application point (Figure 2), where hc is the cantilever length or free length of the
pole. Electrical strain gages were mounted on the two faces (compression and
tension) near the ground line support, at hc/4; hc/2; 3/4hc as well as around the hole.
The strain gages were used to monitor the deformations in the longitudinal,
circumferential directions and at 45 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the pole.
Two LVDTs used to measure displacement at the pole base were positioned against
either the test fixture or the lower wall of the pole. LVDT # 1 was centered on the
underside of the pole at the ground line. LVDT # 2 was centered on the topside of
the FRP pole above the wooden support on the rear pole butt support. Two other
LVDTs were positioned laterally in order to measure the possible ovalisation of the
pole near the ground line support. An automatic data acquisition system was used to
collect the load, LVDTs, DWTs and strain gages data.
Load direction
Steel cable
Chain
Ground line support Web strap
Load cell FRP prototype
Rubber lined
wooden
Ground line
support saddle
Lifting jaws bl
Pole butt
DWT DWT DWT support
h Cantilever h Supported
Winch binder
Lifting jaws
Ground line support
FRP pole
n
E = ∑ { (Pi ) E xi } (1)
i =1
Where
1
E xi =
cos 4 θ i sin 4 θ i ⎛ 1 ν ⎞ (2)
+ + cos 2 θ i sin 2 θ i ⎜⎜ − 2 tl ⎟⎟
El Et ⎝ Glt Et ⎠
And
ν tl ν lt
= (3)
Et El
Where Exi is the Young’s modulus in the longitudinal direction of the ith layer, (n) is
the total number of layers at the base of the pole,νtl and νlt are the Poisson’s ratios,
θi is the fiber angle of the ith layer evaluated experimentally by a pyrolysis test, Pi is
the rate representing the ith layer of the laminate constituting the base zone of the
pole. The percentage representing each layer was evaluated by determining the
thickness of each layer using scanning electron microscope.
Figure 3 presents the curve of the ultimate bending moment (Mu,b) at the base of an
FRP pole for a given ratio (E I) / (L ρ) at the base of the pole. The ultimate bending
moment (Mu,b) was induced by the ultimate load (Fu). Figure 3 presents the
prototypes that failed at the base. Equation 4 was obtained from the curve presented
in the Figure 3 with a coefficient of regression (R2) of 0.99. The coefficient of
regression (R2) indicates the rate of correspondence between the trend curve and the
experimental results. Figure 4 presents the curve of the ultimate bending moment
(Mu,o) at the principal hand hole of an FRP pole for a given ratio (E I) / (L ρ) at the
base of the pole. The ultimate bending moment (Mu,o) was induced by the ultimate
load (Fu). Figure 4 presents the prototypes that failed at the principal hand hole.
Equation 5 was obtained from the curve presented in the Figure 4 with a coefficient
of regression (R2) of 1.00.
EI
Failure at the base : M u ,b = 1496 (4)
Lρ
3 2
Failure at the principal ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
M u ,o = 13.9⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 390.59⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 2957.5⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (5)
hand hole ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠
Figure 5 presents the prototypes that failed at the base and the prototypes that failed
at the principal hand hole as well as the respective trend curves. Figure 5 shows that
for a ratio (E I) / (L ρ) greater than 23.5 kN.m2/g, the failure occurs at the base of
the pole.
By the same manner, the design curves of the maximum deflection (Δmax) at the
loading position of an FRE pole were determined for a given ratio (E I) / (L ρ) at the
base of the FRP pole. Figure 6 presents the prototypes that failed at the base and the
prototypes that failed at the principal hand hole as well as the respective trend
curves and coefficients of regression (R2). Equation 6 and Equation 7 were obtained
from the curves presented in the Figure 6 respectively for a failure at the base and a
failure at the principal hand hole with a coefficient of regression (R2) of 0.89 and
0.96 respectively.
⎛ EI ⎞
Failure at the base : Δ max = 715.07 Ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 187.79 (6)
⎝ Lρ ⎠
2
Failure at the principal ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
Δ max = 16.093⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 396.2⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 2640.7 (7)
hand hole ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠
Figure 7 presents the ultimate longitudinal compression strain (εCx,b) at the base of
an FRP pole for a given ratio (E I) / (L ρ) at the base of the pole. The ultimate
bending moment (Mu,b) will be determined from the curve of Figure 5 or by using
the Equation 4. Figure 7 presents the prototypes that failed at the base. Equation 8
was obtained from the curve presented in the Figure 7.
