Study of FRP bars under tension using acoustic emission detection technique

  • Maha Ghaib
  • Mohammadhadi Shateri
  • Douglas Thomson
  • Dagmar Svecova
Original Paper


Acoustic emission (AE) signal has proved to be a useful tool for monitoring structures reinforced with FRP composites such as Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) reinforced beams, carbon FRP (CFRP) sheets, or steel fiber reinforced concrete. This work focuses on studying the behavior of pultruded FRP bars, which have been manufactured using continuous fibers. Different configurations of CFRP and glass FRP (GFRP) bar specimens subjected to tensile load were monitored using AE technique. Several algorithms were used for signal processing to analyze AE signals in the time domain and in the time–frequency domain. The signal processing techniques extracted the amplitude, cumulative events, duration, energy, rise time, number of counts, cumulative counts, and frequency peaks of the acoustic signals. The frequency maxima were determined for different amplitude signals using short-time Fourier transform (STFT). Cumulative counts of AE signals showed significant changes in the slope during the tension test, while the stress–strain relationship of the FRP rods showed virtually no deviation from linearity. CFRP bars recorded higher amplitude signals and lower duration, than GFRP bars. The acoustic emission characteristics presented in this work show strong correlations with ultimate load and may prove useful for damage prediction.


Acoustic emission Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) Tensile load Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) 



This work was financially supported by NSERC, SIMTReC and the University of Manitoba. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of the staff in the W.R. McQuade Structures Laboratory during the course of this project.


