Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Clearance Angle on Tool Life, Cutting Forces, Surface Roughness, and Delamination during Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Milling
Previous Article in Journal
Wear Characterization of Phenol-Formaldehyde-Based Saguvani Wood–Polymer Composite—An ANOVA Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/ma16145001
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Control of Mechanical Properties of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Plastic) via Arrangement of High-Strength/High-Ductility Fiber in a Blended Fabric

by
Ji Hyun Kim
,
Bhum Keun Song
*,
Joon Hyuk Song
and
Kyoung Jae Min
Convergence Research Division, Korea Carbon Industry Promotion Agency, 110-11 Banryong-ro, Jeonju 54853, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(14), 5001; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16145001
Submission received: 23 June 2023 / Revised: 11 July 2023 / Accepted: 13 July 2023 / Published: 14 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Advanced Carbon Fiber Reinforced Composite Materials)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) has been widely investigated as a reinforcement material to address the corrosion and durability issues of reinforced concrete (RC). To improve the strain of FRP grids, we investigated the effect of single-fiber types, hybrid ratios, and stacking patterns on the strain of the composite materials. Blended fabrics in which different fibers are woven were used to further improve the strain of carbon fibers (CFs). In the blended fabrics, CFs with high tensile strength were mixed with high-strain glass fibers (GFs) or aramid fibers (AFs). Fibers with different mechanical properties were mixed to improve the strain without reducing the tensile strength of the composite materials. The fiber arrangement direction was controlled by CF/GF blended fabric. CFs are arranged in the direction parallel to the tensile load direction with no strength degradation, and GFs are arranged in the direction perpendicular to the increase in strain. Compared to the mechanical properties of the single CF composites, the fabrics obtained via an FRP mixing method proposed in this study showed an increase in the tensile strength by 7% from 568.17 to 608.34 MPa with no strength degradation and an increase in strain by 34% from 0.97% to 1.30%.

1. Introduction

Reinforced concrete (RC) is a composite material composed of steel rebars and concrete wherein steel rebars are used to reinforce the weak tensile strength of concrete. The durability of RC structures is known to rapidly degrade due to corrosion. The degradation of RC structures leads to an increased risk of accidents and increases the maintenance costs. Hence, to address the degradation of RC structures, efforts have been made to replace steel rebars that are vulnerable to corrosion with fiber composites that are highly resistant to corrosion [1,2,3,4,5,6,7].
Since the 1970s, studies have investigated the application of glass fiber-reinforced plastic (GFRP) as a reinforcement material for concrete. The interfacial adhesion between GFRP and concrete is high owing to the similarity in the strain values of GFRP and concrete. In addition, the potential of GFRP as a substitute for steel rebars has been confirmed [8]. However, the strength of GRFP is lower than that of steel rebars. When comparing the tensile strength of GFRP and steel rebar per the same area, the density of the steel rebar has a value about three times higher than the GFRP, and the tensile strength of the steel rebar has a relatively large value. On the other hand, when comparing the tensile strength of GFRP and steel rebar per the same weight, the tensile strength of the GFRP has a relatively large value. Moreover, by replacing GFRP with carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP), a higher tensile strength can be obtained.
Subsequently, CFRP grids with high strength were developed and they are used as reinforcement for concrete structures such as bridges and wall panels. The use of CFRP has been shown to increase the strength of RC structures [9,10]. However, the low strain value of CFRP leads to separation at the interface with concrete, resulting in the brittle failure of concrete. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the strain of composite materials by mixing high-strength carbon fibers with highly ductile aramid and glass fibers [11,12].
For example, Sun et al. [13] controlled the mechanical properties by mixing two types of single-fiber fabrics and changing the stacking pattern under a fixed fiber volume ratio of 50:50 v/v. The reason why the fiber mixing ratio was fixed at 50:50 v/v in the stacking pattern was that the mechanical properties of the fiber mixing were obtained close to the CF when the CF content was mixed at 60 wt.% or more. When the stacking pattern was changed from sandwich-stacking to cross-stacking (i.e., as the degree of mixing increased), the tensile strength increased by 23.42% from 354.39 to 437.15 MPa and the strain increased by 17.76% from 1.07% to 1.26%.
In recent years, in order to apply FRP reinforcement to concrete, the evaluations of FRP’s flame retardancy, acid/base safety, and low temperature properties have been actively studied [14].
Also, research is being conducted to develop FRP-based structures to improve buckling characteristics. Buckling properties of the FRP structure were carried out according to the size, shape, position, and number of holes of the open hole and the addition of the carbon nanotube (CNT) [15,16,17,18,19].
Herein, aiming to improve the strain of fiber-reinforced plastics (FRPs), we investigated the effects of fiber types, mixing ratios, and stacking patterns using single-fiber fabrics. Blended fabrics, in which different fibers are woven, were proposed to further improve the strain of carbon fibers. High-tensile-strength carbon fibers were blended with high-strain glass fibers or aramid fibers. Using a combination of fibers with different mechanical properties, we achieved an increase in the strain of the composite materials without a decrease in their tensile strength.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The carbon fiber (CF) T-300 was obtained from Toray (Tokyo, Japan). The CF had a tensile strength of 3.53 GPa, an elasticity of 230 GPa, a strain of 1.5%, and a density of 1.78 g/cm3. The CF fabric 3K (EK-3101, planar density: 200 g/m2) was obtained from Entra Korea (Busan, Republic of Korea).
The glass fiber (GF) was obtained from CPIC; it had a tensile strength of 2.20 GPa, an elasticity of 70 GPa, a strain of 2.20%, and a density of 2.54 g/cm3. The GF fabric with a linear density of 300 Tex (TI-1313) was obtained from TEi Composites (Chang Hua, Taiwan). The aramid fiber (AF) HF200 with a linear density of 1500 denier was obtained from Kolon (Seoul, Republic of Korea); it had a tensile strength of 2.99 GPa, an elasticity of 94 GPa, a strain of 3.30%, and a density of 1.70 g/cm3. The AF fabric (TI-9013, planar density: 170 g/m2) was obtained from TEi Composites.
All figures and tables are cited in the main text as Figure 1, Table 1, etc. The reference fabrics CF8, GF8, and AF8 were obtained by stacking eight layers of CF, GF, and AF, respectively.
The hybrid fabrics were obtained by mixing two types of single-fiber fabrics. The fiber mixing ratio was fixed at 50:50 v/v. The alternating stacking pattern (CF/GF)4 and the sandwich-stacking patterns CF2/GF4/CF2 and GF2/CF4/GF2 were obtained using CF and GF fabrics. The alternating stacking pattern (CF/AF)4 and the sandwich-stacking patterns CF2/AF4/CF2 and AF2/CF4/AF2 were obtained using CF and AF fabrics.
The blended fabrics were obtained by weaving two types of fabrics and stacking eight layers of the resulting fabric. The blended fabric in which CFs and GFs were woven is referred to as CFGF8. CFGF8① denotes the fiber wherein the CFs are arranged in the direction parallel to the tensile load direction, and CFGF8② denotes the fiber wherein the CFs are arranged in the direction perpendicular to the tensile load direction.

