海洋大气环境对CFRP-钢界面粘结性能的影响

余倩倩; 赵翊舟; 高瑞鑫

doi:10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20220915.003

海洋大气环境对CFRP-钢界面粘结性能的影响

doi: 10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20220915.003

余倩倩^{1, 2, ,},
赵翊舟^{1, 2},
高瑞鑫^{1, 2}

1.
同济大学　工程结构性能演化与控制教育部重点实验室，上海 200092
2.
同济大学　建筑工程系，上海 200092

基金项目: 国家优秀青年科学基金(52222803)

详细信息

通讯作者:
余倩倩，博士，副教授，博士生导师，研究方向为结构性能提升、新型材料和结构体系　E-mail: qianqian.yu@tongji.edu.cn

中图分类号: TU391
计量
- 文章访问数: 645
- HTML全文浏览量: 299
- PDF下载量: 46
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-07-05
- 修回日期: 2022-08-22
- 录用日期: 2022-08-30
- 网络出版日期: 2022-09-15
- 刊出日期: 2022-11-01

Effect of marine atmosphere on the bond behaviour of CFRP-steel interface

YU Qianqian^{1, 2
, ,},
ZHAO Yizhou^{1, 2},
GAO Ruixin^{1, 2}

1.
Key Laboratory of Performance Evolution and Control for Engineering Structures, Ministry of Education, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
2.
Department of Structural Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China

Funds: National Natural Science Foundation of China (52222803)

摘要

摘要: 为研究长期海洋大气环境作用对碳纤维增强树脂复合材料(CFRP)-钢界面粘结性能的影响，设计并制作了36个CFRP-钢板双搭接试件，采用盐雾沉降量1~2 mL/80 (cm²·h)的盐雾箱来模拟海洋大气环境。对试件进行了疲劳加载后的静力拉伸试验，分析了环境作用时间(30、180、360天)、长期持续荷载和硅烷表面处理方式对CFRP-钢界面破坏模式和承载力的影响。研究结果表明：随着海洋大气环境作用时间增加，CFRP-钢双面搭接节点由胶层内破坏伴随CFRP层离破坏逐渐向钢-胶界面粘结失效转变。暴露360天后极限承载力最大下降了15.72%。硅烷表面处理对CFRP-钢界面耐久性提升作用较小。持续荷载导致短期环境作用下(30天)极限承载力下降了18.39%，但对长期环境作用影响很小，高应力预加疲劳导致CFRP-钢界面极限承载力最大下降了26.6%。采用Hart-Smith模型对CFRP-钢界面极限承载力进行计算，发现长期环境作用后的承载力预测值和试验值误差超过了30%。在考虑破坏模式变化对界面极限承载力的影响下进行了修正，将误差减小到最大为14.04%。
- 海洋大气 /
- CFRP /
- 钢板 /
- 界面粘结性能 /
- 双搭接试件
Abstract: To investigate the effect of long-term marine atmosphere on the bond behaviour of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP)-steel interface, 36 CFRP-steel plate double-lap joint specimens were designed and fabri-cated. A salt spray box with a salt spray deposition volume of 1-2 mL/80 (cm²·h) was used to simulate the marine atmospheric environment. Fatigue and static tensile tests were carried out successively. The effects of environmental exposure time (30, 180, 360 days), long-term sustained load and silane surface treatment on the failure mode and ultimate bearing capacity of the CFRP-steel interface were analyzed. The results show that the failure mode of CFRP-steel interface gradually changes from cohesive failure and CFRP delamination to steel-adhesive interfacial debonding with the increase of exposure time to marine atmosphere. The long-term marine atmosphere effects cause significant degradation of the CFRP-steel interface bond performance, and the ultimate bearing capacity decreases by a maximum of 15.72% after 360 days of exposure. Silane surface treatment has little effect on improving the durability of CFRP-steel interface. The sustained load causes the ultimate bearing capacity to decrease by 18.39% under the short-term environmental action (30 days) while having little effect on the long-term environmental action. The high stress preload fatigue resulted in a maximum decrease of 26.6% in the ultimate bearing capacity. The Hart-Smith model was used to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of the CFRP-steel interface, and it is found that the error between the predicted and experimental values of ultimate bearing capacity after long-term environmental action exceeds 30%. After considering the influence of failure mode change on the ultimate bearing capacity, the error is reduced to a maximum of 14.04%.
- marine atmosphere /
- CFRP /
- steel plate /
- interfacial bond behaviour /
- double-lap joint specimens

HTML全文

图 1 碳纤维增强树脂复合材料(CFRP)-钢双搭接试件示意图

Figure 1. Configuration and dimension of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP)-steel double-lap shear joint specimens

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 钢板表面处理方式

Figure 2. Steel plate surface treatment

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 养护后CFRP-钢双搭接试件对比

Figure 3. Comparison of CFRP-steel double-lap shear joint specimens after curing

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 持续荷载

Figure 4. Sustained loading device

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 疲劳试验加载装置

Figure 5. Fatigue test loading device

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 暴露30天后碳纤维板-钢试件破坏模式

Figure 6. Failure mode of CFRP laminate-steel specimens after exposure for 30 days

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 暴露30天后碳纤维布-钢试件破坏模式

Figure 7. Failure mode of CFRP sheet-steel specimens after exposure for 30 days

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 海洋大气环境下低应力疲劳碳纤维布-钢试件破坏模式

Figure 8. Failure modes of low-stress fatigue CFRP sheet-steel specimens in marine atmospheric environment

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 海洋大气环境下高应力疲劳碳纤维布-钢试件破坏模式

Figure 9. Failure modes of high-stress fatigue CFRP sheet-steel specimens in marine atmospheric environment

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 CFRP-钢试件极限承载力对比

Figure 10. Comparison of ultimate bearing capacity of CFRP-steel specimen

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 CFRP-钢极限承载力预测值和试验值对比

Figure 11. Comparison of predicted and experimental values of ultimate bearing capacity of CFRP-steel

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 材料性能

Table 1. Mechanical properties

Material	Thickness/mm	Elastic modulus/GPa	Yield strength/MPa	Tensile strength/MPa	Elongation at break/%
Steel plate	5	187	335	495	17
CFRP laminate	1.4	210	−	3300	1.4
CFRP sheet	0.167	280	−	3603	1.8
Adhesive	0.5	2.48	−	35.52	2.6
Note: CFRP—Carbon fibre reinforced polymer.

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 试件参数和试验结果

Table 2. Summary of test program and results

Specimen	CFRP type	Exposure time	Sustained load/kN	Surface treatment	Fatigue load range/kN	Ultimate load carrying capacity/kN
SL-F0.2-30	Sheet	30 days	18.2	–	1.82-18.20	87.99
SL-F0.5-30	Sheet		18.2	–	4.56-45.56	Failed at 16233 cycles
SS-F0.2-30	Sheet		–	Silane treatment	1.88-18.82	111.80
SS-F0.5-30	Sheet		–	Silane treatment	4.71-47.05	Failed at 29162 cycles
SLS-F0.2-30	Sheet		18.8	Silane treatment	1.88-18.82	91.24
SLS-F0.5-30	Sheet		18.8	Silane treatment	4.71-47.05	Failed at 11119 cycles
LL-F0.2-30	Laminate		18.0	–	1.80-18.00	122.10
LL-F0.5-30	Laminate		18.0	–	4.50-45.00	89.60
LS-F0.2-30	Laminate		–	Silane treatment	1.85-18.53	—^a
LS-F0.5-30	Laminate		–	Silane treatment	4.63-46.33	112.00
LLS-F0.2-30	Laminate		18.5	Silane treatment	1.85-18.53	121.60
LLS-F0.5-30	Laminate		18.5	Silane treatment	4.63-46.33	93.08
SL-F0.2-180	Sheet	180 days	18.2	–	1.82-18.20	82.05
SL-F0.5-180	Sheet		18.2	–	4.56-45.56	Failed at 14097 cycles
SS-F0.2-180	Sheet		–	Silane treatment	1.88-18.82	81.49
SS-F0.5-180	Sheet		–	Silane treatment	4.71-47.05	Failed at 10513 cycles
SLS-F0.2-180	Sheet		18.8	Silane treatment	1.88-18.82	84.83
SLS-F0.5-180	Sheet		18.8	Silane treatment	4.71-47.05	Failed at 29162 cycles
LL-F0.2-180	Laminate		18.0	–	1.80-18.00	—^a
LL-F0.5-180	Laminate		18.0	–	4.50-45.00	—^a
LS-F0.2-180	Laminate		–	Silane treatment	1.85-18.53	—^a
LS-F0.5-180	Laminate		–	Silane treatment	4.63-46.33	—^a
LLS-F0.2-180	Laminate		18.5	Silane treatment	1.85-18.53	—^a
LLS-F0.5-180	Laminate		18.5	Silane treatment	4.63-46.33	—^a
SL-F0.2-360	Sheet	360 days	18.2	–	1.82-18.20	—^a
SL-F0.5-360	Sheet		18.2	–	4.56-45.56	Failed at 12830 cycles
SS-F0.2-360	Sheet		–	Silane treatment	1.88-18.82	79.86
SS-F0.5-360	Sheet		–	Silane treatment	4.71-47.05	Failed at 15485 cycles
SLS-F0.2-360	Sheet		18.8	Silane treatment	1.88-18.82	78.42
SLS-F0.5-360	Sheet		18.8	Silane treatment	4.71-47.05	Failed at 12712 cycles
LL-F0.2-360	Laminate		18.0	–	1.80-18.00	—^a
LL-F0.5-360	Laminate		18.0	–	4.50-45.00	—^b
LS-F0.2-360	Laminate		–	Silane treatment	1.85-18.53	—^a
LS-F0.5-360	Laminate		–	Silane treatment	4.63-46.33	—^b
LLS-F0.2-360	Laminate		18.5	Silane treatment	1.85-18.53	—^b
LLS-F0.5-360	Laminate		18.5	Silane treatment	4.63-46.33	—^b
Notes: SL—CFRP sheet specimen with sustained load applied; SS—CFRP sheet specimen with silane treatment; SLS—CFRP sheet specimen with sustained load applied and silane treatment; LL—CFRP laminate specimen with sustained load applied; LS—CFRP laminate specimen with silane treatment; LLS—CFRP laminate specimen with sustained load applied and silane treatment. F0.2 and F0.5—Specimen subjected to 0.2 times and 0.5 times preloaded fatigue load ratio respectively; 30, 180 and 360—30, 180 and 360 days of exposure in the marine atmosphere respectively; a and b—Fracture of the specimen at the end steel plate during static loading and fatigue loading.

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 各阶段钢-胶界面剥离面积

Table 3. Area of steel-adhesive interface debonding at each stage

Specimen	Area after 30 days of exposure/mm²	Area ratio after 30 days of exposure/%	Area after 180 days of exposure/mm²	Area ratio after 180 days of exposure/%	Area after 360 days of exposure/mm²	Area ratio after 360 days of exposure/%
SS-F0.2	1305.92	26.12	2668.90	53.38	2250.27	45.01
SLS-F0.2	1500.99	30.02	2972.49	59.45	2360.00	47.20

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(28)

[1]	STEPHENS R I, FATEMI A, STEPHENS R R, et al. Metal fatigue in engineering[M]. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2000.
[2]	TENG J G, YU T, FERNANDO D. Strengthening of steel structures with fiber-reinforced polymer composites[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research,2012,78:131-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.06.011
[3]	ZHAO X L. FRP-strengthened metallic structures[M]. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013.
[4]	YU Q Q, WU Y F. Fatigue retrofitting of cracked steel beams with CFRP laminates[J]. Composite Structures,2018,192:232-244. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.02.090
[5]	WANG H T, WU G. Crack propagation prediction of double-edged cracked steel beams strengthened with FRP plates[J]. Thin-Walled Structures,2018,127:459-468. doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2018.02.018
[6]	HU L L, FENG P, ZHAO X L. Fatigue design of CFRP strengthened steel members[J]. Thin-Walled Structures,2017,119:482-498. doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2017.06.029
[7]	COLOMBI P, FAVA G. Experimental study on the fatigue behaviour of cracked steel beams repaired with CFRP plates[J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics,2015,145:128-142. doi: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.04.009
[8]	李安邦, 徐善华. 锈蚀对钢板表面特性及CFRP板-锈蚀钢板界面黏结性能的影响[J]. 复合材料学报, 2022, 39(2):746-758. doi: 10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20210422.001 LI Anbang, XU Shanhua. Effect of corrosion on the surface properties of steel plate and interfacial bonding properties between CFRP plate and corroded steel plate[J]. Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica,2022,39(2):746-758(in Chinese). doi: 10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20210422.001
[9]	ZHAO X L, BAI Y, AL-MAHAIDI R, et al. Effect of dynamic loading and environmental conditions on the bond between CFRP and steel: State-of-the-art review[J]. Jour-nal of Composites for Construction,2014,18:A4013005. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000419
[10]	YANG Y, SILVA M A G, BISCAIA H, et al. Bond durability of CFRP laminates-to-steel joints subjected to freeze-thaw[J]. Composite Structures,2019,212:243-258. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.01.016
[11]	YANG Y, BISCAIA H, SILVA M A G, et al. Monotonic and quasi-static cyclic bond response of CFRP-to-steel joints after salt fog exposure[J]. Composites Part B: Engineering,2019,168:532-549. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.03.066
[12]	WANG Y, LI J, DENG J, et al. Bond behaviour of CFRP/steel strap joints exposed to overloading fatigue and wetting/drying cycles[J]. Engineering Structures,2018,172:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.112
[13]	NGUYEN T C, BAI Y, ZHAO X L, et al. Durability of steel/CFRP double strap joints exposed to sea water, cyclic temperature and humidity[J]. Composite Structures,2012,94(5):1834-1845. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2012.01.004
[14]	BORRIE D, LIU H B, ZHAO X L, et al. Bond durability of fatigued CFRP-steel double-lap joints pre-exposed to marine environment[J]. Composite Structures,2015,131:799-809. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.06.021
[15]	DAWOOD M, RIZKALLA S. Environmental durability of a CFRP system for strengthening steel structures[J]. Construction and Building Materials,2010,24:1682-1689. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.023
[16]	WANG Y, ZHENG Y, LI J, et al. Experimental study on tensile behaviour of steel plates with centre hole strengthened by CFRP plates under marine environment[J]. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives,2018,84:18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.01.017
[17]	Committee MT-006. Mechanical testing of metals: Methods of tensile testing of metals: AS 1391—2007[S]. Sydney: Standards Australia, 2007.
[18]	American Society of Testing Materials International. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials: D 3039/D 3039 M-08[S]. West Conshohocken: American Society of Testing Materials, 2008.
[19]	American Society of Testing Materials International. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics: D 638-08[S]. West Conshohocken: American Society of Testing Materials, 2008.
[20]	YU Q Q, GU X L, ZHAO X L, et al. Characterization of model uncertainty of adhesively bonded CFRP-to-steel joints[J]. Composite Structures,2019,215:150-165. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.045
[21]	中国国家标准化管理委员会. 聚合物基复合材料疲劳性能测试方法第1部分: 通则: GB/T 35465.1—2017[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2017. Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Test method for fatigue properties of polymer matrix composite materials-Part 1: General principle: GB/T 35465.1-2017[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2017(in Chinese).
[22]	YU Q Q, GAO R X, GU X L, et al. Bond behavior of CFRP-steel double-lap joints exposed to marine atmosphere and fatigue loading[J]. Engineering Structures,2018,175:76-85. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.012
[23]	ZHAO X L, ZHANG L. State-of-the-art review on FRP strengthened steel structures[J]. Steel Construction,2007,29(8):1808-1823.
[24]	POWERS D A. Interaction of water with epoxy: No. SAND2009-4405[R]. Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), 2009.
[25]	HART-SMITH L J. Adhesive-bonded double-lap joints: NAS1-11234[R]. California: NASA, 1973.
[26]	高瑞鑫, 余倩倩. 养护阶段环境作用对结构黏胶力学性能影响[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2018, 39(S1):405-409. doi: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2018.S1.053 GAO Ruixin, YU Qianqian. Effects of environmental expo-sure during curing stage on adhesive material properties[J]. Journal of Building Structures,2018,39(S1):405-409(in Chinese). doi: 10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2018.S1.053
[27]	XIA S H, TENG J G. Behaviour of FRP-to-steel bonded joints[C]//CHEN J F, TENG J G. Proceedings of the international symposium on bond behaviour of FRP in structures (BBFS 2005). Hong Kong: International Institute for FRP in Construction, 2005: 419-426.
[28]	LIU M, DAWOOD M. Reliability analysis of adhesively bonded CFRP-to-steel double lap shear joint with thin outer adherends[J]. Construction and Building Materials,2017,141:52-63. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.113