Abstract
Adhesively-bonded joints are widely used to join structural components. The most common joint types are single-lap joints (SLJ), double-lap joints (DLJ), stepped-lap joints and scarf joints. Several factors influence the behaviour and strength of an adhesive joint, namely the type of adhesive (brittle or ductile, strong or weak) and joint geometry. One of the most important parameters that affects the joint strength is the overlap length (LO). A comparative study that involves several joint geometries and uses adhesives with different characteristics was carried out to check which type of adhesive is most suitable for a particular joint geometry. For this purpose, SLJ, DLJ, stepped-lap joints and scarf joints were chosen for testing with three adhesives. The experimental results were compared with numerical results obtained from Abaqus® using an integrated cohesive zone modelling module. Initially, a stress analysis was carried out to compare the different joint geometries. With this work, it was concluded that the optimal joint type significantly depends on the type of adhesive used, such that less strong and ductile adhesives are more suitable for joint geometries that exhibit large stress variations, while stronger but more brittle adhesives are recommended for joint geometries with more uniform stresses.
Highlights
Adhesive bonding has been widely used in several industries, such as automotive and aeronautical
A numerical stress distribution analysis in the adhesive layer is undertaken, which assists in the following discussion regarding the experimental and numerical strength analysis, for a detailed understanding of the joints’ behaviour
Failure for the stepped-lap joints and double-lap joints (DLJ) with overlap length (LO) = 50 mm was in the adherends by plasticization, due to the higher loads caused by the ductility of the adhesive
Summary
Adhesive bonding has been widely used in several industries, such as automotive and aeronautical. In the last decades new methodologies were introduced, one of which is modelling damage growth by combining the FEM with CZM [11] This technique combines conventional FEM modelling for regions that are expected to be undamaged and a Fracture Mechanics approach for the cohesive elements to stimulate the crack growth [12]. A very recent alternative to the crack propagation model inside materials is the extended finite element method (XFEM), which uses enriched form functions to represent a discontinuous displacement field [13]. Few works apply this technique in bonded joints [14]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
