Structural Performance Evaluation of Electronic Road Sign Panels Reflecting Damage Scenarios

Authors: Junwon Seo, Bipin Adhikari, Euiseok Jeong

Abstract:

This paper is intended to evaluate the structural performance of welded electronic road signs under various damage scenarios (DSs) using a finite element (FE) model calibrated with full-scale ultimate load testing results. The tested electronic road sign specimen was built with a back skin made of 5052 aluminum and two channels and a frame made of 6061 aluminum, where the back skin was connected to the frame by welding. The size of the tested specimen was 1.52 m long, 1.43 m wide, and 0.28 m deep. An actuator applied vertical loads at the center of the back skin of the specimen, resulting in a displacement of 158.7 mm and an ultimate load of 153.46 kN. Using these testing data, generation and calibration of a FE model of the tested specimen were executed in ABAQUS, indicating that the difference in the ultimate load between the calibrated model simulation and full-scale testing was only 3.32%. Then, six different DSs were simulated where the areas of the welded connection in the calibrated model were diminished for the DSs. It was found that the corners at the back skin-frame joint were prone to connection failure for all the DSs, and failure of the back skin-frame connection occurred remarkably from the distant edges.

Keywords: Computational analysis, damage scenarios, electronic road signs, finite element, welded connections.

References:

[1] Tay, R., and A. G. de Barros. Public Perceptions of the Use of Dynamic Message Signs. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008, pp. 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670420107.
[2] Amatya, I., J. Seo, E. Jeong, and J. Lee. Numerical Study for Structural Performance Evaluation of Adhesively Bonded Aluminum Dynamic Message Signs. Thin-Walled Structures, 2020, p. 107193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2020.107193.
[3] Amatya, I. Structural Performance Evaluation of Dynamic Message Signs with Adhesive and Welded Joints. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 4067. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 2020.
[4] Anca, A., A. Cardona, J. Risso, and V. D. Fachinotti. Finite Element Modeling of Welding Processes. Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2011, pp. 688–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.07.026.
[5] Sadigh, M. A. S., G. Marami, and B. Paygozar. Failure Simulation in Resistance Spot-Welded Lap-Joints Using Cohesive Zone Modeling. Journal of Central South University, Vol. 25, No. 11, 2018, pp. 2567–2577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-018-3936-z.
[6] Cavalli, M. N., M. D. Thouless, and Q. D. Yang. Cohesive-Zone Modelling of the Deformation and Fracture of Spot-Welded Joints. Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, Vol. 28, No. 10, 2005, pp. 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.2005.00919.x.
[7] Guishen, Y., C. Xin, and W. Zitao. Effect of Adhesive Ductility and Joint Configuration on the Tensile-Shear Behaviors of Friction Stir Spot Weld Bonding Joints. The Journal of Adhesion, 2021, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2021.1932484.
[8] Palmonella, M., M. I. Friswell, J. E. Mottershead, and A. W. Lees. Finite Element Models of Spot Welds in Structural Dynamics: Review and Updating. Computers & Structures, Vol. 83, No. 8, 2005, pp. 648–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.11.003.
[9] Wang, T., O. S. Hopperstad, P. K. Larsen, and O.-G. Lademo. Evaluation of a Finite Element Modelling Approach for Welded Aluminium Structures. Computers & Structures, Vol. 84, No. 29, 2006, pp. 2016–2032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.08.011.
[10] Peng, J., C. Hou, and L. Shen. Numerical Simulation of Weld Fracture Using Cohesive Interface for Novel Inter-Module Connections. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 174, 2020, p. 106302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106302.
[11] Deng, D., H. Murakawa, and W. Liang. Numerical Simulation of Welding Distortion in Large Structures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 196, No. 45, 2007, pp. 4613–4627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2007.05.023.
[12] Selamet, S., and M. Garlock. Guidelines for Modeling Three Dimensional Structural Connection Models Using Finite Element Methods. Presented at the International symposium: steel structures: culture & sustainability, Istanbul, Turkey, 2010.
[13] Shim, D.-J., D. Rudland, and F. Brust. Comparison of Through-Wall and Complex Crack Behaviors in Dissimilar Metal Weld Pipe Using Cohesive Zone Modeling. Volume 6A: Materials and Fabrication, 2013.
[14] ASTM E1820-20b. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2020.
[15] ABAQUS. ABAQUS 6.14: User’s Manual. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corporation, RI, USA, 2014.
[16] Amatya, I., J. Seo, and E. Jeong. Computational Parametric Study on Full-Scale Ultimate Tested Dynamic Message Sign with Welded Connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, In Review, 2021.
[17] Seo, J., and I. Amatya. Structural Performance of Dynamic Message Signs with Adhesive and Welded Connections. Engineering Structures, In Review, 2021.
[18] American Society for Metals (ASM) international. 6061-T6 Aluminum Alloy Sheet, Compressive Stress-Strain Curves. ASM international, Russell Township, OH, 2002, p. 188.
[19] Aerospace Specification Material Inc. Aluminum 5052-H32. http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA5052H32. Accessed Dec. 2, 2019.
[20] Aerospace Specification Material Inc. Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T651. http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA5052H32. Accessed Dec. 2, 2019.
[21] Seo, J., I. Amatya, T. Letcher, and E. Jeong. Welding versus Adhesive Bonding Strength Investigation. Engineering Failure Analysis, In Review, 2021.
[22] Woelke, P. B., B. K. Hiriyur, K. Nahshon, and J. W. Hutchinson. A Practical Approach to Modeling Aluminum Weld Fracture for Structural Applications. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 175, 2017, pp. 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.02.010.