Index

EFFECT OF RESIN AND FIBER ON THE ABRASION,
IMPACT AND PRESSURE RESISTANCE OF CYLINDRICAL

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
DERYA KAYA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
JUNE 2011
Approval of the thesis:

submitted by DERYA KAYA in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Chemical Engineering Department, Middle East
Technical University by,
Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen

Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Prof. Dr. Deniz Üner

Head of Department, Chemical Engineering Dept.
Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yılmazer

Supervisor, Chemical Engineering Dept., METU
Examining Committee Members:
Prof. Dr. Hayrettin Yücel

Chemical Engineering Dept., METU
Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yılmazer

Prof. Dr. Cevdet Kaynak

Materials & Metallurgical Engineering Dept., METU
Prof. Dr. Leyla Aras

Chemistry Dept., METU
Dr. Cevdet Öztin

Date: 08/06/2011
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last Name : Derya Kaya
Signature :
iii
ABSTRACT

Kaya, Derya
M.S., Department of Chemical Engineering
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yılmazer
June 2011, 112 pages
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of resin and fiber on the abrasion,
impact and internal pressure resistances of fiber reinforced plastic composite pipes
produced by continuous filament winding method. For this study, pipe samples were
produced with different combinations of resin type, fiber type, fiber amount and fiber
length. All the samples were tested in accordance with the related ISO (International
Organization for Standardization), DIN (German Standardization Institution) and BSI
(British Standards Institution) standards. Three types of resins were used as
ortophthalic, isophthalic and vinylester; two types of fibers were used as E-glass and
ECR-glass and one type of GLASSFLAKES was used as C-glass. It was observed that
the type of resin did not have any significant effect on burst pressure. However, the
vinylester resin had a considerable positive effect on the abrasion and impact
resistances. Moreover, it was observed that the type of fiber did not have any
significant effect on impact and internal pressure resistances, but the use of C-glass
GLASSFLAKES resulted in a positive effect on the abrasion resistance. Additionally,
iv
it was found that the increase in the amount of glass fiber resulted in increase of burst
pressure, impact and abrasion resistances. Finally, it was observed that the length of
glass fiber did not have any significant effect on abrasion resistance, but the decrease
in fiber length resulted in a higher internal pressure and impact resistances.
Keywords: Filament winding, composite, abrasion resistance, impact resistance, burst

pressure
v
ÖZ
SĐLĐNDĐRĐK KOMPOZĐT YAPILARDA

REÇĐNE VE ELYAFIN AŞINMA, DARBE VE BASINÇ
DAYANIMINA ETKĐSĐ
Kaya, Derya
Yüksek Lisans, Kimya Mühendisliği Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yılmazer
Haziran 2011, 112 sayfa
Bu çalışmanın amacı sürekli elyaf sarma metodu ile üretilmiş cam elyaf takviyeli
plastik kompozit borulardaki reçine ve elyafın aşınma, darbe ve iç basınç dayanımına
olan etkisinin araştırılmasıdır. Bu çalışma için reçine tipi, elyaf tipi, elyaf miktarı ve
elyaf boyu açısından farklı kombinasyonlara sahip boru numuneleri üretilmiştir.
Bütün numuneler ilgili ISO (Uluslararası Standardizasyon Organizasyonu), DIN
(Alman Standardizasyon Enstitüsü) ve BSI (Đngiliz Standartları Enstitüsü)
standartlarına göre test edilmiştir. Ortoftalik, izoftalik ve vinilester olmak üzere üç
çeşit reçine tipi; E-camı ve ECR-camı olmak üzere iki çeşit elyaf tipi ve C-camı
olmak üzere bir çeşit GLASSFLAKES kullanılmıştır. Reçine tipinin borunun patlatma
basıncında önemli bir etkisinin olmadığı görülmüştür. Ancak vinilester reçinenin,
aşınma ve darbe dayanımında kayda değer pozitif etkisi bulunmaktadır. Bunlara ek
olarak, elyaf tipinin darbe ve iç basınç dayanımında önemli bir etkisi olmadığı tespit
edilmiştir; fakat C-camı GLASSFLAKES kullanımı aşınma dayanımında pozitif etki
ile sonuçlanmıştır. Ayrıca, elyaf miktarındaki artışın patlatma basıncında, darbe ve
vi
aşınma dayanımında yükselişe neden olduğu görülmüştür. Son olarak, elyaf boyunun
aşınma dayanımına önemli bir etkisinin olmadığı gözlenmiştir, ancak elyaf boyunun
kısalması iç basınç ve darbe dayanımının artması ile sonuçlanmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Elyaf sarma, kompozit, aşınma dayanımı, darbe dayanımı,

patlatma basıncı
vii
To My Dear Family
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Prof. Dr. Ülkü
Yılmazer for his guidance, encouragement, insight, and patience through the research.
I would like to acknowledge the advice and guidance of Dr. Alpay Gülcan and I
would like to express my gratitude for his encouragement.
I would sincerely thank to Mr. Özcan Çağlar, production director of Superlit Romania,
for his insight and support. His care and support provided me a continuous motivation.
Many thanks to my dear friends, Güler Bengüsu Tezel and Đkbal Özge Đnan, for their
endless help and support.
Special thanks to my husband Ali Özkan Kaya for his endless patience and support. It
would have been impossible to achieve my goals without his belief and
encouragement.
I would like to thank each member of my family for their love, encouragement and
belief in me.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv
ÖZ...... ................................................................................................................................ vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... xix
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE SURVEY.............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Resin Matrix ..................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Chemistry of Unsaturated Polyester Resins .......................................... 5
2.1.2. Types of Unsaturated Resins ................................................................. 7
2.1.3. Curing of Unsaturated Polyester Resins ............................................... 9
x
2.1.3.1 Reaction Mechanism of Cross Linking ...................................... 12
2.2 Fiber Reinforcement....................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Types of Fiber Reinforcement .............................................................. 14
2.2.2 Glass Fiber Reinforcement ................................................................... 16
2.3. Aggregates ..................................................................................................... 18
2.4 Production Methods of FRP Pipes ................................................................ 18
2.4.1 Filament Winding Method.................................................................... 19
2.4.1.1 Helical Winding Method ............................................................. 19
2.4.1.2 Continuous Filament Winding Method ...................................... 20
2.4.2 Centrifugal Casting Method ................................................................. 23
2.4.3 Hand Lay-up Method ............................................................................ 24
2.5 Theoretical and Experimental Studies .......................................................... 25
3. SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TESTING ............................................................ 29
3.1 Material Selection .......................................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Selection of Resin Matrix ..................................................................... 29
xi
3.1.2 Selection of Fiber Reinforcements ....................................................... 31
3.1.3 Selection of Aggregate .......................................................................... 33
3.2 Test Specimen Fabrication ............................................................................ 34
3.2.1 Pipe Recipes .......................................................................................... 40
3.3 Experimental Techniques .............................................................................. 43
3.3.1 Abrasion Resistance Test Method ........................................................ 43
3.3.1.1 Test Pieces .................................................................................... 43
3.3.1.2 Test Apparatus.............................................................................. 46
3.3.1.3 Test Procedure .............................................................................. 47
3.3.2 Impact Resistance Test Method ........................................................... 48
3.3.2.1 Test Pieces .................................................................................... 48
3.3.2.2 Test Apparatus.............................................................................. 48
3.3.2.3 Test Procedure .............................................................................. 50
3.3.3 Pressure Resistance Test ....................................................................... 50
3.3.3.1 Test Pieces .................................................................................... 50
xii
3.3.3.2 Test Apparatus.............................................................................. 51
3.3.3.3 Test Procedure .............................................................................. 52
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 53
4.1 Experimental Results and Discussion ........................................................... 53
4.1.1 Results and Discussion of the Abrasion Resistance Test ................... 53
4.1.2 Results and Discussion of the Impact Test .......................................... 65
4.1.3 Results and Discussion of the Burst Test............................................. 80
5. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 84
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 86
APPENDICES
A. MEASUREMENT OF ABRASION AFTER 100,000 CYCLES ................ 89
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 2.1 Properties of fiber reinforcements .................................................................. 15
Table 3.1 Mechanical properties of cast non-reinforced BRE 310W resin ................. 30
Table 3.2 Mechanical properties of cast non-reinforced BRE 311W resin .................. 30
Table 3.3 Mechanical properties of cast non-reinforced REICHHOLD DION

IMPACT 9160 resin ....................................................................................... 31
Table 3.4 Technical properties of CAM ELYAF and OCV fibers ............................... 32
Table 3.5 Chemical Composition of GLASSFLAKES ................................................ 33
Table 3.6 Properties of KUMSAN silica sand ............................................................... 33
Table 3.7 Test group used to evaluate the effects of resin type on the abrasion, impact
and pressure resistances................................................................................... 37
Table 3.8 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber amount on abrasion
resistance ......................................................................................................... 37
Table 3.9 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber amount on impact and
pressure resistances.......................................................................................... 38
xiv
Table 3.10 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber type on the abrasion, impact
and pressure resistances ................................................................................ 39
Table 3.11 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber length on the abrasion,
impact and pressure resistances .................................................................... 40
Table 3.12 Pipe Recipe “R-01” ....................................................................................... 40
Table 3. 14 Pipe Recipe “R-03” ...................................................................................... 41
Table 3.18 Gravel quantity and water level width ........................................................ 46
Table 4.1 Abrasion results of the test group used to evaluate the effects of resin
type ................................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.2 Abrasion results of the test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber
type ................................................................................................................... 57
amount .............................................................................................................. 61
xv
length ................................................................................................................ 64
Table 4.5 Drop height and crack area of the test group used to evaluate the effects of
resin type .......................................................................................................... 65
fiber type .......................................................................................................... 68
fiber amount ..................................................................................................... 74
fiber length ....................................................................................................... 78
Table 4.9 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effects of resin type .. 81
Table 4.10 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber type 81
Table 4.11 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber
amount ............................................................................................................ 82
Table 4.12 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber
length .............................................................................................................. 82
Table A.1 Measurement of abrasion for sample FW-1 .................................................. 89
xvi
Table A.10 Measurement of abrasion for sample FW-10 ............................................. 98
Table A.11 Measurement of abrasion for sample FW-11 ............................................. 99
Table A.12 Measurement of abrasion for sample FW-12 ........................................... 100
xvii
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Synthesis of unsaturated polyester resin ........................................................ 6
Figure 2.2 Flow chart of UP resin production ................................................................. 6
Figure 2.3 Synthesis of vinyl ester resin .......................................................................... 9
Figure 2.4 Polymer network ............................................................................................. 9
Figure 2.5 Redox reactions of organic peroxide and accelerator .................................. 10
Figure 2.6 Crosslinking reaction between polyester and styrene ................................. 11
Figure 2.7 Forming of radical initiators ......................................................................... 12
Figure 2.8 Stabilized styrene radicals ............................................................................ 12
Figure 2.9 Propagation reaction of polymerization ....................................................... 13
Figure 2.10 Termination reaction of polymerization .................................................... 14
Figure 2.11 Production process of glass fiber ............................................................... 16
Figure 2.12 Helical winding process .............................................................................. 19
xix
Figure 2.13 Continuous filament winding machine ....................................................... 21
Figure 2.14 Raw materials feeding on the mandrel ....................................................... 21
Figure 2.15 Raw materials being fed to the inside of the rotating mold ....................... 23
Figure 2.16 Hand lay-up process .................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.1 GLASSFLAKES particles ............................................................................. 33
Figure 3.2 Continuous filament winding pipe layers ..................................................... 35
Figure 3.3 Abrasion resistance test sample with end plates .......................................... 44
Figure 3.4 Drawing of abrasion resistance test sample.................................................. 44
Figure 3.5 Drawing of the abrasion resistance test apparatus ....................................... 47
Figure 3.6 Photograph of the abrasion resistance test apparatus ................................... 47
Figure 3.7 Striker used in the impact resistance test ...................................................... 48
Figure 3.8 Drawing of the support, sample and striker used in impact test ................. 49
Figure 3.9 Drawing of burst test apparatus..................................................................... 51
Figure 3.10 A pipe sample after burst ............................................................................. 52
xx
Figure 4.1 Graph of the abrasion results obtained from the test group used to evaluate
the effects of resin type .................................................................................. 55
Figure 4.2 Chemical structures of ortophthalic and isophthalic acids .......................... 56
the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with ortophthalic resin. . 58
the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with isophthalic resin. ... 58
the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with vinylester resin...... 59
Figure 4.6 Barrier formed by GLASSFLAKES ............................................................. 60
the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with ortophthalic
resin. ................................................................................................................ 62
the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with isophthalic
resin. ................................................................................................................ 62
the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with vinylester resin. 63
the effects of fiber length. ............................................................................ 64
xxi
Figure 4.11 Graph of the drop height and crack area obtained from the test group used
to evaluate the effects of resin type. (a) Comparison of drop height
causing liner cracks, (b) Comparison of crack area, (c) Comparison of
drop height causing inter-laminar separation.............................................. 66
Figure 4. 12 Graph of the drop height and crack area obtained from the test group used
to evaluate the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with
ortophthalic resin. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks,
(b) Comparison of crack area, (c) Comparison of drop height causing
inter-laminar separation .............................................................................. 69
isophthalic resin. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks,
vinylester resin. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks,
to evaluate the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with
ortophthalic resin. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks,
xxii
isophthalic resin. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks,
vinylester resin. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks,
to evaluate the effects of fiber length. Samples were produced with
ortophthalic resin. Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks ........ 79
ortophthalic resin. Comparison of crack area ............................................ 79
ortophthalic resin. Comparison of drop height causing inter-laminar
separation ..................................................................................................... 80
xxiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The continuous improvement of modern technology increases the need for materials
with special properties. Traditional engineering materials such as steel or concrete can
not meet these special requirements. Therefore, today, the materials known as
composites are used in many applications because of their beneficial characteristics
over traditional materials.
A composite contains at least two constituents; usually one is called as the matrix and
the other as the reinforcement. Matrix is continuous and surrounds the reinforcements
(dispersed phase). Composites combine all the individual properties of both matrix
and reinforcement. The properties of composites depend on the relative amounts of
constituents and size-and-shape of reinforcement. It is understandable that properties
of composite materials are nothing but improved version of properties of matrix
materials due to presence of dispersed phase [1].
Many types of matrix and reinforcements are available to be used in composite

