PSI - Issue 52

Minori Isozaki et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 52 (2024) 176–186 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

180

5

Table 2. Diameter of welding area α ( mm ) Specimen No. Area ( mm2 )

Diameter α ( mm )

1 2 3 4

47.3 28.3 89.1 107

7.76 6.00 10.7 11.7

Table 3. Material properties

Young modulus ( MPa )

Poisson’ ratio

CFRTP

9300 3000

0.2

PEEK

0.37

Table 4. Material properties (Plasticity of PEEK). Young modulus ( MPa ) Poisson’ ratio 81.6 0.000 88.1 0.100 95.3 0.200 104 0.300 113 0.400 123 0.500 132 0.573

Fig. 5. Compression Shear Test FEM model.

These FEM models were constructed to reproduce the compression shear test and numerical simulations were performed. The stress state in each model is discussed when the load applied to the displaced surface (surface indicated in red in Fig. 5) is the same as the experimental value. Fig. 6 shows the stress in the normal direction (Fig. 6(a)) and the stress in the shear direction (Fig. 6(b)) at the weld interface to discuss the stress distribution at the adhesive interface. Specimen No. 1 is specifically discussed here. Table 5 shows the stresses in the normal and shear directions at the interface when the load is the same as the experimental values, along with the experimental results. Fig. 6 indicates that in the compression shear test, stress is concentrated at the edge of the weld, especially at the top near the loading point. This tendency was also observed in the other specimens No. 2~4. Considering this stress distribution and the fact that the failure of the adhesive interface is based on the parabolic criterion (Koyanagi et al.