4.4 Article

A model of strength degradation for glass fiber reinforced polymer composite laminates under fatigue loading

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/09544062221079172

关键词

glass fiber reinforced polymer; fatigue damage; residual strength; residual stiffness

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51665029]
  2. Industrial Support Plan for Colleges and Universities in Gansu Province of China [2020C-12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a strength degradation model based on residual stiffness degradation data to overcome the shortcomings of traditional strength modeling for GFRP composite laminates. The gradual reduction of stiffness and strength is used to describe the growth of fatigue damage, and the equivalence of damage expressed by the two degradation methods is established. The proposed model is validated using experimental data and performs better in terms of applicability and fitting accuracy compared to other models.
In order to overcome the shortcoming of traditional strength modeling of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite laminates that require a large amount of strength test data, a strength degradation model on the account of residual stiffness degradation data is proposed. First, fatigue damage growth can be described by the gradual reduction of the stiffness and strength, and damage expressed by the two degradation methods are equivalent. Second, according this assumption, the connection between the two damage indices is established, and then a four parameters strength degradation model is obtained. Finally, the proposed model is validated by the applying experimental data of GFRP laminates, and the precision of proposed model is contrasted with other four models. Verification results indicate that if the residual stiffness degradation data is known, the residual strength degradation law can be predicted by a small number of residual strength tests and the presented model has better applicability and higher fitting accuracy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据