Harbin Institute of Technology

HIT Graduate Course SYW33005Q / S0933065Q

Fiber Reinforced Polymers in Civil Engineering

Prof. Dr. h.c. Urs Meier
Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for
Materials Science and Technology
Department of Engineering Sciences
Institution of the ETH Domain
Prof. Dr. Guijun Xian
Laboratory for FRP Composites and
Structures (LFCS)
School of Civil Engineering
Harbin Institute of Technology

Volume 1: Introduction / Engineering design with neat polymers and

with random-oriented fiber reinforced polymers

November / December 2017

Printed by Empa Printing Office in October 2017

Head: Martin Gutknecht

Content of the Course Goal of the following Introduction

1. Introduction • to get motivated for FRPs in construction

2. Engineering design with neat polymers and with • to get an overview over the past, the present
random-oriented fiber reinforced polymers
time and the future of FRPs
3. Composition and manufacturing techniques for
fiber reinforced polymers • to realize the great potential of FRPs in
construction in the future
4. Engineering design with highly-oriented fiber
reinforced polymers
5. Special problems and case studies

Zurich In the center of Western Europe

8100 km Harbin

Zürich

Short introduction about myself

Zurich Area circa 1.1 million habitants ETH Zurich Campus downtown; founded 1855

Campus Empa Dübendorf Campuses of ETH Zurich

Page 3
ETH Zurich Campus downtown ETH Zurich Campus downtown

2018 QS World University Ranking: Teaching at ETH FRP in :

on European Continent # 1 (ex. Island UK) - Civil Engineering
worldwide # 10 - Mechanical Engineering
- Materials Science
for 33 years

ETH Zurich Campus Hönggerberg; CE since 1977 here Empa Dübendorf founded in 1880
Downtown Campus

CE from the Junior Research Engineer to

the Managing Director

Acronyms Miserable Times for Polymers and FRP

FRP Fiber Reinforced Polymers in Europe until 1970ties :

GFRP Glass fiber Reinforced Polymers
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers “Plastics” and FRPs were in the mind of
PMC Polymer Matrix Composites most people poor replacements of metals.

Page 4
Happy Times for Polymers and FRP 1956/57 all FRP Monsanto House

in USA since 1940ties:

“Plastics” and FRPs were in the mind of

most people the materials for the future.

1956/57 all FRP Monsanto House 1971/72 and 1977/78: MIT

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MIT-Professors
M. Goody, R. Hamilton, F. Heger, A.G.H. Dietz and
F. J. McGarry created together with Monsanto
the GFRP House of the Future.

1971/72 and 1977/78: MIT Spirit of that time: enthusiasm for FRP
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Primer
Plastics for
Architects and
Builders
by Albert G. H. Dietz

Paperback
1969 MIT Press
Prof. Fred J. McGarry

Page 5
Spirit of that time: enthusiasm for FRP Spirit of that time: enthusiasm for FRP

GFRP GFRP
Sandwich “Petals”
Panels at US
exhibition
in Moscow
1959

Spirit of that time: enthusiasm for FRP anyway: the wave of “FRP in
construction” was over at MIT in 1971
outstanding for builders
and architects,
but not for
civil engineers in charge
of analyses and design

1969: start of Space Shuttle program MIT-Research Work

Fatigue Crack Growth Predictions in FRP
K  
 (11)   f  I 
 KQ 
f  
log N i  1  K I 

S  K Q 
nk
N 1
k

1975
J.F. Mandell and U. Meier
Fatigue Crack Propagation in 0°/90°
E- Glass / Epoxy Composites

Page 6
Research work for space applications Polymers and FRPs for Structural
Applications („Road Show“)
• But in my heart I was and I still am a Civil • Retrospective view from where?
Engineer. • State-of-the-art wherefore?
• Therefore applications of FRP in Civil • Prospects for the future whereto?
Engineering (CE) were still my long-term
vision!
• Back at Empa in Switzerland I started to
transfer my Aeronautics FRP knowledge
into CE-visions.

Polymers and FRPs for Structural History Troy 2500 BC

Applications („Road Show“)
Carbon Fiber Composites
Retrospective view already 2500 BC?

from where? On the trail of the archaeologist

Heinrich Schliemann
the discoverer of Troy
in 1871

History Troy 2500 BC History Troy 2500 BC

Troy: Fortification Wall 2500 BC Air dried bricks

Fibers: Straw
Matrix: Clay

Page 7
History Troy 2500 BC History Troy 2500 BC

Troy burned many times down Air dried bricks → Fired bricks
Straw fibers → Carbon fibers ???