structure and thus by using different combinations, it is possible to produce
composites for a wide range of application.
FRP (fiber-glass reinforced polyester) is one of the most common composite used in
industry due to its better chemical and mechanical properties. In literature, FRP
(Fiber-glass Reinforced Polyester) is also referred to as GRP (Glass-fiber Reinforced
Polyester).
1
FRP composites are used for many varied applications such as marine, building,
transport industries, wind energy plants and storage and transport of materials.
Fiberglass reinforced pipes are one of the main industrial applications of composite
materials. They are being used for the transportation of municipal water and sewage.
FRP pipes are produced from glass fiber reinforcements, thermosetting resins, and
sand. FRP pipes can be produced with wide range of characteristics by combining the
right type and amount of materials and by selecting the suitable manufacturing
process. The advantages of FRP pipes over the other pipe types such as steel,
concrete, polyethylene and PVC make them preferable in many applications. The
main advantages of FRP pipes are listed below.
• Corrosion resistance: FRP pipes are resistant to corrosion, thus additional

internal linings and exterior coatings used especially in metallic pipe systems are
not required.
• Strength to weight ratio: When the ratio of strength per unit of weight is
compared with iron, carbon, and stainless steel pipes, FRP pipes have excellent
strength to weight properties.
• Lightweight: FRP pipes have one-sixth the weight of similar steel products and
one-tenth the weight of similar concrete products.
• Long service life: FRP pipes are designed to give service for minimum fifty
years under all circumstances.
• Low operating cost: Inside surface smoothness of FRP pipes does not change
during the whole service period. Thus, the pump costs are reduced.
2
FRP pipes are especially used in applications requiring the corrosion resistance of
plastics and the strength of metallic systems. The mechanical strength of fiberglass
pipe depends on the formulation including the amount, type, and arrangement of raw
materials. Due to the various alternatives in the formulations, thickness values are not
given in the FRP pipe standards but, instead, only the minimum performance
requirements are specified.
FRP pipes can be produced by using two basic processes: filament winding and
centrifugal casting. It is possible to produce pipes with characteristics that are unique
and may be advantageous for some applications by using each of the processes.
In this study, it is aimed to improve the abrasion, impact and internal pressure
resistances of glass fiber reinforced plastic pipes, produced with continuous filament
winding method, by using different combinations of the type of resin matrix and the
type, amount and length of fiber reinforcement. The effects of different resin types
such as ortophthalic, isophthalic and vinylester, and different fiber types such as E-
glass, ECR-glass and C-glass GLASSFLAKES were evaluated and compared.
Additionally, the effects of amount and length of fiber reinforcement were observed
and discussed.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 Resin Matrix
Resin used in FRP pipes, forms the matrix of composite by surrounding and
supporting the reinforcing materials. The resin matrix is used for the purposes given
below:
• Fibers are held together so that the applied stress is distributed among them
• The surface of the fibers are protected from being damaged
• Crack propagation is inhibited
Different types of polymers can be used as the resin matrix such as unsaturated
polyesters, epoxies, acrylics, vinyl-esters, cyanate-esters and phthalate-esters. In all
cases, the manufacturing of these synthetic polymer systems involves two steps;
formation (synthesis) of the uncured polyester mixture and addition of monomer. The
new polyester is then cured by a crosslinking reaction. Since the crosslinking process
involves permanent, irreversible bond formation between polymer chains, these types
of polymer systems are classified as ‘thermosets’. The most common resin matrix
used in FRP pipes is polyester resin.
4
2.1.1 Chemistry of Unsaturated Polyester Resins
Polyester resin is an unsaturated, thermosetting resin produced by a reaction between

several organic acids and polyhydric alcohols. The polyesters are low molecular
weight viscous liquids dissolved in vinyl monomers like styrene to facilitate shaping
of the resin into a desired form before curing.
Unsaturated polyester (UP) resins are produced in two separate steps. In the first step,
the UP is formed by polycondensation reaction of the acids and the alcohols. All raw
materials (phthalic anhydride, maleic anhydride and ethylene glycol) are charged to
the reactor, and the reactor content is heated up to between 200 and 210°C. The
polycondensation reaction starts during the heating-up phase, forming the polyester
polymer with the separation of water. The water is distilled through a reflux cooler
and condenser. After acid group (-OOH) and alcohol group (-OH) reacts and water is
formed, there are still two reactive groups on both sides of the ester chain. These can
react with other groups to form a longer chain, whose end-groups can react with other
groups to form an even longer chain, and so on. In this way, a long chain is formed
which is called as polyester. The reaction is continued until the desired degree of
polymerization is obtained. When the desired polymerization is obtained, the polymer
melt is cooled down to 60 - 80 °C. Synthesis reaction of UP resin is shown in Figure
2.1.
In the second step, the polymer melt is fed to a blender where it is dissolved in styrene
monomer and formulated to the final product. Styrene is used as a diluent for the
super-thick, thixotropic polyester and it is the monomeric agent that subsequently
forms the crosslinks between adjacent polymer chains during the final cure.
Unsaturated polyester resin production flow chart is shown in Figure 2.2.
5
Phthalic Anyhydride Maleic Anyhydride Ethylene Glycol
Unsaturated Linear Polyester
Figure 2.1 Synthesis of unsaturated polyester resin [2]
Figure 2.2 Flow chart of UP resin production [3]
6
2.1.2. Types of Unsaturated Resins
There is a large variety of raw materials available for the production of UP resins. The
choice of different dicarboxylic acids, dialcohols and monomers result in a large range
of products with a very wide spread of properties, which are suitable for many
industrial applications. There are three main types of resins used in FRP pipe
production industry; ortophthalic, isophthalic and vinylester resin.
Ortophthalic polyester resin is the standard, general purpose, economic resin used in
FRP pipe industry. It is made of propylene glycol, phthalic anhydride and maleic
anhydride and contains styrene as a co-monomer. The quantity of dibasic acids
changes the characteristics of resin from rigid to soft. Dipropylene glycol enhances the
flexibility of the cured resin, and use of phthalic anhydride results in a flexible resin
with improved impact resistance. The main advantages of unsaturated ortophthalic
resin are optimum reactivity and high impact and bonding strengths.
Isophthalic polyester resins are used when more strength and chemical resistance is
required. Isophthalic acid is used in place of phthalic anhydride to make isophthalic
resin. Isophthalic resin can be made more flexible by using adipic acid in the
formulation of isophthalic acid which gives very high impact resistance to the resin.
The main advantages of unsaturated isophthalic resin are good acid resistance, high
mechanical strength and good electrical properties.
Isophthalic polyester resins have some major advantages when compared to

ortophthalic polyester resins. Isophthalic resins provide higher heat resistance, greater
retention of physical properties, better chemical resistance, and greater composite
strength when bonded to fiberglass reinforcement. In laboratory tests, a fiberglass
reinforced isophthalic polyester resin panel showed 10% higher flexural and 20%
7
higher tensile properties than a comparable panel using ortophthalic polyester resin
[4].
Vinylester resins have better performance than polyester resins when compared with
respect to water resistance, chemical resistance and mechanical properties. Vinylester
resins combine the good thermal and mechanical properties of epoxy resins with the
easier and quicker processing properties of unsaturated polyester resins. Another
advantage of vinylester resins is the resistance against a large number of chemicals.
Vinylester resins are based on the esterification reaction between epoxy resin and
unsaturated monocarboxylic acid. The most commonly used epoxy resins are the
diglycidylether of bisphenol A, the diglycidylether of tetrabromobisphenol A and the
epoxidized phenol formaldehyde novolac. As the monocarboxylic acid, either acrylic
acid or methacrylic acid is generally used.
The reaction between the epoxy resin and the carboxylic acid is an addition reaction
which takes place at temperatures between 120 and 160°C. The addition of carboxylic
group to the epoxide ring results in the formation of an ester with a hydroxyl group.
Hydroxyl group can further react with anyhydrides or isocyanates in order to obtain
certain properties in the final product. After the reaction, the vinylester is dissolved in
a monomer (usually styrene) to form the final product [5]. Synthesis reaction of
vinylester resin is shown in Figure 2.3.
8
Figure 2.3 Synthesis of vinyl ester resin [6]
2.1.3. Curing of Unsaturated Polyester Resins
Resins are produced by dissolving polycondensation products in a monomer. Both the

resin polymer and styrene monomer have reactive carbon-carbon double bonds. A
reaction between these double bonds is called as the curing reaction, and it leads to the
formation of three dimensional polymer network which is shown in Figure 2.4.
Before Curing After Curing
Figure 2.4 Polymer network [7]
9
Curing occurs by a crosslinking chain reaction. This reaction is initiated by free
radical formation. Organic peroxides are used as radical initiators. Selecting the type
of organic peroxides depends on the type of resin. Most common peroxide used in
FRP pipe production is methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP). Radical initiators are
formed by decomposition of the MEKP. This decomposition is done by an
accelerator. Accelerators are generally the solutions of metal salts. Most common
accelerator used in FRP pipe production is cobalt octoate solution with a
concentration between 1 and 10 %. The cobalt ions react with the organic peroxide in
a redox reaction as shown in Figure 2.5.
ROOH + Co+2 RO + Co+3 + OH-
ROOH + Co+3 ROO + Co+2 + H+
2 ROOH RO + ROO + H2O
Figure 2.5 Redox reactions of organic peroxide and accelerator
Crosslinking reaction begins after the addition of organic peroxide and accelerator to
polyester. After forming of free radicals by redox reaction, these radicals react with
the carbon-carbon double bonds of styrene molecule. Then, the new styrene radicals
attack to the polymer chain. It takes some time before the polymer chains start to
crosslink with the styrene molecules. In this phase, the product still remains liquid. As
soon as the crosslinking reaction has progressed sufficiently, the resin forms a gel
under the generation of heat. After gelation, the resin can not be processed anymore.
Crosslinking reaction is shown in Figure 2.6.
10
Unsaturated Linear Polyester Resin (Uncured)
Styrene (Monomer)
Organic Peroxide
Styrene-Crosslinked Polyester Matrix (Cured)
Figure 2.6 Crosslinking reaction between polyester and styrene [2]
The exothermic behavior of the crosslinking reaction causes the temperature to

increase, which further accelerates the polymerization reaction. The gel solidifies
progressively into a solid material. The temperature increases until a maximum is
reached. From that moment on, the material cools down because the heat evolution is
lower than dissipation of the heat to the surroundings. The polymerization reaction
still proceeds, but this process slows down gradually until the final polymer network
is formed, and the material has solidified completely [5].
11
2.1.3.1 Reaction Mechanism of Cross Linking
Free radical formation is the first step of crosslinking reaction of resin. As already
mentioned in the previous section, free radicals are formed by redox reaction between
organic peroxide and accelerator. Another way to form free radicals is the
decomposition of organic peroxides by using heat. Reaction of forming free radicals is
shown in Figure 2.7.
Heat or Accelerator
Benzoyl Preoxide
Figure 2.7 Forming of radical initiators [2]
The free radicals attack to the carbon-carbon double bonds on the styrene monomers
to produce new and strongly stabilized free radicals. This reaction is the initiation step
of free radical polymerization, and the stabilized radicals are shown in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8 Stabilized styrene radicals [2]
12
After stabilized styrene radicals are formed, these radicals attack to carbon-carbon
double bonds of resin and the propagation step of polymerization reaction takes over.
In this propagation step, different propagation reactions may occur. Two of these
possible reactions that are most important and most likely to occur are shown in
Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9 Propagation reaction of polymerization [2]
Finally, free electrons from two growing chains form a bond and thus a single chain.
By this way termination step of polymerization reaction occurs as shown in Figure
2.10.
13
Figure 2.10 Termination reaction of polymerization [2]
2.2 Fiber Reinforcement
FRP composites can be designed in a variety of mechanical and chemical strength by

reinforcing the resin matrix with different type of fiber reinforcement. The role of
fiber reinforcement is to increase the mechanical properties of laminate. Mechanical
performance of the laminate depends on the mechanical strength, amount, orientation
and dispersion of fiber and the surface interaction between fiber and resin.
2.2.1 Types of Fiber Reinforcement
Fiber reinforcements are classified according to the type of their raw materials. There
are several types of fiber reinforcement used in composite industry such as carbon,
aramid, boron, alumina and glass fibers. Mechanical properties, application areas and
costs vary according to the type of reinforcement. Mechanical properties of the
common fiber reinforcement are given in Table 2.1.
14
Table 2.1 Properties of fiber reinforcements [8]
Tensile Tensile Typical

