BULETINUL INSTITUTULUI POLITEHNIC DIN IAŞI

102 Iulian Agape et al
were measured in 11 equidistant points (so n=10) on the length L = 1.65 m for
the damaged front. The taken deformations were: ξ 1 = 0.53 m; ξ 2 = 0.52 m; ξ 3 =
= 0.50 m; ξ 4 = 0.43 m; ξ 5 = 0.33 m; ξ 6 = 0.31 m; ξ 7 = 0.27 m; ξ 8 = 0.19 m;
ξ 9 =0.13 m; ξ 10 = 0.14 m; ξ 11 = 0.12 m.
We specify that ξ 1 , ξ 3 , ξ 5 , ξ 7 , ξ 9 , ξ 11 , have the exactly considered values in
the 6 equidistant points from the application (Gaiginschi, 2008). The other 5
considered values for the deformation, in this example, do not distort the
deformation character. The adopted values keep the increase or decrease
deformation character, on the considered intervals.
Table 1 and 2 centralize the calculus results for the m i coefficients and
K 1 , K 2 , K 3 coefficients, the average deformation and deformation energy. The
calculus considered both adopting cases for stiffness coefficients A, B and G,
respectively the ones recommended by SAE, and also the experimentally ones.
Table 1
ξ m
[m] [1/m]
0.53 0
0.52 -0.02029
0.5 -2.1227
0.43 -2.50818
0.33 5.543869
0.31 -2.03644
0.27 -1.80584
0.19 0.444351
0.13 4.436144
0.14 -2.76193
0.12 0
Table 2
k 1 k 2 k 3
Coeficients
m sqm Cubm
0.825 0.519236 0.178861
G, N A, N/m B, N/sqm
exp 13007.42 102481.6 807422.2
sae 2715.543 36200.93 482595
Ed exp, [J] 208359.3
Ed sae, [J] 107354.4
ξmed, [m] 0.315
4. Conclusions
1. Comparing the results with the ones obtained in the application from
(Gaiginschi, 2008), we notice an increase of about 32…37% for the
deformation energy, depending on the adopted coefficients type. On the other