Investigating the Compressive Response of Hand-Laminated GFRP Pipes in the Radial direction through Experiment and FEM Modeling

Investigating the Compressive Response of Hand-Laminated GFRP Pipes in the Radial direction through Experiment and FEM Modeling | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Investigating the Compressive Response of Hand-Laminated GFRP Pipes in the Radial direction through Experiment and FEM Modeling Yasir Zaman, Fayiz Amin, Michael Gerges, Muhammad Asif, Abdul Majid Khan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5125267/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 06 Jan, 2025 Read the published version in Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design → Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The growing interest in composite materials is due to their exceptional strength, stiffness, and fatigue resistance. Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) pipes are ideal for aerospace applications like drone arms, needing to withstand payload weight, forces, vibrations, environmental effects, impacts, altitude changes, air density variations, and extreme temperatures. This study investigates the compressive behavior under radial loading of GFRP pipes specifically fabricated with a six-ply laminate sequence [0/90/0/90/0/90]. An experimental evaluation was conducted using a universal testing machine according to standard ASTM D2412 to assess the compressive response, and the acquired data was subsequently validated through finite element method (FEM) modeling employing Abaqus software. Experimental findings confirmed a compressive strength of 0.49 MPa and a maximum load capacity of 0.49 kN for the six-ply GFRP laminate. FEM analysis validated these results. Furthermore, the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe was studied, and the results show an increasing strength trend with additional plies. As the number of plies increases from 6 to 15, the ultimate compressive strength, represented by the peak stress value on each curve, also increases. This research establishes GFRP pipes as a promising candidate for applications requiring lightweight and robust materials. Compression Test Radial Stresses Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Pipe Composites FEM Analysis GFRP Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 1 Introduction Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) pipes have emerged as a prominent choice for diverse infrastructure applications, owing to their advantageous material properties [ 1 ]. Compared to traditional materials like steel or concrete, composites exhibit a superior strength-to-weight ratio [ 2 ], exceptional resistance to corrosion [ 3 ], and enhanced design flexibility [ 4 ]. This distinctive property profile endows GFRP pipes with remarkable versatility, enabling their utilization in a wide range of domestic and industrial settings. GFRP pipes are employed in various residential applications, such as drainage systems [ 5 ], septic tank leach lines [ 6 ], and hot water distribution [ 7 ]. The industrial sector has also recognized the benefits of GFRP, leading to its widespread adoption in chemical processing [ 8 ], oil and gas pipelines [ 9 ], and water treatment facilities [ 10 ]. Furthermore, the lightweight construction and exceptional durability of GFRP pipes make them well-suited for underground infrastructure projects, including buried pipelines [ 11 ] and telecommunication cable conduits [ 12 ]. Peng Qian et al. [ 13 ] investigated the experimental behavior of GFRP pipes under axial compression and presented a formula for the buckling load based on Perry's formula that can accurately predict the buckling failure load of GFRP pipes under axial compression. E.S. Rodríguez et al. [ 14 ] investigated a GFRP pipe sample, uncovering significant internal damage and blockages caused by the displacement of helical fibers. Their research identified substantial irreversible hydrolytic attack and chemical degradation, particularly at the fiber-matrix interface, leading to a reduction in the glass transition temperature and consequently compromising the mechanical performance. S. Aravindan's et al. [ 15 ] study examined the surface quality of machined GFRP pipes used in engineering applications and the transportation of corrosive fluids. Utilizing Taguchi's design method, the research explored surface roughness and tool wear, optimizing machining parameters through ANOVA and regression analysis. Hugo Faria's et al. [ 16 ] study explored the long-term behavior of GFRP pipes and investigated methods to reduce the duration of prediction tests. A. Naveen Sait et al. [ 17 ] introduces a new approach for optimizing machining parameters in turning GFRP pipes using desirability function analysis. Experiments based on Taguchi’s L18 orthogonal array demonstrated that optimizing cutting velocity, feed rate, and depth of cut significantly improved surface roughness, flank wear, crater wear, and machining force, validating the effectiveness of this optimization method. J.M. Lees et al. [ 18 ] studied the behavior of GFRP adhesive pipe joints under pressure and axial loadings. They found that small-diameter GFRP pipe-sections joined with adhesive couplers are most critically affected by large tensile loads in the absence of internal pressure. Yangxuan Zhu et al. [ 19 ] studied the design and fabrication of GFRP pipelines using a multistage filament winding (MFW) technique to address low radial stiffness. The study demonstrated that incorporating GFRP webs with foam blocks significantly increases stiffness while reducing weight. Almahakeri et al. [ 20 ] performed a numerical investigation on the longitudinal bending of buried GFRP pipes under lateral soil movements. They examined the flexural performance of 102 mm diameter, 1,830 mm long GFRP pipes subjected to lateral soil loading, focusing on cross-ply and angle-ply laminate structures. The study analyzed soil resistance capacity and deflections at burial depth-to-diameter ratios of 3, 5, and 7, highlighting how material properties and fiber orientation influence pipe behavior, aligning with experimental findings. Joon-Seok Park et al. [ 21 ] investigated the pipe stiffness (PS) characteristics of buried GFRP flexible pipes. Their study involved deriving a PS formula under parallel plate loading conditions using principles from elasticity theory, and comprehensively analyzing vertical and horizontal displacements. J.M.L. Reis et al. [ 22 ] studied the impact of ageing on the failure pressure of GFRP pipes used in oil and gas transport, conducting burst tests under accelerated ageing conditions (1 MPa, 80°C) without fluid immersion. They found ageing duration significantly affects burst pressure, while tensile tests indicated minimal impact on specimen stiffness but variations in ultimate tensile stress (UTS), proposing a methodology with prediction errors below 0.8% for UTS and below 25% for failure pressure estimation. Dillon Betts et al. [ 23 ] investigated hollow ± 55° filament wound GFRP pipes under longitudinal compressive and tensile loading, using 31 specimens with varied pressure ratings (350 kPa, 700 kPa, and 1050 kPa) and inner diameters (76 mm and 203 mm). The study revealed nonlinear stress-strain responses, stronger performance in compression than tension, and significant post-peak behavior in tension, supported by an analytical model addressing axial loading effects and fiber angle error, critical for structural analysis and design applications like concrete-filled FRP tubes (CFFTs). Lokman Gemi et al. [ 24 ] investigated the drilling performance of glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) composite pipes with a ± 55° winding angle, using various 4 mm diameter drills (conventional twist, brad and spur, and brad center) at 5000 rpm and feed rates from 25 to 275 mm/min. Their findings demonstrated that the brad center drill significantly reduced thrust forces and minimized surface damage, such as delamination and fiber uncutting, compared to the twist drill, particularly at lower feed rates, highlighting the impact of tool selection and feed rate on drilling efficiency for GFRP pipes. Abdullah Naveen Sait et al.[ 25 ] explored the optimization of machining parameters for GFRP pipes using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA), aiming to improve surface roughness, machining force, and tool wear. Their study compared the effectiveness of PSO and GA with traditional methods, highlighting their potential to enhance the machining efficiency of GFRP materials produced through hand layup and filament winding processes. Saravanan Rajendran et al.[ 26 ] investigate the application of GFRPs for submarine pipelines in shallow water regions, emphasizing advantages over traditional materials like steel in seawater desalination. Their study develops a new design methodology for GFRP pipes tailored to withstand high marine environmental loads, validated through manufacturing and testing of pipe specimens under unburied submarine conditions lacking direct standards. Y. M. Cheng et al.[ 27 ] explore the feasibility of using lightweight, high-strength GFRP pipes as soil nails, replacing traditional steel bars due to cost and labor considerations. Their study validates GFRP pipe nails' performance through extensive laboratory and field tests in Hong Kong and Korea, supported by numerical modeling of field test outcomes. Alper Günöz et al.[ 28 ] studied the impact of seawater exposure on the density and hardness of GFRP composite pipes over 1, 2, and 3 months. Their findings reveal significant changes in the mechanical property’s exposure to seawater. Jianzhong Chen et al.