History Troy 2500 BC 1940 Spitfire "Gordon Aerolite“ (EP)

all composite Flax-FRP fuselage
only prototype
no serial production

1942 Mosquito DH 98: „the wood- Retrospective view : Mosquito DH 98

bomber“, first application of GFRP 1942
Tail empennage:
PVC foam fibreglass
composite sandwich

Page 8
1946 Owens Corning Fiber-Glass Body 1958 GFRP rotor blades of BO 105
Stout Project Y
only
prototype

World first‘s GFRP prototype rotor

blades 1958 by Bölkow, Germany.
Elasticity and high strength allow a
system without hinges.1967 first flight
of BO 105-Helicopter with GFRP rotor
first blades.
GFRP-carriage

1958 GFRP rotor blades of BO 105 1953 Fiberglass Corvette GM

300 piece-series, hand-laminate

single piece
GFRP underbody

1957 Trabant „Plastik Bomber“ DDR 1960 GFRP plate Thun/Switzerland

14.5 x 22 m, 1280 box elements

Phenolic resin/cotton fibers

Heinz Isler

Page 9
1964 Lausanne, Switzerland 1964 Lausanne, Switzerland

GF UP-Elements
18.0 m x 18.0 m

Expo Pavilion „Les échanges“

Heinz Hossdorf Heinz Hossdorf

1968 BASF chimney Ludwigshafen, D 1974 Airbus A300, 310 …

H = 55.3 m;  = 2.5 m flaps, rudder, landing gear
v = 150 km/h; T = 60°C doors, etc. admitted
dead load = 133 kN
d = 10 ... 50 mm

1975 GFRP reinforcement, USSR 1980 Lear Fan 2100, Belfast, N.-Ireland

Maiden flight 1980, ca. 85 % CFRP (break- through in a/c tech.)

Unladed weight: 1860 kg (fuel consumption 16 l/100 km)
Take-off weight: 3300 kg
Span: 12.0 m
Length: 12.4 m
Velocity: 680 km/h
by the way today: 30’000 km per year, growth rate 15% Range: 2500 km
Falikman, Stepanova, Bouchkin , Russia

Page 10
Lear Fan 2100, filament wound Lear Fan 2100 … „CFRP ignorance“ …
drive shafts failed to gain in time certification by US FAA (Federal Aviation
Administration)

7 passengers
2 pilots
Christoph Rüegg

1981/82 Ginzi Bridge, Bulgaria 1982/83 Miyun Bridge in Beijing

GFRP GFRP
road road
Bridge Bridge

10 m 20.7 m
span span
World’s first All Composite Road Bridge

China Research Institute of Highway Ministry of Transport

1983 Man-Powered Aircraft Perlargos 1983 Man-Powered Aircraft Perlargos

Dübendorf, Switzerland
Span = 27 m
Mass = 36 kg

Stringer
350 g/m1

Max Horlacher Max Horlacher

Page 11
1983 CFRP Formula 1 Monocoque 1983 CFRP Formula 1 Monocoque

Hans Rudolf Manz, Seger+Hofmann, Steckborn, Switzerland Hans Rudolf Manz, Seger+Hofmann, Steckborn, Switzerland

1983 CFRP Formula 1 Monocoque 1986: Ulenbergstrasse Bridge, Germany

1986: Ulenbergstrasse Bridge, Germany

Continuous girder: 21.3m + 25.6m
Post‐tensioned with GFRP tendons 

1983: 35 kg CFRP today: 45 … 50 kg

grouted GFRP tendons: alkaline attack?
Hans Rudolf Manz, Seger+Hofmann, Steckborn, Switzerland

1987: Marienfelde Bridge Berlin, Germany 1987: Marienfelde Bridge Berlin, Germany
externally post-
Continuous girder: 22,9m + 27,6 m tensioned with
Post-tensioned with GFRP tendons GFRP tendons
(to avoid an
alkaline attack to
the glass fibers)
stress corrosion of
E-glass?

Page 12
 Predictions??? enable it and avoid such situations

As for the future, your task is not

to foresee it, but to enable it.

Antoine de Saint Exupery

1990 Airplanes: Prediction of TNO Delft Post-strengthening with externally

bonded steel plates since 1967
Mass Percentage of Materials

Aluminum FRPs
Wood, woven fabrics
Titanium • heavy • corrosion • slow
Steel • many joints • expensive scaffolding • big labor force
Adriaan Beukers, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

Adhesively bonded steel plates Promises in 1982

with a sigh: WOW!
94 kg steel only 4.5 kg CFRP
for 50 m of post- for 50 m of post-
strengthening strenghtening
built in 1912

strengthened: 1980 Mr. Ms.

photo taken: 2006 Old-Fashioned Up-to-Date

Page 13
Strengthening with CFRP 1991: Ibach Bridge Lucerne, Switzerland

• light • no scaffolding • very fast

• no corrosion • no joints • small labor force

1991: Ibach Bridge Lucerne, Switzerland 1991: Ibach Bridge Lucerne, Switzerland
CFRP strips are going
to be prepared

World’s first application

of CFRP
in construction

only 6 working hours!

