4.5 Article

Mixed-mode fracture analysis of composite bonded joints considering adhesives of different ductility

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRACTURE
卷 207, 期 1, 页码 55-71

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10704-017-0219-x

关键词

Bonded joint; Finite element analysis; Fracture mechanics; Mixed-mode fracture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of adhesive joints in industrial applications has been increasing. To increase the confidence in the design of adhesive structures, it is important to be able to accurately predict their strength and fracture properties (critical strain energy release rate in tension, , and shear, . As in most cases loads induce mixed-mode (tension plus shear), it is of great importance the perception of fracture under these conditions, in which relates to the strain energy release rate in tension, , and shear, . This analysis allows choosing the best failure criterion to use in cohesive zone models, to predict the behaviour of bonded joints. This work presents an experimental and numerical study using the Single-Leg Bending (SLB) test on specimens bonded with three adhesives, to study and compare their mixed-mode fracture properties. For this purpose, data reduction methods were applied to estimate and that require the measurement of crack length (a) and methods using an equivalent crack length (. The analysis and comparison of and obtained during the experimental phase were addressed. Framing the obtained values in several fracture envelopes enable to select which failure criterion is more appropriate for each adhesive. Overall, a very good agreement was obtained between methods for the determination of and . Actually, apart from one of the methods that produced higher errors, the highest deviation to the -based method (considered as the most robust) was 9.3%, obtained for . In the numerical simulations it was possible to reproduce the observed behaviour of the experimental tests, with a positive validation of the chosen propagation criteria obtained from the experimental results.

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