PSI - Issue 77

Francisco Afonso et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 77 (2026) 575–583 F. Afonso et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000–000

579

5

Fig. 3: Digital image correlation with adhesives, 2 mm diameter speckle pattern results.

Pattern AP2.1 (Adhesive Pattern, 2 mm, no. 1) and AP2.2 show deformations similar to the previous analysis. Pattern AP2.3 presents lower deformation that gradually decreases toward the base of the wall, consistent with the presence of structural supports in this area. Pattern AP2.4 was placed on top of the vertical bar, and as expected, shows very low deformation (approximately 1.759 mm) due to the added sti ff ness, which is consistent with the low values measured in this area with the magnet speckle pattern DIC analysis. Patterns AP2.5, AP2.6, AP2.7 and AP2.8 were placed on the panel, and their overall lower deformation is consistent with the panel’s local sti ff ening, varying between 1.917 mm and 1.620 mm, approximately. In addition, values gradually decrease when closer to the vertical bar or other wall features that increase local sti ff ness. Figure 4 shows the DIC results for each adhesive that contains a 5 mm speckle pattern, each adhesive is also named. This analysis considered a subset size of 45, and a step size of 3

Fig. 4: Digital image correlation with adhesives, 5mm diameter speckle pattern results.