PSI - Issue 28

M.Z. Sadeghi et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 1601–1620 M.Z. Sadeghi et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1613

Fig. 11. Comparative results of J-integral vs. ECLM for SERR-t=1.0 mm (top left) DCB, (top right),(bottom left), and (bottom right) MMB tests with 25, 50 and 75% MMR respectively.

The results of critical strain energy release rate (CSERR) for DCB and MMB tests with different bondline thicknesses (t a ) using are outlined J-integral and ECLM reduction methods in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

Table 2. Variation of G C based on J-integral (N/mm). Thickness 0.35 mm

Thickness 1.0 mm

DCB

0.51

0.74

MMB 25%

0.78

0.79

MMB 50%

1.80

1.66

MMB 75%

3.53

3.29

Table 3. Variation of G C based on ECLM (N/mm). Thickness 0.35 mm

Thickness 1.0 mm

DCB

0.51

0.73

MMB 25%

0.86

0.85

MMB 50%

1.72

1.58

MMB 75%

3.10

3.21