3 2
Failure at the ε xC,b ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
= 0.054⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 4.6647⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 129.13⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1342.7 (8)
base : M u ,b ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠
Figure 8 presents the ultimate longitudinal tension strain (εTx,b) at the base of an
FRP pole for a given ratio (E I) / (L ρ) at the base of the FRP pole. The ultimate
bending moment (Mu,b) will be determined from the curve of Figure 5 or by using
the Equation 4. Figure 8 presents the prototypes that failed at the base. Equation 9
was obtained from the curve presented in the Figure 8.
3 2
Failure at the ε xT,b ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
= −0.0483⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 4.5078⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 136.04⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 1477.1 (9)
base : M u ,b ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠
The design curves presented in figure 7 and Figure 8 show that the ration (εCx,b) /
(Mu,b) (respectively the ratio (εTx,b) / (Mu,b)) decreases when increasing the ratio (E
I) / (L ρ) for values of (E I) / (L ρ) less than 17 kN.m2/g. For the values of (E I) / (L
ρ) greater than 17 kN.m2/g, the ratio (εCx,b) / (Mu,b) (respectively the ratio (εTx,b) /
(Mu,b)) is almost constant.
FAILURE AT THE BASE
70
Fu
EI
60
M u ,b = 1496
Lρ
50 2
Mu,b (AT THE BASE) (kN.m)
L R = 0.9869
40
Mu,b
30 E,I, ρ
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
E I / (L ρ) AT THE BASE (kN.m2/g)
Figure 3. Design curve - Ultimate bending moment (Mu,b) at the base – Failure at the base.
35 3 2
⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
M u ,o = 13.9⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 390.59⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 2957.5⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
30 ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠
Fu
Mu,o (AT THE HAND HOLE) (kN.m)
2
R = 0.9962
25
20
L
15
Poles that failed at the Mu,o
principal hand hole
10
E,I, ρ
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
2
E I / (L ρ) AT THE BASE (kN.m /g)
Figure 4. Design curve - Ultimate bending moment (Mu,o) at the hand hole – Failure at the hand hole.
3 2
⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
120 M u ,o = 13.9⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 390.59⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 2957.5⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Fu Fu ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠
EI
100 M u ,b = 1496
Lρ
Failure at the hand hole
L L 2
80 R = 0.9962
Mu,o
Mu (kN.m)
60 Mu,b
20
Poles that failed at the base
Poles that failed at the principal hand hole
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
E I / (L ρ) AT THE BASE (kN.m2/g)
2
12000 ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
Δ m ax = 16.093⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 396.2⎜⎜ Lρ ⎟⎟ + 2640.7
⎝ L ρ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
2
R = 0.9625
10000 Poles that failed at the base Δmax
Poles that failed at the principal hand hole
Fu
8000 Failure at the hand hole
Δmax (mm)
6000
4000 ⎛ EI ⎞ E,I, ρ
Δ m ax = 715.07 Ln⎜⎜ ⎟ + 187.79
2 ⎝ Lρ ⎟⎠
R = 0.8857
2000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
E I / (L ρ) AT THE BASE (kN.m2/g)
-200
3 2
ε xC,b ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞ ⎛ EI ⎞
= 0.054⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 4.6647⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 129.13⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 1342.7
-400 x M u ,b ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠ ⎝ Lρ ⎠
εx,b Compression / Mu,b
Fu 2
R = 0.9484
-600
Figure 7. Design curve – Ultimate longitudinal compression strain (εCx,b) at the base.
2
R = 0.9354 x
Fu
1000
Poles that failed at the base
εx,b Traction / Mu,b
800
εx,b Traction : Ultimate longitudinal L
tension strain at the base of an FRP pole.
600 Mu,b : Ultimate bending moment at the base
of an FRP pole.
400
Mu,b E,I, ρ
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
E I / (L ρ) AT THE BASE (kN.m2/g)
Figure 8. Design curve – Ultimate longitudinal tension strain (εTx,b) at the base.
CONCLUSION
• For a ratio (E I) / (L ρ) greater than 23.5 kN.m2/g the failure occurs at the base
of the pole.