2.2. FRP Manufacturing Method

FRPs were obtained via the resin infusion molding method. In this method, the materials, such as fabrics and laminated films, are stacked on the mold and resin is infused under vacuum conditions. Figure 2 shows the order of the materials stacked on the mold. The peel ply, fabric, peel fly, release film, mesh, resin/vacuum injection line, and vacuum film were stacked in sequence. The peel ply was used to ensure an easy separation of the composite material and mold after hardening. The release film had perforations at regular intervals and was used to ensure uniform infusion of the resin into the fabric. The mesh was used to improve the fluidity of the resin, thereby ensuring an even distribution over the materials. The vacuum film was double-layered so that the reduced pressure state could be maintained in the secondary vacuum film even after the primary vacuum film was infused with the resin. An epoxy resin (Kinetix, Molendinar, Australia, R-118, viscosity: 300 cp) was injected into the mold under a pressure of 0.8 bar. The resin and a curing agent (Kinetix, H-141) were mixed at a ratio of 1000:250 g. The ratio of resin and curing agent used in this paper was determined through preliminary experiments as an optimal ratio condition. The mold was subjected to heat treatment at 60 °C for 4 h.

2.3. Analysis Method

The fiber and resin weights of the FRPs were measured via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA, DSC 204, Dong-il Shimadzu, Seoul, Republic of Korea) in Figure 3. The heating rate was 5 °C/min in an air atmosphere and the heat treatment temperature was varied from 30 to 1000 °C. The resin and fiber underwent pyrolysis due to temperature changes, and their weights were measured. The thermal expansion coefficient of the FRPs was measured using a specimen size of 5 × 5 × 5 mm, a heating rate of 5 °C/min, a load of 0.05 N, and a temperature of −140–20 °C in accordance with ASTM E831.
The mechanical properties of the FRPs were evaluated using a universal testing machine (UTM, Instron 5982, Norwood, MA, USA). The tensile strength was measured using a specimen of size 25 × 250 mm and a test speed of 2 mm/min in accordance with ASTM D3039 [20]. The tensile modulus was measured in chord 0.1–0.3% attached with a strain gauge (square shape, size: 13 mm). The compressive strength was measured using a specimen measuring 12 × 140 mm and a test speed of 1.3 mm/min in accordance with ASTM D6641 [21] and attached with a strain gauge (square shape, size: 13 mm). The flexural strength was measured using a specimen of size 12.7 × 127 mm in accordance with ASTM D790-17 [22] and attached with a strain gauge (square shape, size: 13 mm). All mechanical property evaluations were repeated five times.
The fracture shapes of the FRPs according to the fiber type were analyzed at a low magnification of 30× using a field emission-scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM, SU8230, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. FRP Fiber/Resin Content Evaluation

