PSI - Issue 61

João C.M. Santos et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 61 (2024) 79–88 Santos et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

81 3

to the current butt joint geometry (Fig. 2 a), two more different geometries (Fig. 2 b and c) are analyzed. Both solutions are chamfer-type joints considering a chamfer or scarf angle of 45° and an adhesive thickness of 0.2 mm, but symmetrically arranged. Although these geometries have similar characteristics, the curvature of the kayak and the different thickness of the parts to be joined will produce different behaviors in the adhesive layer. These configurations will be subjected to four different types of loading, namely traction, compression, bending and shear, to determine the best configuration and improve the current assembly.

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 1. Zone of the Kayak under analysis a), sectional view of the kayak b) and detail of the sectional view c).

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the butt joint (a), chamfer 1 (b) and chamfer 2 (c).

For numerical model validation, the SLJ geometry was considered (Fig. 3). The aim of this work is firstly to validate the numerical procedure followed, using SLJ and comparing the numerical results with the experimental ones. This is followed by a numerical study analyzing the geometry already adopted (butt joint configuration) in comparison with two new different approaches (scarf geometries). As boundary conditions, the joint was clamped at one of the edges, and the opposite edge was subjected to a horizontal displacement with vertical movement restriction. The dimensions of the analyzed specimen are (in mm) the overlap length ( L O )=12.5, 25, 37.5, and 50, adherends’ thickness ( t P )=3, adhesive thickness ( t A )=0.2, joint length ( L T )=170, and width ( B )=25.

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the single-lap joint geometry and boundary conditions.