1991: BASF Bridge Düsseldorf, Germany 1992 Covered Wooden Bridge

Sins, Switzerland
Continuous girder: total length is 85 m Historic Landmark
Post-tensioned with 4 CFRP
and 16 steel tendons

World’s 2nd application

of CFRP in construction built in 1807

Page 14
1992 Covered Wooden Bridge 1992 Covered Wooden Bridge
Sins, Switzerland
Cross Section

Elevation

1992 City Hall Gossau, Switzerland 1992 City Hall Gossau, Switzerland

subsequently added elevator

planned
cut-out for
elevator to
World’s first application of CFRP be added
in a building

1992 City Hall Gossau, Switzerland 1992 City Hall

easy after subsequent addition of

crossing elevator

Arguments of architects:
• easy and fast application
• not visible
• easy “crossings”
• no corrosion (no need)
• outstanding fatigue (no need)

Page 15
1992 Aberfeldy Cable Stayed Bridge 1994 Predictions for CFRP in CE
4000

3500 optimistic

of CFRP
3000

pessimistic

t CFK-Bänder
2500

2000

1500

tons
Civil Engineering
1000

500

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

2014

2017

2020

2023

2026

2029
World’s first All Composite (Glass, Aramid) cable-stayed bridge
Ja hr
Peter Head, Chris Burgoyne, England

1996 Ariane V Payload fairing Empa 1994-1996

full scale tests
Payload fairing
Swiss contribution
12,7 m high
5,4 m diameter
(like fuselage of Airbus 320)
200°C, 110 km, 3 min !!
total mass 1680 kg

1996 12MN CFRP parallel wire bundle 1996 12MN CFRP parallel wire bundle

Load Transfer Media

LTM

241 CFRP wires each 5mm 

Page 16
1996 Stork Bridge Winterthur, Switzerland 1997 Pontresina Bridge, Switzerland

1998 Kleine Emme (Reusszopf)

1997 Pontresina Bridge, Switzerland 1998 Neigles CFRP Footbridge

each cable
16 parallel CFCC 7-wire strands
2 CFRP cables each 91 wires load
in bottom
bearingchord
capacity 2272 kN

1998 Kleine Emme (Reusszopf)

1998 Bridge over the "Kleine Emme“ 1998 "Kleine Emme“ Bridge
Cross section

post-tensioning 2 CFRP cables each

force = 4.8 MN of 91 wires of
Elevation 5 mm diameter

2 CFRP cables each 91 wires in bottom chord

Page 17
1998 Pultrusion (integration of sensors) 1998 Pultrusion (integration of sensors)
Roving 12 34
Impregnation Bath

Heated Die

Puller Unit

FOS Monitoring
Curing zone
100-200 C°

1998 Optical fibre Bragg grating 1998 Cross section of integrated FOS

C-fibers Ø 5 m
incoming light
 transmitted light
coating
cladding
core
cladding Bragg grating
Bragg grating


reflected light
FOS Ø 100 m

Interface between
rovings

1998 Verdasio Bridge 1998 Verdasio Bridge

post-tensioned continuous 2-span girder severe corrosion

Page 18
1998 Verdasio Bridge 1998 Verdasio Bridge

New diaphragm New diaphragm

4 CFRP cables

the corroded steel

cables were replaced
by 4 CFRP cables
each of 600 kN
Sustained stress 1820 MPa
inside box girder

1999 The Eyecatcher, Basle, Switzerland 1990ties GFRP plates for emergencies
GFRP structure
5 stories
15 meters high
10x12 meters layout

Thomas Keller, Otto Künzle and Urs Wyss Scobalit Switzerland

2000 Swedish Visby CFRP Corvette 2001 Foundation of Empa

Spin-Off Compasny Carbo-Link

73 m

600 tons of displacement, 55 km/h, CFRP-

Sandwich, 45 tons T700S C-Fibers, Vinylester

Page 19
2003 Reality in Use of CFRP 2006 NOVARTIS entrance, Basle, Switzerland
4000

3500
2003: optimistic
3‘400 t
of CFRP

3000 +70%
pessimistic
t CFK-Bänder

2500

2000 wing-shaped GFRP sandwich roof

1500
tons

Civil Engineering
1000

500
Prediction 0
made in
1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

2014

2017

2020

2023

2026

2029
1994 Ja hr
Thomas Keller et all.

2006 NOVARTIS entrance, Basle, Switzerland 2007 Seismic retrofitting, masonry walls

Post-tensioned
CFRP tendons
Thomas Keller et all.
106

2006 Bowstring Arch Bridge @ EMPA 2006 Bowstring Arch Bridge @ Empa
Volume Cost
Glulam
GFRP
CFRP
93.8% 18%
42%
40%

0.3% 5.9% CFRP RMB 179112

GFRP RMB 185283
Glulam RMB 80288

Page 20
2006 Bowstring Arch Bridge @ Empa 2011 Boeing 787 Dreamliner
Volume CO2-Footprint
Glulam negative!
GFRP unknown,
CFRP
less considerable
93.8% unknown,
however considerable