Material
Strength Modulus Density
Type
(MPa) (GPa) (g/cm3)
Carbon Fiber 3500 325-440 1.80
Aramid Fiber 3100 120 1.45
Glass Fiber 2400 69 2.50
Carbon fibers are the most widely used reinforcing fibers in advanced composites.
They are produced from polyacrylonitrile.
Aramid fiber, is manufactured from aromatic polyamide which is technically a

thermoplastic polymer like nylon. Aramid fibers have lower compressive strengths
than carbon fibers, but their high specific strengths, toughness and low densities keep
them in demand.
Boron fibers are made by the decomposition of boron halides on a hot tungsten wire.
Boron fibers were used as first high-performance reinforcing material in advanced
composites, however they are more expensive and less attractive than carbon fibers.
Alumina (aluminum oxide) fibers are produced by dry spinning from various
solutions. They are coated with silica to improve their contact properties with molten
metal.
Glass fibers are strong and lightweight reinforcements. They are the most common
reinforcing materials used in FRP pipe industry.
15
2.2.2 Glass Fiber Reinforcement
By blending quarry products (sand, kaolin, limestone, colemanite) at 1500-1600°C,

molten glass with a uniform controlled viscosity is formed. The molten glass is passed
through micro-fine bushings and simultaneously cooled to produce glass fiber
filaments from 5-24µm in diameter. Then, these filaments are treated by various
physical and chemical processes called “sizing” to provide filament cohesion and
protect the glass from abrasion and also to bind filaments as strand or roving.
Production process of glass fiber is shown in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11 Production process of glass fiber [9]
16
Sizing process helps to protect filaments during weaving or braiding, and type of
sizing determines the compatibility of the glass fiber with different resins. Sizing also
affects the dispersion of the cut fiber in the resin matrix. Thus, sizing of glass fibers
affects the quality and performance of the end product.
Glass fiber reinforcements are classified according to their physical and chemical
properties. There are six major type of glass fiber reinforcements commonly used in
the industry as E-glass, C-glass, ECR-glass, A-glass, S-glass and D-glass.
E-glass fiber reinforcement is formed from alumino-borosilicate glass which has

lower alkali content. E-glass fiber manifests good electrical insulation and strongly
resists attack by water. It is the most common reinforcement used in electrical
applications. It was the first glass formulation used for continuous filament formation,
and although its impact resistance is relatively poor, more than 50% of the glass fibers
used for reinforcement is E-glass because of its good tensile and compressive strength
and stiffness, good electrical properties, good compatibility with mostly used
polyester resins and relatively low cost. It is available in many different forms such as
continuous, chopped or mat.
C-glass fiber reinforcement has a very good resistance against chemical attacks.
However, the strength properties of C-glass are relatively low. It is mainly used in the
form of surface tissue in the inner and outer layer of laminates used in pipes and tanks.
ECR-glass is made from alumino-lime silicate with less than 1 wt% alkali oxides. It
combines the good chemical resistance of C-glass and high mechanical strength of E-
glass fibers.
17
The other types of glass fiber reinforcements are A-glass, S-glass and D-glass. A-glass
is formed from a high-alkali glass containing 25% soda and lime and it has very good
resistance to chemicals, but lower electrical properties. S-glass is formed from
alumino silicate glass without CaO, but with high MgO content, and it is a high-
strength glass with 33% higher tensile strength than E-glass. D-glass is formed from
borosilicate glass. It has superior electrical properties but lower mechanical strength
than E or S-glass [10].
2.3. Aggregates
Aggregates are the component of composites that can resist compressive stress and
provide bulk to the laminate. In composite industry, inorganic materials are used as
aggregates. Silica sand is the most common aggregate used in FRP pipe production
because of its chemical inertness and considerable hardness.
Silica is the short name of silicon dioxide (SiO2). Silica sand is made from broken
quartz crystals which are the most common mineral on the earth. Silica sand used in
FRP pipe composites increases the load bearing capacity of pipes and decreases the
production cost.
2.4 Production Methods of FRP Pipes
Composite properties depend on the type and amount of resin and fiber reinforcement,
but the properties also change according to the way in which these materials are
arranged. There are many methods for the manufacture of FRP pipes but the most
widely used ones are the filament winding and the centrifugal casting techniques.
Hand lay-up technique is also used for the production of small diameter pipes and in
the manufacture of hand laminated fittings.
18
2.4.1 Filament Winding Method
The filament winding technique can be divided into two principle types as continuous
filament winding and helical winding.
2.4.1.1 Helical Winding Method
The name “Helical Winding Method” comes from the pattern of the glass fibers on the
pipe. Pipes are produced on a rotating mold. The mold forms the inside diameter of
the pipe. Filament wound parts can be made with or without resin-rich interior
corrosion barriers. Corrosion barriers are made by the wrapping of chopped strand
mats or glass fabrics on the mandrel and impregnating them with resin. The reinforced
wall of the pipes is made by drawing glass fibers through a resin bath. The roving is
impregnated with resin and then placed on the outside of the corrosion barrier by a
fiber placement head as shown in Figure 2.12.
Figure 2.12 Helical winding process [11]
19
The fiber placement head moves at a certain speed relative to the rotating mold to
properly position the reinforcement. The roving is placed on the mold at a helical
angle. The angles can vary in theory between 0 and 90°, and can be adapted to
specific strength requirements of the product. This angle is normally optimized for
maximum internal pressure ratings but may be changed for improved pipe stiffness
and axial strength [11].
2.4.1.2 Continuous Filament Winding Method
In the continuous filament winding process, the pipes are manufactured on an endless
reforming mandrel and the pipe length is only limited by transport restrictions.
The main machine used in production is composed of a continuous steel band carried
by beams that form a cylindrical mandrel. This mandrel is designed specifically for
each demanded diameter. As the mandrel moves under the control of Programmable
Logic Control System (PLC) and computer (PC), resin, glass fibers and aggregates are
fed in set quantities on the mandrel. The PLC-PC modules and integrated process
controls are based on pre-programmed instructions. The PLC controlled
manufacturing process gives a very high level of control of raw material distribution
and curing. Continuous filament winding machine is shown in Figure 2.13.
This process includes three main zones; raw material feeding zone, curing zone and
cutting zone.
The FRP pipes produced with continuous filament winding process includes resin,
chopped and continuous fibers and silica sand. Raw materials are applied from the top
part of the machine. Release films and surface veils are applied from rolls adjacent to
the mandrel as shown in Figure 2.14.
20
Figure 2.13 Continuous filament winding machine
Figure 2.14 Raw materials feeding on the mandrel
21
A layer of polyester film is wound on the mandrel, followed by a surface veil and
chopped fibers. Continuous fibers, together with chopped fiber, sand, and resin are
applied simultaneously. Finally, a new layer of surface veil is applied for the outside
layer.
Continuous fibers are used as reinforcing materials. They are wound around the
mandrel with specific distances between each other. Chop fibers are cut into short
parts and fed on the mandrel. Sand as an aggregate is added to the pipe to achieve the
required stiffness.
The resin is prepared and mixed with the accelerator in the tanks. Prior to being
supplied onto the mandrel, it is blended with organic peroxide. Dual resin delivery is
provided through two different lines.
After reaching required wall thickness as the pipe is forwarding on mandrel, curing
process begins. Laminate curing develops based on the temperature, along the
mandrel. Laminate is heated directly by the heating elements. The laminate
temperature is measured at different points in the curing zone. Heat distribution is
monitored graphically through the computer control.
The cutting unit that is synchronized with the pipe ensures clean and perpendicular cut
of the pipe.
As the pipe length is introduced to the control system, cutting operation is realized
automatically. Pipes can be cut at any length in the range of 0.3m to 15m. The cut
pipes are received by the lifting tables.
22
2.4.2 Centrifugal Casting Method
In the centrifugal casting process the pipe is made inside a steel mold tube which can
be rotated at high speeds, creating significant centrifugal force [11]. Resin,
reinforcement and sand are applied to the inside of the rotating mold. The very high
centrifugal forces of the mold provide complete impregnation of the glass fibers with
the resin and remove the air in the laminate. Glass distribution is controlled by the
speed of the mold, the cutter speed and the feeder speed. Raw material feeding to the
inside of the rotating mold is shown in Figure 2.15.
Figure 2.15 Raw materials being fed to the inside of the rotating mold
The mold is initially rotated at a relatively slow speed. When feeding of all the raw
material is completed, the spinning speed is increased in order to increase the
compression force. The increase in the spinning speed ensures complete compression.
The mold is heated by the circulating water, which speeds up the curing period.
23
The distrubition of the fibers within the layers is conducted so that the pipe can meet
the designed circumferential and axial resistance.
The outside diameter of the finished pipe is determined by the inside diameter of the
mold tube. The inside diameter of the finished pipe is variable and determined by the
amount of material introduced into the mold.
2.4.3 Hand Lay-up Method
In the literature, hand lay-up method is also called as contact molding. It is a

production technique suitable for low volume production of FRP components. It is the
simplest method used to make fiberglass pipe and fittings. The fibers are manually
placed onto a mold and impregnated with the resin by using a hand roller. After
curing, the laminate can be removed from the mold. The process is very flexible, since
it is possible to manufacture products in a wide variety of dimension, shape and
properties. Hand lay-up process is shown in Figure 2.16.
Figure 2.16 Hand lay-up process [12]
24
2.5 Theoretical and Experimental Studies
Most of the studies in the literature performed about the mechanical property of FRP
composites are related with the materials produced by helical winding or hand lay-up
methods. However, this study includes the testing of FRP pipes produced by the
continuous filament winding method.
In the literature, most of the studies about abrasion resistance of FRP composites were
performed by using “Rubber wheel abrasion test” apparatus. This test method is
generally used for the laminates manufactured by the hand lay-up method. Chand, N.
and Naik, A. and Neogi, S. [13] studied the low stress abrasive wear behavior of Short
E-glass fiber reinforced polyester composites by using “Rubber wheel abrasion test”
apparatus. They prepared the samples by mixing the cut E-glass fibers with
isophthalic polyester resin. After curing they cut rectangular pieces. They observed
that higher weight fraction of glass fibers in the composite improved the abrasive wear
resistance.
Suresha, B. and et al. [14] studied “The mechanical and three-body abrasive wear
behavior of three-dimensional glass fabric reinforced vinylester composite”. The
mechanical properties were evaluated using universal testing machine as per ASTM D
638. Three- body abrasive wear tests were conducted using rubber wheel abrasion
tester. It was observed that the three-dimensional glass woven fabrics in vinylester had
significant influence on wear and three dimensional glass woven fabric reinforced
vinylester composite exhibited lower wear rate compared to two dimensional glass
woven fabric reinforced vinylester composite.
The studies about impact resistance of FRP composites are generally based on the
tests according to ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards
performed by using drop weight impact test apparatus. Hebert, M. and Rousseau, C.
25
E. and Shukla, A. [15] studied the shock loading and drop weight impact response of
FRP composites. They measured the drop weight impact performance by using the
energy absorbed by the samples, depth of penetration and extent of internal damage.
They produced the samples by infusion of three types of vinylester and one type of
urethane resin with different types of glass fibers. They observed that the urethane
performed better than similar vinylester resins. Vinylester resins showed similar
impact resistance. Samples with the same type of resin but having finer glass structure
performed better in all evaluation criteria.
Chakraborty, D. [16] studied the “Delamination of laminated fiber reinforced plastic

composites under multiple cylindrical impact”. A 3D finite element analysis was
performed for assessing delamination at the interfaces of graphite/epoxy laminated
fiber reinforced plastic composites subjected to low velocity impact of multiple
cylindrical impactors. The study was carried out to observe the effects of important
parameters on the impact response of the laminate and the delamination induced at the
interfaces. It was observed that the contact force magnitude as well as delamination at
the interface were greatly influenced by the time interval between successive multiple
impacts.
In the FRP pipe standards, there are different test methods to determine the
circumferential tensile strength. In ISO 8521 “Plastic piping systems, Glass-reinforced
thermosetting plastics (GRP) pipes- Test methods for the determination of the
apparent initial circumferential tensile strength” standard five different test methods
are specified as follows:
• Method A: Burst test
• Method B: Split disc
26
• Method C: Strip test
• Method D: Modified strip test
• Method E: Notched plate test
In most of the studies reported in the literature about the internal pressure resistance of
FRP, split disc and strip test methods are used to determine the circumferential tensile
strength. The main reason of using these methods is the simplicity of sample
preparation and the use of standard tensile test machine. However, ISO 8521 standard
specifies that the burst test is considered as the reference test method, since it
simulates the effect of applied pressure, directly. Although, there are some
formulations given in the ISO 8521 standard to estimate the burst pressure from the
other test methods (Method B to Method E), results from one method may not be
equal to the results derived from any other alternative methods. Since the most
accurate test method specified in the standards to determine the internal pressure
strength of FRP pipes is the burst test method and there is not so much experimental
study about this subject in the literature, in this study only the burst test method was
used to determine the internal pressure resistance of FRP pipes.
Kaynak, C. and Erdiller, E.S. and Parnas, L. and Senel, F. [17] studied process
parameters of continuous fiber reinforced epoxy composite tubes produced by helical
winding method. They performed split disk tests for the specimens produced with two
different epoxy resin systems, five different fiber materials and five different winding
angles. They observed that the use of different epoxy resin systems had no significant
effect, but the use of carbon fibers compared to glass fibers and use of winding angles
greater than 60º increased the performance of composite tubes.
27
Tarakçıoğlu, N. and et al. [18] studied the “Strength of filament wound glass
reinforced plastic pipes with surface crack”. The pipes with surface crack were
exposed to open-ended internal pressure. The strength values of pipes with surface
cracks were compared with internal pressure test results and theoretical results. It was
observed that for ± 55° filament wound pipes, the damage occurred at the notch tips of
the pipe and the surface crack was more effective on burst strength at ± 75° pipes than
± 45° and ± 55° filament wound pipes.
Arikan, H. [19] studied the “Failure analysis of (± 55°) filament wound composite
pipes with an inclined surface crack under static internal pressure”. The study was
based on the failure analysis of filament wound glass reinforced plastic pipes made of
E-glass/epoxy with an inclined surface crack under open-ended internal pressure. It
was observed that as the angle of the crack in glass reinforced plastic pipes increased,
the burst pressure increased and the effect of the crack angles decreased.
28
CHAPTER 3
SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TESTING
3.1 Material Selection
Test samples were produced from three different types of resins, two different types of
fibers and one type of GLASSFLAKES. Additionally, some of the test samples were
produced with different weight fraction of resin and fiber to see the effects of fiber
amount on the performance of pipes. Finally, some of the test samples were produced
with fibers having different cut length, to observe the effects of fiber orientation on
the abrasion, impact and internal pressure resistance. Information about the raw
materials is given in the following sections.
3.1.1 Selection of Resin Matrix
The type of resin used as the matrix material is determined according to the required
properties of the end product. Fiberglass pipes are generally manufactured from
ortophthalic, isophthalic and vinylester type resins. The choice of resin is critical since
each type has different chemical, physical, and economic properties.
All the tested pipes were produced by using continuous filament winding technology.
Layer structure of the pipe samples is explained in Section 3.2.
29
In this study, test samples were produced from three different types of resin:
BOYTEK BRE 310W (ortophthalic resin), BOYTEK BRE 311W (isophthalic resin)
and REICHHOLD DION IMPACT 9160 (vinylester resin). Properties of these resins,
given by their manufacturers, are shown in Tables 3.1 through Table 3.3.
Table 3.1 Mechanical properties of cast non-reinforced BRE 310W resin [20]
Property Unit Value Test Method

