PSI - Issue 68

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

403

6

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

17.7 and 41.4%, respectively. Finally, for t P2 =4 mm, the P m performance of 7752/2015/7752 was better than 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by 23.2 and 24.9%, respectively. Thus, the best performing solution for DAJ 1/8 was 7752/AV138/7752 and t P2 =3 mm (2.0 kN). It is found that t P2 highly affects P m in all evaluated designs. The highest P m improvement with t P2 was 150.6% found for DAJ 1/8 with the 2015-AV138-2015 configuration from 1≤ t P2 ≤2. Contrarily, P m was negatively affected from 3≤ t P2 ≤4 for all joints, up to -18.1% for the DAJ 1/8 with the 7752-2015-7752 configuration. The best P m performance was achieved with t P2 =3 mm. In addition, its notorious that the overlap area where the ductile adhesive is applied highly affects the joint strength (best P m performance for DAJ 1/4). 3.2.2. Energy absorbed Fig. 5 plots U vs. t P2 for all evaluated designs. U was determined by the area under the P - d curves. It is notorious that 7752-2015-7752 was the best performing selection of adhesives for a DAJ, for all t P2 : • Fig. 5 (a) shows U extracted in DAJ 1/8 and t P2 =1 mm. The best performing was 7752-2015-7752, higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 25.8 and 192.7%, respectively. For t P2 =2 mm, 7752/2015/7752 was higher than 2015/AV138/2015 and 7752/AV138/7752 by 62.7 and 69.1%, in the same order. For t P2 =3 mm, a similar ranking was observed, with improvements of 132.2 and 190.5%. For t P2 =4 mm, the best performing was 7752-2015-7752, higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 51.7 and 99.9%, respectively. • Fig. 5 (b) plots U vs. t P2 for DAJ 1/4, where for t P2 =1 mm, the best performing was 7752-2015-7752, higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 3.1 and 262.4%, respectively. For t P2 =2 mm, U for 7752-2015-7752 was higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 71.9 and 133.1%, respectively. For t P2 =3 mm, the same was higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 157.2 and 183.8%. For t P2 =4 mm, U of 7752 2015-7752 behaves better than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 23.8 and 208.5%, respectively. • Fig. 5 (c) plots U vs. t P2 for DAJ 1/3. For t P2 =1 mm, 7752-2015-7752 was higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 8.0 and 395.5%, respectively. For t P2 =2 mm, U for 7752-2015-7752 was higher than the same by 59.9 and 144.4%, respectively. In addition, for t P2 =3 mm, 7752-2015-7752 U was higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 123.3 and 257.2%, respectively. For t P2 =4 mm, U for 7752-2015 7752 is higher than 7752/AV138/7752 and 2015/AV138/2015 by 18.0 and 270.4%, respectively.

! " # $ % & '

! " # $ % & '

()*+,

()*+,

!

"

#

$

%

!

"

#

$

%

! -# *..,

! -# *..,

#!"&/"$0/#!"&

11&#/"$0/11&#

11&#/#!"&/11&#

#!"&/"$0/#!"&

11&#/"$0/11&#

11&#/#!"&/11&#

a)

b)

! " # $ % & '

()*+,

!

"

#

$

%

! -# *..,

#!"&/"$0/#!"&

11&#/"$0/11&#

11&#/#!"&/11&#

c)

Fig. 5. U for all joint configurations as a function of t P2 : DAJ 1/8 (a), DAJ 1/4 (b) and DAJ 1/3 (c).