| Literature DB >> 28829400 |
Guofeng Du1, Juan Zhang2, Jicheng Zhang3, Gangbing Song4.
Abstract
The filling of thin-walled steel tubes with quartz sand can help to prevent the premature buckling of the steel tube at a low cost. During an impact, the internal stress of the quartz sand-filled steel tube column is subjected to not only axial force but also lateral confining force, resulting in complicated internal stress. A suitable sensor for monitoring the internal stress of such a structure under an impact is important for structural health monitoring. In this paper, piezoceramic Smart Aggregates (SAs) are embedded into a quartz Sand-Filled Steel Tube Column (SFSTC) to monitor the internal structural stress during impacts. The piezoceramic smart aggregates are first calibrated by an impact hammer. Tests are conducted to study the feasibility of monitoring the internal stress of a structure. The results reflect that the calibration value of the piezoceramic smart aggregate sensitivity test is in good agreement with the theoretical value, and the output voltage value of the piezoceramic smart aggregate has a good linear relationship with external forces. Impact tests are conducted on the sand-filled steel tube with embedded piezoceramic smart aggregates. By analyzing the output signal of the piezoceramic smart aggregates, the internal stress state of the structure can be obtained. Experimental results demonstrated that, under the action of impact loads, the piezoceramic smart aggregates monitor the compressive stress at different locations in the steel tube, which verifies the feasibility of using piezoceramic smart aggregate to monitor the internal stress of a structure.Entities:
Keywords: Sand Filled Steel Tube Column (SFSTC); Smart Aggregate (SA); calibration; impact loads; piezoceramics; stress monitoring during impacts
Year: 2017 PMID: 28829400 PMCID: PMC5580211 DOI: 10.3390/s17081930
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Related performance parameters of PZT-5H.
| Performance Category | Performance Value |
|---|---|
| Piezoelectric constant d33(10−12 C·N−1) | 350 |
| Electromechanical coupling factor (k33) | 0.60 |
| Density (kg/m3) | 7600 |
| Poisson ratio | 0.35 |
| Mechanical quality factor (Qm) | 80 |
| Relative permittivity ( | 1600 |
| Dielectric loss (tan δ) | 0.025 |
| Curie temperature (°C) | 360 |
Figure 1The piezoceramic patches.
Figure 2SA-1.
Figure 3SA-2.
Figure 4SA-3.
Calibration result of smart aggregate under impact load.
| Smart Aggregate | SA-1 | SA-2 | SA-3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test sensitivity (v | 0.323 | 0.343 | 0.360 |
| Theoretical sensitivity (v | 0.350 | 0.350 | 0.350 |
| Squared correlation coefficient | 92.9% | 98.6% | 97.7% |
Figure 5Smart aggregate calibration device under impact load of force hammer.
Figure 6The waveform of the output voltage.
Figure 7The calibration results of piezoceramic smart aggregates.
Figure 8Test equipment: (a) Steel tube (wall thickness 300 mm); (b) Bottom plate (diameter 170 mm); (c) Cover plate (diameter 130 mm).
The material properties of steel.
| Steel Grade | Yield Strength | Tensile Strength | Density (kg/m3) | Poisson Ratio | Modulus of Elasticity ES/Mpa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q235 | 289 | 396 | 7850 | 0.30 | 2.01 × 105 |
Figure 9The smart aggregates prior to embedment.
Figure 10The placement of smart aggregates.
Figure 11The steel tube.
Figure 12The impact test site.
Figure 13Time history curve of impact force under the second condition.
The test results of hammer’s impact force.
| Drop Height (m) | Sensitivity (mv MPa−1) | Impact Speed (m/s) | Impact Energy (kJ) | The Output Voltage (v) | Maximum Impact Force (kN) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.25 | 0.0199 | 2.21 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 267.35 |
| 0.50 | 3.13 | 1.66 | 1.07 | 370.08 | |
| 0.75 | 3.83 | 2.49 | 1.16 | 400.93 |
Figure 14Smart aggregate responses.
Test results of smart aggregate output.
| Piezoceramic Smart Aggregate | Sensitivity (v MPa−1) | Drop Height (m) | Output Voltage (v) | Output Stress (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA-1 | 0.323 | 0.25 | 0.39 | 17.13 |
| 0.50 | 0.53 | 23.34 | ||
| 0.75 | 0.57 | 25.20 | ||
| SA-3 | 0.360 | 0.25 | 0.46 | 1.28 |
| 0.50 | 0.98 | 2.72 | ||
| 0.75 | 1.15 | 3.19 | ||
| SA-2 | 0.343 | 0.25 | 0.46 | 1.27 |
| 0.50 | 0.85 | 2.37 | ||
| 0.75 | 1.14 | 3.17 |
Figure 15The relation between the Sas output stress and drop height.