4.7 Article

Experimental investigation of fatigue behavior for adhesively-bonded GFRP/steel joints

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 213, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110580

Keywords

Adhesively bonded GFRP/steel joint; Fatigue behavior; Stiffness degradation model; Crack initiation law; Crack growth rate

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0703008]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51908206]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [531118010359]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fatigue behavior of an adhesively bonded glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP)/steel double-lap joint (DLJ) under cyclic tensile loading with load ratio R = 0.1 was experimentally studied. Results in terms of failure mode, F-N curve, stiffness degradation law, crack initiation and propagation laws were obtained. Linear and nonlinear models of stiffness degradation and a mathematical model of the crack growth rate were developed for the adhesive GFRP/steel DLJ under fatigue loading. The fatigue performance of adhesive GFRP/steel DLJ was compared with that of adhesive GFRP/GFRP DLJ to identify the differences between these behaviors. The results demonstrated that the stiffness degradation law of the adhesive GFRP/steel DLJ can be objectively and accurately characterized by the nonlinear stiffness degradation model in terms of the equivalent shear stiffness. The crack initiation life and the ratio between the crack initiation life and fatigue life increased with the deceasing maximum applied load. The fatigue life of the GFRP/steel DLJ was more sensitive to the variation in the maximum applied load compared with that of the GFRP/GFRP DLJ. Moreover, the decaying rate of stiffness and the interfacial crack propagation rate for the GFRP/steel DLJ under fatigue loading were larger than those for the GFRP/GFRP DLJ.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available