0.3% 5.9%

circa 35 tons of CFRP

2011 Boeing 787 Dreamliner 2011 Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Materials

Mass-% Volume-%

50 % Composites 70 % Composites
20 % Aluminum 15 % Aluminum
15 % Titanium 7 % Titanium
10 % Steel 3 % Steel

lightweight circa 2.4 l /100 passenger-km

2011 Boeing 787 Dreamliner: Materials 2014 Prediction of TNO Delft of 1990
A319/20/21,
Mass Percentage of Materials

Scheduled maintenance intervals B787,

A330
„Heavy Structural Inspection“ only every 12 years A319/20/21 13% and A350
instead of 6 years due to
15% B787 A350 are not
50% 52%
no relevant fatigue problems with CFRP Airplanes average
but rather
leading-
edge
Aluminum FRPs
technology!
Wood, woven fabrics
Titanium
Steel
Adriaan Beukers, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

Page 21
 2014:
2014 Reality in use of CFRP 7‘500 t A quote of a visionary as benchmark
+105%
4000

3500 optimistic Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Russian Space

of CFRP

3000
Visionary said 1926:
pessimistic
t CFK-Bänder

2500

2000
• First, inevitably, the idea, the fantasy, the fairy
1500
tale.
tons

Civil Engineering • Then, scientific calculation.

1000

500 • Ultimately, fulfillment crowns the dream. *)

Prediction 0 • *) technical and commercial success!
made in
1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

2014

2017

2020

2023

2026

2029
1994 Ja hr

FRP for rehabilitation FRP for rehabilitation

FRP for rehabilitation A quote of a visionary as benchmark

• First, inevitably, the idea, the fantasy, the fairy

tale. (more a need than a dream)
• Then, scientific calculation. (& experiments)
• Ultimately, fulfillment crowns the dream.
(the hard work)

Page 22
FRP for new construction A quote of a visionary as benchmark

• First, inevitably, the idea, the fantasy, the fairy

tale.
• Then, scientific calculation. (& experiments)
• Ultimately, fulfillment crowns the dream.

Polymers and FRPs for Structural Wind turbine towers

Applications („Road Show“)

Prospects for the future

whereto?

Max Bögl

Wind turbine towers Wind turbine towers

Max Bögl

Page 23
Wind turbine towers Wind turbine towers

External post-tensioning inside the tube

For off-shore applications → CFRP tendons
Max Bögl Max Bögl

Forth Road Bridge Replacement What might be in the far future?

FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA

Total cost
• with steel cables 100%
• with CFRP cables 125%
Plan: 27 m diameter
Elevation: 40 stories

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA

Design Architect: Testa & Weiser/ Los Angeles

Consulting Engineers: ARUP/ New York

pre-compressed helicoidal structure

formed of two interlocking scissors,
that are restrained by a tensile floor system

Page 24
What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA

Materials („all composite“)

- CFRP
- GFRP
- no columns - ARFP
- no vertical core - Polymer Membranes

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA
Construction process on site
- pultrusion
- filament winding
- braiding

- very lightweight → high seismic resistance

- high architectural flexibility
- improved 9/11 safety
- predestinated for „adaptive systems“

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
FRP Tower of Peter Testa, USA FRP Tower of
Peter Testa

Prototype of
interlocking scissor-
Element made by
Carbo-Link and EMPA

A. von Böttiker, A. Winistörfer, I. Stöcklin, U. Meier

Page 25
What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
40
Break-Even Span Visions for the

Price per unit mass of CFRP

Price per unit mass of steel
Strait of Taiwan
30

Break-Even Span:
20
the CFRP bridge
is above
this span 10
more economic!
Acad. Lin Yan Pei
Presentation at
2000 3000 4000 Bridge Tech 2010 in
Span [m] Shanghai

Visions for the Strait of Taiwan What might be in the far future?
main span: 3500 m
Atlantic Ocean Mediterranean Sea

Strait of Gibraltar

Sketch: Dr. Yue Liu

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Mediterranean Sea Myth of creation of the Strait of
Gibraltar
Pillars of Hercules

nasa/PIA03397 Atlantic Ocean nasa/PIA03397

Page 26
 What might be in the far future?
What might be in the far future?

Pillars of Hercules Gibraltar

1930ties
Atlantic Ocean Mediterranean Sea

nasa/PIA03397 Atlantic Ocean

What might be in the far future?

