PSI - Issue 83

R.J.B. Rocha et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 83 (2026) 179–186

185

100 120 140 160 180

100 120 140 160 180

P m [N]

P m [kN]

0 20 40 60 80

0 20 40 60 80

5

5

10

20

10

20

L O [mm] Exp2015 Exp7752 Num2015 Num7752

L O [mm] Exp2015 Exp7752 Num2015 Num7752

a)

b)

100 120 140 160 180

P m [kN]

0 20 40 60 80

5

10

20

L O [mm] Exp2015 Exp7752 Num2015 Num7752

c)

Fig. 6. Experimental and numerical P m comparisons for the SLJ with (a) PLA, (b) ABS, and (c) PETG adherends.

Fig. 7 shows the experimental and numerical P m comparisons for the SJ with PLA, ABS, and PETG adherends. In this case, the relationship between P m and L O is notably distinct, i.e., when using the 2015, P m remains nearly unchanged as the L O increases. This behavior is attributed to failure initiating at the step edge of the adherend. PETG bonded with the 2015 consistently delivers the highest P m , with values around 79.8-83.0 N. For the 7752, there is a slight P m increase with longer L O , with a maximum increase of 5.3% found in PLA joints from L O =10 to 20 mm.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

P m [N]

P m [N]

5

10

20

5

10

20

L O [mm] PLA_2015 PLA_7752 PLA_2025_Num PLA_7752_Num

L O [mm] ABS_2015 ABS_7752 ABS_2015_Num ABS_7752_Num

a)

b)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

P m [N]

5

10

20

L O [mm] PETG_2015 PETG_7752 PETG_2015_Num PETG_7752_Num

c)

Fig. 7. Experimental and numerical P m comparisons for the SJ with (a) PLA, (b) ABS, and (c) PETG adherends.