Figure 4 shows the pyrolysis graphs of the FRPs. The fiber and resin contents were evaluated by measuring the changes in mass due to the pyrolysis of the FRPs. The pyrolysis temperatures of the matrix were 219.39 and 444.45 °C. The pyrolysis temperatures of the CFs and AFs were 584.51 and 464.23 °C, respectively. No mass reduction was observed in the GFs because GFs do not undergo pyrolysis at temperatures below 1000 °C. Measuring the AF content via pyrolysis was difficult because the pyrolysis temperatures of the resin and AFs were similar. Therefore, the AF content was evaluated using the fiber mass that was measured during the manufacturing of the FRPs. Table 2 shows the fiber and resin contents of the FRPs obtained from mass measurements and TGA. For CF8, GF8, and AF8, the differences in the values of the fiber and resin contents obtained from mass measurements and TGA were negligible. The ratios of the fiber volume to resin volume were largely similar (50:50). However, the volume and mass ratios differed depending on the fiber type owing to the difference in fiber density. The density of GFs is 2.54 g/cm3, which is approximately 1.4 times higher than that of CFs and AFs. Therefore, the fiber to resin volume ratio of GF8 was 50:50, but the fiber to resin mass ratio was approximately 70:30. The thermal expansion coefficient values of the developed composites are shown in Table 2. It was confirmed that the difference in the thermal expansion coefficient obtained by a single carbon, glass, and aramid fiber and its mixing fibers was not significant. Accordingly, the thermal expansion coefficient according to fiber mixing will not have a significant effect on thermal deformation and stress.

3.2. Tensile/Compressive/Flexural Properties of the Reference Fabrics

A comparison of the mechanical properties of the single-fiber composites with those of the hybrid and blended fabrics is shown in Table 3. CF8 exhibited the highest tensile strength owing to the high strength/high elasticity of the CFs. The tensile strengths of GF8 and AF8 were, respectively, 56 and 33% lower than that of CF8, but their strains were 35 and 66% higher. CF8 showed the highest compressive strength. The compressive strength of GF8 was 119% higher than that of AF8. This is because GFs have Si-O ion bonds that result in strong compression properties. In terms of flexural strength, AF8 exhibited the highest strain as the FRPs deformed significantly under flexural loading. The strain of AF8 was 162% higher than that of CF8 even though its flexural strength was 51% lower. CFRPs have been used as grids to provide tensile reinforcement for concrete. Hence, the mechanical properties of the hybrid and blended-stacking structures were evaluated and compared with those of CF8.

3.3. Tensile/Compressive/Flexural Properties of the CF-GF Hybrid/Blended Fabrics

Table 4 shows the mechanical properties of the fabrics obtained by a combination of CFs and GFs. The results of the tensile strength measurement indicate that the tensile strengths and strains of the blended fibers differed depending on the direction of CFs (parallel/perpendicular directions with respect to the tensile load axis direction). CFs are arranged in the direction parallel to the tensile load direction in CFGF8① and in the direction perpendicular to the tensile load direction in CFGF8②. The tensile strength of CFGF8① (608.34 MPa) was approximately 7% higher than that of CF8 (568.17 MPa), and its strain increased by approximately 34% from 0.97% to 1.30%. The tensile strength of CFGF8② (428.31 MPa) was approximately 25% lower than that of CF8 (568.17 MPa). Its strain, however, increased by approximately 76% from 0.97 to 1.71% owing to the high strain of GFs.
The tensile strengths of the hybrid fabrics were lower than those of CF8. The tensile strengths were obtained using the values based on the rule of mixtures (CF and GF volume ratio (v/v) 50:50, tensile strength: 409.87 MPa). The compressive strengths of CF8 and GF8 were 381.04 and 224.52 MPa, respectively. The compressive strengths of CFGF8① and CFGF8② differed owing to the differences in the fiber directions. The compressive strengths of CFGF8① and CFGF8② were 356.60 and 281.88 MPa, respectively. For the hybrid fabrics, there was no significant difference in tensile strength (mean: 388.13 MPa, deviation: 20 MP, within 5%) and compressive strength (mean: 296.42 MPa, deviation: 20 MP, within 6.82%) depending on the stacking pattern.
The FRPs deformed considerably under flexural loading and a significant difference in strain was observed depending on the addition of GFs.
The strain values of the CF-GF blended and hybrid fabrics were higher than those of CF8. Moreover, CFGF8②, in which the GFs are arranged in the direction parallel to the flexural load direction, exhibited the highest strain value (3.99%). The tensile strength–strain and flexural strength–strain graphs shown in Figure 5 affirm these results. Unlike that in the hybrid fabrics, the increase in the strain value of CFGF8① was not accompanied by a decrease in the tensile strength. This can be attributed to the arrangement of CFs in the direction parallel to the tensile load direction, which affected the tensile strength; moreover, the hybrid effect—calculated as the ratio of the increased strain value due to the use of mixed fibers to the strain value of carbon fibers [23]—was significant due to the mixing of fibers with similar strains.

