Comparison of Static and Long-term Creep Behaviors between Balau Wood and Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite for Cross-arm Application

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Cross arms are mainly made up of wood (conventional) and pultruded glass fiber reinforced polymer composite(modern) installed in suspension tower. However, the creep response of both materials has not been fully covered in manyliteratures to explain the long-term durability of the current cross arm design. Thus, it is necessary to find the creep trends andmodels to evaluate the behavior in the tropical outdoor environment. The creep properties of Balau wood and pultrudedcomposite at load of 10, 20 and 30 % of ultimate flexural stress were evaluated from quasi-static flexural test results. Usingseveral creep numerical models, the creep properties of wood and composite cross arms were modelled. The results showedthat the GFRP had a significant value of flexural strength, while Balau wood performed better in flexural modulus. In termsof creep properties, GFRP specimen exhibited high creep resistance with greater stability during transition from elastic toviscoelastic phase. From numerical modelling perspective, the simulated creep trends from Burger and Norton models weredeviated from the experimental data. Subsequently, the most suitable creep model to forecast the creep behavior for wood andcomposite specimens was Findley model. All in all, pultruded composite is the most appropriate durable material to beapplied in cross arms, while Findley model is a suitable model to represent creep performance of anisotropic materials.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 S. S. S. Ali, 10 : 84-, 2020

2 D. Mohamad, 530 : 012027-, 2019

3 M. R. M. Asyraf, 2020 : 6980918-, 2020

4 M. S. A. Bakar, 2031 : 020027-, 2018

5 I. M. Rawi, 2017

6 S. Beddu, 020039-, 2018

7 H. Peng, 63 : 455-, 2017

8 F. Segovia, 4 : 225-, 2013

9 R. A. Ilyas, 41 : 459-, 2020

10 C. N. A. Jaafar, 7 : 258-, 2018

11 M. R. M. Asyraf, 9 : 2357-, 2020

12 R. A. Ilyas, 91 : 152-, 2021

13 A. N. Johari, 65 : 792-, 2020

14 Parikh, 2 : 1070-, 2012

15 J. Zhu, 113 : 108-, 2014

16 F. Lambiase, 236 : 241-, 2016

17 A. N. Johari, 983-, 2019

18 A. Atiqah, 8 : 3732-, 2019

19 P. Wambua, 63 : 1259-, 2003

20 M. R. M. Asyraf, 38-, 2019

21 M. R. M. Asyraf, 41 : 2917-, 2020

22 V. Fiore, 46 : 2089-, 2012

23 M. R. M. Asyraf, 14 : 6869-, 2020

24 M. R. M. Asyraf, 81 : 155-, 2019

25 M. R. M. Asyraf, 9 : 6759-, 2020

26 D. L. May, 2013

27 Z. Yang, 193 : 154-, 2018

28 S. Siengchin, 26 : 863-, 2013

29 M. R. M. Asyraf, 8 : 5647-, 2019

30 G. Gündüz, 39 : 1577-, 2005

31 M. S. EL-Wazery, 14 : 121-, 2017

32 M. Moutee, 37 : 521-, 2005

33 T. P. Sathishkumar, 33 : 1258-, 2014

34 V. S. Chevali, 40 : 870-, 2009

35 N. M. Nurazzi, 64 : 12-, 2019

36 A. M. N. Maisara, 8 : 510-, 2019

37 N. M. Nurazzi, 9 : 1606-, 2020

38 S. D. Pandita, 33 : 14-, 2014

39 M. S. N. Atikah, 64 : 27-, 2019

40 M. D. Jantan, 48 : 159-, 1985

41 H. Fu, 237 : 117499-, 2020

42 N. H. M. Zulfli, 21 : 41-, 2010

43 A. M. Fairuz, 11 : 1798-, 2014

44 M. L. Sanyang, 11 : 4134-, 2016

45 M. H. Hamidon, 8 : 3327-, 2019

46 D. Cho, 16 : 711-, 2009

47 F. Hoseinzadeh, 226 : 220-, 2019

48 T. Nakai, 64 : 745-, 2018

49 R. M. Shahroze, 52-, 2019

50 A. Anand, 338 : 2018

51 D. W. Scott, 58 : 1361-, 1998

52 C. N. A. Jaafar, 5 : 2018

53 J. F. Hunt, 10 : 3131-, 2015

54 C. J. Pérez, 480 : 259-, 2008

55 P. K. Chandra, 20 : 250-, 2006

56 W. N. Findley, 44 : 364-, 1977

57 H. W. Liu, "Mechanics of Materials" China Machine Press 2004

58 "Balau and Chengal supply in Malaysia"

59 Malaysian Timber Council, "Balau Wood Technical Information"

60 "Annual Report 2018; Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia" 2018