PSI - Issue 41

J.E.S.M. Silva et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 41 (2022) 36–47 Silva et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

46

11

quantitative improvements were approximately 91× between  =45º and 3.43º (limit values), 13× between 45º and 10º (smaller improvement region), and 6× between 10º and 3.43º (highest improvement between consecutive  ).

Fig. 13 – U at P m as a function of  .

5. Conclusions The presented work aimed at numerically comparing using CZM the tensile performance of TSJ for different  (from 45° to 3.43°). Initial experimental validation with the same adhesive was done with TLJ considering two L O . The validation results were promising as the maximum P m offset to the experimental data was 6.1%. Thus, the model and adhesive CZM parameters were validated. The TSJ numerical analysis involved different aspects of joint mechanics, which are described next, leading to a comprehensive understanding of this joining configuration applied to tubular joints: • Stress analysis –  y stresses are negligible for smaller  , but these approach  xy stresses by increasing  .  xy stresses are nearly uniform along the bond-line which is a marked advantage over TLJ, despite small peak stresses for small  ; • Damage analysis – Damage concentrates at the bond-line edges, especially for smaller  , following the stress analysis results. Damage distribution in the adhesive is improved compared to lap joints, resulting in higher P m averaged to the bond area; • Failure modes and joint strength – Failure was typically cohesive, but the TSJ with  =3.43° led to adherend plasticization instead. Smaller  exponentially increased P m , although the  =3.43° results were limited by the modification of failure mode; • Dissipated energy – The U -  evolution had similarities to that of P m -  , and a significant U improvement was found from  =10º to 3.43º because of P m but also failure displacement increased because of adherend yielding. References Adams, R.D., 2005. Adhesive bonding: science, technology and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherland. Adams, R.D., Peppiatt, N.A., 1974. Stress analysis of adhesive-bonded lap joints. The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design 9, 185 196. Alfano, G., 2006. On the influence of the shape of the interface law on the application of cohesive-zone models. Composites Science and Technology 66, 723-730. Barbosa, D.R., Campilho, R., Rocha, R.J.B., Ferreira, L.R.F., 2018a. Experimental and numerical assessment of tensile loaded tubular adhesive joints. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications 233, 452-464. Barbosa, N.G.C., Campilho, R.D.S.G., Silva, F.J.G., Moreira, R.D.F., 2018b. Comparison of different adhesively-bonded joint configurations for mechanical structures. Applied Adhesion Science 15, 721-728. Belytschko, T., Black, T., 1999. Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal remeshing. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 45, 601-620.