| Literature DB >> 30036978 |
Hai-Tao Wang1, Gang Wu2, Yu-Yang Pang3.
Abstract
This paper presents a theoretical and numerical study on the stress intensity factors for double-edged cracked steel plates strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) plates. Based on the stress intensity factor solution for infinite center-cracked steel plates strengthened with FRP plates, expressions of the stress intensity factors were proposed for double-edged cracked steel plates strengthened with FRP plates by introducing two correction factors: β and f. A finite element (FE) simulation was carried out to calculate the stress intensity factors of the steel plate specimens. Numerous combinations of the specimen width, crack length, FRP thickness and Young's modulus, adhesive thickness, and shear modulus were considered to conduct the parametric investigation. The FE results were used to investigate the main influencing factors of the stress intensity factors and the correction factor, β. The expression of the correction factor, β, was formulated and calibrated based on the FE results. The proposed expressions of the stress intensity factors were a function of the applied stress, the crack length, the ratio between the crack length and the width of the steel plate, the stiffness ratio between the FRP plate and steel plate, the adhesive thickness, and the shear modulus. Finally, the theoretical results and numerical results were compared to validate the proposed expressions.Entities:
Keywords: double-edged cracks; fiber reinforced polymer (FRP); finite element simulation; steel plate; strengthening; stress intensity factor
Year: 2018 PMID: 30036978 PMCID: PMC6068973 DOI: 10.3390/s18072356
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Geometric schematic of the specimen.
Figure 2Stress components of the infinite uncracked steel plate strengthened with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) plates.
Figure 3Stress analysis of the infinite center-cracked steel plate strengthened with FRP plates.
The analyzed variables of the specimens.
| Specimen | Steel Plate | FRP Plate | Adhesive | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length, 2 | Width, 2 | Thickness, 2 | Crack Length, | Thickness, | Young’s Modulus, | Thickness, | Shear Modulus, | |
| P-90 | 700 | 90 | 10 | 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 | 0.3, 0.9, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8 | 80, 165, 300, 460 | 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | 400, 900, 2000, 4000 |
| P-120 | 700 | 120 | 10 | 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 | 0.3, 0.9, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8 | 80, 165, 300, 460 | 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | 400, 900, 2000, 4000 |
| P-150 | 700 | 150 | 10 | 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70 | 0.3, 0.9, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8 | 80, 165, 300, 460 | 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | 400, 900, 2000, 4000 |
| P-200 | 700 | 200 | 10 | 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90 | 0.3, 0.9, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8 | 80, 165, 300, 460 | 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 | 400, 900, 2000, 4000 |
| P-200 * | 1000 | 200 | 16 | 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, | 1.4, 2.0, 2.8 | 165, 460 | 1.0 | 900 |
| P-300 * | 1000 | 300 | 10 | 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140 | 0.3, 0.9, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8 | 165, 460 | 1.0 | 900 |
* For verification.
Figure 4Typical finite element model.
Figure 5Effect of the FRP thickness on the stress intensity factor.
Figure 6Effect of the FRP Young’s modulus on the stress intensity factor.
Figure 7Effect of the adhesive thickness on the stress intensity factor.
Figure 8Effect of the adhesive shear modulus on the stress intensity factor.
Figure 9Variation inf correction factor β with a/b: (a) S = 0.05; (b) S = 0.22; (c) S = 0.45; (d) S = 0.63.
Figure 10Variation in correction factor β with the stiffness ratio, S: (a) Specimen P-90; (b) Specimen P-200.
Figure 11Variations in correction factor β with the adhesive thickness: (a) Specimen P-90; (b) Specimen P-200.
Figure 12Variation in correction factor β with the adhesive shear modulus: (a) Specimen P-90; (b) Specimen P-200.
Figure 13Comparison of the theoretical and numerical results.
Figure 14Comparison of the theoretical and numerical results for specimen P-150: (a) effect of the FRP thickness; (b) effect of the FRP modulus; (c) effect of the adhesive thickness; and (d) effect of the adhesive shear modulus.
Figure 15Comparison of the theoretical and numerical results: (a) Specimen P-200* and (b) Specimen P-300*.