PSI - Issue 72

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

50

Table 6. Influence of t P on E f .

Adhesive combination

Difference [%]

t P [mm]

E c [J]

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

5.59 4.47 4.24 4.28 2.43 1.79 2.27 1.99

-

-20.0% -24.2% -23.4% -26.3% -6.6% -18.1% -28.5% -33.3% -30.9% - -

DP8005+AV138

RTV106+AV138

12.57 8.99 8.38 8.68

DP8005+XNR6852E-2

4. Conclusions This study addressed the impact behavior of DSLJ using numerical methods validated against experimental data. The obtained results showed the potential of dual-adhesive configurations to increase the impact strength of adhesive joints without requiring complex design alterations. The combination of stiff and flexible adhesives optimized stress distributions, with the stiff adhesive in the central region providing load-bearing capacity and the flexible adhesive at the edges mitigating stress concentrations. After positive validation of the impact CZM approach, numerical simulations confirmed that L O and adhesive selection critically influence the joint’s performance. Bigger L O improved both P m and E , with the DP8005+XNR6852E-2 combination demonstrating the best performance. However, beyond a certain L O , plastic deformation of adherends was observed. The value of t P also showed a positive correlation with P m , as thicker adherends reduced deformation and led to improved stress distribution. Nonetheless, E f decreased with increasing t P , as less adhesive deformation occurred to dissipate impact energy. Among the adhesive combinations, DP8005+AV138 exhibited a balanced performance across all geometrical variations, whereas DP8005+XNR6852E-2 showed superior E f under high-impact conditions. The results emphasize the importance of tailored adhesive combinations and joint geometry for applications requiring impact resistance. The CZM approach demonstrated accurate predictive capabilities, enabling detailed joint analysis under dynamic loading. References Akkasali, N. K., Biswas, S., Sen, S., Anitha, S., 2024. A state-of-the-art review on adhesively bonded joints of similar and dissimilar materials. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology: In Press de Oliveira, L. A., Donadon, M. V., 2020. Delamination analysis using cohesive zone model: A discussion on traction-separation law and mixed mode criteria. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 228: 106922 Faria, A., Campilho, R., 2024. Parametric analysis of composite tubular adhesive joints bonded by the bi-adhesive technique. Academia Materials Science 1: 1-10 Fitton, M., Broughton, J., 2005. Variable modulus adhesives: an approach to optimised joint performance. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 25: 329-336 Han, S., Yuan, F., Wang, T., Li, Z., Li, Y., 2024. Investigation of residual strength in CFRP double-adhesive single lap bonded joints after low velocity impact. The Journal of Adhesion: In Press Hu, C., Huang, G., Li, C., 2021. Experimental and numerical study of low-velocity impact and tensile after impact for CFRP laminates single-lap joints adhesively bonded structure. Materials 14: 1016 Kurennov, S., Barakhov, K., Vambol, O., 2023. Topological optimization BI-adhesive double lap adhesive joint. One-dimension model. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 126: 103474 Nuhoğlu, K., Aktaş, E., Tanoğlu, M., Martin, S., İplikçi, H., Barisik, M., Yeke, M., Türkdoğan, C., Esenoğlu, G., Dehneliler, S., İriş, M. E., 2023. Analysis of adhesively bonded joints of laser surface treated composite primary components of aircraft structures. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 126: 103456 Pires, I., Quintino, L., Durodola, J., Beevers, A., 2003. Performance of bi-adhesive bonded aluminium lap joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 23: 215-223 Raphael, C. (1966). Variable-adhesive bonded joints (Stresses in ordinary lap joint compared to variable adhesive joint). Structural Adhesives Bonding Symposium, Hoboken, USA Semerdjiev, S. (1970). Metal to metal adhesive bonding. London, United Kingdom, Business Books