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

1091

8

0,00 2000,00 4000,00 6000,00 8000,00 10000,00 12000,00

P max (N)

12,5

25

37,5

50

L O (mm)

Experimental

FEM

NNRPIM

Figure 5. Predicted P max based on the MSSC.

0,00 2000,00 4000,00 6000,00 8000,00 10000,00 12000,00

P max (N)

12,5

25

37,5

50

L O (mm)

Experimental

FEM

NNRPIM

Figure 6. Predicted P max using the MPSC.

These differences can be attributed to the differences between the experimental and numerical cases, being these differences summarized as follows. Experimental data took into account the maximum load a joint holds until its failure; when it occurs the adhesive yielded and entered into the plastic regime; while the numerical data was considered, in this first stage, as linear elastic, and so the final P max differs. The use of numerical models in the linear elastic region has been reported before [24]. In that case, both FEM and MM were compared, the meshless solution was threefold the FEM solution [24]. From a reported comparison between the FEM and the Goland and Reissner model, the strength determined numerically was found around 20% lower than the analytical for an SLJ [23]. Such differences can be expected because P max is inversely proportional to the peak stresses, numerical models capture better stress concentrations at the joint ends which result in higher stresses on such points; these can also be increased by a poor mesh in FEM. It is important to note that the reported models only considered one adhesive and one L O , and so cannot be directly compared with the present work. To summarize, the agreement found between the models developed here and the FEM models supports the hypothesis that the NNRPIM is a suitable tool to analyze adhesive joints.