3.4. Tensile/Compressive/Flexural Properties of the CF-AF Hybrid/Blended Fabrics

Table 5 shows the mechanical properties of the fabrics obtained by a combination of CFs and AFs. The tensile strength of CFAF8① (516.30 MPa), which had the highest degree of CF-AF mixing, was approximately 9% lower than that of CF8 (568.17 MPa). The compressive strengths of CF8 and AF8 were 381.04 MPa and 102.72 MPa, respectively. Similar to the behavior observed in the blended CF-GF fabrics, the compressive strengths of CFAF8① and CFAF8② differed considerably. The compressive strength of CFAF8①, in which the CFs are arranged in the direction parallel to the tensile load direction, was 300.95 MPa; the compressive strength of CFAF8②, in which the CFs are arranged in the direction perpendicular to the tensile load direction, was 146.35 MPa. The flexural strain of CFAF8② increased by 174.35% from 1.91 to 5.24%.
The mechanical properties of the fibers stacked on edges significantly affect the results of flexural strength measurements; hence, a significant difference was observed in the strain depending on the stacking pattern. The strain value of AF2/CF4/AF2 in which the AFs were stacked on the edges was approximately 82.20% higher.
The tensile strength–strain and flexural strength–strain graphs shown in Figure 6 affirm these results. When the degree of mixing increased, the tensile strength increased while the strain decreased because the properties of the CFs were dominant. Conversely, when the degree of mixing decreased, the tensile strength decreased while the strain increased significantly because the properties of the AFs were dominant.
In the CF-GF mixed stacking, the mean tensile strength was 440.21 MPa, with a deviation of 97 MPa (within 22%), and the mean tensile strain was 1.22%, with a deviation of 0.30% (within 25.23%). In the CF-AF mixed stacking, the mean tensile strength was 426.40 MPa, with a deviation of 52 MP (within 12.13%), and the mean tensile strain was 1.08%, with a deviation of 0.32% (within 29.50%).
In the CF-GF stacking, the average tensile strength increased significantly and the variation in strain due to the variation in the stacking pattern was minimal. In the CF-AF stacking, however, the average tensile strength did not increase significantly but the strain values differed considerably depending on the stacking pattern. The large difference in the strain depending on the stacking pattern can be attributed to the large difference in the strain values of the fibers. Therefore, mixing two fibers with similar strain values led to a positive hybrid effect, thereby improving the strain. This indicates that mixing CFs and GFs, which have similar strain values, is more effective in improving mechanical properties.
As a result of confirming the results of previous studies, Sun et al. [13] found that the tensile strength calculation based on the rule of mixture of the hybrid fabric of CF ([C]8) and BF ([B]8) has 459.115 MPa at the mixing volume ratio of 50:50 v/v and the tensile strengths of CF and basalt fiber (BF) are 504.73 MPa and 413.50 MPa, respectively. The tensile strength obtained by the hybrid stacking patterns of CF and BF is shown in the following Table 6, and these values are obtained as an approximation of the rule of mixture.
In addition, Margabandu et al. [24] found that the tensile strength calculation based on the rule of mixture of the hybrid fabric of CF ([CC]s) and Jute cottage([JJ]s) has 178.075 MPa at a mixing volume ratio of 50:50 v/v and the tensile strength of CC and JJ of 301.17 MPa and 54.98 MPa, respectively. The tensile strength obtained by hybrid stacking patterns of CF and JJ was obtained as an approximation of the rule of mixture, and does not exceed the tensile strength of CF.
On the other hand, Chen et al. [25] obtained the FRP using CF (CC) and GF (GG) blended fabric prepreg. C90G0 was positioned with CF in the longitudinal direction and GF in the latitude direction, the tensile strength of C90G0 was obtained similarly to the tensile strength of CF, and the tensile modulus was further improved. As a result of confirming the reason for the increase in the mechanical properties by simulation, it was reported that the tensile load was uniformly distributed at the intersection of CF and GF, and the sustainable strength of the tensile load was increased. In the above paper, a composite material was developed using prepreg uniformly impregnated with resin, and the ratio of fiber and resin was about 60:40 v/v. In comparison, in this study, a composite was developed by the infusion method, and the ratio of fiber and resin was about 50:50 v/v. The tensile strength of the composite developed by the prepreg molding method had a relatively high fiber content compared to the infusion method, and the tensile strength was shown to be a high value.