Tensile Strength MPa 65 ISO 527
Elongation at Break % 3 ISO 527
Tensile Modulus MPa 3500 ISO 527
Flexural Strength MPa 110 ISO 178
Flexural Modulus MPa 3600 ISO 178
HDT ºC 80 ISO 75-A
Hardness Barcol / 934-1 45 ASTM D 2583
Table 3.2 Mechanical properties of cast non-reinforced BRE 311W resin [21]

Elongation at Break % 3.5 ISO 527
HDT ºC 90 ISO 75-A
30
Table 3.3 Mechanical properties of cast non-reinforced REICHHOLD DION
IMPACT 9160 resin [22]

Elongation at Break % 5 ISO 527
HDT ºC 115 ISO 75-A
3.1.2 Selection of Fiber Reinforcements
The physical properties of composites are fiber dominant. This means that when resin
and fiber are combined, their performance remains most like the individual fiber
properties [23]. For this reason, fiber selection is critical when designing composite
structures. In this study, test samples were produced from two different types of fiber
and one type of GLASSFLAKES as listed below:
• E-glass: CAM ELYAF FWR6 (continuous fiber) and CAM ELYAF KCR5
(chopped fiber)
• ECR-glass: OCV R25H combined with Advantex (continuous fiber) and P 246
Advantex (chopped fiber)
• C-glass: GLASSFLAKES
31
Properties of E-glass and ECR-glass fiber reinforcements are shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Technical properties of CAM ELYAF and OCV fibers
Property Unit CAM ELYAF OCV

600 for FWR6 600 for RH25
Linear Weight
g/m2 2400 for FWR6 2400 for RH25
(Tex)
2400 for KCR5 2400 for P246
Loss on 0.35 - 0.75 for FWR6 0.35 - 0.75 for RH25
%
Ignition 0.7 - 1.5 for KCR5 0.7 - 1.5 for P246
Tensile
MPa 3300-3900 3400-4000
Strength
The structure of C-glass, called as GLASSFLAKES, used in this study is different

than the fibers. GLASSFLAKES is a C-glass platelet with thickness of 5 micron. It is
made from 1200ºC melt glass marble, by blowing bubble, cooling, smashing, filter
milling and other processing steps. It is mixed into the resin as a lining material [24].
The manufacturer declares that the GLASSFLAKES particles form dense and inert
barriers within the resin film. Overlapping layers of glass resist water and chemicals
permeating the film. The addition of GLASSFLAKES increases the flexibility,
hardness and abrasion resistance of laminates.
The chemical composition of GLASSFLAKES is given in Table 3.5 and the picture of
GLASSFLAKES is shown in Figure 3.1.
32
Table 3.5 Chemical Composition of GLASSFLAKES [24]
Glass Type SiO2 Al2O3 CaO MgO B2O3 Na 2O + K2O ZnO

C-Glass 65-72% 1-7% 4-11% 0-5% 0-8% 9-13% 0-6%
Figure 3.1 GLASSFLAKES particles
3.1.3 Selection of Aggregate
In this study, silica sand was used in the production of pipe samples to obtain the
required stiffness. The name of the manufacturer was KUMSAN and the properties of
sand given by the manufacturer are shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Properties of KUMSAN silica sand
Property Unit KUMSAN Silica Sand

3
Specific Gravity kg/dm 2.67
Particle Size Distribution % Min. 90% between 0.15mm - 0.60mm
SiO2 Content % 98
Moisture Content % Max. 0.5
33
3.2 Test Specimen Fabrication
Test samples were produced by using continuous filament winding method, in

Superlit Boru San. A.Ş. which is a FRP pipe manufacturing company located in
Düzce, Turkey. In the continuous filament winding pipe production, the glass fiber
laminate is applied onto the moving mandrel according to the following procedure:
firstly a release film, e.g. polyester film, is wound on the mandrel, followed by a
surface veil. Then, glass roving, together with chopped glass, sand aggregate and
resin, are applied simultaneously in predetermined positions, according to design
specifications. Finally, a layer of surfacing veil is applied. According to the process
philosophy, the inner layer provides the required chemical resistance, while the
material applied over the inner layer represents the structural and outer layers. The
pipe layers are made in compliance with the appropriate design, by controlling the
quantity and sequence of various materials applied.
GRP pipe design is made by considering the required mechanical and chemical
properties and the necessary safety factors that will enable the pipe to give service for
50 years under service conditions.
The continuous filament winding machine has two separate feeding lines; liner resin
line for corrosive or abrasive applications and structure resin line for the mechanical
layers and outer portion of the laminate.
Glass or polyester veil is used to obtain the smoothness of pipe inside and outside
surface.
The wall structure of FRP pipe samples produced in this study is shown in Figure 3.2.
34
S1: Internal liner
S2: Surface layer
S3: Barrier layer
S4: Structural layer
S5: External layer
Figure 3.2 Continuous filament winding pipe layers
The internal liner is a thermosetting resin rich layer forming the interior layer of the
pipe to give high corrosion, abrasion and impact resistance. The internal liner is in
direct contact with the conveyed fluid and guarantees the maximum resistance to
chemical attacks. The thickness of this layer is minimum 1mm.
The liner consists of two sub-layers; a surface layer and a barrier layer. The surface
layer is resin rich and reinforced with a synthetic type of surface veil. The barrier
layer contains resin with fiber reinforcement.
The structural layer consists of glass reinforcement and a thermosetting resin, with
sand. The function of this layer is to render the pipe wall resistant to the stresses due
to the design conditions and generated by the transport and laying operations. The
composition of structural layer depends on pipe pressure and stiffness class.
The exterior resin rich layer of the pipe has a minimum thickness of 0.2mm reinforced
with a synthetic type of surface veil. This layer guarantees the complete impregnation
of the fibers at the surface, thus yielding the external pipe surface completely free of
protruding fibers. It also provides UV protection.
35
GRP pipes and fittings are designated as their DN/PN/SN classes.
• DN means the diameter number. It is the nominal value of the pipe diameter in
millimeters.
• PN means the permissible working pressure of the pipe in bars.
• SN means the minimum load bearing capacity of the pipe in N/m2.
All the tested pipes in this study were produced by using continuous filament winding
technology and they all had the same DN/PN/SN classes as 600/10/5000. The
DN/PN/SN classes were determined by considering the suitability of pipe samples for
all tests in terms of diameter and strength, and the acceptability of the test results for
both small and large diameter pipes.
In this study, the effects of resin matrix and fiber reinforcements on pipe properties
were evaluated by using the test groups given in Table 3.7 through Table 3.11.
The effects of resin type on the pipe properties were evaluated by using three different
pipe samples. The samples were produced with three different types of resins as
ortophthalic, isophthalic and vinylester by keeping the recipe (raw material weight
fractions) and fiber type constant. The test group is shown in Table 3.7.
36
Table 3.7 Test group used to evaluate the effects of resin type on the abrasion, impact
and internal pressure resistances
DN/PN/SN Recipe No Sample No Resin Fiber

R-01 FW-1 Ortophthalic (BRE 310W)
600/10/5000 R-01 FW-2 Isophthalic (BRE 311W) E-glass
R-01 FW-3 Vinylester (DION 9160)
The effect of fiber amount on the abrasion resistance was determined by using nine
different samples. Three different recipes which contained different fiber weight
fractions in the internal liner layer were prepared for each type of resin, by keeping
the fiber type constant as E-glass. The test group is shown in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber amount on abrasion
resistance

R-01 FW-7 Isophthalic (BRE 311W)
37
The effects of fiber amount on the impact and internal pressure resistance were
determined by using nine different samples. Three different recipes which contained
different fiber weight fractions both in the internal liner and structural layers were
prepared for each type of resin, by keeping the fiber type constant as E-glass. The test
group is shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber amount on impact and
internal pressure resistances

The effects of fiber type on the pipe properties were evaluated by using nine different
samples. Samples were produced by using three types of resin, two types of fiber and
one type of GLASSFLAKES. Two different recipes were used. The test group is
shown in Table 3.10.
38
Table 3.10 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber type on the abrasion, impact
and internal pressure resistances

R-01 FW-22 E-glass
R-01 FW-23 Ortophthalic ECR-glass
(BRE 310W) C-glass
R-06 FW-24
GLASSFLAKES
R-01 FW-25 E-glass

R-01 FW-26 Isophthalic ECR-glass
600/10/5000
R-06 FW-27 (BRE 311W) C-glass
GLASSFLAKES
R-01 FW-28 E-glass

R-01 FW-29 Vinylester ECR-glass
(DION 9160) C-glass
R-06 FW-30
GLASSFLAKES
The effects of fiber reinforcement length on the pipe properties were evaluated by
using three different samples having the same recipe. Samples were produced with the
same type of resin and fiber. Fibers used in the production were cut in different
lengths as 40mm, 30mm and 20mm for FW-31, FW-32 and FW-33 samples,
respectively. The test group is shown in Table 3.11.
39
Table 3.11 Test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber length on the abrasion,
impact and internal pressure resistances

R-01 FW-31 Ortophthalic
600/10/5000 R-01 FW-32 E-glass
(BRE 310W)
R-01 FW-33
3.2.1 Pipe Recipes
Recipes used in pipe productions include raw material weight percentages and
thickness values for each layer. Recipes are given in Table 3.12 through Table 3.17.
In all recipes, Cobalt Octoate was used as the accelerator and Trigonox 269 (mixture
of tert-butyl peroxibenzoate and acetylacetone peroxide) was used as the initiator. The
percentage of Cobalt Octoate and Trigonox 269 used in the production is 0.8% and
2% by weight of the total resin amount, respectively.
Table 3.12 Pipe Recipe “R-01”
Raw Material Surface Barrier Structural External Total

Layer Layer Layer Layer
Thickness 0.2 mm 0.8 mm 7.7 mm 0.2 mm 8.9 mm
Resin 90% 60% 22% 90% 27%
Chopped Fiber - 40% 9% - 11%
Continuous Fiber - - 17% - 15%
Sand - - 52% - 47%
Surface Veil 10% - - 10% -
40

Resin 90% 70% 22% 90% 28%
Sand - - 52% - 47%

Resin 90% 80% 22% 90% 29%
Sand - - 52% - 47%
41

Resin 90% 60% 27% 90% 33%
Sand - - 52% - 47%

Resin 90% 60% 30% 90% 36%
Sand - - 52% - 47%
42

Resin 85% 57% 22% 90% 26%
GLASSFLAKES 5% 3% - - 1%
Sand - - 52% - 47%
3.3 Experimental Techniques
All the tests specified in this study were performed in Superlit Laboratory.
3.3.1 Abrasion Resistance Test Method
In this study, the abrasion resistance of several types of FRP pipes were tested
according to DIN 19565-1 standard by using the method known also as “Darmstadt
Method”.
3.3.1.1 Test Pieces
Each tested pipe was cut in a half pipe with one meter long and the end of the test
pieces were closed by end plates. At least 20 points were marked inside the test piece
at a part of 70 cm by disregarding a zone of 15 cm in length from either end. Marked
test piece is shown in Figure 3.3.
43
Measurement Points
Figure 3.3 Abrasion resistance test sample with end plates
Each test piece was filled with water and gravel mixture. Then, pipe samples were
sealed by using cover plate. Gravel mixture was renewed for each performed test. The
drawing of the test piece with water gravel mixture is shown in Figure 3.4.
A: Cover Plate
B: End Plate
C: Water and Gravel
D: Test Piece
W: Water Width
Figure 3.4 Drawing of abrasion resistance test sample
44
Particle size distribution of gravel used in the test was in compliance with the
following requirements:
• Mean particle diameter, d50 = 6.0 mm
• Diameter of 80% of particles, d80 < 8. 4 mm
• Diameter of 20% of particles, d20 < 4.2 mm
• Maximum ratio in homogeneity of particles, U (d80 / d20 ) = 2.0
The quantity of gravel and water width changes according to tested pipe nominal size.
Gravel quantity and water width in accordance with the pipe diameter are given in
Table 3.18. Since, only DN 600mm pipe samples were tested in this study, 7.1 kg of
gravel was used and water was filled up to 292 mm.
45
Table 3.18 Gravel quantity and water level width [25]
Nominal Size, DN Gravel Width of Water

