4.5 Article

Mode I fracture toughness of adhesively bonded joints as a function of temperature: Experimental and numerical study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2010.09.005

关键词

High temperature adhesives; Fracture mechanics; Mechanical properties of adhesives; Temperature tests; Cohesive zone models

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [SFRH/BD/61880/2009, PTDC/EME-PME/67022/2006]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/61880/2009, PTDC/EME-PME/67022/2006] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adhesives used in structural high temperature aerospace applications must operate in extreme environments. They need to exhibit high-temperature capabilities in order to maintain their mechanical properties and their structural integrity at the intended service temperature. One of the main problems caused by high temperature conditions is the fact that the adhesives have different mechanical properties with temperature. As is known, adhesive strength generally shows temperature dependence. Similarly, the fracture toughness is expected to show temperature dependence. In this work, the Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) test is analysed in order to evaluate the effect of the temperature on the adhesive model fracture toughness of a high temperature epoxy adhesive. Cohesive zone models, in which the failure behaviour is expressed by a bilinear traction-separation law, have been used to define the adhesive behaviour and to predict the adhesive P-delta curves as a function of temperature. The simulation response for various temperatures matched the experimental results very well. The sensitivity of the various cohesive zone parameters in predicting the overall mechanical response as a function of temperature was examined as well for a deeper understanding of this predictive method. Also, issues of mesh sensitivity were explored to ensure that the results obtained were mesh independent. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据