| Literature DB >> 36236282 |
Hui Qian1, Yuqing Zhang1, Yuechang Li1, Jundong Gao1, Jianxue Song1.
Abstract
In order to explore the crack development mechanism and damage self-repairing capacity of ECC beams reinforced with hybrid bars, the smart aggregate-based active sensing approach were herein adopted to conduct damage monitoring of ECC beams under cyclic loading. A total of six beams, including five engineered cementitious composite (ECC) beams reinforced with different bars and one reinforcement concrete counterpart, were fabricated and tested under cyclic loading. The ultimate failure modes and hysteresis curves were obtained and discussed herein, demonstrating the multiple crack behavior and excellent ductility of ECC material. The damage of the tested beams was monitored by smart aggregate-based (SA) active sensing method, in which two SAs pasted on both beam ends were used as actuator and sensor, respectively. The time domain analysis, wavelet packet-based energy analysis and wavelet packet-based damage index analysis were performed to quantitatively evaluate the crack development. To evaluate the self-repairing capacity of the beams, a self-repairing index defined by the difference of damage index at loading and unloading peak points was proposed. The results in time domain and wavelet packed analysis were in close agreement with the observed crack development, revealing the feasibility of smart aggregate-based active sensing approach in damage detection for ECC beams. Especially, the proposed damage self-repairing index can describe the same structural re-centering phenomena with the test results, showing the proposed index can be used to evaluate the damage self-repairing capacity.Entities:
Keywords: ECC beam; PZT; damage monitoring; smart aggregate
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236282 PMCID: PMC9572708 DOI: 10.3390/s22197184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Piezoceramic-based smart aggregate.
Figure 2Wavelet packet decomposition signal.
Specimens’ geometric figures.
| Specimen | Cross-Section (mm × mm) | Length (mm) | Reinforcement Srrangement (mm) | Stirrups (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RC | 100 × 100 | 1100 | 2 | |
| R-ECC | 100 × 100 | 1100 | 2 | |
| SS-ECC | 100 × 100 | 1100 | 3 | |
| GFRP-ECC | 100 × 100 | 1100 | 2 | |
| SMA-ECC | 100 × 100 | 1100 | 2 | |
| GFRP/SMA-ECC | 100 × 100 | 1100 | 2 |
Figure 3Photo of six beam specimens.
Figure 4Schematic drawing of crack changes.
Material properties of ECC.
| Compressive Strength (MPa) | Tensile Cracking Strength (MPa) | Tensile Cracking Strain (%) | Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) | Ultimate Tensile Strain (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26.86 | 2.17 | 0.067 | 4.30 | 2.89 |
Figure 5Stress–strain relationship of four different materials under uniaxial tensile loading.
Figure 6Test setup.
Figure 7Loading protocol.
Figure 8Schematic of test system for damage monitoring.
Figure 9Failure modes and the crack widths of tested beams.
Figure 10Hysteresis curves of tested beams.
Figure 11Residual deformation with increasing loading step.
Figure 12Time-domain analysis.
Figure 13Energy indices for the six beams.
Figure 14Damage index.
Figure 15Self-repairing index.