PSI - Issue 72

L.A.S. Maia et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 72 (2025) 43–51

47

40

AV138

DP8005

XNR6852 E-2

30

26.92

28.39

24.00

14.43 19.93

19.90

20

P m [kN]

11.75 16.79

13.61

10

0

Experimental

Numerical reference

Current numerical

Fig. 2. Experimental/numerical P m comparison for the different adhesives.

Table 4. Quantitative experimental/numerical P m and deviations.

Adhesive

AV138

DP8005

XNR6852E-2

Numerical reference (1) Experimental value (2) Numerical value (3)

14.43 kN 19.93 kN 26.92 kN 11.75 kN 16.79 kN 24.00 kN 13.61 kN 19.90 kN 28.39 kN -5.68% -0.15% 5.46% 12.89% 15.60% 16.31%

ΔP m (3) – (1) ΔP m (3) – (2)

3.2. Overlap length effect

The L O influence on P m is analyzed considering L O =12.5, 25, 37.5, and 50 mm. The proportion of flexible and stiff adhesives in the joint is kept constant in the following studies, as described in section 2.1. The normalized stress distributions (peel or  y , and shear or  xy ) were obtained by division over the average  xy (  avg ). Fig. 3 presents  xy and  y stresses for the DP8005+AV138 adhesive combination as a function of the various L O , respectively. From Fig. 3 (a), the highest peak  xy stresses are located at the transition between adhesives. The higher the L O , the greater the stresses. Opposite to the quasi-static cases, there is no symmetry in the distribution of  xy stresses. For  y stress distributions (Fig. 3 b), there is no symmetry and visible varying trend with L O , although L O =12.5 and 25 mm result in the highest peaks. L O =12.5 mm shows the highest peak values at the transition between adhesives, while L O =25 mm reveals the highest  y stress values at the overlap edges. The P -  curves for a selected adhesive configuration are presented in Fig. 4 (a), and the overall P m results in Fig. 4 (b).

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

2.0

12.5 mm 25 mm 37.5 mm 50 mm

12.5 mm 25 mm 37.5 mm 50 mm

1.5

1.0

0.5

 xy /  avg

 y /  avg

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x/L O

x/L O

a)

b)

Fig. 3. Stress distribution for the DP8005+AV138 combination as a function of L O : a)  xy and b)  y .