[ 29 ] investigated the stiffness degradation of glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) pipes, considering different winding patterns and loading conditions. Their study developed a model based on fatigue testing, which elucidated that the rate of stiffness reduction in GFRP pipes varies depending on the maximum alternating displacement relative to the pipe diameter. Specifically, helical winding and hoop-helical combined winding GFRP pipes exhibited degradation rates 1.50 and 1.28 times faster than hoop winding pipes under comparable conditions. Prior studies have explored various aspects of GFRP pipes, but their compressive response to radial stresses has not been investigated. Additionally, experimental studies and testing are time-consuming and can affect the project's economy. Therefore, it is crucial to study this compressive response to radial stresses through finite element method (FEM) to save time and costs, as well as to examine the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe. This research pioneers an examination of the compressive behavior of hand-laid GFRP pipes under radial loading conditions. Previous studies have extensively explored various aspects of GFRP pipes, including their axial compressive behavior, internal damage and degradation, machining optimization, long-term performance, and applications in different industries such as aerospace, chemical processing, and underground infrastructure. Research has also focused on the mechanical response under different loading conditions, the impact of environmental exposure, and the development of predictive models for structural analysis. Despite these comprehensive investigations, the compressive response of GFRP pipes to radial stresses has not been thoroughly examined. This study addresses this research gap by investigating the compressive behavior of hand-laid GFRP pipes under radial loading conditions using both experimental methods and FEM. By evaluating the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe, this research aims to provide a deeper understanding of how to optimize the design and performance of GFRP pipes for applications requiring lightweight yet robust materials. This will benefit industries by offering a cost-effective and time-efficient solution for improving the structural integrity and durability of GFRP pipes in demanding operational environments. A comprehensive framework, as shown in Fig. 1 , serves as the foundation for this investigation. 2 Methods 2.1 Fabrication The GFRP pipe is fabricated of 6 plies using the hand lay-up method. Initially, a fine glass fiber cloth is selected according to the required dimensions. The cloth is then impregnated with an epoxy mixture composed of resin and hardener in a 2:1 ratio, using 40% of the total weight of the glass fiber cloth. Prior to application, the glass surface is cleaned and coated with a release agent to prevent adhesion. The epoxy mixture is evenly applied to the glass fiber cloth, which is subsequently wrapped around a PVC pipe. The assembly is secured with tape and allowed to cure for 6 to 8 hours at room temperature. After curing, the PVC pipe is removed, leaving the finished GFRP pipe ready for testing. Figure 2 shows the complete illustration process of the fabrication. 2.2 Compression Test The compression test is conducted using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) according to ASTM D2412 Standard, where the specimen is subjected to radial stresses, as illustrated in Fig. 3 . The crosshead speed of the machine is fixed at 5 mm/min, ensuring a consistent rate of deformation. Compressive force is applied continuously until the specimen reaches failure. Data acquisition is managed by a computer system, detailed further in the Results section. 2.3 Modeling in ABAQUS The study proposes an in-depth modeling of the GFRP pipe, accurately replicating the geometry, boundary conditions, loading parameters, and material properties as utilized in the experimental investigation. The numerical modeling utilizes the Hashin damage criteria [ 30 ] to determine a suitable approach for modeling the GFRP pipe, incorporating the Hashin 2D criterion within the ABAQUS software. The study outlines four specific failure modes as follows. Fiber Tension ( \(\:{\sigma\:}_{11}\) ≥ 0) \(\:{F}_{f}^{t}={\:\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{11}}{{X}^{t}}\right)}^{2}+{\alpha\:\:\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{12}}{{S}^{L}}\right)}^{2}\) 2.1 Fiber Compression (\(\:{\sigma\:}_{11}\) ≤ 0) \(\:{F}_{f}^{c}={\:\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{11}}{{X}^{c}}\right)}^{2}\) 2.2 Matrix Tension (\(\:{\sigma\:}_{22}\) ≥ 0) \(\:{F}_{m}^{t}={\:\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{22}}{{Y}^{t}}\right)}^{2}+{\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{12}}{{S}^{L}}\right)}^{2}\) 2.3 Matrix Compression (\(\:{\sigma\:}_{22}\) ≤ 0) \(\:{F}_{m}^{c}={\:\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{22}}{{2S}^{T}}\right)}^{2}+\left[{\:\left(\frac{{Y}^{c}}{{2S}^{T}}\right)}^{2}-\:1\right]\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{22}}{{Y}^{c}}\right)+{\left(\frac{{\sigma\:}_{12}}{{S}^{L}}\right)}^{2}\) 2.4 In equations (2.1)-(2.4), \(\:\sigma\:\) ij (i,j = 1,2) represent the components of the effective stress tensor. X t (X c ) and Y t (Y c ) denote the tensile (compressive) strengths of uni-directional laminates in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively. Additionally, S j (j = L, T) corresponds to the in-plane and out-of-plane shear strengths of the composites. For any of the failure modes, \(\:{F}_{i}^{j}=1\:(i\:=\:f,\:\:m\:and\:j\:=\:c,\:t)\) indicates the onset of failure in that mode. 2.3.1 Geometry A shell geometry representing the GFRP pipe has been modeled using Abaqus software. The ply sequence employed for this model is [0/90/0/90/0/90], with dimensions detailed in Table 1 . Figure 4 (a) illustrates the geometry of the GFRP pipe, Fig. 4 (b) illustrates the Ply Stack Sequence. Table 1 Geometry Details Geometry Dimensions [mm] Length 80 Shell Diameter 35.5 2.3.2 Material Properties The material properties used for GFRP modeling in the finite element analysis, sourced from the literature [ 31 ], are detailed in Table 2 . These properties are described using specific notations. The longitudinal (E11), transverse (E22), and out-of-plane (E33) Young's moduli represent the stiffness in the primary fiber direction, perpendicular to the fiber direction within the plane of the fibers, and perpendicular to the plane of the fibers, respectively. The shear moduli (G12, G13, and G23) correspond to the material's response to shear deformation in the 1–2, 1–3, and 2–3 planes. Additionally, the Poisson's ratios (ν12, ν13, and ν23) indicate the extent of contraction in the perpendicular direction due to deformation in one direction, for the 1–2, 1–3, and 2–3 planes. Table 2 Material properties of GFRP Pipe. E11 (GPa) E22 (GPa) E33 (GPa) ν12 ν13 ν23 G12 (GPa) G13 (GPa) G23 (GPa) 36.9 10 10 0.32 0.32 0.44 3.3 3.3 3.6 The Hashin failure criterion, which is widely used for analyzing the damage behavior of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites, is presented in Tables 3 [ 31 ]. This criterion employs the following notations to characterize the material properties: X T for longitudinal tensile strength, X C for longitudinal compressive strength, Y T for transverse tensile strength, Y C for transverse compressive strength, S L for longitudinal shear strength, and S T for transverse shear strength. Table 3 Hashin damage defined for GFRP Pipe X T (MPa) X C (MPa) Y T (MPa) Y C (MPa) S L (MPa) S T (MPa) 820 500 80.6 322 54.5 161.2 The Hashin damage criteria detailed in Tables 4 [ 31 ] describe the progressive failure of GFRP composites. The notation G XT represents the longitudinal tensile damage energy fraction, G XC denotes the longitudinal compressive damage energy fraction, G YT depicts the transverse tensile damage energy fraction, and G YC corresponds to the transverse compressive damage energy fraction. Table 4 Hashin damage evolution (energy) for GFRP Pipe G XT (N/mm) G XC (N/mm) G YT (N/mm) G YC (N/mm) 32 20 4.5 4.5 2.3.3 Loading and Boundary Conditions The GFRP pipe undergoes radial compression, with the bottom plate fixed to restrain all moments and displacements, and the upper plate, responsible for applying the radial load, constrained against moments and allowed vertical movement only. Figure 5 (a) provides a detailed depiction of the loading conditions and boundary constraints applied to the GFRP pipe within the Abaqus software environment. 2.3.4 Meshing Discretization of geometric models into smaller elements, known as meshing, is a crucial step in numerical simulations. This process enables the accurate representation of physical geometry and ensures the numerical stability and convergence of computational models, which is essential for generating reliable results in engineering analyses. Figure 5 (b) shows the meshing of the GFRP pipe. 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Experimental Results of the GFRP Pipe The compression test of the GFRP pipe in radial direction was conducted using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM). The resulting stress-strain and load-deflection curves are presented in the accompanying Fig. 6 . The experimental stress-strain data provides valuable insights into the mechanical behavior of the six-ply GFRP pipe under compressive radial loading. The non-linear response indicates a transition from elastic to plastic deformation at relatively low strain levels, a characteristic common in composite materials like GFRP that can be advantageous in certain applications. Despite the absence of a clear linear region, the curve reaches a well-defined peak stress, representing the ultimate compressive strength of the GFRP pipe. The observed stress-strain response effectively captures the GFRP pipe's key mechanical properties, including its impressive ultimate strength and deformation characteristics. These findings demonstrate the potential of GFRP pipes with minimal ply count to withstand substantial radial compressive forces, highlighting their suitability for engineering applications that require lightweight yet strong materials, such as drone arms. The GFRP pipe exhibits a compressive strength of 0.49 MPa, a Young's modulus of 8.06 MPa, and a maximum load-bearing capacity of 0.49 kN in the radial direction, indicating its ability to sustain significant loads. These results underscore the viability of using GFRP pipes in various engineering applications that demand robust and durable materials, particularly in the aerospace industry for drone components. 3.2 Comparison of the Experimental and FEM results FEM numerical modeling is performed using Abaqus software, and the results are subsequently compared with experimental data, as illustrated in Fig. 7 . The resulting graph demonstrates a strong correlation with the experimental curve. This outcome validates the efficacy of the FEM in precisely determining the compressive strength of the GFRP pipe. 3.3 Influence of varying the number of plies The research investigated the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe, examining samples with 6 to 10 plies and 15 plies. The Fig. 8 presented the impact of increasing the number of layers in the GFRP pipe. Figure 8 (a) Stress-Strain comparison of increase in number of plies (b) Load Vs deflection comparison of increased in number of plies The presented graphs depict the influence of ply count on the stress-strain response of hand-laminated GFRP pipes subjected to compressive radial loading. The curves correspond to GFRP pipes with three distinct ply configurations: 6 plies, 10 plies, and 15 plies. By analyzing these curves, we can observe a clear trend between the number of plies and the overall strength of the GFRP pipe. As the number of plies increases from 6 to 15, the ultimate compressive strength, represented by the peak stress value on each curve, also increases. This observation aligns with established principles in composite laminates, where a greater number of plies translates to a higher load-bearing capacity and overall strength. In the context of the experiment, the results indicate an increase in strength by a factor of 1.5, highlighting the significant impact of ply count on the GFRP pipe's ability to withstand compressive loads. It's important to acknowledge that the stress-strain curves might also exhibit variations in their linear elastic region and the point of transition to plastic deformation. These variations, along with the observed increase in ultimate strength, warrant further investigation to gain a comprehensive understanding of how ply count influences the GFRP pipe's mechanical behavior under compressive loading. Conclusion This study employed a combined experimental and computational approach to assess the compressive behavior of GFRP pipes subjected to radial loads, as well as to examine the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe. Prior studies have explored various aspects of GFRP pipes, but their compressive response to radial stresses has not been investigated. The experimental phase utilized a universal testing machine to acquire real-world stress-strain data. Conversely, the computational aspect involved finite element (FE) modeling via Abaqus software. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate the agreement between the experimentally obtained data and the results generated by the FE simulations. The analysis served to validate the suitability of GFRP pipes for compressive applications across diverse industries. The key findings are: The experimental findings revealed a significant enhancement in the compressive strength of the GFRP pipes, reaching a value of 0.49 MPa in the radial direction. Notably, a maximum load capacity of 0.49 kN was achieved with only six ply laminate of glass fiber reinforcement. Furthermore, the investigation established a positive correlation between the number of plies and the overall strength of the GFRP pipe. As the number of plies increases from 6 to 15, the ultimate compressive strength, represented by the peak stress value on each curve, also increases. Future research could focus on: Assessing different manufacturing techniques to improve the production processes of GFRP pipes. Exploring hybrid composite materials to enhance the performance capabilities of GFRP pipes across various applications. Declarations Author Contribution Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.Z., F.A., and M.G.; supervision, M.G., and F.A, methodology, F.A. and Y.Z.; software, F.A. and Y.Z.; Analysis, F.A., Y.Z. and S.A.; investigation, visualization, F.A., M.A., K.A.M. and Y.Z.; Experimental work, M.A., K.A.M.; Software, F.A. and Y.Z.; Writing: Creating the original draught, F.A. and Y.Z.; writing, editing, and reviewing, F.A., Y.Z. and M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. References S. Rajendran, J. P. Arkadu, S. V. Dinakaran, D. Ganapathy, and M. V. R. Murthy, “Application of GFRP for Unburied Submarine Pipeline in Shallow Water of Coral Islands,” J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract , vol. 9, no. 4, p. 04018023, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000343. “Strength-to-Weight Ratio - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Accessed: Jun. 30, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/strength-to-weight-ratio F. Aydın, “A review of recent developments in the corrosion performance of aluminium matrix composites,” J Alloys Compd , vol. 949, p. 169508, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.JALLCOM.2023.169508. Q. Fan, H. Duan, and X. Xing, “A review of composite materials for enhancing support, flexibility and strength in exercise,” Alexandria Engineering Journal , vol. 94, pp. 90–103, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.AEJ.2024.03.048. Q. Z. Wang, C. Y. Jiao, J. Bin Zhou, L. Y. Wei, and C. Z. Xiao, “Stress characteristics of double-row glass fiber-reinforced plastic pipe culvert with sand and optimization of load reduction parameters under adverse conditions,” https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684420943297 , vol. 40, no. 3–4, pp. 103–117, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0731684420943297. S. Kar and R. Gupta, “EFFICIENCY OF A GLASS FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER (GFRP) TANK IN PURSUIT OF RELIABLE WATER RESOURCES THROUGH RAINWATER HARVESTING,” Environ Eng Manag J , vol. 22, no. 1, p. 85, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.30638/EEMJ.2023.008. T. Morii, T. Tanimoto, H. Hamada, Z. ‐I Maekawa, T. Hirano, and K. Kiyosumi, “Fracture and acoustic emission characteristics of glass fiber reinforced plastics panels for hot water,” Polym Compos , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 206–216, Jun. 1994, doi: 10.1002/PC.750150306. S. Gharde and B. Kandasubramanian, “Mechanothermal and chemical recycling methodologies for the Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP),” Environ Technol Innov , vol. 14, p. 100311, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.ETI.2019.01.005. J. M. L. Reis, F. D. F. Martins, and H. S. da Costa Mattos, “Influence of ageing in the failure pressure of a GFRP pipe used in oil industry,” Eng Fail Anal , vol. 71, pp. 120–130, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2016.06.013. A. Castelo, J. R. Correia, S. Cabral-Fonseca, and J. de Brito, “In-Service Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Constructions Used in Water and Sewage Treatment Plants,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities , vol. 34, no. 4, p. 04020059, May 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001449. F. G. Alabtah, E. Mahdi, and F. F. Eliyan, “The use of fiber reinforced polymeric composites in pipelines: A review,” Compos Struct , vol. 276, p. 114595, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.114595. S. Alshurafa, M. A. Alnaafa, and D. Polyzois, “Development of GFRP Guyed Communication Towers,” Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering , vol. 198 LNCE, pp. 1904–1913, 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-88166-5_164. P. Qian, P. Feng, and L. Ye, “Experimental study on GFRP pipes under axial compression,” Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 73–78, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1007/S11709-008-0013-Y/METRICS. E. S. Rodríguez, V. A. Alvarez, and P. E. Montemartini, “Failure analysis of a GFRP pipe for oil transport,” Eng Fail Anal , vol. 28, pp. 16–24, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2012.07.025. S. Aravindan, A. N. Sait, and A. N. Haq, “A machinability study of GFRP pipes using statistical techniques,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , vol. 37, no. 11–12, pp. 1069–1081, Jul. 2008, doi: 10.1007/S00170-007-1055-3/METRICS. H. Faria, “Long-Term Behaviour of GFRP Pipes: Reducing the Prediction Test Duration,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (Publication) PVP , vol. 5, pp. 591–600, Jul. 2010, doi: 10.1115/PVP2009-77999. A. Naveen Sait, S. Aravindan, and A. Noorul Haq, “Optimisation of machining parameters of glass-fibre-reinforced plastic (GFRP) pipes by desirability function analysis using Taguchi technique,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , vol. 43, no. 5–6, pp. 581–589, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1007/S00170-008-1731-Y/METRICS. J. M. Lees, “Behaviour of GFRP adhesive pipe joints subjected to pressure and axial loadings,” Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf , vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1171–1179, Aug. 2006, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2005.05.033. Y. Zhu et al. , “Design, fabrication and stiffness analysis of a novel GFRP sandwiched pipe with stiffened core,” Thin-Walled Structures , vol. 156, p. 106982, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.TWS.2020.106982. M. Almahakeri, I. D. Moore, and A. Fam, “Numerical Study of Longitudinal Bending in Buried GFRP Pipes Subjected to Lateral Earth Movements,” J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract , vol. 8, no. 1, p. 04016012, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000237. J. S. Park, W. H. Hong, W. Lee, J. H. Park, and S. J. Yoon, “Pipe Stiffness Prediction of Buried Gfrp Flexible Pipe,” https://doi.org/10.1177/096739111402200103 , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 17–24, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1177/096739111402200103. J. M. L. Reis, F. D. F. Martins, and H. S. da Costa Mattos, “Influence of ageing in the failure pressure of a GFRP pipe used in oil industry,” Eng Fail Anal , vol. 71, pp. 120–130, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2016.06.013. D. Betts, P. Sadeghian, and A. Fam, “Investigation of the stress-strain constitutive behavior of ±55° filament wound GFRP pipes in compression and tension,” Compos B Eng , vol. 172, pp. 243–252, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.05.077. L. Gemi, S. Morkavuk, U. Köklü, and D. S. Gemi, “An experimental study on the effects of various drill types on drilling performance of GFRP composite pipes and damage formation,” Compos B Eng , vol. 172, pp. 186–194, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.05.023. A. N. Sait, “Optimization of machining parameters of GFRP pipes using evolutionary techniques,” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing , vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 891–900, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1007/S12541-010-0108-Y/METRICS. S. Rajendran, J. P. Arkadu, S. V. Dinakaran, D. Ganapathy, and M. V. R. Murthy, “Application of GFRP for Unburied Submarine Pipeline in Shallow Water of Coral Islands,” J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract , vol. 9, no. 4, p. 04018023, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000343. Y. M. Cheng et al. , “New Soil Nail Material—Pilot Study of Grouted GFRP Pipe Nails in Korea and Hong Kong,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 93–102, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:3(93). A. Gunoz, Y. Kepir, and M. Kara, “The investigation of hardness and density properties of GFRP composite pipes under seawater conditions,” Turkish Journal of Engineering , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 34–39, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.31127/TUJE.775536. J. Chen, Y. Zhen, Y. Lou, and Y. Lv, “Stiffness degradation of GFRP pipes under fatigue loading,” Materialpruefung/Materials Testing , vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 435–440, May 2019, doi: 10.3139/120.111338/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS. Z. Hashin, “Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites,” J Appl Mech , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 329–334, Jun. 1980, doi: 10.1115/1.3153664. S. S. R. Koloor, A. Karimzadeh, N. Yidris, M. Petrů, M. R. Ayatollahi, and M. N. Tamin, “An Energy-Based Concept for Yielding of Multidirectional FRP Composite Structures Using a Mesoscale Lamina Damage Model,” Polymers 2020, Vol. 12, Page 157 , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 157, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/POLYM12010157. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 06 Jan, 2025 Read the published version in Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 28 Oct, 2024 Reviews received at journal 02 Oct, 2024 Reviews received at journal 27 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 24 Sep, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 24 Sep, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 21 Sep, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 21 Sep, 2024 First submitted to journal 20 Sep, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5125267","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":371094613,"identity":"c210745f-bc81-4c1f-b03f-33c25c4e3659","order_by":0,"name":"Yasir Zaman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yasir","middleName":"","lastName":"Zaman","suffix":""},{"id":371094614,"identity":"3d021fd9-dc1f-4f0e-a32e-0e6d3b8e6cd2","order_by":1,"name":"Fayiz Amin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fayiz","middleName":"","lastName":"Amin","suffix":""},{"id":371094615,"identity":"5510abbc-2b3d-48c5-adb4-580dd83272e2","order_by":2,"name":"Michael Gerges","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Wolverhampton","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michael","middleName":"","lastName":"Gerges","suffix":""},{"id":371094617,"identity":"2ff32280-c8da-4ef8-827a-c5e44daef81b","order_by":3,"name":"Muhammad Asif","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"China Three Gorges University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Asif","suffix":""},{"id":371094618,"identity":"b32cb966-f48a-4956-897d-4c0d4ae6deb2","order_by":4,"name":"Abdul Majid Khan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"China Three Gorges University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdul","middleName":"Majid","lastName":"Khan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-09-20 17:51:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5125267/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5125267/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41939-024-00710-1","type":"published","date":"2025-01-06T15:56:58+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":70588305,"identity":"d4cce466-d99b-480d-8adc-28722ab3891e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:18:34","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":95265,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlowchart employed in research methodology\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/7f5de1adcaf09896403d6590.png"},{"id":70587939,"identity":"284ceb23-adec-4c0f-85cf-fff30e2b130b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:10:34","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":630923,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Cutting the glass fiber cloth. (b) Weighing the glass fiber cloth. (c) Preparing the epoxy with 40% of the glass fiber weight. (d) Mixing the resin and hardener in a 2:1 ratio. (e) Applying the epoxy to the glass fiber cloth. (f) Evenly distributing the epoxy on the glass fiber cloth. (g) Wrapping the glass fiber around a PVC pipe. (h) The final GFRP pipe\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/1fa270bae6e4f14e131c7fb1.png"},{"id":70587942,"identity":"907f3a1e-d62b-44c4-85cc-552ec3125a85","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:10:34","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":153998,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) GFRP Pipe under UTM (b) GFRP Pipe after Test\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/ab052b0d8d0714d349421663.png"},{"id":70589113,"identity":"30e31df4-ab22-4c6c-9e4f-aa4cb2cca0f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:26:34","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54690,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Geometry of the Pipe (b) Ply Stack Sequence [0/90/0/90/0/90]\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/95aa16eef79ceb389aecc5ae.png"},{"id":70589112,"identity":"213d7c26-4c33-4e11-84cd-a3150748eb73","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:26:34","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":102124,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Loading on the GFRP Pipe (b) Meshing of the GFRP Pipe\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/326b14abdf386be14902e842.png"},{"id":70587936,"identity":"ffce0480-270d-44d6-8d47-e215296fc5b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:10:34","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15183,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Engineering Stress Vs Engineering Strain Curve (b) Load Vs Deflection Curve\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/b805e6b44306927ca4f5b53c.png"},{"id":70587943,"identity":"8f507610-4acd-4ed0-9833-2394c7ada5a3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:10:34","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17139,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Experimental Stress-Strain Curve Vs FEM Stress-Strain Curve (b) Experimental Load-Deflection Curve Vs FEM Load-Deflection Curve\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/e9695ecc2c25c69c83420301.png"},{"id":70588303,"identity":"218a2152-a6e7-4c47-8ca5-a173a5ca3d1d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-12-04 16:18:34","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":32064,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(a) Stress-Strain comparison of increase in number of plies (b) Load Vs deflection comparison of increased in number of plies\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/a802c7d19dacee4a8ab2a5df.png"},{"id":73694203,"identity":"42c726f4-cc16-46fc-af5f-2ef0224a6755","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-13 16:12:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1797293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5125267/v1/813c7ec2-5309-46da-a6d6-d10172bc134b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Investigating the Compressive Response of Hand-Laminated GFRP Pipes in the Radial direction through Experiment and FEM Modeling","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGlass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) pipes have emerged as a prominent choice for diverse infrastructure applications, owing to their advantageous material properties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Compared to traditional materials like steel or concrete, composites exhibit a superior strength-to-weight ratio [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], exceptional resistance to corrosion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], and enhanced design flexibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. This distinctive property profile endows GFRP pipes with remarkable versatility, enabling their utilization in a wide range of domestic and industrial settings. GFRP pipes are employed in various residential applications, such as drainage systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e], septic tank leach lines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], and hot water distribution [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. The industrial sector has also recognized the benefits of GFRP, leading to its widespread adoption in chemical processing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], oil and gas pipelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], and water treatment facilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, the lightweight construction and exceptional durability of GFRP pipes make them well-suited for underground infrastructure projects, including buried pipelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e] and telecommunication cable conduits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePeng Qian et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] investigated the experimental behavior of GFRP pipes under axial compression and presented a formula for the buckling load based on Perry's formula that can accurately predict the buckling failure load of GFRP pipes under axial compression. E.S. Rodr\u0026iacute;guez et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] investigated a GFRP pipe sample, uncovering significant internal damage and blockages caused by the displacement of helical fibers. Their research identified substantial irreversible hydrolytic attack and chemical degradation, particularly at the fiber-matrix interface, leading to a reduction in the glass transition temperature and consequently compromising the mechanical performance. S. Aravindan's et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] study examined the surface quality of machined GFRP pipes used in engineering applications and the transportation of corrosive fluids. Utilizing Taguchi's design method, the research explored surface roughness and tool wear, optimizing machining parameters through ANOVA and regression analysis. Hugo Faria's et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] study explored the long-term behavior of GFRP pipes and investigated methods to reduce the duration of prediction tests. A. Naveen Sait et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] introduces a new approach for optimizing machining parameters in turning GFRP pipes using desirability function analysis. Experiments based on Taguchi\u0026rsquo;s L18 orthogonal array demonstrated that optimizing cutting velocity, feed rate, and depth of cut significantly improved surface roughness, flank wear, crater wear, and machining force, validating the effectiveness of this optimization method.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJ.M. Lees et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] studied the behavior of GFRP adhesive pipe joints under pressure and axial loadings. They found that small-diameter GFRP pipe-sections joined with adhesive couplers are most critically affected by large tensile loads in the absence of internal pressure. Yangxuan Zhu et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] studied the design and fabrication of GFRP pipelines using a multistage filament winding (MFW) technique to address low radial stiffness. The study demonstrated that incorporating GFRP webs with foam blocks significantly increases stiffness while reducing weight. Almahakeri et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] performed a numerical investigation on the longitudinal bending of buried GFRP pipes under lateral soil movements. They examined the flexural performance of 102 mm diameter, 1,830 mm long GFRP pipes subjected to lateral soil loading, focusing on cross-ply and angle-ply laminate structures. The study analyzed soil resistance capacity and deflections at burial depth-to-diameter ratios of 3, 5, and 7, highlighting how material properties and fiber orientation influence pipe behavior, aligning with experimental findings. Joon-Seok Park et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] investigated the pipe stiffness (PS) characteristics of buried GFRP flexible pipes. Their study involved deriving a PS formula under parallel plate loading conditions using principles from elasticity theory, and comprehensively analyzing vertical and horizontal displacements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eJ.M.L. Reis et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] studied the impact of ageing on the failure pressure of GFRP pipes used in oil and gas transport, conducting burst tests under accelerated ageing conditions (1 MPa, 80\u0026deg;C) without fluid immersion. They found ageing duration significantly affects burst pressure, while tensile tests indicated minimal impact on specimen stiffness but variations in ultimate tensile stress (UTS), proposing a methodology with prediction errors below 0.8% for UTS and below 25% for failure pressure estimation. Dillon Betts et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] investigated hollow\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;55\u0026deg; filament wound GFRP pipes under longitudinal compressive and tensile loading, using 31 specimens with varied pressure ratings (350 kPa, 700 kPa, and 1050 kPa) and inner diameters (76 mm and 203 mm). The study revealed nonlinear stress-strain responses, stronger performance in compression than tension, and significant post-peak behavior in tension, supported by an analytical model addressing axial loading effects and fiber angle error, critical for structural analysis and design applications like concrete-filled FRP tubes (CFFTs). Lokman Gemi et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] investigated the drilling performance of glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) composite pipes with a\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;55\u0026deg; winding angle, using various 4 mm diameter drills (conventional twist, brad and spur, and brad center) at 5000 rpm and feed rates from 25 to 275 mm/min. Their findings demonstrated that the brad center drill significantly reduced thrust forces and minimized surface damage, such as delamination and fiber uncutting, compared to the twist drill, particularly at lower feed rates, highlighting the impact of tool selection and feed rate on drilling efficiency for GFRP pipes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbdullah Naveen Sait et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e] explored the optimization of machining parameters for GFRP pipes using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Genetic Algorithm (GA), aiming to improve surface roughness, machining force, and tool wear. Their study compared the effectiveness of PSO and GA with traditional methods, highlighting their potential to enhance the machining efficiency of GFRP materials produced through hand layup and filament winding processes. Saravanan Rajendran et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] investigate the application of GFRPs for submarine pipelines in shallow water regions, emphasizing advantages over traditional materials like steel in seawater desalination. Their study develops a new design methodology for GFRP pipes tailored to withstand high marine environmental loads, validated through manufacturing and testing of pipe specimens under unburied submarine conditions lacking direct standards. Y. M. Cheng et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] explore the feasibility of using lightweight, high-strength GFRP pipes as soil nails, replacing traditional steel bars due to cost and labor considerations. Their study validates GFRP pipe nails' performance through extensive laboratory and field tests in Hong Kong and Korea, supported by numerical modeling of field test outcomes. Alper G\u0026uuml;n\u0026ouml;z et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] studied the impact of seawater exposure on the density and hardness of GFRP composite pipes over 1, 2, and 3 months. Their findings reveal significant changes in the mechanical property\u0026rsquo;s exposure to seawater. Jianzhong Chen et al.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] investigated the stiffness degradation of glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) pipes, considering different winding patterns and loading conditions. Their study developed a model based on fatigue testing, which elucidated that the rate of stiffness reduction in GFRP pipes varies depending on the maximum alternating displacement relative to the pipe diameter. Specifically, helical winding and hoop-helical combined winding GFRP pipes exhibited degradation rates 1.50 and 1.28 times faster than hoop winding pipes under comparable conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior studies have explored various aspects of GFRP pipes, but their compressive response to radial stresses has not been investigated. Additionally, experimental studies and testing are time-consuming and can affect the project's economy. Therefore, it is crucial to study this compressive response to radial stresses through finite element method (FEM) to save time and costs, as well as to examine the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe. This research pioneers an examination of the compressive behavior of hand-laid GFRP pipes under radial loading conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have extensively explored various aspects of GFRP pipes, including their axial compressive behavior, internal damage and degradation, machining optimization, long-term performance, and applications in different industries such as aerospace, chemical processing, and underground infrastructure. Research has also focused on the mechanical response under different loading conditions, the impact of environmental exposure, and the development of predictive models for structural analysis. Despite these comprehensive investigations, the compressive response of GFRP pipes to radial stresses has not been thoroughly examined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses this research gap by investigating the compressive behavior of hand-laid GFRP pipes under radial loading conditions using both experimental methods and FEM. By evaluating the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe, this research aims to provide a deeper understanding of how to optimize the design and performance of GFRP pipes for applications requiring lightweight yet robust materials. This will benefit industries by offering a cost-effective and time-efficient solution for improving the structural integrity and durability of GFRP pipes in demanding operational environments. A comprehensive framework, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, serves as the foundation for this investigation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Fabrication\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe GFRP pipe is fabricated of 6 plies using the hand lay-up method. Initially, a fine glass fiber cloth is selected according to the required dimensions. The cloth is then impregnated with an epoxy mixture composed of resin and hardener in a 2:1 ratio, using 40% of the total weight of the glass fiber cloth. Prior to application, the glass surface is cleaned and coated with a release agent to prevent adhesion. The epoxy mixture is evenly applied to the glass fiber cloth, which is subsequently wrapped around a PVC pipe. The assembly is secured with tape and allowed to cure for 6 to 8 hours at room temperature. After curing, the PVC pipe is removed, leaving the finished GFRP pipe ready for testing. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the complete illustration process of the fabrication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Compression Test\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe compression test is conducted using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) according to ASTM D2412 Standard, where the specimen is subjected to radial stresses, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe crosshead speed of the machine is fixed at 5 mm/min, ensuring a consistent rate of deformation. Compressive force is applied continuously until the specimen reaches failure. Data acquisition is managed by a computer system, detailed further in the Results section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Modeling in ABAQUS\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe study proposes an in-depth modeling of the GFRP pipe, accurately replicating the geometry, boundary conditions, loading parameters, and material properties as utilized in the experimental investigation. The numerical modeling utilizes the Hashin damage criteria [\u003cspan\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] to determine a suitable approach for modeling the GFRP pipe, incorporating the Hashin 2D criterion within the ABAQUS software. The study outlines four specific failure modes as follows.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFiber Tension (\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\\(\\:{\\sigma\\:}_{11}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u0026ge; 0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\\(\\:{F}_{f}^{t}={\\:\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{11}}{{X}^{t}}\\right)}^{2}+{\\alpha\\:\\:\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{12}}{{S}^{L}}\\right)}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFiber Compression (\\(\\:{\\sigma\\:}_{11}\\) \u0026le; 0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\\(\\:{F}_{f}^{c}={\\:\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{11}}{{X}^{c}}\\right)}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix Tension (\\(\\:{\\sigma\\:}_{22}\\) \u0026ge; 0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tabc\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\\(\\:{F}_{m}^{t}={\\:\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{22}}{{Y}^{t}}\\right)}^{2}+{\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{12}}{{S}^{L}}\\right)}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMatrix Compression (\\(\\:{\\sigma\\:}_{22}\\) \u0026le; 0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tabd\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\\(\\:{F}_{m}^{c}={\\:\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{22}}{{2S}^{T}}\\right)}^{2}+\\left[{\\:\\left(\\frac{{Y}^{c}}{{2S}^{T}}\\right)}^{2}-\\:1\\right]\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{22}}{{Y}^{c}}\\right)+{\\left(\\frac{{\\sigma\\:}_{12}}{{S}^{L}}\\right)}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn equations (2.1)-(2.4), \u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\\(\\:\\sigma\\:\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003csub\u003eij\u003c/sub\u003e (i,j\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,2) represent the components of the effective stress tensor. X\u003csup\u003et\u003c/sup\u003e (X\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e) and Y\u003csup\u003et\u003c/sup\u003e (Y\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e) denote the tensile (compressive) strengths of uni-directional laminates in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively. Additionally, S\u003csup\u003ej\u003c/sup\u003e (j\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;L, T) corresponds to the in-plane and out-of-plane shear strengths of the composites. For any of the failure modes, \u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\\(\\:{F}_{i}^{j}=1\\:(i\\:=\\:f,\\:\\:m\\:and\\:j\\:=\\:c,\\:t)\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e indicates the onset of failure in that mode.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Geometry\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA shell geometry representing the GFRP pipe has been modeled using Abaqus software. The ply sequence employed for this model is [0/90/0/90/0/90], with dimensions detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e(a) illustrates the geometry of the GFRP pipe, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e(b) illustrates the Ply Stack Sequence.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeometry Details\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeometry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDimensions [mm]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLength\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShell Diameter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2 Material Properties\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe material properties used for GFRP modeling in the finite element analysis, sourced from the literature [\u003cspan\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], are detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. These properties are described using specific notations. The longitudinal (E11), transverse (E22), and out-of-plane (E33) Young\u0026apos;s moduli represent the stiffness in the primary fiber direction, perpendicular to the fiber direction within the plane of the fibers, and perpendicular to the plane of the fibers, respectively. The shear moduli (G12, G13, and G23) correspond to the material\u0026apos;s response to shear deformation in the 1\u0026ndash;2, 1\u0026ndash;3, and 2\u0026ndash;3 planes. Additionally, the Poisson\u0026apos;s ratios (\u0026nu;12, \u0026nu;13, and \u0026nu;23) indicate the extent of contraction in the perpendicular direction due to deformation in one direction, for the 1\u0026ndash;2, 1\u0026ndash;3, and 2\u0026ndash;3 planes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaterial properties of GFRP Pipe.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE11 (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE22 (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE33 (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nu;12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nu;13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nu;23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG12 (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG13 (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG23 (GPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Hashin failure criterion, which is widely used for analyzing the damage behavior of glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites, is presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e [\u003cspan\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. This criterion employs the following notations to characterize the material properties: X\u003csub\u003eT\u003c/sub\u003e for longitudinal tensile strength, X\u003csub\u003eC\u003c/sub\u003e for longitudinal compressive strength, Y\u003csub\u003eT\u003c/sub\u003e for transverse tensile strength, Y\u003csub\u003eC\u003c/sub\u003e for transverse compressive strength, S\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e for longitudinal shear strength, and S\u003csub\u003eT\u003c/sub\u003e for transverse shear strength.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHashin damage defined for GFRP Pipe\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003eT\u003c/sub\u003e (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eX\u003csub\u003eC\u003c/sub\u003e (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003csub\u003eT\u003c/sub\u003e (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eY\u003csub\u003eC\u003c/sub\u003e (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS\u003csub\u003eL\u003c/sub\u003e (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eS\u003csub\u003eT\u003c/sub\u003e (MPa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e820\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e322\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e161.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Hashin damage criteria detailed in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e [\u003cspan\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] describe the progressive failure of GFRP composites. The notation G\u003csub\u003eXT\u003c/sub\u003e represents the longitudinal tensile damage energy fraction, G\u003csub\u003eXC\u003c/sub\u003e denotes the longitudinal compressive damage energy fraction, G\u003csub\u003eYT\u003c/sub\u003e depicts the transverse tensile damage energy fraction, and G\u003csub\u003eYC\u003c/sub\u003e corresponds to the transverse compressive damage energy fraction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHashin damage evolution (energy) for GFRP Pipe\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG\u003csub\u003eXT\u003c/sub\u003e (N/mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG\u003csub\u003eXC\u003c/sub\u003e (N/mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG\u003csub\u003eYT\u003c/sub\u003e (N/mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG\u003csub\u003eYC\u003c/sub\u003e (N/mm)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Loading and Boundary Conditions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe GFRP pipe undergoes radial compression, with the bottom plate fixed to restrain all moments and displacements, and the upper plate, responsible for applying the radial load, constrained against moments and allowed vertical movement only. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e(a) provides a detailed depiction of the loading conditions and boundary constraints applied to the GFRP pipe within the Abaqus software environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.4 Meshing\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscretization of geometric models into smaller elements, known as meshing, is a crucial step in numerical simulations. This process enables the accurate representation of physical geometry and ensures the numerical stability and convergence of computational models, which is essential for generating reliable results in engineering analyses. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e(b) shows the meshing of the GFRP pipe.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Experimental Results of the GFRP Pipe\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe compression test of the GFRP pipe in radial direction was conducted using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM). The resulting stress-strain and load-deflection curves are presented in the accompanying Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe experimental stress-strain data provides valuable insights into the mechanical behavior of the six-ply GFRP pipe under compressive radial loading. The non-linear response indicates a transition from elastic to plastic deformation at relatively low strain levels, a characteristic common in composite materials like GFRP that can be advantageous in certain applications. Despite the absence of a clear linear region, the curve reaches a well-defined peak stress, representing the ultimate compressive strength of the GFRP pipe.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe observed stress-strain response effectively captures the GFRP pipe's key mechanical properties, including its impressive ultimate strength and deformation characteristics. These findings demonstrate the potential of GFRP pipes with minimal ply count to withstand substantial radial compressive forces, highlighting their suitability for engineering applications that require lightweight yet strong materials, such as drone arms. The GFRP pipe exhibits a compressive strength of 0.49 MPa, a Young's modulus of 8.06 MPa, and a maximum load-bearing capacity of 0.49 kN in the radial direction, indicating its ability to sustain significant loads. These results underscore the viability of using GFRP pipes in various engineering applications that demand robust and durable materials, particularly in the aerospace industry for drone components.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Comparison of the Experimental and FEM results\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFEM numerical modeling is performed using Abaqus software, and the results are subsequently compared with experimental data, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe resulting graph demonstrates a strong correlation with the experimental curve. This outcome validates the efficacy of the FEM in precisely determining the compressive strength of the GFRP pipe.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Influence of varying the number of plies\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe research investigated the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe, examining samples with 6 to 10 plies and 15 plies. The Fig.\u0026nbsp;8 presented the impact of increasing the number of layers in the GFRP pipe.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigure 8 (a) Stress-Strain comparison of increase in number of plies (b) Load Vs deflection comparison of increased in number of plies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe presented graphs depict the influence of ply count on the stress-strain response of hand-laminated GFRP pipes subjected to compressive radial loading. The curves correspond to GFRP pipes with three distinct ply configurations: 6 plies, 10 plies, and 15 plies. By analyzing these curves, we can observe a clear trend between the number of plies and the overall strength of the GFRP pipe.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs the number of plies increases from 6 to 15, the ultimate compressive strength, represented by the peak stress value on each curve, also increases. This observation aligns with established principles in composite laminates, where a greater number of plies translates to a higher load-bearing capacity and overall strength. In the context of the experiment, the results indicate an increase in strength by a factor of 1.5, highlighting the significant impact of ply count on the GFRP pipe's ability to withstand compressive loads.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt's important to acknowledge that the stress-strain curves might also exhibit variations in their linear elastic region and the point of transition to plastic deformation. These variations, along with the observed increase in ultimate strength, warrant further investigation to gain a comprehensive understanding of how ply count influences the GFRP pipe's mechanical behavior under compressive loading.\u003c/p\u003e\n \n \n \n \n \n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a combined experimental and computational approach to assess the compressive behavior of GFRP pipes subjected to radial loads, as well as to examine the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe. Prior studies have explored various aspects of GFRP pipes, but their compressive response to radial stresses has not been investigated. The experimental phase utilized a universal testing machine to acquire real-world stress-strain data. Conversely, the computational aspect involved finite element (FE) modeling via Abaqus software. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate the agreement between the experimentally obtained data and the results generated by the FE simulations. The analysis served to validate the suitability of GFRP pipes for compressive applications across diverse industries. The key findings are:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe experimental findings revealed a significant enhancement in the compressive strength of the GFRP pipes, reaching a value of 0.49 MPa in the radial direction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNotably, a maximum load capacity of 0.49 kN was achieved with only six ply laminate of glass fiber reinforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the investigation established a positive correlation between the number of plies and the overall strength of the GFRP pipe. As the number of plies increases from 6 to 15, the ultimate compressive strength, represented by the peak stress value on each curve, also increases.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research could focus on:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssessing different manufacturing techniques to improve the production processes of GFRP pipes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExploring hybrid composite materials to enhance the performance capabilities of GFRP pipes across various applications.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuthor Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.Z., F.A., and M.G.; supervision, M.G., and F.A, methodology, F.A. and Y.Z.; software, F.A. and Y.Z.; Analysis, F.A., Y.Z. and S.A.; investigation, visualization, F.A., M.A., K.A.M. and Y.Z.; Experimental work, M.A., K.A.M.; Software, F.A. and Y.Z.; Writing: Creating the original draught, F.A. and Y.Z.; writing, editing, and reviewing, F.A., Y.Z. and M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Rajendran, J. P. Arkadu, S. V. Dinakaran, D. Ganapathy, and M. V. R. Murthy, \u0026ldquo;Application of GFRP for Unburied Submarine Pipeline in Shallow Water of Coral Islands,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ Pipeline Syst Eng Pract\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 04018023, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000343.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Strength-to-Weight Ratio - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.\u0026rdquo; Accessed: Jun. 30, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/strength-to-weight-ratio\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eF. Aydın, \u0026ldquo;A review of recent developments in the corrosion performance of aluminium matrix composites,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ Alloys Compd\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 949, p. 169508, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.JALLCOM.2023.169508.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQ. Fan, H. Duan, and X. Xing, \u0026ldquo;A review of composite materials for enhancing support, flexibility and strength in exercise,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAlexandria Engineering Journal\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 94, pp. 90\u0026ndash;103, May 2024, doi: 10.1016/J.AEJ.2024.03.048.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQ. Z. Wang, C. Y. Jiao, J. Bin Zhou, L. Y. Wei, and C. Z. Xiao, \u0026ldquo;Stress characteristics of double-row glass fiber-reinforced plastic pipe culvert with sand and optimization of load reduction parameters under adverse conditions,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0731684420943297\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 40, no. 3\u0026ndash;4, pp. 103\u0026ndash;117, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1177/0731684420943297.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Kar and R. Gupta, \u0026ldquo;EFFICIENCY OF A GLASS FIBER-REINFORCED POLYMER (GFRP) TANK IN PURSUIT OF RELIABLE WATER RESOURCES THROUGH RAINWATER HARVESTING,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEnviron Eng Manag J\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 85, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.30638/EEMJ.2023.008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eT. Morii, T. Tanimoto, H. Hamada, Z. ‐I Maekawa, T. Hirano, and K. Kiyosumi, \u0026ldquo;Fracture and acoustic emission characteristics of glass fiber reinforced plastics panels for hot water,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ePolym Compos\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 206\u0026ndash;216, Jun. 1994, doi: 10.1002/PC.750150306.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Gharde and B. Kandasubramanian, \u0026ldquo;Mechanothermal and chemical recycling methodologies for the Fibre Reinforced Plastic (FRP),\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEnviron Technol Innov\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 14, p. 100311, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.ETI.2019.01.005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. M. L. Reis, F. D. F. Martins, and H. S. da Costa Mattos, \u0026ldquo;Influence of ageing in the failure pressure of a GFRP pipe used in oil industry,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEng Fail Anal\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 71, pp. 120\u0026ndash;130, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2016.06.013.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Castelo, J. R. Correia, S. Cabral-Fonseca, and J. de Brito, \u0026ldquo;In-Service Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Constructions Used in Water and Sewage Treatment Plants,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 34, no. 4, p. 04020059, May 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001449.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eF. G. Alabtah, E. Mahdi, and F. F. Eliyan, \u0026ldquo;The use of fiber reinforced polymeric composites in pipelines: A review,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCompos Struct\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 276, p. 114595, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPSTRUCT.2021.114595.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Alshurafa, M. A. Alnaafa, and D. Polyzois, \u0026ldquo;Development of GFRP Guyed Communication Towers,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eLecture Notes in Civil Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 198 LNCE, pp. 1904\u0026ndash;1913, 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-88166-5_164.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP. Qian, P. Feng, and L. Ye, \u0026ldquo;Experimental study on GFRP pipes under axial compression,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eFrontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 73\u0026ndash;78, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1007/S11709-008-0013-Y/METRICS.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eE. S. Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, V. A. Alvarez, and P. E. Montemartini, \u0026ldquo;Failure analysis of a GFRP pipe for oil transport,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEng Fail Anal\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 28, pp. 16\u0026ndash;24, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2012.07.025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Aravindan, A. N. Sait, and A. N. Haq, \u0026ldquo;A machinability study of GFRP pipes using statistical techniques,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 37, no. 11\u0026ndash;12, pp. 1069\u0026ndash;1081, Jul. 2008, doi: 10.1007/S00170-007-1055-3/METRICS.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH. Faria, \u0026ldquo;Long-Term Behaviour of GFRP Pipes: Reducing the Prediction Test Duration,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (Publication) PVP\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 5, pp. 591\u0026ndash;600, Jul. 2010, doi: 10.1115/PVP2009-77999.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Naveen Sait, S. Aravindan, and A. Noorul Haq, \u0026ldquo;Optimisation of machining parameters of glass-fibre-reinforced plastic (GFRP) pipes by desirability function analysis using Taguchi technique,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 43, no. 5\u0026ndash;6, pp. 581\u0026ndash;589, Jul. 2009, doi: 10.1007/S00170-008-1731-Y/METRICS.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. M. Lees, \u0026ldquo;Behaviour of GFRP adhesive pipe joints subjected to pressure and axial loadings,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCompos Part A Appl Sci Manuf\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1171\u0026ndash;1179, Aug. 2006, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESA.2005.05.033.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eY. Zhu \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;Design, fabrication and stiffness analysis of a novel GFRP sandwiched pipe with stiffened core,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eThin-Walled Structures\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 156, p. 106982, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/J.TWS.2020.106982.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM. Almahakeri, I. D. Moore, and A. Fam, \u0026ldquo;Numerical Study of Longitudinal Bending in Buried GFRP Pipes Subjected to Lateral Earth Movements,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ Pipeline Syst Eng Pract\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 04016012, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. S. Park, W. H. Hong, W. Lee, J. H. Park, and S. J. Yoon, \u0026ldquo;Pipe Stiffness Prediction of Buried Gfrp Flexible Pipe,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/096739111402200103\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 17\u0026ndash;24, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1177/096739111402200103.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. M. L. Reis, F. D. F. Martins, and H. S. da Costa Mattos, \u0026ldquo;Influence of ageing in the failure pressure of a GFRP pipe used in oil industry,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eEng Fail Anal\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 71, pp. 120\u0026ndash;130, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2016.06.013.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD. Betts, P. Sadeghian, and A. Fam, \u0026ldquo;Investigation of the stress-strain constitutive behavior of \u0026plusmn;55\u0026deg; filament wound GFRP pipes in compression and tension,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCompos B Eng\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 172, pp. 243\u0026ndash;252, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.05.077.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL. Gemi, S. Morkavuk, U. K\u0026ouml;kl\u0026uuml;, and D. S. Gemi, \u0026ldquo;An experimental study on the effects of various drill types on drilling performance of GFRP composite pipes and damage formation,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCompos B Eng\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 172, pp. 186\u0026ndash;194, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.COMPOSITESB.2019.05.023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. N. Sait, \u0026ldquo;Optimization of machining parameters of GFRP pipes using evolutionary techniques,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 891\u0026ndash;900, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.1007/S12541-010-0108-Y/METRICS.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. Rajendran, J. P. Arkadu, S. V. Dinakaran, D. Ganapathy, and M. V. R. Murthy, \u0026ldquo;Application of GFRP for Unburied Submarine Pipeline in Shallow Water of Coral Islands,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ Pipeline Syst Eng Pract\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 04018023, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000343.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eY. M. Cheng \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;New Soil Nail Material\u0026mdash;Pilot Study of Grouted GFRP Pipe Nails in Korea and Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 93\u0026ndash;102, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:3(93).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA. Gunoz, Y. Kepir, and M. Kara, \u0026ldquo;The investigation of hardness and density properties of GFRP composite pipes under seawater conditions,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eTurkish Journal of Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 34\u0026ndash;39, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.31127/TUJE.775536.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJ. Chen, Y. Zhen, Y. Lou, and Y. Lv, \u0026ldquo;Stiffness degradation of GFRP pipes under fatigue loading,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eMaterialpruefung/Materials Testing\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 435\u0026ndash;440, May 2019, doi: 10.3139/120.111338/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZ. Hashin, \u0026ldquo;Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eJ Appl Mech\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 329\u0026ndash;334, Jun. 1980, doi: 10.1115/1.3153664.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS. S. R. Koloor, A. Karimzadeh, N. Yidris, M. Petrů, M. R. Ayatollahi, and M. N. Tamin, \u0026ldquo;An Energy-Based Concept for Yielding of Multidirectional FRP Composite Structures Using a Mesoscale Lamina Damage Model,\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003ePolymers 2020, Vol. 12, Page 157\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 157, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/POLYM12010157.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"multiscale-and-multidisciplinary-modeling-experiments-and-design","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"mmed","sideBox":"Learn more about [Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design](https://link.springer.com/journal/41939)","snPcode":"41939","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/41939/3","title":"Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Compression Test, Radial Stresses, Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Pipe, Composites, FEM Analysis, GFRP","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5125267/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5125267/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe growing interest in composite materials is due to their exceptional strength, stiffness, and fatigue resistance. Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) pipes are ideal for aerospace applications like drone arms, needing to withstand payload weight, forces, vibrations, environmental effects, impacts, altitude changes, air density variations, and extreme temperatures. This study investigates the compressive behavior under radial loading of GFRP pipes specifically fabricated with a six-ply laminate sequence [0/90/0/90/0/90]. An experimental evaluation was conducted using a universal testing machine according to standard ASTM D2412 to assess the compressive response, and the acquired data was subsequently validated through finite element method (FEM) modeling employing Abaqus software. Experimental findings confirmed a compressive strength of 0.49 MPa and a maximum load capacity of 0.49 kN for the six-ply GFRP laminate. FEM analysis validated these results. Furthermore, the influence of varying the number of plies on the GFRP pipe was studied, and the results show an increasing strength trend with additional plies. As the number of plies increases from 6 to 15, the ultimate compressive strength, represented by the peak stress value on each curve, also increases. This research establishes GFRP pipes as a promising candidate for applications requiring lightweight and robust materials.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Investigating the Compressive Response of Hand-Laminated GFRP Pipes in the Radial direction through Experiment and FEM Modeling","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-12-04 16:10:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5125267/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-10-28T07:45:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-10-03T02:02:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-09-27T14:37:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"13153677008262004841135806864709326605","date":"2024-09-25T14:53:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"105630549513912621281307622893828412762","date":"2024-09-25T08:36:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"263529554188440498533581912556790840860","date":"2024-09-24T22:46:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"273630250838747112223575992114578575981","date":"2024-09-24T17:16:46+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-09-24T13:30:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-09-21T11:17:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-09-21T11:15:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design","date":"2024-09-20T17:49:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"multiscale-and-multidisciplinary-modeling-experiments-and-design","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"mmed","sideBox":"Learn more about [Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design](https://link.springer.com/journal/41939)","snPcode":"41939","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/41939/3","title":"Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1d88565c-da0f-4572-9c5b-f3bf52d8b4bf","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 4th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-01-13T16:06:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5125267","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41939-024-00710-1","journal":{"identity":"multiscale-and-multidisciplinary-modeling-experiments-and-design","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design"},"publishedOn":"2025-01-06 15:56:58","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 6th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-12-04 16:10:29","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s41939-024-00710-1","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41939-024-00710-1","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5125267","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5125267","identity":"rs-5125267","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}