Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites have garnered significant interest in impact protection engineering owing to their exceptional mechanical properties and energy dissipation capabilities. Conventional reinforced concrete anti-collision islands, characterized by inherent rigidity and inadequate energy absorption, frequently induce catastrophic structural failures and occupant injuries during vehicular collisions. This investigation proposes an innovative GFRP lattice-rubber sandwich structure to enhance impact mitigation performance. Experimental evaluations through hammer impact testing revealed substantial force attenuation, with peak impact forces measuring 307.34 kN (3 m) and 364.64 kN (6 m), demonstrating 72.8% and 68.3% reductions compared to conventional concrete counterparts (970.37 kN and 1344.44 kN, respectively). Full-scale real-vehicle crash test further validated the system’s efficacy, exhibiting limited superficial damage in the composite layer alongside markedly reduced vehicular structural deformation. Data indicated compliance with occupant safety thresholds, as evidenced by controlled dummy acceleration profiles and force distribution metrics. The observed temporal decoupling between vehicular and anti-collision island acceleration maxima (Δt = 0.24s) substantiates the energy dissipation mechanism through controlled elastomeric deformation, effectively prolonging impact duration while mitigating peak load intensity. The findings provide experimental support for the application of GFRP-lattice structures in highway anti-collision Islands, demonstrating their promising prospects for engineering applications.
SilvaPFDongPHamdarSH, et al. Possible methodology for probabilistic assessment of bridge safety against collisions. Tech Rep United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 2024. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/74439.
2.
WangWChenJZhouR, et al.A simplified coupled model for pre-dicting dynamic processes of vehicle impact on pier columns. Structures2022; 41: 997–1013.
3.
DoTVPhamTMHaoH. Impact force profile and failure classification of reinforced concrete bridge columns against vehicle impact. Eng Struct2019; 183: 443–458.
4.
FuJWangWWangX, et al.Fragility assessment of RC bridge piers subjected to vehicle collision based on residual load-bearing capacity. Structures2024; 68: 107103.
5.
XiaHFangXWangS, et al.Vehicle impact prevention behavior of RC bridge piers with UHPC-Bio-inspired honeycomb column thin-walled structure (UHPC-BHTS). Structures2024; 70: 107566.
6.
NewW. Road safety annual report 2021. International Transport Forum. 2021; 45–72.
7.
LiuZHLuZMZhangR, et al.State of-the art review of bridge impact research in 2020. J Civ Environ Eng2021; 43(S1): 242–251.
8.
GuMYMaYDChenYH, et al.Construction technology of flexible anti-collision structure of safety island based on high performance composite materials. Municipal Engineering Technology2021; 39(11): 123–129.
9.
FanXJiaRZuoY, et al.Impact resistance performance and comparative analysis of CFRP and steel strand anchors. Results Eng2025; 25: 103511.
10.
SunJHSuNJHeZQ, et al.Durability of concrete-encapsulated GFRP bars subjected to seawater immersion. Case Stud Constr Mater2024; 20: 20e03249.
11.
LiuYZhangHTTafsirojjamanT, et al. Compressive behaviour and prediction model for short and slender FRP-confined GFRP bars. Constr Build Mater. 2023; 376: 131059.
12.
YongyuDXiaogangLYueL, et al. Environmental impact on the durability of FRP reinforcing bars. J Build Eng. 2021; 43: e04764.
13.
LiuYTafsirojjamanTDogarRUA, et al. Shrinkage behavior enhancement of infra-lightweight concrete through FRP grid reinforcement and development of their shrinkage prediction models. Constr Build Mater. 2020; 258: 119649.
WuZWuCLiuY, et al. Experimental study on the low-velocity impact response of braided composite panel: effect of stacking sequence. Compos Struct. 2020; 252: 112691.
16.
YingZChenHZhuZ, et al.Experimental investigation on the damage accumulation mechanism of 3D orthogonal woven composites under repeated low-velocity impacts. Int J Impact Eng2024; 192: 105035.
17.
ShiLZhangZWuZ, et al.Effects of the internal pressure and stacking sequence on the transverse impact behavior of hybrid uniaxial-biaxial braided composite tubes. Eng Fract Mech2025; 313: 110667.
18.
ZhengXXiaoZRenZ, et al.Low-velocity impact response of sandwich structures with cores made from entangled metallic wire material - silicone rubber composites. Constr Build Mater2024; 431: 431136633.
19.
ChanglongWRuixiangBHeshanB, et al. Analysis of bending stiffness of honeycomb sandwich structure filled with foam. J Phys Conf. 2021; 1948(1): 012233.
20.
ZhangYYinFMaJ. Experimental and numerical analysis of the impact resistance of polyurethane foam aluminum-concrete sandwich structures. Buildings2024; 14(11): 3573.
21.
JianweiRYilaiZLushengQ, et al.Enhancing impact resistance of metallic foam core sandwich constructions through encasing high-strength fibrous composites. Thin-Walled Struct2024; 196: 111546.
22.
WenkeLJunyanZ. Mechanical response of aluminum foam sandwich structure under impact load. Mater Res Express. 2022; 9(1): 016515.
23.
ZhuangGZSunZJ. Experimental study on the basic mechanical characteristics of foam filled 3-D spacer fabric composites. Acta Mater Compos Sin2009; 26(05): 27–32.
24.
CompstonPCWJCantwellWJCardew-HallMJ, et al.Comparison of surface strain for stamp formed aluminum and an aluminum-polypropylene laminate. J Mater Sci2004; 39(19): 6087–6088.
25.
