Issue 74

O. Staroverov et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 74 (2025) 358-372; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.74.22

GFRP [0/90] n

GFRP [±45] n

Specimen number

E imp , J

F CAI , MPa

Average F CAI , MPa

F CAI , MPa

Average F CAI , MPa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

0 0 0

174 176 177 181 180 175 169 181 179 168 164 165 114 136 139 121 122 130 116 103 118 106 102 104

134 129 131 132 134 130 126 124 130 123 125 125 114 114 118 115 115 115 108 115 117 106 108 107 110

175.7±1.5

131.3±2.5

10 10 10 15 15 15 20 20 20 30 30 30 35 35 35 40 40 40 50 50 50 60 60 60 75 75 75

178.7±3.2

132.0±2.0

176.3±6.4

126.7±3.1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

165.7±2.1

124.3±1.2

129.7±13.7

115.3±2.3

124.3±4.9

115.0±0.0

112.3±8.1

113.3±4.7

104.0±2.0

107.0±1.0

97 95 99

97.0±2.0

102.0±7.2

96

100

100

90

99.0±2.6

100.3±13.8

96

116

101

95 96 92 99

100 100 100

96 98 98

97.3±1.2

95.7±3.5

Table 3: Compression test results Impact sensitivity diagrams in the form of F CAI (E imp ) dependence (Fig. 7a) were plotted based on the test results. Three characteristic stages can be noted on the diagram of fiberglass composite’s impact sensitivity: I – the area of insensitivity to impact (up to E imp ≈ 15–20 J); II – the area of bearing capacity reduction – the most dangerous in terms of possible influence on the structure’s strength; III – the area of reaching the minimum bearing capacity (experimental points form almost

365