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

86

8

8

250

200

6

150

4

100

 y /  avg

 y /  avg

2

50

0

0

-2

-50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

x / L

x / L

a)

b)

A140-1

AV138

2015

7752

A140-1

AV138

2015

7752

16

12

8

 y /  avg

4

0

-4

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

x / L

c)

A140-1

AV138

2015

7752

Fig. 9.  y /  avg under traction loading: butt (a), chamfer 1 (b), and chamfer 2(b) geometries.

3.3. Joint strength

Fig. 10 shows a summary of P m between the joints with different adhesives for each load, considering the butt, chamfer 1 and chamfer 2 geometries. Table 4 classifies the adhesives by numerically obtained P m for the different geometries (between 1 and 4). The A140-1 is discussed first, followed by a discussion of the other adhesives: • For the A140-1, the most suitable geometry is chamfer 2, followed by the butt geometry and finally the chamfer 1 geometry. The chamfer 2 geometry obtains the highest P m for tensile and shear loadings, and the second highest value for the other two loadings. The best geometry under compression is butt, and under bending is chamfer 1. By comparing the average P m of all geometries and loadings, chamfer 1 geometry is recommended for the A140-1; • For the AV138, the butt geometry is the best, followed by chamfer 2 and finally chamfer 1. The chamfer 2 geometry provides the best strength under bending and shear, and the second-best strength under axial tension. The butt geometry gives the best P m in compression, and the best tensile strength is given by the chamfer 1 geometry. The average values obtained for the different loadings show that chamfer 2 provides the best characteristics overall; • For the 2015, the best characteristics relate to the chamfer 1 geometry, followed by chamfer 2 and finally butt. The chamfer 1 geometry has the best strength to tensile, bending and shear loadings. The butt geometry performs best under compressive loadings. The chamfer 1 geometry is the best of the three studied geometries if this adhesive is used. Comparing the average P m obtained for each geometry, the chamfer 1 geometry once again stands out; • The 7752 gives the best behavior for the chamfer 1 geometry, followed by butt and, finally, chamfer 2. The chamfer 1 geometry provides the best strength under tensile, bending and shear loadings, and the butt geometry under a compressive loading. The chamfer 1 geometry guarantees the best characteristics for this adhesive. The butt geometry has the shortest production time and consequently the lowest production costs, since no surface preparation is carried out and the adhesive is placed directly on the joint. For the chamfered geometry, whether type 1 or type 2, it is necessary to prepare the joint and fabricate the chamfered surfaces, which increases manufacturing times and production costs. Thus, this feature should be considered in the design process.