• The ratio (εCx,b) / (Mu,b) (respectively the ratio (εTx,b) / (Mu,b)) decreases when
increasing the ratio (E I) / (L ρ) for values of (E I) / (L ρ) less than 17 kN.m2/g.
For the values of (E I) / (L ρ) greater than 17 kN.m2/g, the ratio (εCx,b) / (Mu,b)
(respectively the ratio (εTx,b) / (Mu,b)) is almost constant.
The contribution of this research work lies mainly in the characterization of new
fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite poles and describes a new design
approach to advance in the design of FRP poles.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Young’s modulus in the longitudinal direction of the lamina which constitutes the pole’s
E
base zone (N/m2).
El Modulus of elasticity in the fiber direction (unidirectional layer) (N/m2).
Et Modulus of elasticity in the transverse direction (unidirectional layer) (N/m2).
Exi Young’s modulus in the longitudinal direction of the ith layer (N/m2).
Fu Ultimate applied load (N).
Glt Shear modulus (unidirectional layer) (N/m2).
I Moment of inertia at the base of the pole (m4).
L Cantilever height of the pole (m).
Mu,b Ultimate bending moment at the base of an FRP pole (kN.m).
Mu,o Ultimate bending moment at the principal hand hole of an FRP pole (kN.m).
n Total number of layers in the pole’s base zone.
Pi The rate representing the ith layer of the laminate constituting the base zone of the pole.
Vf Fiber volume content (%).
ρ Linear mass of the fibers (g/km). See Table I.
εCx,b Ultimate longitudinal compression strain at the base of an FRP pole (με / kN.m).
εTx,b Ultimate longitudinal tension strain at the base of an FRP pole (με / kN.m).
Δmax Maximum deflection at the loading position of an FRE pole (mm).
θi Fiber angle of the ith layer.
νlt ; Poisson’s ratios.
REFERENCES
1. Labossière, P., Neale, K.W. 1987. “Macroscopic failure criteria for fibre-reinforced composite
materials,” Solid Mechanics Archives, 12 (2): 65-95.
2. Barbero, E. J. and Raftoyiannis, I. G. 1993. “Euler Buckling of Pultruded Composite Columns.
Composite Structures,” vol. 24: 139-147.
3. Polyzois, D., Ibrahim, S. and Raftoyiannis, I. G. 1999. “Performance of fiber-reinforced plastic
tapered poles under lateral loading,” Journal of composite materials, vol. 33: 941-960.
4. Lin, Z. M. 1995. “Analysis of Pole-Type Structure of Fiber-reinforced Plastics by Finite
Element Method,” Ph. D. thesis. University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada.
5. Gart, M. and Krambule, G. 1983. “Backyard pole replacement using fiberglass poles,”
Transmission and Distribution World, vol. 11: 57-60.
6. Ibrahim, S. and Polyzois, D. 1999. “Ovalisation analysis of fiber-reinforced plastic poles,”
Composite Structures, vol. 45: 7-12.
7. Metiche, S. and Masmoudi, R. 2007. “Full-Scale Flexural Testing on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
(FRP) Poles,” The Open Civil Engineering Journal, vol. 1: 37-49.
8. Metiche, S., Nacer, R. and Masmoudi, R. 2008. “Mechanical properties of FRP laminates
produced by the filament winding process,” 2nd International Structural Specialty Conference,
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Québec, Canada, June 10-13, 2008.
9. Masmoudi, R., Mohamed, H. and Metiche, S. 2008. “Finite Element Modeling for Deflection
and Bending Responses of GFRP Poles,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 6
(27): 639-658.
10. Metiche, S. 2008. “Évaluation expérimentale et théorique du comportement à la flexion de
nouveaux poteaux en matériaux composites,” Ph. D. thesis. University of Sherbrooke, Québec,
Canada.
11. American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D 4923 – 01. 2005. “Standard Specification
for Reinforced Thermosetting Plastic Poles”, in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 08.02,
West Conshohocken, USA: ASTM International, pp. 726-735.
12. American National Standard Institute. 1990. “Fiber-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Lighting Poles”.
American National Standard for Roadway Lighting Equipment, USA. C 136.20.
13. California Department of Transportation. 1995. “Proposed California Test 683, Method for
testing deflection and bending strength of fiber-reinforced plastic poles”, New York, State of
California, USA,
14. Gay, D. 1997. Matériaux composites, Paris, France : Hermès, 672 p.