(mm) Quantity (kg) Level (mm)
200 4.0 158
250 4.5 180
300 5.1 203
350 5.5 222
400 5.8 235
500 6.5 265
600 7.1 292
700 7.7 316
800 8.3 339
900 8.8 361
100 9.3 381
100 10.2 419
1400 11.0 454
1600 11.8 486
1800 12.5 516
2000 13.1 544
3.3.1.2 Test Apparatus
Abrasion test apparatus contains a cradle to fix the pipe sample. Pipe sample is
subjected to a seesaw motion through 22.5° with a frequency of 8 cycles per minute.
The drawing and the photograph of the test apparatus is shown in Figure 3.5 and
Figure 3.6, respectively.
46
Figure 3.5 Drawing of the abrasion resistance test apparatus
Figure 3.6 Photograph of the abrasion resistance test apparatus
3.3.1.3 Test Procedure
After sealing the pipe sample with cover plate and fixing the sample into the test
apparatus, seesaw motion was started. Following each 50,000 cycles, water and gravel
mixture was taken out and indentations on the pipe inside surface were measured.
Measurements were taken with a dial gauge with 0.001mm scale intervals. The mean
47
of the indentation values after 100,000 cycles was accepted as the result of the
abrasion test. Test was continued up to 200,000 cycles, and after 200,000 cycles inner
surface of the pipe was checked visually with the naked eye to see whether the fiber is
exposed or not.
3.3.2 Impact Resistance Test Method
Several types of pipe samples were subjected to a blow by a striker as specified in BS

5480 “Glass reinforced plastics (GRP) pipes, joints and fittings for use for water
supply or sewerage” standard to determine the impact resistance.
3.3.2.1 Test Pieces
Samples used in this test were complete sections of pipes. Length of the test samples
were 1.5 m.
Test apparatus used in this study includes a striker and a test piece support. The striker
had a mass of 1000 ± 5 g and provided a hemispherical striking surface of 50 mm
radius. The striker is shown in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7 Striker used in the impact resistance test
48
Support covered 120° of the test sample and had a length of 1.5m. It was positioned
on a rigid base in which the center of the striking surface was aligned with the center
of the cradle. Support was prepared by using woods having certain strength to ensure
that it was not deformed or moved when impact occurred on the test sample. Drawing
of the support, sample and striker is shown in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 Drawing of the support, sample and striker used in impact test
49
After supporting the test sample, the striker was dropped vertically and freely from a
specified height. After the impact, both outer and inner surfaces of test sample were
inspected by using a penetrant dye. The penetrant dye had sufficiently low viscosity to
penetrate any superficial crack.
The height that caused cracks on the inside of the pipe was determined by dropping
the striker at different heights. If the pipe sample did not show any crack or damage
after the first drop, another drop was performed at a height which was 100mm higher
than the previous one. If crack or damage was observed at the pipe sample after the
first drop, another drop was performed at a height which was 100mm lower than the
previous one. By these trials, the drop height that cause cracks on the inside surface of
the pipe was determined. The same method was used to determine the drop height
that causes the inter-laminar separation which was at least 50% of the thickness of the
pipe wall.
Additionally, crack area was calculated to make a more precise evaluation and thus to
compare the crack propagation after impact.
3.3.3 Internal Pressure Resistance Test
In this study, internal pressure resistance of pipe samples was tested by using the burst
test method according to the Method A of ISO 8521 standard.
3.3.3.1 Test Pieces
The tested pipe samples in this study had 1.5m length.
50
Burst test apparatus consisted of a hydrostatic pressurizing system, pressure

measuring device (manometer) and end sealing devices which resist the end thrust
produced by internal pressure, thereby limiting the stresses in specimens to the
circumferential direction only.
Hydrostatic pressurizing system was capable of causing failure of the test piece
between 1-3 minutes after commencing the pressurization. Air entrance to the test
piece was prevented by this system during pressurization to failure.
Pressure measuring device was capable of measuring the applied internal pressure to
an accuracy of ± 2 %. End sealing devices for the test pieces were capable of
withstanding the maximum test pressure.
The drawing of burst test apparatus is shown in Figure 3.9.
End Sealing Devices
Water
Inlet Pipe Sample
Figure 3.9 Drawing of burst test apparatus
51
After placing the test sample to the end sealing devices and pressurizing system, the
test sample was filled with water by taking care to avoid entrapment of air. Then, the
system was pressurized at a rate such that failure occurs between 1-3 minutes. Finally,
the maximum internal pressure reached was recorded as the burst pressure of the
sample. A pipe sample after burst is shown in Figure 3.10.
Figure 3.10 A pipe sample after burst
52
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Experimental Results and Discussion
This section contains the results of experimental work and discussion of the
observations.
4.1.1 Results and Discussion of the Abrasion Resistance Test
Abrasive wear of the composites depend on many test parameters like the abrasive
type, particle size and the test speed. Therefore, all of these parameters were kept
constant during the tests to see the effects of resin and fiber, precisely. Abrasion
resistance tests were performed on 4 different test groups as shown in Tables 3.7, 3.8,
3.10 and 3.11. Test groups included twenty four pipes in total. Abrasion value was
calculated as the average of the two samples taken from the same pipe. Thus, the total
number of tested samples was forty eight and the average test results of all the
samples are shown in Table 4.1 through Table 4.4. All the measurements taken after
100,000 cycles are given in Appendix A.
In this study, the only difference in the test results which was higher than 10% was
evaluated as significant, because, when the results of approximately 200 tests
performed in the past by the FRP pipe manufactures were investigated, it was
observed that even the same sample may result in a 3-9 % variation.
53
According to the test results it was observed that the type of resin used in the internal
liner layer influenced the resulting abrasion resistance of the pipe. The samples
produced with vinylester resin (FW-3) showed 29% and 22% higher abrasion
resistance when compared to the samples produced with ortophthalic (FW-1) and
isophthalic resins (FW-2), respectively. However, the samples produced with
ortophthalic and isophthalic resins showed similar performance as shown in Table 4.1
and Figure 4.1.
Table 4.1 Abrasion results of the test group used to evaluate the effects of resin type
Abrasion in mm
Number
of FW-1 FW-2 FW-3
Cycles Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample
Average Average Average
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.216 0.238 0.227 0.229 0.209 0.219 0.119 0.126 0.123
100,000 0.346 0.334 0.340 0.321 0.305 0.313 0.248 0.237 0.243
150,000 0.434 0.470 0.452 0.46 0.425 0.443 0.349 0.330 0.340
200,000 0.520 0.568 0.544 0.553 0.517 0.535 0.429 0.446 0.438
200,000 surface veil exposed surface veil exposed surface veil exposed
54
Abrasion After 100,000 Cycles
0.400
Abrasion Loss (mm)

FW-1
FW-2
0.300
FW-3
0.200
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of resin type
This is an expected result because, vinylesters have double bonds on the side chains,
instead of the main chain. Thus, vinylesters are more resistant to chemical and
mechanical degradation. Additionally, vinylester resins are more resilient and thus
have higher elongation at break capability which enables laminates to bear higher
abrasive forces and elongations. However, ortophthalic and isophthalic resins showed
similar performance with each other, as the difference between the test results was
less than 10%, since, the only difference between ortophthalic and isophthalic resins is
the type of acid used in their synthesis. The chemical structures of ortophthalic and
isophthalic acids are shown in Figure 4.2.
55
Ortophthalic acid Isophthalic acid
Figure 4.2 Chemical structures of ortophthalic and isophthalic acids [26]
When ortophthalic and isophthalic acids are compared, it can be seen that only the
bonding positions are different. This difference in the acids results in a greater
retention of physical properties and higher tensile strength of isophthalic resin, and
thus it is more resistant to heat and chemicals when compared with ortophthalic resin.
However, since the mechanical performance of composites depends mainly on fiber
reinforcement and the difference between the properties of ortophthalic and
isophthalic resin is small as shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2, abrasion tests
performed on the samples produced with ortophthalic and isophthalic resins showed
similar results with each other.
Abrasion tests were also performed on samples produced with different fiber types.
According to the test results it was observed that the samples produced with C-glass
GLASSFLAKES (FW-24, FW-27, FW-30) had 15% higher abrasion resistance on the
average when compared to the samples produced with E-glass fiber (FW-22, FW-25,
FW-28). The samples produced with E-glass and ECR-glass (FW-23, FW-26, FW-29)
fiber reinforcements showed similar performance with each other, as expected, since
ECR-glass fibers have similar mechanical properties to E-glass. Test results are given
in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.5.
56
Table 4.2 Abrasion results of the test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber type
Abrasion in mm
Number
of FW-22 FW-23 FW-24
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.234 0.226 0.230 0.226 0.216 0.221 0.206 0.19 0.198
100,000 0.331 0.348 0.339 0.346 0.327 0.336 0.284 0.275 0.279
150,000 0.454 0.461 0.458 0.467 0.443 0.455 0.397 0.373 0.385
200,000 0.578 0.553 0.566 0.543 0.582 0.563 0.469 0.501 0.485
Abrasion in mm
Number
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.230 0.219 0.225 0.226 0.213 0.220 0.212 0.196 0.203
100,000 0.331 0.315 0.323 0.322 0.314 0.318 0.298 0.286 0.292
150,000 0.457 0.429 0.443 0.458 0.421 0.440 0.419 0.385 0.402
200,000 0.560 0.509 0.535 0.517 0.545 0.531 0.503 0.467 0.485
Abrasion in mm
Number
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.126 0.138 0.132 0.123 0.134 0.129 0.111 0.109 0.110
100,000 0.230 0.246 0.238 0.225 0.240 0.232 0.205 0.194 0.200
150,000 0.342 0.357 0.350 0.336 0.349 0.343 0.301 0.293 0.297
200,000 0.419 0.436 0.428 0.403 0.429 0.416 0.352 0.369 0.360
57
0.400
Abrasion Loss (mm)
FW-22
0.300 FW-23
FW-24
0.200
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with ortophthalic resin.

0.400
Abras ion Loss (mm)
FW-25
0.300 FW-26
FW-27
0.200
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with isophthalic resin.
58
0.400
Abrasion Los s (mm)

0.300
FW-28
FW-29
FW-30
0.200
0.100
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with vinylester resin.
Although the mechanical strength of C-glass fibers is lower than E-glass fibers, the
test results showed that the C-glass GLASSFLAKES have positive effect on abrasion.
This result was obtained because of the form of the glass used. C-glass
GLASSFLAKES used in the test samples were different than the E and ECR-glass
fibers in terms of shape. They were used in the form of small flakes with a thickness
of 5 micron. These particles formed a dense barrier at the inside of the pipe which
contacted with the abrasive material (gravel) first and thus prevented the rapid
abrasion of the internal layer as shown in Figure 4.6.
59
pipe wall
abrasive abrasive
materials materials
internal layer barrier formed with C-glass

GLASSFLAKES and resin
Figure 4.6 Barrier formed by GLASSFLAKES
Moreover, the effects of fiber amount on the abrasion resistance were evaluated by
testing the pipe samples (FW-4 through FW-12) which had different resin and fiber
weight fractions at the internal layers. Since the inside layer of continuous filament
wound pipes has a major effect on abrasion, only the weight fractions of resin and
fiber were changed in the internal layers. It was observed that the high weight fraction
of glass fiber resulted with less abrasion loss, because, when the amount of the fiber is
increased, the strength of the laminate also increases and thus higher energy is
required to obtain failure. Since the fiber amount has a major effect on mechanical
performance, when the fiber amount is increased, the resistance of the laminate to the
external physical effects also increases. This results in a higher resistance to abrasive
forces at higher fiber content. Test results are shown in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.7
through Figure 4.9.
60
amount
Abrasion in mm
Number
of FW-4 FW-5 FW-6
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.250 0.235 0.243 0.285 0.270 0.278 0.331 0.311 0.321
100,000 0.330 0.355 0.343 0.387 0.414 0.400 0.452 0.471 0.461
150,000 0.473 0.440 0.457 0.558 0.502 0.530 0.636 0.577 0.606
200,000 0.550 0.570 0.560 0.622 0.661 0.641 0.722 0.774 0.748
Abrasion in mm
Number
of FW-7 FW-8 FW-9
Cycles Sample Sample
Average
Sample Sample
Average
Sample Sample
Average
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.194 0.180 0.187 0.229 0.211 0.220 0.268 0.238 0.253
100,000 0.330 0.332 0.331 0.382 0.374 0.378 0.429 0.442 0.435
150,000 0.461 0.439 0.45 0.530 0.514 0.522 0.610 0.601 0.605
200,000 0.522 0.570 0.546 0.606 0.650 0.628 0.697 0.747 0.722
Abrasion in mm
Number
Cycles Sample Sample
Average
Sample Sample
Average
Sample Sample
Average
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.129 0.118 0.124 0.150 0.136 0.143 0.179 0.157 0.168
100,000 0.222 0.241 0.232 0.263 0.272 0.268 0.307 0.326 0.316
150,000 0.351 0.334 0.343 0.400 0.384 0.392 0.460 0.453 0.457
200,000 0.417 0.448 0.433 0.484 0.524 0.504 0.571 0.629 0.600
61
0.500
Abrasion Loss (mm)
FW-4
0.400 FW-5
FW-6
0.300
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with ortophthalic resin.

