Scholarlink

<p>Present analyses propose an innovative fracture mechanics incorporated approach for designing laminated FRP composite strengthened and repaired mixed-mode resin-infilled, flawed sandstone specimens for resisting bonded joint region (rock-adhesive-interface) fractures. Thus, three-dimensional FEA-based models with supported experiments have been developed to carry out fracture onset through stress with failure analyses and growth by extracting VCCT-based crack-driving SERR-modes. Fracture growth is assessed by analysing damage front corresponding to individual bonded joint fractures and suggesting a highly fracture-resistant composite ply-layup. Experimentation yielding post-damaged interface surface confirms joint fracture onset and compares structural responses with justification for FRP strengthening against resin coating technique. Out-of-plane (normal/shear) stresses are critical for failure concentration at the rock-adhesive interface region. Peak stress location at flaw tip remains constant for the FRP-strengthened case, indicating invariant fracture (TW-CF) growth direction (approximately linear along loading direction). Parabolic-yield and Reduced Tsai-Wu-based failure criteria confirm debonding failure at the rock-resin interface rather than the composite-resin interface. Damage fronts are observed to be symmetrical, except for joint fracture (FP-AF), which is asymmetrical and has a non-uniform fracture growth tendency. Total SERR/damage front profile comparison with individual fracture modes found Mode-I dominates for flaw tip fractures (except FP-AF, where Mode-III predominates) and Mode-II for side edge debonding. UD-[90]<sub>16</sub> is suitable for obstructing flaw region fractures, whereas UD-[0]<sub>16</sub> is for side edge debonding. Computational results are validated and correlated with experimental observations, leading to design conclusions: UD-[0]<sub>16</sub> is best for strengthening (yields higher strength with reduced debonding) and alters fracture mode from adhesion (rock-resin-interface) to cohesive fracture on the rock material.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Structural Designing of FRP-Strengthened Resin-Infilled Flawed Sandstone Rock Against Adhesively Bonded Joint Region Interface Failure

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月11日

查看全文
  • Somanath Mohanty,
  • Rashmi Ranjan Das

摘要

Present analyses propose an innovative fracture mechanics incorporated approach for designing laminated FRP composite strengthened and repaired mixed-mode resin-infilled, flawed sandstone specimens for resisting bonded joint region (rock-adhesive-interface) fractures. Thus, three-dimensional FEA-based models with supported experiments have been developed to carry out fracture onset through stress with failure analyses and growth by extracting VCCT-based crack-driving SERR-modes. Fracture growth is assessed by analysing damage front corresponding to individual bonded joint fractures and suggesting a highly fracture-resistant composite ply-layup. Experimentation yielding post-damaged interface surface confirms joint fracture onset and compares structural responses with justification for FRP strengthening against resin coating technique. Out-of-plane (normal/shear) stresses are critical for failure concentration at the rock-adhesive interface region. Peak stress location at flaw tip remains constant for the FRP-strengthened case, indicating invariant fracture (TW-CF) growth direction (approximately linear along loading direction). Parabolic-yield and Reduced Tsai-Wu-based failure criteria confirm debonding failure at the rock-resin interface rather than the composite-resin interface. Damage fronts are observed to be symmetrical, except for joint fracture (FP-AF), which is asymmetrical and has a non-uniform fracture growth tendency. Total SERR/damage front profile comparison with individual fracture modes found Mode-I dominates for flaw tip fractures (except FP-AF, where Mode-III predominates) and Mode-II for side edge debonding. UD-[90]16 is suitable for obstructing flaw region fractures, whereas UD-[0]16 is for side edge debonding. Computational results are validated and correlated with experimental observations, leading to design conclusions: UD-[0]16 is best for strengthening (yields higher strength with reduced debonding) and alters fracture mode from adhesion (rock-resin-interface) to cohesive fracture on the rock material.