3.5. Evaluation of the FRP Fracture Shapes

Figure 7 shows the FRP fracture surfaces of the different fibers after tensile load measurements. The strain values of CF8, GF8, and AF8 were 0.97%, 1.31%, and 1.61%, respectively. In the composite containing CFs (which have low ductility), fracture occurred as if the CFs were cut. In composites containing GFs or AFs (which have high ductility), the fluff of the fibers was observed because the fibers were cut after they were elongated to the maximum strain threshold. AFs, which have a higher strain value than GFs, showed more fluff. In composites containing CFs and GFs, the difference between the strains of CFs and GFs was approximately 35%, and no significant difference in the fiber cut length was observed on the fracture surface. In composites containing CFs and AFs, however, the difference between the strains of CFs and AFs was approximately 66%, and the fluff due to the longer fiber cut length of AFs covered the fracture surface of the CF. This indicates that the difference in the breaking points of the fibers with different strain values affects the increase in the tensile strength and strain of composites.

3.6. Difference in Tensile Strength Depending on the Fiber Direction

The results of the aforementioned analysis indicate that both tensile strength and strain increased when CF-GF mixing was used, in contrast to the case when CFs alone were used. Accordingly, we attempted to determine the cause of this increase in tensile strength and strain. Table 7 shows the change in the length of grid composites in the parallel/perpendicular directions with respect to the tensile load direction along with the vertical difference (єy) measured from the Gauge length vertical length change.
In CF-GF blended-stacking, the force acting on the fibers is divided along the directions parallel and perpendicular to the tensile load direction owing to the arrangement of the fibers. When the high-strength CFs are arranged in the direction parallel to the tensile load direction and the GFs are arranged in the perpendicular direction, the CFs directly affect tensile strength and the GFs affect the deformation in the perpendicular direction. When GFs with high strain were arranged in the direction perpendicular to tensile load direction, the vertical difference (єy) increased from 0.12 to 0.19.
No decrease in the tensile strength was observed when CFs were arranged in the direction parallel to the tensile load axis, and the strain was increased due to the arrangement of high-strain GFs in the direction perpendicular to the tensile load direction.
Thus, both tensile strength and strain can be improved by utilizing the anisotropic characteristics of the composite. Hence the fabric with high-strength CFs in the direction parallel to the tensile load and high-strain GFs in the direction perpendicular to the tensile load exhibit increased tensile strength and strain compared to CF8.

4. Conclusions

In this study we investigated the effects of single-fiber types, hybrid ratios, and stacking patterns on the strain of FRP grids. Blended fabrics in which different fibers are woven together were used to improve the strain of CFRP grids. In the blended fabrics, high-tensile strength CFs were mixed with high-strain GFs or AFs.
(i) In CF-GF stacking, the average tensile strength increased significantly and the difference in strain was minimal depending on the stacking pattern. In CF-AF stacking, in contrast, the average tensile strength did not increase significantly, but the difference in strain was large dependent on the stacking pattern. The large stacking pattern-dependent difference in strain was attributed to the large differences between the strain values of the fibers. In the mixture of CF/GF and CF/AF, there was a difference in the improvement of mechanical properties depending on the fiber type. The mechanical properties of CF/GF with a strain difference of less than 50% between fibers have been further improved.
Hence, when two fibers with similar strain values were mixed, they had a positive impact on the hybrid effect and improved the strain. Therefore, mixing CFs and GFs, which have similar strain values, is more effective in improving mechanical properties.
(ii) The vertical difference (єy) increased from 0.12 to 0.19 when the high-strength CFs were arranged in the direction parallel to the tensile load direction and the high-strain GFs were arranged in the direction perpendicular to the tensile load direction. Accordingly, the tensile strength increased from 568.17 to 608.34 MPa and the strain increased by approximately 34% from 0.97 to 1.30%.
The tensile strain could be increased without a degradation in the tensile strength by changing the mixing pattern of the high-strength CFs and high-ductility GFs. Composite materials with such properties are expected to be used in FRP grids that require materials with improved strength and strain. Also, the composites developed in this study can be applied to the form of columns and pipes. It is expected that it will be easy to increase tensile strength by arranging CF in the direction parallel to the tensile or compressive load direction, and to use it in the part where bending and deformation are required in the shape of the composite material by arranging GF in the perpendicular direction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.H.K.; Methodology, J.H.K. and K.J.M.; Formal analysis, J.H.K.; Data curation, J.H.K., B.K.S., J.H.S. and K.J.M.; Writing—original draft, J.H.K.; Writing—review & editing, B.K.S., J.H.S. and K.J.M.; Supervision, B.K.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA), with the grant funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (grant 21CFRP-C163381-01).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