  1. 1.
    El Batanouny M, Larosche A, Mazzoleni P, Ziehl P, Matta F, Zappa E (2014) Identification of cracking mechanisms in scaled FRP reinforced concrete beams using acoustic emission. Exp Mech 54(1):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mirmiran A, Philip S (2000) Comparison of acoustic emission activity in steel-reinforced and FRP-reinforced concrete beams. Constr Build Mater 14(6):299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yun H-D, Choi W-C, Seo S-Y (2010) Acoustic emission activities and damage evaluation of reinforced concretebeams strengthened with CFRP sheets. NDT and E Int 43(7):615–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.P. Busel. (2016). Introduction to fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites in infrastructure, American Composites Manufacturers Association(ACMA)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gross CU, Ohtsu M (eds) (2008) Acoustic emission testing: basics for research—applications in civil engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
  6. 6.
    ASTM E1316 (2006) Standard terminology for non-destructive examinations. American Standard for Testing and Materials, pp. 1–33Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vidya Sagar R, Raghu Prasad BK (2013) Laboratory investigations on cracking in reinforced concrete beams using on-line acoustic emission monitoring technique. J Civ Struct Health Monit 3:169–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abouhussien AA, Hassan AAA (2015) Evaluation of damage progression in concrete structures due to reinforcing steel corrosion using acoustic emission monitoring. J Civ Struct Health Monit 5:751–765. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziehl PH (2000) Development of a damage based design criterion for fiber reinforced vessels, Dissertation, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barre S, Benzaggagh ML (1992) On the use of acoustic emission to investigate damage mechanisms in glass fibre-reinforced polypropylene. Compos Sci Technol 52(3):369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rizzo P, di Scalea FL (2001) Acoustic emission monitoring of carbon fiber-reinforced-polymer bridge stay cables in large-scale testing. Exp Mech 41(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ely TM, Hill EVK (1995) Longitudinal splitting and fiber breakage characterization in graphite epoxy using acoustic emission data. Mater Eval 53(2):288–294Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Komai K, Minoshima K, Shibutani T (1991) Investigation of the fracture mechanism of carbon/epoxy composites by AE signal analysis. JSME Int J 34(3):381–388Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suziki M, Nakanishi H, Iwamoto M, Jinen E (1998) Application of static fracture mechanisms to fatigue fracture behaviour of class A-SMC composite. In: Proc. 4th Japan-US Conference on Composite Materials, pp. 297–306Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen HL, Sami Z, GangaRao H. V (1993) Identifying damages in stressed aramid FRP bars using acoustic emission. Dynamic Characterization of Advanced Materials, ASME NCA-Vol. 16/AMD-Vol. 172, ASME, New York, 171–178Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liang Y, Sun C, Ansari F (2004) Acoustic emission characterization of damage in hybrid fiber reinforced polymer rods. J Compos Constr 8(1):70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liang Y, Sun C, Ansari F (2011) Damage assessment and ductility evaluation of post tensioned beams with hybrid FRP tendons. J Compos Constr 15(3):274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stevenson S, Mohammad K, Svecova D, Thomson D (2014) Study of acoustic emission signals for detection of impending failure of FRP bars. In: Composites in Civil Engineering Conference, 2014Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Groot PJ, Wijnen PAM, Janseen RBF (1995) Real-time frequency determination of acoustic emission for different fracture mechanisms in carbon/epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 55(4):405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gutkin R, Green CJ, Vangrattanachai S, Pinho ST, Robinson P, Curtis PT (2011) On acoustic emission for failure investigation in CFRP: pattern recognition and peak frequency analyses. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(4):1393–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hamstad MA, O’Gallagher A, Gary J (2002) A wavelet transform applied to acoustic emission signals: part 1: source identification. J Acoust Emiss 20:39–61Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaphle M, Tan ACC, Thamberatnam DP, Chan THT (2011) Study of acoustic emission data analysis tools for structural health monitoring applications. J Acoust Emiss 29:243–250Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaphle M, Tan ACC, Thamberatnam DP, Chan THT (2012) Effective discrimination of acoustic emission source signals for structural health monitoring. Advances in Structural Engineering 15(5):707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siegmann A, Kander RG (1992) In-situ acoustic emission monitoring during electron microscopy of a model composite system. Polym Compos 13(2):108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramirez-Jimenez CR, Papadakis N, Reynolds N et al (2004) Identification of failure modes in glass/polypropylene composites by means of the primary frequency content of the acoustic emission event. Compos Sci Technol 64:1819–1827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ASTM F1430 (2005) Standard Test Method for Acoustic Emission Testing of Insulated and Non Insulated Aerial Personnel Devices with Supplemental Load Handling Attachments1. An American National Standard, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ASM International Handbook Committee (1989) ASM handbook, volume 17—nondestructive evaluation and quality control. ASM International, Metals Park, Ohio, pp 278–294 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    CSA standard (2012) Design and construction of building structures with fibre-reinforced polymers. CSA S806-12, Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, pp 90–92Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Czichos H (ed) (2013) Handbook of technical diagnostics, fundamentals and application to structures and systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 137–160Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maillet E, Godin N, R’Mili M, Reynaud P, Fantozzi G, Lamon J (2014) Real-time evaluation of energy attenuation: a novel approach to acoustic emission analysis for damage monitoring of ceramic matrix composites. J Eur Ceram Soc 34(7):1673–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chapra SC, Canale RP (2012) Numerical methods for engineers. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shateri M, Ghaib M, Svecova D, Thomson DJ (2017) On acoustic emission for failure prediction in fiber reinforced polymer rods using pattern recognition analysis. Smart Mater Struct 26(6):065023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barre S, Benzaggagh ML (1994) On the use of acoustic emission to investigate damage mechanisms in glass fibre-reinforced polypropylene. Compos Sci Technol 52(3):369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bhat MR, Majeed MA, Murthy CRL (1994) Characterization of fatigue damage in unidirectional GFRP composites through acoustic emission signal analysis. NDT E Int 27(1):27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Drummond G, Watson JF, Acarnleyb PP (2007) Acoustic emission from wire ropes during proof load and fatigue testing. NDT E Int 40(1):94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bai W, Chai M, Li L, Li Y, Duan Q (2015) Acoustic emission from elevator wire ropes during tensile testing, In: advances in acoustic emission technology: Proceedings of the World Conference on Acoustic Emission-2013. Springer Proceedings in Physics 158, Shen G, Wu Z, Zhang J (eds.), 138, New York, pp. 217–224Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ohno K, Ohtsu M (2010) Crack classification in concrete based on acoustic emission. Constr Build Mater 24(12):2339–2346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aggelis DG (2011) Classification of cracking mode in concrete by acoustic emission parameters. Mech Res Commun 38(3):153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    JCMS-IIIB5706 (2003) Japan construction material standards monitoring method for active cracks in concrete by acoustic emission. The Federation of Construction Material Industries, JapanGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Suzuki T, Ohtsu M (2005) Practical application of water-leaked pipeline by AE parameter analysis In: Proc. 3rd US-Japan Sym, Advancing Application and Capabilities in NDEASTM, Hawaii, pp 202–208Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Soulioti D, Barkoula NM, Paipetis A, Matikas TE, Shiotani T, Aggelis DG (2009) Acoustic emission behavior of steel fibre reinforced concrete under bending. Constr Build Mater 23(12):3532–3536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Anastassopoulos AA, Philippidis TP (2010) Clustering methodology for evaluation of acoustic emission from composites. J Acoust Emiss 13(1/2):11–22Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aggelis DG, Barkoula NM, Matikas TE, Paipetis AS (2010) Acoustic emission monitoring of degradation of cross ply laminates. J Acoust Soc Am 127(6):246–251 (EL) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ramirez-Jimenez CR, Papadakis N, Reynolds N, Gan TH, Purnell P, Pharaoh M (2004) Identification of failure modes in glass/polypropylene composites by means of the primary frequency content of the acoustic emission event. Compos Sci Technol 64(12):1819–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Aggelis DG, Soulioti DV, Sapouridis N, Barkoula NM, Paipetis AS, Matikas TE (2011) Acoustic emission characterization of the fracture process in fibre reinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater 25(11):4126–4131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    CARP (1999) Recommended Practice for Acoustic Emission Evaluation of Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Tanks and Pressure Vessels. The Committee on Acoustic Emission for Reinforced Plastics (CARP), A Division of the Technical Council of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, Draft IGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nguyen BN, Tucker BJ, Khaleel MA (2005) A Mechanistic approach to matrix cracking coupled with fiber–matrix debonding in short-fiber composites. J Eng Mater Technol 127(3):337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Committee on Acoustic Emission from Reinforced Plastics _CARP (1987) Recommended practice for acoustic emission testing of fiberglass reinforced plastic resin _RP_ tanks/vessels. Composites Institute, Society of the Plastics Industry, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gudmundson P, Johnson M (2000) Transient recording and analysis of acoustic emission events resulting from damage evolution in composite laminates. In: Proc., 15th World Conf. on Non-Destructive Testing, Rome, International Committee for Nondestructive TestingGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gostautas RS, Ramirez G, Peterman RJ, Meggers D (2005) Acoustic emission monitoring and analysis of glass fiber-reinforced composites bridge decks. J Bridge Eng 10(6):713–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fowler T, Blessing J, Conlisk P (1989) New directions in testing. In: 3rd international symposium on AE from composite materials,” NDT & E International, Paris, France, pp 16–27Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ono K, Huang Q (1994) Pattern recognition analysis of acoustic emission signals. Progress in acoustic emission VII. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Acoustic Emission Symposium, Sapporo (Japan). Edited by T. Kishi, Y. Mori and M. Enoki. The Japanese Society for NDI, pp 69–78Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mathworks, “MATLAB Users Guide,” Natick, MA 2009.
  54. 54.
    Godin N, Huguet S, Gaertner R (2005) Integration of the Kohonen’s self-organising map and k means algorithm for the segmentation of the AE data collected during tensile tests on cross-ply composites. NDT E Int 38(4):299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Arthur D, Vassilvitskii S (2007) K-means ++: the advantages of careful seeding. In: SODA ‘07: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp 1027–1035Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yang BL, Zhuang XM, Zhang TH, Yan X (2009) Damage mode identification for the clustering analysis of AE signals in thermoplastic composites. J Nondestr Eval 28(3):163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations