PSI - Issue 68

P.M.D. Carvalho et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 68 (2025) 398–404 P.M.D. Carvalho et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2025) 000–000

402

5

The CZM predictions aligned well with experimental results. The highest relative errors over the average experimental P m were +4.7% for the 2015 ( t P2 =3 mm) and -7.2% for the 7752 ( t P2 =4 mm). The larger deviation for the 7752 is due to its significant ductility (Campilho et al. 2013). Nevertheless, the triangular law is suitable, offering reliable predictions. Consequently, the CZM law is validated, which enables the subsequent numerical DAJ analysis. 3.2. Dual adhesive T-joint analysis 3.2.1. Joint strength Fig. 4 presents the P m attained for all joint configurations as a function of t P2 : • For DAJ 1/8 (Fig. 4 a), 7752/2015/7752 attained the highest P m values notwithstanding t P2 . The best P m performance (1.9 kN) is observed for t P2 =3 mm. For t P2 =1 mm, 7752/2015/7752 performed better than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 13.0 and 37.3%, respectively. For t P2 =2 mm, 7752/2015/7752 P m performance was better than for 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by 12.5 and 23.9%, respectively. For t P2 =3 mm, the P m performance of 7752/2015/7752 was higher than 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by 23.8 and 47.2%, respectively. Finally, for t P2 =4 mm, 7752/2015/7752 was better than 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by 23.8 and 47.2%, respectively.

!"! !"# $"! $"# %"! %"#

!"! !"# $"! $"# %"! %"#

! ()* +,-.

! ()* +,-.

!

$

%

&

'

!

$

%

&

'

" /% +((.

" /% +((.

%!$#0$&10%!$#

22#%0$&1022#%

22#%0%!$#022#%

%!$#0$&10%!$#

22#%0$&1022#%

22#%0%!$#022#%

a)

b)

!"! !"# $"! $"# %"! %"#

! ()* +,-.

!

$

%

&

'

" /% +((.

%!$#0$&10%!$#

22#%0$&1022#%

22#%0%!$#022#%

c)

Fig. 4. P m for all joint configurations as a function of t P2 : DAJ 1/8 (a), DAJ 1/4 (b) and DAJ 1/3 (c).

• Fig. 4 (b) presents the P m attained for DAJ 1/4. For t P2 =1 mm, 7752/AV138/7752 was the best performing with P m =0.81 kN, which was very similar to 7752/2015/7752 (-0.5%), followed by 2015/AV138/2015 (-40.1%). For t P2 =2 mm, 7752/2015/7752 stands out from 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 25.5 and 28.3%, respectively. For t P2 =3 mm, 7752/2015/7752 surpassed 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by 25.8 and 48.2%, respectively. Finally, for t P2 =4 mm, 7752/2015/7752 P m performance was better than 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by 19.5 and 26.1%, respectively. Thus, the best performing solution for DAJ 1/4 was 7752/AV138/7752 and t P2 =3 mm (2.1 kN). • Fig. 4 (c) shows the P m vs. t P2 for DAJ 1/3. For t P2 =1 mm, 7752/AV138/7752 was the best with P m =0.80 kN. The 7752/2015/7752 was very similar yet lower (0.2%), whereas 2015/AV138/2015 revealed a major difference (- 39.0%). For t P2 =2 mm, 7752/2015/7752 stands out from 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 25.4 and 29.0%, respectively. For t P2 =3 mm, 7752/2015/7752 was better than 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by