MDPI Research Data Policies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. James, A.; Bazarchi, E.; Chiniforush, A.A.; Aghdam, P.P.; Hosseini, M.R.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Martek, I.; Ghodoosi, F. Rebar corrosion detection, protection, and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures in coastal environments: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 126, 1026–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aydin, F. Experimental investigation of thermal expansion and concrete strength effects on FRP bars behavior embedded in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 163, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Khan, I.; François, R.; Castel, A. Prediction of reinforcement corrosion using corrosion induced cracks width in corroded reinforced concrete beams. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 56, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oh, B.H.; Kim, K.H.; Jang, B.S. Corrosion Amount to Cause Cracking of Reinforced Concrete Structures. ACI Mater. J. 2009, 106, 333–339. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jin, L.; Zhang, R.; Du, X.; Li, Y. Investigation on the cracking behavior of concrete cover induced by corner located rebar corrosion. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 52, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, B.; Masmoudi, R.; Benmokrane, B. Behaviour of one-way concrete slabs reinforced with CFRP grid reinforcements. Constr. Build. Mater. 2004, 18, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gadve, S.; Mukherjee, A.; Malhotra, S.N. Corrosion of steel reinforcements embedded in FRP wrapped concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jabbar, S.A.A.; Farid, S.B.H. Replacement of steel rebars by GFRP rebars in the concrete structures. Karbala Int. J. Mod. Sci. 2018, 4, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, B.; Uji, K.; Wu, T.; Dai, H.; Yan, D.; Guo, R. Experimental investigation of stress transfer and failure mechanism between existing concrete and CFRP grid-sprayed PCM. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 215, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huang, Z.; Miao, X.; Shen, J.; Li, H.; Zhang, J. Experimental investigation on shear behavior of concrete beams with CFRP grid shear reinforcements. Structures 2021, 33, 3081–3093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, W.; Deng, M.; Han, Y.; Li, R.; Yang, S. Uniaxial tensile performance of high ductile fiber-reinforced concrete with built-in basalt textile grids. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 315, 125716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wang, A.; Liu, X.; Yue, Q.; Xian, G. Tensile properties hybrid effect of unidirectional flax/carbon fiber hybrid reinforced polymer composites. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 24, 1373–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sun, G.; Tong, S.; Chen, D.; Gong, Z.; Li, Q. Mechanical properties of hybrid composites reinforced by carbon and basalt fibers. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2018, 148, 636–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hakeem, I.; Hosen, M.A.; Alyami, M.; Qaidi, S. Influence of Heat-Cool Cyclic Exposure on the Performance of Fiber-reinforced High-Strength Concrete. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Madenci, E.; Ozkilic, Y.O.; Aksoylu, C.; Asyraf, M.R.M.; Syamsir, A.; Supian, A.B.M.; Mamaev, N. Buckling Analysis of CNT-Reinforced Polymer Composite Beam Using Experimental and Analytical Methods. Materials 2023, 16, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Madenci, E.; Ozkilic Gemi, L.; Madenci, E.; Aksoylu, C. Effects of stirrup spacing on shear performance of hybrid composite beams produced by pultruded GFRP profile infilled with reinforced concrete. Archiv. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2023, 23, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Madenci, E.; Ozkilic, Y.O.; Aksoylu, C.; Safonov, A. The Effect of Eccentric Web Openeings on the Compressive Preformance of Pultruded GFRP Boxes Wrapped with GFRP and CFRP Sheets. Polymers 2022, 14, 4567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Falkowicz, K. Stability Analysis of Thin-Walled Perforated Composite Columns Using Finite Element Method. Materials 2022, 15, 8919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rozylo, P. Comparison of Failure for Thin-Walled Composite Columns. Materials 2022, 15, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. ASTM D3039; Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  21. ASTM D6641; Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials Using a Combined Loading Compression (CLC) Test Fixture. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2021.
  22. ASTM D790-17; Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  23. Jiang, H.; Liu, X.; Jiang, S.; Ren, Y. Hybrid effects and interactive failure mechanisms of hybrid fiber composites under flexural loading: Carbon/Kevlar, carbon/glass, carbon/glass/Kevlar. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2023, 133, 108105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Margabandu, S.; Subramaniam, S.K. Influence of fiber stacking sequences and matrix materials on mechanical and vibration behavior of jute/carbon hybrid composites. World J. Eng. 2022, 19, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, D.; Xia, S.; Yang, B.; Yang, G.; Zhu, T.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Z. Axial crushing response of carbon/glass hybrid composite tubes: An experimental and multi-scale computational study. Compos. Strut. 2022, 294, 115640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 16 05001 g001 550
Figure 1. Fiber directions in the blended CF-GF fabrics. (a) CFGF①, (b) CFGF②.
Figure 1. Fiber directions in the blended CF-GF fabrics. (a) CFGF①, (b) CFGF②.
Materials 16 05001 g001
Materials 16 05001 g002 550
Figure 2. Stacking sequence used during the resin infusion molding method and the mold geometry.
Figure 2. Stacking sequence used during the resin infusion molding method and the mold geometry.
Materials 16 05001 g002
Materials 16 05001 g003 550
Figure 3. Tensile test setup for blended composite product.
Figure 3. Tensile test setup for blended composite product.
Materials 16 05001 g003
Materials 16 05001 g004 550
Figure 4. Results of the TGA evaluation of the FRPs.
Figure 4. Results of the TGA evaluation of the FRPs.
Materials 16 05001 g004
Materials 16 05001 g005 550
Figure 5. (a) T-S, (b) C-S, and (c) F-S graphs for the CF-GF fabrics.
Figure 5. (a) T-S, (b) C-S, and (c) F-S graphs for the CF-GF fabrics.
Materials 16 05001 g005
Materials 16 05001 g006 550
Figure 6. (a) T-S, (b) C-S, and (c) F-S graphs for the CF-AF fabrics.
Figure 6. (a) T-S, (b) C-S, and (c) F-S graphs for the CF-AF fabrics.
Materials 16 05001 g006
Materials 16 05001 g007a 550Materials 16 05001 g007b 550
Figure 7. FRP fracture surfaces.
Figure 7. FRP fracture surfaces.
Materials 16 05001 g007aMaterials 16 05001 g007b
Table
Table 1. FRP stacking structure.
Table 1. FRP stacking structure.
SampleNameStacking PatternMixing Ratio (v/v)
Reference
fabric		CF8Materials 16 05001 i001100-
GF8, AF8Materials 16 05001 i002-100
Hybrid fabricCF2/GF4/CF2, CF2/AF4/CF2Materials 16 05001 i0035050
GF2/CF4/GF, CF2/GF4/CF2Materials 16 05001 i0045050
(CF/GF)4, (CF/AF)4Materials 16 05001 i0055050
Blended fabricCFGF8①,②, CFAF8①,②Materials 16 05001 i0065050
●: Carbon fiber fabric (CF), ○: Glass fiber fabric (GF) or aramid fiber fabric (AF), Materials 16 05001 i007: Blended carbon–glass fiber fabric (CFGF) or blended carbon–aramid fiber fabric (CFAF).
Table
Table 2. FRP fiber/resin contents.
Table 2. FRP fiber/resin contents.
CategoryCalculated ValueTGAThermal Expansion Coefficient
Resin Content
vol.%		Fiber Content
vol.%		Resin Content
wt.%		Fiber Content
wt.%		Resin Content
wt.%		Fiber Content
wt.%		μm/m°C
Matrix resin 61.20
CF839.4460.5639.8760.1347.2452.7664.50
GF849.5650.4430.2369.7729.4870.5242.30
AF847.3452.6637.262.837.6562.3578.50
CFGF8①,②42.8457.1627.9972.0136.8163.1954.80
(CF/GF)452.4947.5136.4263.5837.5362.4759.90
GF2/CF4/GF251.248.835.2364.7742.1557.8560.50
CF2/GF4/CF246.7853.2231.3168.69--46.00
CFAF8①,②52.9947.0142.0557.95--84.80
(CF/AF)452.8547.1541.9158.09--69.10
AF2/CF4/AF251.2348.7740.3459.66--58.70
