4.7 Article

On the strength prediction of adhesively bonded FRP-steel joints using cohesive zone modelling

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED FRACTURE MECHANICS
Volume 93, Issue -, Pages 64-78

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2017.06.022

Keywords

Cohesive zone modelling; Interface fracture; Crack growth; Composites; Fibre reinforced materials; Civil engineering structures

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Institute (FORMAS) [2011-415]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The variety of failure modes that are likely to occur in fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)/steel joints used in the construction industry adds to the complexity associated with the design of these joints. This variation in possible failure modes is mainly attributed to the lack of a controlled application environment and to rather insufficient quality assurance protocols and procedures. The use of energy-based methods such as, cohesive zone modelling (CZM), can be a solution to circumvent such complexities. This paper investigates a number of issues related to CZM analyses of FRP/steel adhesive joints using various test configurations and a comprehensive numerical study. Parameters such as the effect of shape and type of cohesive law, crack path location, length of damage process zone, variations of adhesive and FRP properties, and different failure modes including cohesive, interfacial debonding and FRP failure on the strength of joints are investigated. The results show that the behaviour of the tested joints is accurately predicted provided that the variation of failure modes are taken into account. Moreover, it is shown that the damage process zone in adhesive layer is directly proportional to the shape of cohesive laws. This feature can be employed in the design phase to ensure sufficient overlap length and to account for important inservice parameters such as temperature and moisture. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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