PSI - Issue 77

P.D.A. da Silva et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 77 (2026) 103–110 Silva et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000–000

107

5

4(a) shows σ y stresses with the AV138 as a function of α . Peak stresses occur at the overlap ends. The highest peak stresses were reached by the joint with α =60° at x / L O =0, and by the joint with α =45° at x / L O =1. σ y peak stresses increased for α =45° and 60°, while the other α have similar peaks to α =90º. The variations achieved between α =90º and 15º were -6.8% (AV138), +3.1% (DP8005), and +3.0% (XNR6852 E-2). Fig. 4 (b) shows τ xy stresses for the AV138 with variation of α . The joint with the lowest peak stresses was the joint with α =15º, while increasing α led to the highest τ xy peak stresses. The introduction of an external chamfer shows small influence on minimizing τ xy stresses, since the maximum variation over α =90º was 7.2%, for α =15º. The highest peak stresses relate to α =45º. The variations between α =90º and 15º were -7.2% (AV138), -2.2% (DP8005), and -5.9% (XNR6852 E-2).

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

τ xy / τ avg

σ y / τ avg

0.5

0

0

-0.5

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

x / L O

x / L O

a)

b)

15

30

45

60

90

15

30

45

60

90

Fig. 4. σ y and τ xy stresses at the AV138 adhesive layer midline with outer chamfer.

40

30

30

P m [kN]

P [kN]

15

20

0

10

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0

20

40

60

80

100

δ [mm]

β [º] AV138 DP8005 XNR6852 E-2

a)

b)

60

90

15

30

45

Fig. 5. P- δ curves for the AV138 joint with outer chamfer (a) and evolution of P m for all adhesives (b).

Fig. 5 (a) shows the P- δ curves for the AV138 with variation of α . The outer chamfer reduced δ for all α compared to α =90º. For P m , shown in Fig. 5 (b), the joints had very similar maximum values, but still the joint without chamfer obtained the highest value. The α parameter implied a slight decrease in P m , and a pronounced decrease of δ . The variations achieved between α =90º and 15º were -9.3% (AV138), -22.5% (DP8005), and -10.6% (XNR6852 E-2). Table 5 shows the E a values and variation for all adhesives ( ∆ E a ). The DP8005 has the highest capacity to absorb energy, followed by the XNR6852 E-2 and AV138. The adhesives’ stiffness removes the ability of the joints to absorb impact energy, due to their smaller capacity to deform. Smaller α decrease the energy absorbed by the joint. The variations achieved between α =90º and 15º were -34.7% (AV138), -36.1% (DP8005), and -30.3% (XNR6852 E-2).

Table 3. E a comparison between adhesives.

AV138

DP8005

XNR6852

α ( ο )

E a (J)

∆ E a (J) −34.7% −33.6% −32.5% −31.3%

E a (J)

∆ E a (J) -36.1% -14.2% -15.4% -15.7%

E a (J)

∆ E a (J) -30.3% -26.1% -25.0% -24.6%

15 o 30 o 45 o 60 o 90 o

2.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 4.3

2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.8

2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 3.9

-

-

−