0.500
Abrasion Loss (mm)
FW-7
0.400 FW-8
FW-9
0.300
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with isophthalic resin.
62
0.400
Abrasion Loss (mm)
FW-10
0.300 FW-11
FW-12
0.200
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with vinylester resin.
Finally, abrasion resistance tests were performed on the samples (FW-31, FW-32,
FW-33) produced with different fiber lengths. It was observed that the decrease in
fiber length had no significant effect on abrasion resistance. However, the decrease in
the fiber length results in a more even distribution of stress on the laminate and thus a
considerable difference was expected in the abrasion resistance. The present
observation has resulted from testing pipe samples which have fiber length of 20mm,
30mm and 40mm. The use of fiber length smaller than 20mm may result with a
certain increase in abrasion resistance. But, the fiber cutting unit in the continuous
filament winding machine is not suitable to chop the fibers to length smaller than
20mm. Test results are shown in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.10.
63
Table 4.4 Abrasion results of the test group used to evaluate the effects of fiber length
Abrasion in mm
Number
1 2 1 2 1 2
50,000 0.219 0.234 0.227 0.216 0.234 0.225 0.240 0.219 0.230
100,000 0.330 0.353 0.341 0.329 0.357 0.343 0.331 0.353 0.342
150,000 0.424 0.470 0.447 0.428 0.461 0.445 0.441 0.463 0.452
200,000 0.546 0.521 0.534 0.543 0.559 0.551 0.556 0.541 0.549

0.400
Abrasion Loss (mm)
FW-31
0.300 FW-32
FW-33
0.200
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measuring Point
the effects of fiber length.
64
4.1.2 Results and Discussion of the Impact Test
Impact test was performed on 4 different test groups as shown in Tables 3.7, 3.9, 3.10
and 3.11. Test groups included twenty four pipes in total. According to the test results
it was observed that the vinylester resin increased the impact resistance, whereas the
ortophthalic and isophthalic resins had no effect as shown in Table 4.5 and Figure
4.11.
resin type
SAMPLE NO
TEST
FW-1 FW-2 FW-3
RESULT
1 st 2nd 3 rd 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 1 st 2 nd 3 rd
Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point Point
Drop Height
(mm) (Inside 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 6700 6700 6700
cracking)
Crack Area
22 21 23 19 21 20 16 18 15
(cm²)
Drop Height
(mm) 11100 11000 10900 10900 10900 10800 13900 14000 14200
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
65
Effect of Resin Type on Drop Height
8000
7000
Drop Height (mm) 6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FW-1 FW-2 FW-3
(a)
Sample No
Effect of Resin Type on Crack Area
25
Crack Area (cm²)
20
15
10
5
0
FW-1 FW-2 FW-3
(b)
Sample No
Effect of Resin Type on Drop Height
15000
14000
Drop Height (mm)
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
FW-1 FW-2 FW-3
Sample No (c)
to evaluate the effects of resin type. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner
cracks, (b) Comparison of crack area, (c) Comparison of drop height causing inter-
laminar separation
66
As shown in Table 4.5, cracks were observed on the inside of FW-3 pipe sample at the
height of 6.7 meters, which is 2.4 meters higher than the drop height of the samples
produced with ortophthalic (FW-1) and isophthalic resin (FW-2). Moreover, the crack
area of FW-3 sample at 6.7 meters was calculated and it was found that the crack area
was 26% and 19% smaller than the crack area of FW-1 and FW-2 samples,
respectively. The height, at which 50% of the inter-laminar separation was observed at
the FW-3 pipe wall, was found to be 14 meters which is approximately 3 meters
higher than the values obtained from FW-1 and FW-2 samples. Vinylester resin
showed better performance, because as explained in Section 4.1.1 the laminates
produced with vinylester resin are tougher and thus stronger to the mechanical effects,
owing to the location of the double bonds. Additionally, vinylester resins are more
flexible when compared to ortophthalic and isophthalic resins. This flexibility enables
the vinylester laminate to absorb more energy caused by the impact and thus it
prevents the formation and propagation of cracks at the drop heights at which the
ortophthalic and isophthalic laminates are damaged. However, samples produced with
ortophthalic and isophthalic resins showed similar impact resistance, because of their
similar toughness and flexibility behavior.
Impact resistance tests were also performed on the test samples produced with
different fiber types. It was observed that the type of fiber had no significant effect on
the drop height causing cracks or inter-laminar separation, but the samples produced
with C-glass GLASSFLAKES (FW-24, FW-27, FW-30) showed smaller crack area
when compared to the samples produced with E-glass (FW-22, FW-25, FW-28) and
ECR-glass (FW-23, FW-26, FW-29) fibers. Test results are shown in Table 4.6 and
Figure 4.12, 4.13 and 4.14.
67
fiber type
SAMPLE NO
TEST FW-22 FW-23 FW-24
RESULT 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 1st 2 nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
Drop Height
(mm) (Inside 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300
cracking)
Crack Area
21 22 20 21 20 22 16 15 13
(cm²)
Drop Height
(mm) 10900 10900 11000 11000 10900 11100 10900 10900 11000
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
SAMPLE NO
RESULT 1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd 3rd
Drop Height
(mm) (Inside 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300 4300
cracking)
Crack Area
18 21 22 19 22 20 14 11 13
(cm²)
Drop Height
(mm) 11100 10900 10900 11000 10800 10900 10800 10700 10900
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
SAMPLE NO
Drop Height
(mm) (Inside 6700 6700 6700 6700 6700 6700 6700 6700 6700
cracking)
Crack Area
15 14 16 16 14 15 8 8 9
(cm²)
Drop Height
(mm) 14000 14100 13800 14000 14100 13900 13900 14000 14200
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
68
Effect of Fiber Type on Drop Height
5000
Drop Height (mm)

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FW-22 FW-23 FW-24
Sam ple No (a)
Effect of Fiber Type on Crack Area
25
Crack Area (cm²)
20
15
10
0
FW-22 FW-23 FW-24
(b)
Sample No
12000
Drop Height (mm)
11000
10000
FW-22 FW-23 FW-24
Sample No (c)
Figure 4. 12 Graph of the drop height and crack area obtained from the test group used
to evaluate the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with ortophthalic resin.
(a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks, (b) Comparison of crack area,
(c) Comparison of drop height causing inter-laminar separation
69
5000
Drop Height (mm)

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FW-25 FW-26 FW-27
Sample No
(a)
21
20
19
Crack Area (cm²)
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
FW-25 FW-26 FW-27 (b)
Sam ple No
12000
Drop Height (mm)
11000
10000
9000
FW-25 FW-26 FW-27
Sample No
(c)
to evaluate the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with isophthalic resin.
70
8000
7000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FW-28 FW-29 FW-30
Sample No (a)
16
15
14
Crack Area (cm²)
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
FW-28 FW-29 FW-30
Sample No (b)

Drop Height (mm)
14000
13000
FW-28 FW-29 FW-30
Sam ple No (c)
to evaluate the effects of fiber type. Samples were produced with vinylester resin.
71
The similar performance of samples produced with E-glass and ECR-glass fibers was
expected since E-glass and ECR-glass fibers have similar mechanical and physical
properties. However, it was also expected that powder like C-glass could make the
laminate absorb more energy and thus increase the impact resistance. However,
according to the test results, it was observed that the samples produced with C-glass
GLASSFLAKES showed smaller cracks and the same drop heights when compared to
the others. This result may be discussed as follows:
In this study, C-glass GLASSFLAKES were used only in the liner layer of the pipe
samples, because, during the production the GLASSFLAKES could not be fed
directly onto the mandrel and therefore they were mixed with the resin. After mixing,
the mixture was fed onto the machine. When the GLASSFLAKES were mixed with
the resin, it was seen that the resin viscosity increased 100% with only using 5% of
glass. This increase in viscosity made the pumping and thus the feeding of the resin
more difficult. Moreover, because of the high viscosity, it was not possible to
impregnate the solids at the required production speed. Thus, the production speed
was decreased and the trials were made to use high viscosity resin and
GLASSFLAKES mixture in the process. However, it was seen that the high viscosity
mixture could not wet out the structural layer, since it contained higher amount of
solids, especially the sand. Thus, the mixture was decided to be used only at the
internal liner layer of the pipes.
As mentioned earlier, the samples produced with the C-glass GLASSFLAKES did not
show a better impact resistance when compared to the samples produced with E-glass
and ECR-glass fibers. However, smaller crack area was observed on the samples
produced with GLASSFLAKES. This positive effect shows that if the resin and
GLASSFLAKES mixture could be used in all the layers of the pipes, it might also
have a positive effect on the drop height.
72
Additionally, the effects of fiber amount on the impact resistance were evaluated by
testing the pipe samples (FW-13 through FW-21) which have different resin and fiber
weight fractions in the whole pipe. It was observed that the high weight fraction of
glass fiber resulted in considerable rise in impact resistance, because increasing the
amount of fiber results in higher mechanical strength of the laminates and therefore
when the fiber amount is increased, the samples become more resistant to the external
effects. Test results are given in Table 4.7 and Figure 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17.
73
fiber amount
SAMPLE NO
Drop Height
(mm) (Inside 4300 4300 4300 2900 2900 2900 1800 1800 1800
cracking)
Crack Area
21 22 20 32 34 36 42 44 45
(cm²)
Drop Height
(mm) 11100 11200 10900 8900 8700 8800 6300 6500 6200
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
SAMPLE NO
RESULT 1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd 3rd
Drop Height
(mm) (Inside 4300 4300 4300 2900 2900 2900 1800 1800 1800
cracking)
Crack Area
18 21 22 31 32 33 39 41 40
(cm²)
Drop Height
(mm) 10900 10900 10800 8600 8700 8800 6400 6500 6400
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
SAMPLE NO
Drop Height
(mm) (Inside 6700 6700 6700 5300 5300 5300 4100 4100 4100
cracking)
Crack Area
15 14 17 19 20 21 23 22 24
(cm²)
Drop Height
(mm) 14000 14100 13800 11500 11600 11400 9600 9500 9100
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
74
Effect of Fiber Amount on Drop Height
5000
3000
2000
1000
0
FW-13 FW-14 FW-15
Sample No (a)
Effect of Fiber Amount on Crack Area
50
40
Crack Area (cm²)
30
20
10
0
FW-13 FW-14 FW-15
Sam ple No (b)
12000
11000
Drop Height (mm)
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
FW-13 FW-14 FW-15
Sam ple No (c)
to evaluate the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with ortophthalic
resin. (a) Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks, (b) Comparison of crack
area, (c) Comparison of drop height causing inter-laminar separation
75
5000
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
FW-16 FW-17 FW-18
Sample No (a)
45
40
Crack Area (cm²)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FW-16 FW-17 FW-18
Sample No (b)
12000
11000
Drop Height (mm)
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
FW-16 FW-17 FW-18
Sample No (c)
to evaluate the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with isophthalic resin.
76
8000
7000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FW-19 FW-20 FW-21
Sample No (a)
25
20
Crack Area (cm²)
15
10
0
FW-19 FW-20 FW-21
Sample No (b)
16000
14000
Drop Height (mm)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FW-19 FW-20 FW-21
Sample No (c)
to evaluate the effects of fiber amount. Samples were produced with vinylester resin.
77
Finally, impact resistance tests were performed on the samples (FW-31, FW-32,
FW-33) produced with different fiber lengths. It was observed that the decrease in
fiber length resulted in higher impact resistance, because, the laminates produced with
short length fibers have more homogenous structure and therefore the applied stress is
evenly transferred. The even distribution of the applied stress enables the laminate to
bear higher impact loads. Test results are shown in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.18, 4.19
and 4.20.
fiber length
SAMPLE NO
TEST
FW-31 FW-32 FW-33
RESULT
1st 2nd 3rd 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 1st 2nd 3rd
Drop
Height 4300 4300 4300 5100 5100 5100 6200 6200 6200
(mm) (Inside
cracking)
Crack Area
22 21 23 16 15 15 12 11 10
(cm²)
Drop
Height
(mm) 10900 10900 10800 12200 12300 12500 14100 14200 14400
(Inter-laminar
Separation)
78
Effect of Fiber Length on Drop Height
7000
6000
Drop Height (mm)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FW-31 FW-32 FW-33
Sample No
to evaluate the effects of fiber length. Samples were produced with ortophthalic resin.
Comparison of drop height causing liner cracks
Effect of Fiber Length on Crack Area
25
20
Crack Area (cm²)
15
10
0
FW-31 FW-32 FW-33
Sample No
Comparison of crack area
79
Effect of Fiber Length on Drop Height
15000
14000
Drop Height (mm)
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
FW-31 FW-32 FW-33
Sample No
Comparison of drop height causing inter-laminar separation
4.1.3 Results and Discussion of the Burst Test
Burst tests were performed on four different test groups as shown in Tables 3.7, 3.9,
3.10 and 3.11. Test groups include twenty four pipes in total.
Effects of the resin type on the internal pressure resistance were determined by testing
the samples produced with ortophthalic (FW-1), isophthalic (FW-2) and vinylester
resins (FW-3). It was observed that the resin type had no significant effect on the burst
pressure. It was an expected result, because the mechanical performance of the
composites is fiber dominant, meaning that the strength of the composites is affected
more by the fiber reinforcement than the resin matrix. Test results are shown in Table
4.9.
80
Table 4.9 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effect of resin type
Sample No Burst Pressure

FW-1 72 bar
FW-2 71 bar
FW-3 73 bar
Burst tests were also performed on the samples (FW-22 through FW-30) produced
with different fiber types. According to the test results it was observed that the fiber
type had no significant effect on burst pressure. Similar burst pressures were expected
for the samples produced with E-glass and ECR-glass fibers since they have similar
mechanical performance as mentioned in the previous sections. The samples in which
the C-glass GLASSFLAKES were used also burst at nearly the same pressures with
the others, since the C-glass GLASSFLAKES could only be used in the internal liner
layer and thus they had very little effect on the burst strength. Test results are shown
in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effect of fiber type

FW-22 72 bar
FW-23 73 bar
FW-24 74 bar
FW-25 73 bar
FW-26 71 bar
FW-27 73 bar
FW-28 73 bar
FW-29 75 bar
FW-30 72 bar
81
The effects of fiber amount on the internal pressure resistance were evaluated by
testing the pipe samples (FW-13 through FW-21) which have different resin and fiber
weight fractions in the whole pipe. It was observed that the high weight fraction of
glass fiber resulted in considerable rise in burst pressure, because strength of the
laminates increases proportionally with the amount of glass fiber reinforcement. Test
results are shown in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effect of fiber amount

