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

84 6

Fig. 6. Mesh example and corresponding detail view of the adhesive layer: butt joint (a), chamfer 1 (b) and chamfer 2 (c).

3. Results 3.1. Validation with standard geometries

To confirm the accuracy of the numerical model, an experimental study was carried out on SLJ with AW6082 T651 aluminum alloy adherends and different overlap lengths ( L O ), and joined with the AV138, 2015 and 7752. The software and numerical model are identical to the present work. The validation results are depicted in Fig. 7. Considering the AV138, the numerical maximum load ( P m ) agrees with the experimental P m average values and are contained within the respective experimental deviation. For the 2015, the numerical P m provide good results for L O =12.5 and 25 mm. However, for L O =37.5 mm, there is a higher difference since the P m prediction is close to the upper experimental deviation. On the other hand, for L O =50 mm, the numerical P m value is inclusively outside the standard deviation of the experimental result. For the 7752, the numerical/experimental P m deviation begins at L O =12.5 mm, with the experimental P m always being higher than the numerical predictions. These discrepancies are caused by using a triangular law. Actually, since this adhesive is largely ductile, it is recommended to employ a trapezoidal law instead (Campilho et al. 2013). Nonetheless, it can be concluded that, in general, the proposed model is a viable solution for the kayak joint design.

20

15

10

P m [kN]

5

0

0

12.5

25

37.5

50

L O [mm] 2015 Exp

AV138 Exp 7752 Exp AV138 Num 2015 Num 7752 Num

Fig. 7. Experimental and numerical P m for the SLJ and different adhesives.