4.7 Article

Cohesive law estimation of adhesive joints in mode II condition

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED FRACTURE MECHANICS
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 143-154

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2015.09.007

关键词

Crack growth; Finite Element analysis; Fracture mechanics; Structural integrity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adhesive bonding technique enables both weight and complexity reduction in structures that require some joining technique to be used on account of fabrication/component shape issues. Because of this, adhesive bonding is also one of the main repair methods for metal and composite structures by the strap and scarf configurations. The availability of strength prediction techniques for adhesive joints is essential for their generalized application and it can rely on different approaches, such as mechanics of materials, conventional fracture mechanics or damage mechanics. These two last techniques depend on the measurement of the fracture toughness (G(c)) of materials. Within the framework of damage mechanics, a valid option is the use of Cohesive Zone Modelling (CZM) coupled with Finite Element (FE) analyses. In this work, CZM laws for adhesive joints considering three adhesives with varying ductility were estimated. The End-Notched Flexure (ENF) test geometry was selected based on overall test simplicity and results accuracy. The adhesives Araldite (R) AV138, Araldite (R) 2015 and Sikaforce (R) 7752 were studied between high-strength aluminium adherends. Estimation of the CZM laws was carried out by an inverse methodology based on a curve fitting procedure, which enabled a precise estimation of the adhesive joints' behaviour. The work allowed to conclude that a unique set of shear fracture toughness (Gad and shear cohesive strength (t(s)(0)) exists for each specimen that accurately reproduces the adhesive layer' behaviour. With this information, the accurate strength prediction of adhesive joints in shear is made possible by CZM. (C) 2015 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

4.7
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