4.4 Article

Fatigue behavior of GFRP-concrete composite decks: An experimental and numerical study

期刊

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND MECHANICS
卷 80, 期 3, 页码 301-312

出版社

TECHNO-PRESS
DOI: 10.12989/sem.2021.80.3.301

关键词

fatigue simulation; finite element analysis; GFRP-concrete composite deck; model test; theoretical method

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51608116]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu [BK20201274]
  3. Zhishan Young Scholar Program of SEU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the static and fatigue behaviors of GFRP-concrete composite bridge deck were investigated using experimental and numerical methods. The results showed good fatigue resistance of the composite structure and validated the accuracy of the finite element model. The proposed method can effectively predict the deflection and strain of components, making it a reliable tool for structural analysis.
In order to ensure the safety of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)-concrete composite bridge deck, its static and fatigue behaviors were studied by both experimental and numerical method in this paper. First, static and fatigue loading tests were carried out to investigate the mechanical properties of the GFRP-concrete composite slab. The experimental results indicated that the composite bridge deck had a good fatigue resistance. Then, a finite element model was built and the accuracy of the model was verified by comparing the simulated results with the static experiment. Third, corresponding constitutive models and failure criterions were introduced to simulate the fatigue performance of GFRP-concrete composite slab by using both finite element method and theoretical layered method. Generally, the calculated values were in good agreement with the test values, and the proposed method can be used to predict the deflection and strain of the components. Finally, parametric analysis was conducted to investigate the stiffness degradation of the composite structure.

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