Life Cycle Analysis Issues in the use of FRP Composites in Civil - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Life Cycle Analysis Issues in the use of FRP Composites in Civil Infrastructure Civil Infrastructure

Charles Bakis Charles Bakis The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA, USA University Park, PA, USA

Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Infrastructure Materials

• Oct. 21‐22, 2009

Hokkaido University, Sapporo Japan

I ? Inputs?

+

Then what? Outputs?

=

How?

(Butler Cnty. Engrs. Office, OH)

How?

Stronger, Stiffer, Lighter...

What is inside?

• Fibers

– Strong, stiff Strong, stiff

• Polymer matrix

– Ductile; protect/support fibers ; p / pp

• Fillers, veils

– Cost reduction Cost reduction – Shrink & exotherm control – Flame retardant – UV protection – Surface finish & durability Cross Section

Material Design: The Boon and Bane of Composites

W “l ” i Ways to “lay up” composites

• Wonderful tailorability
• Poor primary recyclability

Quasi‐ Quasi Isotropic

(Daniel and Ishai, 1994)

Specific Strength and Modulus: “Quasi‐Isotropic” Composites Quasi Isotropic Composites

Specific

Glass/ep 0‐deg. <21,0.55>

Tensile Strength, GP /( / )

Carbon/ep <21,0.55>

GPa/(g/cc)

0‐deg. <94, 1.4>

Material differences

(Based on Reinhart and

differences, residual stresses, etc.

Specific Tensile Modulus GPa/(g/cc)

Clements, 1987)

Fibers

3000 3500 4000 Carbon 1500 2000 2500 tress (MPa) Glass Aramid

250

Initial Pulled

500 1000 1500 St Steel

0.2 →

Force 50 100 150 200

T i l fib h hi h l ti d f bilit &

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Strain (m/m)

Displacement 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

• Typical fibers have high elastic deformability &

strength, but little‐to‐no plastic deformability

• Can increase deformabilit b tailoring the fiber
• Can increase deformability by tailoring the fiber

angle and type of matrix

Carbon Fiber Production

Si l “ d ” Single “end,”

• r “tow”

(G hi k )

• Oil based, energy intensive, 25‐30 US$/kg

(Graphic source: unknown)

Glass Fiber Production

• Energy intensive

Single‐End gy

• ~2 US$/kg
• Multi‐end tows

have less strength & stiffness than stiffness than single end

(Graphic source: unknown)

Plant‐Based Fibers Plant Based Fibers

• Renewable

Renewable

• Low embodied energy

(eg. Kenaf: 75%

3000 3500 4000 ) E‐glass Flax Hemp Kenaf Jute Abaca Sisal Coir

( g reduction vs. glass)

• 40% less dense than

1500 2000 2500 Stress (MPa) Sisal Coir

glass

• Degradable

500 1000 S

• Moisture sensitive,

temperature limited

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Strain (m/m)

Keratin Fibers

• Renewable

Feather Fibers

Renewable

• Waste product looking

for a good use for a good use

• 67% less dense vs. glass

Quill Fiber

• 90% less modulus and

strength vs. glass

Q

• Moisture sensitive,

temperature limited p

(Hong & Wool, 2004)

Fillers

• Natural minerals

– calcium carbonate – clay – aluminum trihydrate

• Renewable products

wood flour y

• Manufactured

products

– wood flour – ground rice hulls t h ll

products

– metal powder – glass beads – peanut shells – glass beads – phenolic powder

• “The original” multifunctional filler for composites
• New functions? (eg., end‐of‐service recycling?)

Matrix Materials

• Thermosets (eg., polyester, vinylester, epoxy)

– Good processing and cost characteristics – Cannot be thermally formed or separated from fibers

• Thermoplastics ‐ eg., PET, PU

– Good recycling potential, formable – Melt viscosity, bond, fatigue issues

l b d

• Plant‐based epoxies

– Renewable: soy, linseed Lo stiffness

(Fulcrum Composites)

– Low stiffness

Manufacturing: VARTM

Vacuum

Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Molding

FRP plate Resin Inlet

Molding

• eg., bridge decks, boats,

windmill blades

Tool plate

(E. Strauch, Penn State U.) (D. Cripps, Gurit)

Manufacturing: Pultrusion

• eg., structural shapes

(Strongwell)

• Pull fibers through resin and mold

(Howard Univ.)

• Pull fibers through resin and mold
• Shape and cure composite in mold
• Continuous, high‐speed process (cheap)

Pultruded Parts

(Strongwell) (Butler Cnty. Engrs. Office, OH)

Closing Thoughts

• Composites are heterogeneous, anisotropic, highly

tailorable and integratable, but not amenable to primary recycling primary recycling

– need good ways to utilize material post‐service

• Connections among {environmental effects, human

ff t t i l f d t k f t i effects, raw material feed‐stocks, manufacturing methods, material design, embodied energy, transportation costs, disposal/recycling costs, etc.} are t ll d ib d d t d not well described or understood

– solutions require multi‐disciplinary approach – materials science, chemical engineering, mechanics, g g structural engineering, manufacturing engineering, business analysis, transportation engineering, environmental engineering, law, and climatology