CF2/AF4/CF248.6551.3537.8862.12--85.70
Table
Table 3. Tensile/compressive/flexural strength and strain of the reference fabrics.
Table 3. Tensile/compressive/flexural strength and strain of the reference fabrics.
CategoryTensile Strength
(MPa)		Elasticity
(GPa)		Strain
(%)		Compressive Strength
(MPa)		Elasticity
(GPa)		Strain
(%)		Flexural Strength
(MPa)		Elasticity
(GPa)		Strain
(%)
CF8568.1753.880.97381.0448.320.87658.2333.581.91
GF8251.5624.061.31224.5226.60.9339.717.632.27
AF8379.925.761.61102.7221.540.88325.7613.015
Table
Table 4. Tensile, compressive, and flexural strengths for CF-GF mixing.
Table 4. Tensile, compressive, and flexural strengths for CF-GF mixing.
CategoryTensile Strength
(MPa)		Tensile Modulus
(GPa)		Strain
(%)		Compressive Strength
(MPa)		Tensile Modulus
(GPa)		Strain
(%)		Flexural Strength
(MPa)		Tensile Modulus
(GPa)		Strain
(%)
CF8568.1733.580.97381.0448.320.87658.2353.881.91
CFGF8①608.3420.011.3356.645.070.75536.2548.323.06
CFGF8②428.3117.31.71286.8837.620.81584.229.063.99
(CF/GF)4367.3125.620.93285.0238.420.67538.1140.552.1
GF2/CF4/GF2409.0621.21.05319.75380.86462.0739.832.33
CF2/GF4/CF2388.0131.171.09284.4838.880.79592.137.851.95
Table
Table 5. Tensile, compressive, and flexural strengths for CF-AF mixing.
Table 5. Tensile, compressive, and flexural strengths for CF-AF mixing.
CategoryTensile Strength
(MPa)		Tensile Modulus
(GPa)		Strain
(%)		Compressive Strength
(MPa)		Tensile Modulus
(GPa)		Strain
(%)		Flexural Strength
(MPa)		Tensile Modulus
(GPa)		Strain
(%)
CF8568.1753.880.97381.0448.320.87658.2333.581.91
CFAF8①516.354.10.97300.9542.550.7254232.211.82
CFAF8②417.3430.951.61146.3529.280.63391.5719.235.24
(CF/AF)4386.3644.350.94216.2736.110.67428.6524.82
AF2/CF4/AF2412.8537.061.13235.8835.420.73519.1315.13.48
CF2/AF4/CF2399.1446.050.77233.9940.950.61545.529.331.84
Table
Table 6. Tensile strength, tensile modulus, and strain for hybrid and blended fabrics.
Table 6. Tensile strength, tensile modulus, and strain for hybrid and blended fabrics.
AuthorsStacking MethodMixingTensile StrengthTensile ModulusStrain
MPaGPa%
Sun et al. [13]-[C]8504.73--
-[B]8413.50--
sandwich-stacking[C2B2]s354.39-1.07
sandwich-stacking[B2C2]s385.22-1.19
cross-stacking[BCBC]s437.15-1.26
Margabandu et al. [24]-[CC]s301.1722.841.45
-[JJ]s54.986.471.24
sandwich-stacking[JC]s234.6815.352.74
sandwich-stacking[CJ]s158.7412.752.14
Chen et al. [25]-CC679.159.21.5
blended-stackingC90G0656.562.21.5
blended-stackingC0G90483.722.12.7
-GG47822.12.7
C: Carbon fiber, B: Basalt fiber, J: Jute cottage, G: Glass fiber.
Table
Table 7. Blended FRP vertical deviation (єy).
Table 7. Blended FRP vertical deviation (єy).
CategoryUnitGauge LengthCF8CFGF8①CFGF8②
Horizontal length changemm130131.26131.26131.7
Vertical length changemm2524.8824.8124.84
Vertical difference (εy)mm-0.120.190.16
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, J.H.; Song, B.K.; Song, J.H.; Min, K.J. Control of Mechanical Properties of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Plastic) via Arrangement of High-Strength/High-Ductility Fiber in a Blended Fabric. Materials 2023, 16, 5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16145001

AMA Style

Kim JH, Song BK, Song JH, Min KJ. Control of Mechanical Properties of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Plastic) via Arrangement of High-Strength/High-Ductility Fiber in a Blended Fabric. Materials. 2023; 16(14):5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16145001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Ji Hyun, Bhum Keun Song, Joon Hyuk Song, and Kyoung Jae Min. 2023. "Control of Mechanical Properties of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Plastic) via Arrangement of High-Strength/High-Ductility Fiber in a Blended Fabric" Materials 16, no. 14: 5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16145001

APA Style

Kim, J. H., Song, B. K., Song, J. H., & Min, K. J. (2023). Control of Mechanical Properties of FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Plastic) via Arrangement of High-Strength/High-Ductility Fiber in a Blended Fabric. Materials, 16(14), 5001. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16145001

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop