PSI - Issue 71

M Mohan Kumar et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 71 (2025) 372–379

378

6.1 Undamaged Panel Static tensile test was carried out on undamaged panel under the tensile load of 735 kN and the major principal strain results are compared with FE results as shown in Table 6. It can be noted that, strain of 4984 µε and 4956 µε was estimated at locations L1 and R1 respectively by FEA, which were comparable to 5220 µε and 5100 µε observed during the test and the major principal strain in the undamaged panel is shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Principal Strain Contour of Undamaged Panel.

6.2 Damaged Panel In the damaged panel, for the applied load of 287 kN, a major principal strain of 9730 µε was estimated at locations R1 by FEA, which were comparable to 9800 µε experimental solution. In the L1 and L5 strain gauge location 3796 µε and - 4600 µε observed which were comparable to 4000 µε and -4830 µε experimental results. Due to damage, the strain and stress induced near the damaged area was comparatively high and resulting in a reduced failure load of 182 kN compared to the undamaged panel. The major principal strain distribution in the damaged panel is shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Principal Strain Contour of Damaged Panel.

6.3 Repaired Panel From the FE analysis, for the applied load of 375 kN, a strain of 4800 µε and -1873 µε was observed at locations L1 and L6 by FEA, which were comparable to 4900 µε and -1550 µε recorded during the test. A strain of 5600 µε and 4789 µε was observed at locations E3 and R1 by FEA, which were comparable to 5900 µε and 4600 µε recorded during the test. In comparison with the damaged panel, it was observed that the repaired panel shows a recovery of up to 50% of the strength and the major principal strain in the repaired panel is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Principal Strain Contour of Repaired Panel.