PSI - Issue 28

I.J. Sánchez-Arce et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 1084–1093 Sánchez-Arce et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1089

6

[23]. Consequently, the adhesive’s brittleness could lead to lower predictions of P max because of the presence of higher stresses at both ends of the adhesive layer.

Figure 2. Strength determined from the SLJ specimens related to � .

4.2. Stress and strain distributions The  yy and τ xy stresses distributions along the adhesive layer solved with both FEM and NNRPIM were grouped to identify differences caused by the solution method (Figure 3). Upon close inspection, it was found that, qualitatively, the stress distributions are identical (Figure 3). Nevertheless, small differences were found at peak stresses; the τ xy estimated with the NNRPIM were found lower by 5.85%, on average, (range -4.92% to -6.56%) with respect to those from the FEM (Figure 4). In the  yy case, the peak values were also lower by 2.61%, on average, (range 0.60% to 4.34%) with respect to the FEM estimated values (Figure 4). The minimum difference, in both  yy and τ xy stresses, was found for L O =25 mm.

a) b) Figure 3. Normalized  yy and τ xy stresses distributions at the center of the adhesive layer on a SLJ with L0=25.0 mm bonded with an Araldite ® AV138 adhesive.