What might be in the far future? 50’000 Megawatt
Rendering of
wall

Hermann Sörgel
Peter Behrens
Ludwig Mies van
der Rohe
Le Corbusier 50 x

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Tube turbines in adaptable positions fixed with
Strait of Gibraltar at narrowest site
CFRP tendons

14 km

Page 27
What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Strait of Gibraltar at narrowest site Strait of Gibraltar at narrowest site

450 m
900 m

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Urs Meier, 1987 Proposal Urs Meier, 1987

8.4 km

impossible with steel

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Urs Meier, 1987 Proposal Urs Meier, 1987

Burj Khalifa

Assumptions 1987 for cables:

working= 380 MPa  105’000 t CFRP
Assumptions 2017 for cables:
working= 1800 MPa  22’000 t CFRP

Page 28
 What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Urs Meier, 1987 Proposal Charles E. Kaempen, 1989
Height [m]

Submersible Tunnel Structure

Meier, U., Proposal for a carbon fibre reinforced composite

bridge across the Strait of Gibraltar at its narrowest site, Proc
Instn Mech Engrs Vol 201 B2, IMechE , p 73 78, 1987.
http://pib.sagepub.com/content/201/2/73.full.pdf+html

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Charles E. Kaempen, 1989 Charles E. Kaempen, 1989
Composite
Outer Wall
Composite
Cross section
Inner Wall
Submersible
480
Concrete Tunnel Structure
Annulus

Concrete
Rail Base

GFRP
Concrete 303
dimensions in inches

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Charles E. Kaempen, 1989 Proposal Tung-Yen Lin, 1996

with CFRP tendons

for anchoring

Page 29
 What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Tung-Yen Lin, 1996 Proposal Tung-Yen Lin, 1996

5 km

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Tung-Yen Lin, 1996 Distributed Mitigation of Wind-Induced
Vibrations in Long-Span Bridges

more economic with CFRP

Maria Boberg, Glauco Feltrin, Alcherio Martinoli

What might be in the far future? What might be in the far future?
Proposal Giovanni Lombardi, 2012 Proposal Giovanni Lombardi, 2012
Spain Marocco
Depth [m]
0
200
Tunnel 40 km length 400
600
40 km

IGN SECEG 1989 Cost estimate 2012: 12 billion USD

Page 30
How to bridge the gap between now and
the far future? Sag of stay cables

Hybrid stay
cable arrangements?

sag

Equivalent modulus Equivalent modulus

Steel CFRP
equivalent Horizontal
Modulus span
Ee 1

E (  l )2
1 E
12  3
Steel CFRP

Working
Modulus Density
stress

1.0
Gain of “stiffness” for long stays 800MPa
600MPa
0.9
30% loss 400MPa
0.8 for steel
0.7
800MPa
0.6
Ee/E

0.5
600MPa
0.4 200MPa
540m
0.3
0.2 400MPa
0.1
200MPa
0.0 horizontal
0 500 1000 1500 2000 cable span [m]

Page 31
Pin-loaded CFRP tendons 25 MN Pin-loaded CFRP tendons

CFRP wound in a racetrack

manner ….

… therefore, we rely only on

the carbon fibers, and not on
polymer matrix systems.
1300 mm

Carbo‐Link production facility 1972: Summer Olympics Munich

clumsy nodes

Jörg Schlaich

18 MN Munich steel fork Steel vs. CFRP fork

1300 mm

Page 32
Are we ready? Can it be enabled? Conclusions

• FRPs are very reliable materials in construction

if correct applied and
• there is a bright future for CFRP in construction,
but …….

Peng Feng, Tsinghua University

Time, patience and tenacity

Time, patience and tenacity,

Jules Verne used to write,
are most important,
because everything which has been achieved
in this world,
was done thanks to exaggerated hopes.

Page 33
Content Chapter 2 Detailed content chapter 2

Engineering design with neat polymers and 2.1 Scope of applications

with random-oriented fiber reinforced 2.2 Static loading
polymers
2.21 Tensile- and compressive loading
2.22 Flexural loading
2.23 Combined loading
2.24 Buckling
2.3 Fatigue

Cont. content chapter Goal of the following class

2.4 Brittle failure become acquainted with the „tools“ to

2.5 Variable loading design with:
2.6 Thermal stresses • neat polymers or
2.7 To be subjected to aggressive • slightly with random-oriented fiber
chemicals reinforced polymers

Neat Polymer Slightly reinforced with random-

oriented fibre polymers
• homogeneous (out of microscopic view) • homogenous (out of macroscopic view)
• Isotropic • „quasi“-isotropic
•  < 20 Volume % fibres

PMMA =
Polymethylmethacrylate PMMA
“Plexiglas”

Page 34
Slightly reinforced with random- 2.1 Scope of applications
oriented fibers polymers
chopped Advantages:
strand mat
partly outstanding properties related to:
- chemical resistance
- outdoor weathering
chopped strand
- ability to be welded
mat laminate
glass, UP, - transparency
 = 18% - aging

Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications

Disadvantages: Disadvantages:
- Low strength  = 30 ... 100 N/mm2 - Low E-modulus 50 ... 4‘000 N/mm2
(Young's modulus)
As comparison: As comparison:
- „mild“ steel 560 N/mm2 - „mild“ steel 210‘000 N/mm2
- „regular“ aluminum alloy 460 N/mm2 - „regular“ aluminum alloy 70‘000 N/mm2

Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications

Disadvantages: Some important polymers for engineering

- Partly not sufficient resistance to UV design :
- Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)
- Polycarbonate (PC)
- Polyamide (PA)
- Polyacetal (POM)
- Polyethylene (PE and HDPE)

Page 35
Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications

Some important polymers for engineering We use in this course

design : PMMA = Polymethylmethacrylate
- Polypropylene (PP) = Plexiglass
- Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as demonstrator for the engineering design.
- Vinyl ester resin However this design methods can with only
- Epoxy resin (EP) few exceptions to be transferred to most
- Unsaturated polyester (UP) other polymers.

Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications

PP Tank, welded,
since 1974 used to Duct bridge for
store acids at ICI
wastewater with
in England.
HDPE duct
wall thickness:
bottom d = 30 mm since 1983
top d = 10 mm in operation
height H = 8 m d = 50 mm
diameter  = 3.5 m  = 800 mm

Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications

Case of damage: PVC duct for aggressive
Case of damage: 1.5 m waste-water
PVC duct for aggressive
waste-water level of groundwater
concrete

duct

soil

Page 36
PVC duct PVC duct

level of groundwater level of groundwater

hydrostatic pressure hydrostatic pressure

soil

Cracking of the concrete

PVC duct Cont. 2.1 Scope of applications

level of groundwater

soil

Buckling due to the low young’s modulus Constructional solution: dovetail [joint]

2.2 Static loading Quiz

t=0 t=t1 t=t2

2.21 Tensile- and compressive loading

Which kind of
l0
l0+  l experiment?

A Creep
 =  l/l0 B Shrinkage
 = const. C Relaxation
 = (t) 1 2 D Retardation

Page 37
Quiz Classical / - diagram
t=0 t=t1

Which kind of
l0 experiment?

stress 
l0+  l
A Creep
T = constant
B Shrinkage
C Relaxation
 = const. mass
(t) =  l(t)/l0 D Retardation
strain 

Development of strain vs. time diagram Creep experiments

T = constant
Strain at failure
for
short-time strength 1 2 3 4 5 6
strain 

(UTS)
m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 m6

log t

Strain vs. Time Diagram T = constant Strain vs. Time Diagram T = constant
6= constant 5= constant
6 6
5
strain 

strain 

6 5

m6 m5

log t log t

Page 38
Strain vs. Time Diagram T = constant Crazing
according to
6 R. P. Kambour
5
4 stretched molecules

3 threadlike molecules
2
strain 

broken molecules

1

Craze detail

log t stretched threadlike molecules

Crazing according to R. P. Kambour Crazing according to R. P. Kambour

• Crazing occurs in polymers, because the material is
held together by a combination of weaker Van der
Waals forces and stronger covalent bonds.
• Sufficient local stress overcomes the Van der Waals
force, allowing a narrow gap.
• Once the slack is taken out of backbone chain,
covalent bonds holding the chain together hinder
further widening of the gap.
• The gaps in a craze are microscopic in size.
• Crazes can be seen because light reflects off the
surfaces of the gaps.
• The gaps are bridged by fine filament called fibrils,
which are molecules of the stretched backbone
chain.
• The fibrils are only a few nanometers in diameter,
and cannot be seen with a light microscope, but are
visible with an electron microscope.

Optical detection of Crazing of a polystyrene sample

Crazes

Page 39
 Crazing of a polystyrene sample Crazing in aircraft window

Damage curve (Crazing) Damage curve (Crazing)

creep rupture curve creep rupture curve
Amorphous Polymer
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
Damagecurve 2
strain 

strain 

2
1 1
asymptote  asymptote 

log t log t

Damage curve (Microcracking) Quiz: Crazes

creep rupture curve
random FRP Crazes in an amorphous polymer are:
6 A micro cracks induced by voids due to mistakes
5 during processing
4
 B Crack-like cavities formed when a polymer is
Damagecurve
3
strain 

2 stressed in tension that contain highly drawn load-

1 bearing fibrils spanning the gaps between the
surfaces of the cavity. A craze consists of both fibrils
asymptote  and voids.
C Crazes are micro cavities bridged by highly drawn
fibrils perpendicular to the principal stress of tension
log t

Page 40
Crazing in a Polystyrene Sample Derivation of the isochronous
 /  - Diagram

The derivation of the

isochronous  /  - Diagram is based on
the Strain vs. Time Diagram

Model of Kambour

Isochronous t=t1 Isochronous t=t1

creep rupture curve B, t 6/6
/-Diagram B /-Diagram
5/5
Plot into the 6
6 5
isochronous 4 4/4
Sstress 
3
Strain 

/-
5 2 3/3
diagram
3 1
2/2
3
 1/1
12
log t strain 

Isochronous t=t1 t=t2 Isochronous

t1
/-Diagram B /-Diagram t2
Plot into the 6 t3
5 5
isochronous 4 t4
Dehnung 

/- 3
stress 

4 2
diagram
etc.. for 1
3
t3, t4, t5, ...
2
1
log t strain 

Page 41
Creep Rupture Diagram Creep Rupture Diagram

Derivation of the creep rupture diagram from the Plot into the 6
5
strain vs. time diagram creep rupture 4
diagram 3
2

strain 
1

log t

Creep Rupture Diagram Creep Modulus Diagram

6
5 Derivation of the Creep Modulus Diagram
4 analogous to the isochronous stress strain
diagram out of the strain versus time diagram
stress 

3
2
1

log t

Summary Strain vs. Time Diagram

Strain vs. Time Diagram for PMMA
Strain 

derived from creep experiments

Temperature = constant
101

log t

Isochronous /-Diagram
log strain  [%]

Creep Rupture Diagram

Stress 
Stress 

100 Limiting Strain

log t Strain 
x = 0.8 %


Ec =


8
Creep Modulus Ec

Creep Modulus Diagram

T=23°C
10-1
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
log time t [h]
log t

Page 42
 Creep Rupture Diagram for PMMA Creep Rupture Diagram for PMMA
60 60

50 50
Stress  [N/mm2]

Stress  [N/mm2]
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10
T=23°C T=23°C
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Time t [h] Time t [h] or vice versa!

60° 40° 20° ←Temperature [°C] 60° 40° 20° ←Temperature [°C]
Isochronous 40 50
Isochronous 40 50
t =10-1h 100 t =10-1h 100
Stress Strain 30
102
Stress Strain 30
102
Diagram 40 Diagram 40
30 103 30 103
for PMMA for PMMA
Stress  [N/mm2]

Stress  [N/mm2]
104 104
20 30 24 N/mm2 20 30
105 105
20 20

20 20

10
10
asked  for: 10
10
10
 = 2.2%, 10

0 0
t = 104 h und 0 0
0 1
Strain  [%]
2 3
T = 40°C 0 1
Strain  [%]
2 3

2.2%

Creep Modulus Diagram T=23°C Creep Modulus Diagram T=23°C

3000 3000
Creep Modulus Ec [N/mm2]

Creep Modulus Ec [N/mm2]

2500 2500
2050 N/mm2
2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

700 700
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
log time t [h] log time t [h] or vice versa!

Page 43
 40°C Time-Temperature
Creep Modulus Diagram T=23°C 3 Superposition
60°C
Principle
3000
Creep Modulus Ec [N/mm2]

2500
100°C 80°C

log Er [N/mm2]
2 110°C
2000
   Ec  112°C

1500 115°C PMMA

1 120
1000
Ec = Ec (, t, T) 135

700 0
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
log time t [h]
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 log t [h]

100 years Example

40°C
3
60°C Time-Temperature Superposition
log Er [N/mm2]

2
80°C
100°C
110°C
Principle for
112°C Natural Rubber (NR)
40°C 115°C
1 120

135
Relaxation Experiment
0 PMMA
U. Meier, J. Kuster, and J. F. Mandell
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Stress Relaxation of NR and NBR: Comparison of Measured Data with
Reduced Variables Estimates
log t [h] Rubber Chemistry and Technology, May 1984, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 254-264,
(doi: 10.5254/1.3536005)

190 years

19 years
440 days

Page 44
 Typical CAMPUS Data

http://www.campusplastics.com
CAMPUS (acronym for Computer Aided Material Preselection
by Uniform Standards) is a multilingual database for the
properties of plastics. It is considered worldwide as a leader
in regard to the level of standardization and therefore, ease
of comparison, of plastics properties. It also supports
diagrams to a large extent.

Quiz: Crazing can be expected at? Quiz: Crazing can be expected at?
60
A PMMA-member is at a stress of
50
38 N/mm2 and a temperature of 23°C under
Stress  [N/mm2]

constant tensile stress. 40

30
Crazing can be expected at the time t =
20
A 1 h
B 10 h 10

C 1‘000 h T=23°C
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
D 100 h
 = 38 N/mm2; T = 23°C Time t [h]

60° 40° 20° ←Temperature [°C]

Quiz: What strain can be expected? Quiz: What strain 40 50
t =10-1h 100
can be expected? 30
102
A PMMA-member is at a stress of 40

20 N/mm2 and a temperature of 20°C under 30 103

Stress  [N/mm2]

constant tensile stress 104

constant tensile stress.  = 20 N/mm2 20 30
105
T = 20°C 20

What strain can be expected at t = 1000 h 20

strain after t = 1000 h?
A 0.5 % 10
10
B 1.0 % A 0.5 % 10

C 1.5 % B 1.0 %
C 1.5 %
D 3.0 % D 3.0 %
0 0
0 1 2 3
Strain  [%]

Page 45
“Tools” o.k. 2.2 Static loading

These were the „tools“ we need to design 2.21 Tensile- and compressive loading
with:
• neat polymers or
• slightly with random-oriented fiber
reinforced polymers

Permissible Stresses and Strains, Permissible Stresses and Strains,

respectively respectively
Design against: Strain Permissible Stresses and Strains, respectively against
A) Failure
A) Failure
 = f (, t, T)
B) Damage out of Isochronous
Stress Strain Diagram
or with the assistance
C) Limiting Strain of the Creep Modulus UTS out of Creep
Diagram Rupture Diagram

=
Ec = f (, t, T) SUTS  2

Case A) against Failure Case A) against Failure

60
50UTS(t,T)
Stress  [N/mm2]

40

30

20

10
T=23°C
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Time t [h] t

Page 46
Permissible Stresses and Strains, Case B)
respectively AquaDom
Strain Permissible Stresses and Strains, respectively against Berlin, GER
A) Failure B) Damage

 = f (, t, T)
out of Isochronous
Stress Strain Diagram
or with the assistance
of the Creep Modulus UTS out of Creep dam out of Creep
Diagram Rupture Diagram Rupture Diagram

= 25 m high
Mass: 2000 t
Ec = f (, t, T) SUTS  2 Sdam  1.5
12 m Diameter

Case B) Case B) against Damage

AquaDom 60

Berlin, GER 50
Stress  [N/mm2]

40


30
dam(t, T)
20

10
T=23°C
1 million liter water 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
 1.500 fish Time t [h] t

Permissible Stresses and Strains, Strain vs. Time Diagram

respectively 101

Strain Permissible Stresses and Strains, respectively against

log strain  [%]

A) Failure B) Damage C) Limiting Strain

 = f (, t, T)
100 Limiting Strain
out of Isochronous
Stress Strain Diagram
x = 0.8 %

or with the assistance

of the Creep Modulus UTS out of Creep dam out of Creep x = 0.8 % for
8

Diagram Rupture Diagram Rupture Diagram amorphous polymers

8
= SU  1.5 T=23°C
8

10-1
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Ec = f (, t, T) SUTS  2 Sdam  1.5 SUTS  2
log time t [h]

Page 47
Safety factor S (partial safety factor concept) Materials Diminution Coefficient D
D = D1 ∙ D2 · D3 · …….
S = S1 ∙ S2 · S3 · ……. D1: if creep rupture behavior in function of time
is insufficient known
S1: load factor e.g. for PMMA at t = 104 h: D1 = 2...4
S2: factor for uncertainties within different D2: if creep rupture behavior at elevated
assumptions
temperatures is insufficient known
S3: ........................
e.g. for PMMA for a temperature increase
from 20°C to 60°C: D2 = 2...3

cont. Materials Diminution Coefficient D Example

D = D1 ∙ D2 · D3 · …….

D3: if the behavior of a polymer under certain

“environmental” conditions is not well
enough known
D4: if certain inhomogeneities have to be
expected
Tensile member made of
D5: if certain anisotropies have to be expected Polymethylmethacrylat (PMMA)

Example: PMMA Tensile Member Design against: A) Failure

Given:
Polymethylmethacrylat (PMMA)-member of
square cross section of 40 mm x 40 mm UTS out of Creep Rupture Diagram

Asked for:
.
Permissible tensile load Fperm for a sustained perm = = 10.4
∙
load of 10'000 hours (* 1.1 years) at a
temperature of 60°C. F perm = perm ∙ A = 16.6 kN

Page 48
 Design against: A) Failure Design against: B) Damage
60

50
41.5
Stress  [N/mm2]

40
dam out of Creep Rupture Diagram
30

20

10 .
T=23°C perm = ∙ .
= 6.7
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Time t [h] F perm = perm ∙ A = 10.7 kN

Design against: B) Damage Design against: C) Limiting Strain

60

50 SU  1.5 D = 1.0
8
Stress  [N/mm2]

40
x = 0.8 % for amorphous polymers,
8

30
. %
20 perm = = 0.53%
.
6.3
10
perm = 6.3
T=23°C
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104
Time t [h] F perm = perm ∙ A = 10.1 kN 0.53

Example 2.1, p. 8 Comparison

Bruch Schaden Grenzdehnung
(Fall A) (Fall B) (Fall C)
 B,10 4 h  Sch,104 h  f
 zul   zul   zul  Design against:
A 2  SB A 2  SSch S f
aus Abb. 2.3 aus Abb. 2.3 aus Abb. 2.2
und Tab. 2.1: und Tab. 2.1: und Tab. 2.1:
A) Failure Fperm = 16.6 kN
41. 5 N / mm2 20. 0 N / mm2 0. 8%
 zul   zul   zul  B) Damage Fperm = 10.7 kN
22 2  1. 5 1. 5
 zul  10. 4 N / mm 2
 zul  6. 7 N / mm2  zul  0. 53%
aus Abb. 2.4:
C) Limiting Strain Fperm = 10.1 kN
 zul  6. 3 N / mm2
Z zul   zul  A Z zul   zul  A Z zul   zul  A
Z zul  16.6 kN Z zul  10. 7 kN Z zul  10.1kN

Page 49