FW-13 73 bar
FW-14 62 bar
FW-15 58 bar
FW-16 72 bar
FW-17 64 bar
FW-18 59 bar
FW-19 74 bar
FW-20 65 bar
FW-21 60 bar
Finally, burst tests were performed on the samples (FW-31, FW-32, FW-33) produced
with different fiber lengths. It was observed that the decrease in fiber length resulted
in higher burst pressure, as expected, owing to the better distribution of stress through
the laminate. Test results are shown in Table 4.12.
82
Table 4.12 Burst pressure of the test group used to evaluate the effect of fiber length

FW-31 72 bar
FW-32 77 bar
FW-33 85 bar
83
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
FRP pipes are generally used in applications where both the strength of metals and the
corrosion resistance of plastics are required. This study is based on the improvement
of abrasion and impact resistances of FRP pipes which are lower than the properties of
metal pipes. Internal pressure resistance of FRP pipes were also investigated, since
burst strength is a very important property.
In this study, it was aimed to determine the effects of resin and fiber on abrasion,
impact and internal pressure resistances of FRP pipes produced with continuous
filament winding method. Ortophthalic, isophthalic and vinylester type of resins, E-
glass, ECR-glass fibers and C-glass GLASSFLAKES were used to produce pipe
samples.
It was observed that the resin type had no effect on burst pressure, whereas the
vinylester resin had a positive effect on abrasion and impact resistances, because of its
higher toughness and flexibility.
The samples produced with E-glass and ECR-glass fiber showed similar abrasion,
impact and internal pressure resistances with each other. However, the samples
produced with C-glass GLASSFLAKES showed better abrasion resistance owing to
their powder like form.
84
Although a better impact resistance and higher burst pressure was expected from C-
glass GLASSFLAKES owing to its small particles which enables a better stress
transfer, it was observed that the use of C-glass GLASSFLAKES did not affect the
impact and internal pressure resistances of pipe samples. This situation is probably
caused by the use of C-glass GLASSFLAKES only in the internal liner layer instead
of the whole pipe layers because of the high viscosity of resin and GLASSFLAKES
mixture.
Additionally, the effects of fiber amount were investigated. It was found that the
decrease in fiber amount resulted in a decrease in abrasion, impact and internal
pressure resistances, since the laminate strength depends directly on the fiber amount.
Finally, the samples, produced by using different fiber length, were tested. It was
found that when the fiber length was increased, internal pressure and impact
resistances of pipes decreased. The abrasion resistance was not affected. A positive
effect on abrasion resistance was expected, because the use of shorter length fibers
provides a better stress distribution on the laminate. However, the minimum fiber
length was restricted by the fiber cutting unit of the continuous filament winding
machine. Thus, only three relatively long fiber lengths were used in the tests. It may
be possible to increase the abrasion resistance by using even shorter fiber lengths.
As a future study, a method can be found to adjust the viscosity of resin and C-glass
GLASSFLAKES mixtures, so that the GLASSFLAKES can be used in the whole pipe
layers in order to see its effect more precisely.
Moreover, shorter length glass fibers can be used in pipe production by modifying the
fiber cutting unit of the continuous filament winding machine. By testing these pipes
the effects of fiber length on the pipe performance can be observed clearly.
85
REFERENCES
[1] Kailas, S. V., “Material Science”, URL address: http://ecourses.vtu.ac.in/nptel/

courses/Webcourse–contents / IISc BANG / Material % 20Science/pdf/Module12.pdf,
April 2011.
[2] Lee, R., “Reactions of Polyester Resins and the Effect Lignin Fillers”,
Composite Technology Inc., 2001.
[3] DSM, “Unsaturated Polyester Resin Technology, Technical Details”, URL

address:http://www.dsm.com/en_US/downloads/dlc/resin_technical_details.pdf, April
2011.
[4] “Isophthalic Polyester Resin”, URL address: http://www.captainlevis.com/

vmchk/Polyester-Resin/ISOPHTHALIC-RESIN.html, April 2011.
[5] Aurer, J. H. and Kasper, A. “Unsaturated Polyester Resins”, Verlag Moderne

Industrie, April 2011.
[6] “Composites”, URL address: http://pslc.ws/macrogcss/composit.html, April

2011.
[7] “Crosslinking”, URL address: http://pslc.ws/macrog/xlink.htm, April 2011.
[8] Netcomposites, “Glass Fiber”, URL address: http://www.netcomposites.com/

education.asp?sequence=33, April 2011.
86
[9] Tarr, M., “The Laminating Resin”, URL address: http://www.ami.ac.uk/
courses/topics/0232_bbm/index.html, April 2011.
[10] Glass Fiber Reinforcements, URL address: http://composite.about.com/

library/glossary/g/bldef-g2440.htm, April 2011.
[11] Crocker S. and King, R. and Nayyar, M. L., “Piping Handbook”, McGraw-
Hill, USA, 2000.
[12] Hand Lay-up, URL address: http://www.designinsite.dk/gifs/pb0102.jpg,

April 2011.
[13] Chand, N. and Naik, A. and Neogi, S., “Three-body abrasive wear of short
glass fibre polyester composite”, Wear 242(00), pages 38-46, 2000.
.
[14] Suresha, B. and Chandramohan, G. and Siddaramaiah and Shivakumar, K. N.
and Ismail, M., “Mechanical and Three-Body Abrasive Wear Behavior of Three-
dimensional Glass Fabric Reinforced Vinylester Composite”, Materials Science &
Engineering A 480(08), pages 573-579, 2007.
[15] Hebert, M. and Rousseau, C. E. and Shukla, A., “Shock Loading and Drop
Weight Impact Response of Glass Reinforced Polymer Composites”, Composite
Structures 84(08), pages 199-208, 2007.
[16] Chakraborty, D., “Delamination of Laminated Fiber Reinforced Plastic

Composites Under Multiple Cylindrical Impact”, Materials & Design 28(07),
pages 1142-1153, 2006.
87
[17] Kaynak, C. and Erdiller, E.S. and Parnas, L. and Senel, F., “Use of Split-Disk
Tests For The Process Parameters of Filament Wound Epoxy Composite Tubes”,
Polymer Testing 24(5), pages 648-655, 2005.
[18] Tarakcioglu, N. and Akdemir, A. and Avci, L., “Strength of Filament Wound
GRP Pipes With Surface Crack”, Composites Part B 32(01), pages 131-138, 2000.
[19] Arikan, H., “Failure Analysis of (± 55°) Filament Wound Composite Pipes
With an Inclined Surface Crack Under Static Internal Pressure”, Composite Structures
92(10), pages 182-187, 2009.
[20] BOYTEK, “BRE 310W Technical Data Sheet”, 2008.
[21] BOYTEK, “BRE 311W Technical Data Sheet”, 2009.
[22] REICHHOLD, “DION IMPACT 9160 Product Bulletin”, 2006.
[23] “Composite Technology, Fundamentals of Fiberglass”, URL address:

http://www.fibreglass.com/HOWTO/k-fun-fibre.htm, April 2011.
[24] GLASSFLAKES CO. LTD., “GLASSFLAKES Brochure”, 2010.
[25] DIN 19565-1 Standard, “Centrifugally Cast and Filled Polyester Glass Fiber
Reinforced (UP-GF) Pipes and Fittings for Buried Drains and Sewers”, Deutsche
Norm, 1989.
[26] McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary, “Phthalic Acid”, URL

address: http://www.answers.com/topic/phthalic-acid-1, April 2011.
88
APPENDIX A
MEASUREMENT OF ABRASION AFTER 100,000 CYCLES
Table A.1 Measurement of abrasion for sample FW-1
Measurement Abrasion Loss of FW-1 Pipe (mm)

Point Sample 1 Sample 2 Average
1 0.355 0.339 0.347
2 0.342 0.314 0.328
3 0.348 0.332 0.340
4 0.351 0.327 0.339
5 0.362 0.336 0.349
6 0.348 0.328 0.338
7 0.348 0.346 0.347
8 0.365 0.337 0.351
9 0.328 0.344 0.336
10 0.361 0.341 0.351
11 0.339 0.319 0.329
12 0.327 0.315 0.321
13 0.349 0.337 0.343
14 0.337 0.341 0.339
15 0.325 0.303 0.314
16 0.345 0.323 0.334
17 0.362 0.346 0.354
18 0.345 0.347 0.346
19 0.327 0.359 0.343
20 0.357 0.341 0.349
89

1 0.314 0.289 0.302
2 0.333 0.321 0.327
3 0.309 0.293 0.301
4 0.313 0.309 0.311
5 0.321 0.297 0.309
6 0.318 0.314 0.316
7 0.325 0.303 0.314
8 0.301 0.293 0.297
9 0.314 0.298 0.306
10 0.330 0.302 0.316
11 0.338 0.314 0.326
12 0.337 0.311 0.324
13 0.335 0.319 0.327
14 0.315 0.327 0.321
15 0.326 0.304 0.315
16 0.331 0.307 0.319
17 0.329 0.309 0.319
18 0.321 0.295 0.308
19 0.309 0.303 0.306
20 0.309 0.299 0.304
90

1 0.239 0.221 0.230
2 0.241 0.227 0.234
3 0.245 0.229 0.237
4 0.231 0.217 0.224
5 0.249 0.229 0.239
6 0.251 0.231 0.241
7 0.249 0.231 0.240
8 0.256 0.236 0.246
9 0.257 0.241 0.249
10 0.251 0.261 0.256
11 0.258 0.248 0.253
12 0.258 0.242 0.250
13 0.251 0.245 0.248
14 0.265 0.257 0.261
15 0.269 0.249 0.259
16 0.243 0.251 0.247
17 0.242 0.236 0.239
18 0.228 0.220 0.224
19 0.245 0.237 0.241
20 0.241 0.227 0.234
91

1 0.330 0.344 0.337
2 0.330 0.362 0.346
3 0.327 0.345 0.336
4 0.314 0.340 0.327
5 0.315 0.343 0.329
6 0.326 0.352 0.339
7 0.324 0.356 0.340
8 0.336 0.352 0.344
9 0.323 0.355 0.339
10 0.343 0.369 0.356
11 0.341 0.367 0.354
12 0.347 0.369 0.358
13 0.346 0.376 0.361
14 0.340 0.362 0.351
15 0.335 0.363 0.349
16 0.339 0.359 0.349
17 0.328 0.348 0.338
18 0.313 0.345 0.329
19 0.322 0.352 0.337
20 0.318 0.350 0.334
92

1 0.368 0.404 0.386
2 0.365 0.385 0.375
3 0.379 0.401 0.390
4 0.392 0.414 0.403
5 0.387 0.415 0.401
6 0.386 0.418 0.402
7 0.400 0.438 0.419
8 0.396 0.436 0.416
9 0.388 0.414 0.401
10 0.400 0.432 0.416
11 0.382 0.420 0.401
12 0.396 0.436 0.416
13 0.401 0.425 0.413
14 0.403 0.425 0.414
15 0.390 0.416 0.403
16 0.401 0.409 0.405
17 0.381 0.399 0.390
18 0.379 0.403 0.391
19 0.369 0.399 0.384
20 0.371 0.385 0.378
93

1 0.441 0.451 0.446
2 0.433 0.463 0.448
3 0.443 0.459 0.451
4 0.436 0.476 0.456
5 0.451 0.463 0.457
6 0.437 0.467 0.452
7 0.442 0.472 0.457
8 0.459 0.475 0.467
9 0.450 0.486 0.468
10 0.459 0.485 0.472
11 0.475 0.465 0.470
12 0.466 0.472 0.469
13 0.442 0.482 0.462
14 0.446 0.478 0.462
15 0.495 0.471 0.483
16 0.491 0.459 0.475
17 0.452 0.482 0.467
18 0.440 0.472 0.456
19 0.443 0.475 0.459
20 0.439 0.463 0.451
94

1 0.309 0.319 0.314
2 0.312 0.326 0.319
3 0.334 0.334 0.334
4 0.315 0.335 0.325
5 0.325 0.359 0.342
6 0.310 0.326 0.318
7 0.314 0.334 0.324
8 0.349 0.325 0.337
9 0.341 0.331 0.336
10 0.370 0.338 0.354
11 0.358 0.338 0.348
12 0.363 0.339 0.351
13 0.339 0.329 0.334
14 0.334 0.336 0.335
15 0.339 0.337 0.338
16 0.318 0.324 0.321
17 0.326 0.336 0.331
18 0.337 0.331 0.334
19 0.305 0.331 0.318
20 0.310 0.314 0.312
95

1 0.371 0.381 0.376
2 0.364 0.384 0.374
3 0.355 0.379 0.367
4 0.389 0.369 0.379
5 0.378 0.356 0.367
6 0.386 0.356 0.371
7 0.391 0.359 0.375
8 0.391 0.369 0.380
9 0.384 0.374 0.379
10 0.400 0.384 0.392
11 0.408 0.394 0.401
12 0.394 0.384 0.389
13 0.375 0.391 0.383
14 0.380 0.354 0.367
15 0.391 0.367 0.379
16 0.350 0.378 0.364
17 0.386 0.376 0.381
18 0.370 0.364 0.367
19 0.371 0.367 0.369
20 0.407 0.385 0.396
96

1 0.422 0.446 0.434
2 0.447 0.439 0.443
3 0.444 0.428 0.436
4 0.436 0.445 0.441
5 0.409 0.438 0.423
6 0.454 0.425 0.440
7 0.423 0.439 0.431
8 0.408 0.445 0.427
9 0.432 0.448 0.440
10 0.456 0.449 0.452
11 0.422 0.462 0.442
12 0.463 0.439 0.451
13 0.440 0.441 0.441
14 0.413 0.449 0.431
15 0.425 0.449 0.437
16 0.405 0.448 0.427
17 0.415 0.457 0.436
18 0.421 0.437 0.429
19 0.417 0.436 0.427
20 0.424 0.418 0.421
97

1 0.220 0.238 0.229
2 0.215 0.233 0.224
3 0.218 0.236 0.227
4 0.220 0.238 0.229
5 0.215 0.237 0.226
6 0.227 0.241 0.234
7 0.219 0.239 0.229
8 0.220 0.234 0.227
9 0.227 0.241 0.234
10 0.239 0.251 0.245
11 0.229 0.249 0.239
12 0.239 0.247 0.243
13 0.227 0.247 0.237
14 0.225 0.247 0.236
15 0.220 0.242 0.231
16 0.220 0.242 0.231
17 0.223 0.245 0.234
18 0.216 0.234 0.225
19 0.214 0.234 0.224
20 0.215 0.237 0.226
98

1 0.241 0.261 0.251
2 0.249 0.263 0.256
3 0.267 0.251 0.259
4 0.243 0.263 0.253
5 0.254 0.268 0.261
6 0.274 0.254 0.264
7 0.284 0.268 0.276
8 0.264 0.284 0.274
9 0.267 0.285 0.276
10 0.270 0.286 0.278
11 0.295 0.273 0.284
12 0.272 0.284 0.278
13 0.261 0.273 0.267
14 0.274 0.294 0.284
15 0.259 0.279 0.269
16 0.249 0.267 0.258
17 0.255 0.273 0.264
18 0.260 0.274 0.267
19 0.267 0.271 0.269
20 0.262 0.278 0.270
99

1 0.293 0.305 0.299
2 0.288 0.314 0.301
3 0.284 0.298 0.291
4 0.300 0.318 0.309
5 0.303 0.331 0.317
6 0.301 0.315 0.308
7 0.314 0.336 0.325
8 0.317 0.341 0.329
9 0.315 0.347 0.331
10 0.306 0.334 0.320
11 0.311 0.325 0.318
12 0.312 0.326 0.319
13 0.324 0.338 0.331
14 0.316 0.334 0.325
15 0.334 0.344 0.339
16 0.331 0.341 0.336
17 0.297 0.327 0.312
18 0.302 0.332 0.317
19 0.302 0.314 0.308
20 0.283 0.297 0.290
100

1 0.317 0.341 0.329
2 0.340 0.352 0.346
3 0.322 0.346 0.334
4 0.315 0.347 0.331
5 0.313 0.339 0.326
6 0.323 0.351 0.337
7 0.325 0.353 0.339
8 0.328 0.358 0.343
9 0.324 0.354 0.339
10 0.340 0.368 0.354
11 0.351 0.361 0.356
12 0.347 0.367 0.357
13 0.338 0.362 0.350
14 0.344 0.354 0.349
15 0.355 0.329 0.342
16 0.354 0.326 0.340
17 0.317 0.345 0.331
18 0.311 0.327 0.319
19 0.318 0.336 0.327
20 0.333 0.345 0.339
101

1 0.339 0.333 0.336
2 0.348 0.322 0.335
3 0.349 0.319 0.334
4 0.352 0.326 0.339
5 0.353 0.337 0.345
6 0.356 0.342 0.349
7 0.339 0.319 0.329
8 0.351 0.321 0.336
9 0.347 0.331 0.339
10 0.344 0.336 0.340
11 0.361 0.337 0.349
12 0.364 0.336 0.350
13 0.343 0.331 0.337
14 0.342 0.334 0.338
15 0.345 0.323 0.334
16 0.348 0.324 0.336
17 0.338 0.319 0.328
18 0.343 0.319 0.331
19 0.328 0.314 0.321
20 0.321 0.311 0.316
102

1 0.295 0.274 0.284
2 0.286 0.276 0.281
3 0.280 0.276 0.278
4 0.294 0.275 0.284
5 0.262 0.278 0.270
6 0.260 0.274 0.267
7 0.293 0.275 0.284
8 0.283 0.261 0.272
9 0.263 0.284 0.274
10 0.266 0.285 0.276
11 0.292 0.276 0.284
12 0.295 0.285 0.290
13 0.302 0.278 0.290
14 0.271 0.281 0.276
15 0.294 0.279 0.287
16 0.287 0.267 0.277
17 0.291 0.271 0.281
18 0.285 0.263 0.274
19 0.287 0.271 0.279
20 0.289 0.267 0.278
103

1 0.322 0.306 0.314
2 0.322 0.310 0.316
3 0.332 0.306 0.319
4 0.324 0.314 0.319
5 0.334 0.318 0.326
6 0.326 0.316 0.321
7 0.337 0.321 0.329
8 0.327 0.321 0.324
9 0.333 0.325 0.329
10 0.330 0.302 0.316
11 0.331 0.321 0.326
12 0.337 0.321 0.329
13 0.346 0.316 0.331
14 0.344 0.324 0.334
15 0.346 0.326 0.336
16 0.331 0.317 0.324
17 0.334 0.318 0.326
18 0.329 0.309 0.319
19 0.323 0.311 0.317
20 0.318 0.300 0.309
104

1 0.320 0.298 0.309
2 0.308 0.314 0.311
3 0.308 0.318 0.313
4 0.317 0.321 0.319
5 0.336 0.316 0.326
6 0.324 0.324 0.324
7 0.306 0.326 0.316
8 0.327 0.315 0.321
9 0.337 0.311 0.324
10 0.329 0.309 0.319
11 0.324 0.316 0.320
12 0.333 0.315 0.324
13 0.324 0.308 0.316
14 0.318 0.324 0.321
15 0.336 0.326 0.331
16 0.323 0.305 0.314
17 0.331 0.309 0.320
18 0.317 0.311 0.314
19 0.323 0.309 0.316
20 0.304 0.314 0.309
105

1 0.276 0.286 0.281
2 0.279 0.289 0.284
3 0.287 0.291 0.289
4 0.296 0.286 0.291
5 0.300 0.284 0.292
6 0.306 0.286 0.296
7 0.303 0.289 0.296
8 0.314 0.288 0.301
9 0.301 0.279 0.290
10 0.286 0.296 0.291
11 0.307 0.285 0.296
12 0.308 0.282 0.295
13 0.308 0.284 0.296
14 0.305 0.279 0.292
15 0.283 0.291 0.287
16 0.296 0.276 0.286
17 0.272 0.296 0.284
18 0.310 0.290 0.300
19 0.313 0.289 0.301
20 0.309 0.283 0.296
106

1 0.220 0.242 0.231
2 0.229 0.239 0.234
3 0.224 0.238 0.231
4 0.227 0.249 0.238
5 0.225 0.243 0.234
6 0.215 0.237 0.226
7 0.230 0.238 0.234
8 0.235 0.249 0.242
9 0.236 0.254 0.245
10 0.243 0.259 0.251
11 0.242 0.256 0.249
12 0.241 0.261 0.251
13 0.228 0.250 0.239
14 0.244 0.254 0.249
15 0.226 0.246 0.236
16 0.229 0.241 0.235
17 0.226 0.244 0.235
18 0.225 0.243 0.234
19 0.229 0.249 0.239
20 0.219 0.227 0.223
107

1 0.220 0.238 0.229
2 0.217 0.231 0.224
3 0.213 0.229 0.221
4 0.216 0.230 0.223
5 0.231 0.239 0.235
6 0.217 0.235 0.226
7 0.221 0.241 0.231
8 0.221 0.243 0.232
9 0.229 0.253 0.241
10 0.227 0.249 0.238
11 0.233 0.241 0.237
12 0.236 0.246 0.241
13 0.235 0.255 0.245
14 0.223 0.239 0.231
15 0.231 0.237 0.234
16 0.225 0.247 0.236
17 0.230 0.238 0.234
18 0.233 0.241 0.237
19 0.212 0.234 0.223
20 0.225 0.237 0.231
108

1 0.202 0.186 0.194
2 0.199 0.193 0.196
3 0.195 0.179 0.187
4 0.203 0.189 0.196
5 0.204 0.198 0.201
6 0.213 0.199 0.206
7 0.209 0.197 0.203
8 0.209 0.193 0.201
9 0.208 0.204 0.206
10 0.206 0.196 0.201
11 0.215 0.197 0.206
12 0.217 0.201 0.209
13 0.212 0.196 0.204
14 0.216 0.200 0.208
15 0.200 0.194 0.197
16 0.205 0.197 0.201
17 0.208 0.198 0.203
18 0.191 0.203 0.197
19 0.199 0.193 0.196
20 0.192 0.176 0.184
109

1 0.315 0.323 0.319
2 0.335 0.339 0.337
3 0.323 0.349 0.336
4 0.332 0.348 0.340
5 0.333 0.349 0.341
6 0.334 0.356 0.345
7 0.344 0.364 0.354
8 0.341 0.361 0.351
9 0.331 0.361 0.346
10 0.325 0.359 0.342
11 0.334 0.364 0.349
12 0.318 0.350 0.334
13 0.319 0.351 0.335
14 0.328 0.352 0.340
15 0.336 0.362 0.349
16 0.333 0.359 0.346
17 0.328 0.354 0.341
18 0.328 0.358 0.343
19 0.342 0.350 0.346
20 0.319 0.349 0.334
110

1 0.324 0.348 0.336
2 0.319 0.349 0.334
3 0.329 0.351 0.340
4 0.325 0.359 0.342
5 0.325 0.359 0.342
6 0.321 0.351 0.336
7 0.337 0.361 0.349
8 0.332 0.364 0.348
9 0.325 0.359 0.342
10 0.337 0.365 0.351
11 0.347 0.365 0.356
12 0.339 0.363 0.351
13 0.339 0.365 0.352
14 0.339 0.357 0.348
15 0.335 0.359 0.347
16 0.320 0.351 0.336
17 0.325 0.359 0.342
18 0.335 0.361 0.348
19 0.319 0.349 0.334
20 0.316 0.346 0.331
111

1 0.309 0.339 0.324
2 0.330 0.348 0.339
3 0.316 0.346 0.331
4 0.325 0.351 0.338
5 0.340 0.352 0.346
6 0.338 0.364 0.351
7 0.331 0.351 0.341
8 0.343 0.349 0.346
9 0.337 0.361 0.349
10 0.350 0.362 0.356
11 0.343 0.359 0.351
12 0.325 0.359 0.342
13 0.321 0.351 0.336
14 0.323 0.351 0.337
15 0.331 0.359 0.345
16 0.325 0.359 0.342
17 0.341 0.351 0.346
18 0.346 0.352 0.349
19 0.341 0.361 0.351
20 0.311 0.331 0.321
112

Index

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Index

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF RESIN AND FIBER ON THE ABRASION,

IMPACT AND PRESSURE RESISTANCE OF CYLINDRICAL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

EFFECT OF RESIN AND FIBER ON THE ABRASION,

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen

Prof. Dr. Deniz Üner

Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yılmazer

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Hayrettin Yücel

Prof. Dr. Ülkü Yılmazer

Prof. Dr. Cevdet Kaynak

Prof. Dr. Leyla Aras

Dr. Cevdet Öztin

Name, Last Name : Derya Kaya

EFFECT OF RESIN AND FIBER ON THE ABRASION,

June 2011, 112 pages

Keywords: Filament winding, composite, abrasion resistance, impact resistance, burst

SĐLĐNDĐRĐK KOMPOZĐT YAPILARDA

Haziran 2011, 112 sayfa

Anahtar Kelimeler: Elyaf sarma, kompozit, aşınma dayanımı, darbe dayanımı,

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xiv

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... xix

2.1 Resin Matrix ..................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Chemistry of Unsaturated Polyester Resins .......................................... 5

2.1.2. Types of Unsaturated Resins ................................................................. 7

2.1.3. Curing of Unsaturated Polyester Resins ............................................... 9

2.2 Fiber Reinforcement....................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Types of Fiber Reinforcement .............................................................. 14

2.2.2 Glass Fiber Reinforcement ................................................................... 16

2.3. Aggregates ..................................................................................................... 18

2.4 Production Methods of FRP Pipes ................................................................ 18

2.4.1 Filament Winding Method.................................................................... 19

2.4.1.1 Helical Winding Method ............................................................. 19

2.4.1.2 Continuous Filament Winding Method ...................................... 20

2.4.2 Centrifugal Casting Method ................................................................. 23

2.4.3 Hand Lay-up Method ............................................................................ 24

2.5 Theoretical and Experimental Studies .......................................................... 25

3. SAMPLE PREPARATION AND TESTING ............................................................ 29

3.1 Material Selection .......................................................................................... 29

3.1.1 Selection of Resin Matrix ..................................................................... 29

3.1.3 Selection of Aggregate .......................................................................... 33

3.2 Test Specimen Fabrication ............................................................................ 34

3.2.1 Pipe Recipes .......................................................................................... 40

3.3 Experimental Techniques .............................................................................. 43

3.3.1 Abrasion Resistance Test Method ........................................................ 43

3.3.1.1 Test Pieces .................................................................................... 43

3.3.1.2 Test Apparatus.............................................................................. 46

3.3.1.3 Test Procedure .............................................................................. 47

3.3.2 Impact Resistance Test Method ........................................................... 48

3.3.2.1 Test Pieces .................................................................................... 48

3.3.2.2 Test Apparatus.............................................................................. 48

3.3.2.3 Test Procedure .............................................................................. 50

3.3.3 Pressure Resistance Test ....................................................................... 50

3.3.3.1 Test Pieces .................................................................................... 50

3.3.3.3 Test Procedure .............................................................................. 52

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 53

4.1 Experimental Results and Discussion ........................................................... 53

4.1.1 Results and Discussion of the Abrasion Resistance Test ................... 53

4.1.2 Results and Discussion of the Impact Test .......................................... 65

4.1.3 Results and Discussion of the Burst Test............................................. 80

A. MEASUREMENT OF ABRASION AFTER 100,000 CYCLES ................ 89

Table 2.1 Properties of fiber reinforcements .................................................................. 15

Table 3.3 Mechanical properties of cast non-reinforced REICHHOLD DION

Table 3.5 Chemical Composition of GLASSFLAKES ................................................ 33