Amith KumarSJAjith KumarSJ. Low-velocity impact damage and energy absorption characteristics of stiffened syntactic foam core sandwich composites. Constr Build Mater. 2020; 246: 118412.
26.
MohmmedRZhangFSunB, et al.Finite element analyses of low-velocity impact damage of foam sandwiched composites with different ply angles face sheets. Mater Des2013; 47(1): 189–199.
27.
KeshavarziAGoogarchinSH. Local reinforcement of adhesively bonded square shape aluminum energy absorber with CFRP under quasi-static axial loading: an experimental and numerical study. Int J Adhesion Adhes2024; 135: 103835.
28.
LatifzadehFKeshavarziASaeidi GoogarchinH. Crashworthiness of adhesively bonded bio-inspired AL/CFRP hybrid tubes under lateral loading. Mech Adv Mater Struct. 2025; 266: 108959.
29.
YangBWangZZhouL, et al.Study on the low-velocity impact response and CAI behavior of foam-filled sandwich panels with hybrid facesheet. Compos Struct2015; 132(1): 1129–1140.
30.
WuXDXinFWuXQ. Work on low-velocity impact properties of foam sandwich composites with various face sheets. Fiber Composites2010; 27(04): 8–11.
31.
DoganAArikanV. Low-velocity impact response of E-glass reinforced thermoset and thermoplastic based sandwich composites. Compos B Eng2017; 127(3): 63–69.
32.
BettsDSadeghianPFamA. Impact behaviour of sandwich panels made of flax fiber-reinforced bio-based polymer face sheets and foam cores. In: Structures congress 2018: buildings and disaster management. Fort Worth, TX, USA, 19–21 April 2018. ASCE Press, pp. 89–92.
33.
JonesELiuW. Effect of core materials on compression after impact strength of composite sandwich panels subject to low velocity impact damage. In: 21st international composites conference, Xi’an, China, 20–25 August 2017, pp. 329–331.
34.
MocianOAConstantinescuDMSanduM, et al.Influence of core thickness on the impact behavior of sandwich panels with polystyrene foam core experimental and numerical investigation. UPB Scientific Bulletin, Series D: Mech Eng2019; 81(1): 179–190.
35.
FengDAymerichF. Effect of core density on the low-velocity impact response of foam-based sandwich composites. Compos Struct. 2020; 239: 112040.
36.
KabogluCYuLMohagheghianI, et al.Effects of the core density on the quasi-static flexural and ballistic performance of fibre-composite skin/foam-core sandwich structures. J Mater Sci2018; 53(24): 16393–16414.
37.
HeYBYaoXHChengSC, et al.Experimental investigation into dynamic response of composite foam sandwich plates under low-energy impact. J S China Univ Technol2016; 44(10): 57–64.
38.
PaulDRamachandranVGuptaNK. Experimental and analytical studies of syntactic foam core composites for impact loading. Int J Crashworthiness2020; 27: 299–316.
39.
JiGOuyangZLiG. Debonding and impact tolerant sandwich panel with hybrid foam core. Compos Struct2013; 103(1): 143–150.
40.
XiaLXuFLiQ, et al.Low-velocity impact damage analysis on composites foam core sandwich structure. Advances in Aeronautical Science and Engineering2011; 2(04): 425–431.
41.
LianWWangMYLvJ. Simulation on the composite foam sandwich structure under low energy impact. Fiber Composites2018; 35(02): 20–26.
42.
YueLPingLXiZ, et al. “Bridge pier anti-collision component based on FRP lattice-rubber.” CN202010446173.1,2020-08-21. https://patents.google.com
43.
YueLPingLXiZ, et al. “A flexible anti -collision device for toll station safety island based on FRP lattice - rubber.” CN202010446162.3, 2020-08-25. https://patents.google.com
44.
LiuWQFangTZhuL, et al.Ship-bridge collision force mechanism and composite anti-collision system. J Southeast Univ2013; 43(05): 1080–1086.
45.
General design specifications for highway bridges and culverts. JTG D60—2015. Beijing: China Communication Press, 2015.
46.
Ministry of Transport of the People′s Republic of China. Design Specifications for Highway Safety Facilities.JTG D81―2017.Beijing: China Communications Press, 2017.
47.
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2017.
48.
ElaheEHaoZVinhD, et al. Improving the load-carrying capacity of FRP-to-concrete bonded joints using a biaxial GFRP interlayer. J Compos Construct. 2024; 28(4): 04024027.
49.
PietroMFirmoJPCorreiaJR, et al.Influence of elevated temperatures on the mechanical properties of glass fiber reinforced polymer laminates produced by vacuum infusion. Constr Build Mater2022; 345: 128340.
50.
MathewJGMehrdadKMohamedE, et al. Underwater strengthening and repairing of tubular offshore structural members using carbon fiber reinforced polymers with different consolidation methods. Thin-Walled Struct. 2022; 174: 109090.
51.
ChenCYangYZhouY, et al. Comparative analysis of natural fiber reinforced polymer and carbon fiber reinforced polymer in strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. J Clean Prod. 2020; 263: 121572.
52.
General Administration of Quality Supervision. Inspection and quarantine of the people's Republic of China, national standardization administration of China. Occupant protection in frontal collision of automobiles: GB11551—2014. Beijing: China Standards Press, 2014.
53.
National Highway Trale Safely Administration. Federal motor vehicle safety standards: occupant crash protection, FMVSS 208. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2012.
54.
EURO-NCAP. European NCAP VRU test protocol version 9.0.3. Belgium: European New Car Assessment Programme, 2023.
