2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Elasto-plastic stress distributions in adhesively bonded double lap joints

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(17 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 1 lists the material parameters in Abaqus/CAE, and the load (F) was 0.5 kN. According to the models proposed by Sayman et al (2013) and Vaidya et al (2008), the adhesive layer and adherend are regarded as isotropic elastoplastic materials. In finite element analysis, it is assumed that connections of structural components are perfect, the bonding surface is defect-free, no spew fillets are present on joint ends, displacements of coupling nodes are consistent, and the bonding interface is perfectly bonded.…”
Section: Construction Of the Finite Element Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Table 1 lists the material parameters in Abaqus/CAE, and the load (F) was 0.5 kN. According to the models proposed by Sayman et al (2013) and Vaidya et al (2008), the adhesive layer and adherend are regarded as isotropic elastoplastic materials. In finite element analysis, it is assumed that connections of structural components are perfect, the bonding surface is defect-free, no spew fillets are present on joint ends, displacements of coupling nodes are consistent, and the bonding interface is perfectly bonded.…”
Section: Construction Of the Finite Element Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, the stability of strap lap bonding joints is typically poor. Although mechanical properties (e.g., strength) of strap lap bonding joints can be experimentally determined (Osnes and McGeorge 2005;Wang and Gunnion 2009;Sayman et al 2013), their structural stress distribution cannot be tested or described. Currently, stress distributions in bonding joints can be numerically simulated by the finite element method, thus facilitating mechanical analysis for the design of complicated adhesive structures (Vaidya et al 2008;Lu et al 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 (Huang et al 2012). To simplify the model analysis, the adhesive layer and bonded specimen were defined as isotropic elastoplastic materials by using the finite element numerical simulation models of (Sayman et al 2013) and (Vaidya et al 2008). It was assumed that the bonding structure was well connected, the bonded surface had no defects, the coupling joints had the same displacement, the joints were isotropic, and the bonding degree of the adhesive interface was 100%.…”
Section: Construction Of the Finite Element Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These could be classified into three groups (Ihn and Chang, 2008): the first group includes localized problems such as cracks, voids or delamination; the second group includes damages related to the adhesive mechanical properties (cohesive problem); the third one is related to adhesive problems and so to the strength of the adhesion between adhesive and adherend. In He (2014) and Sayman et al (2013), it was demonstrated that the stress distributions of a single-lap adhesively bonded joint are affected by the boundary conditions and the stress concentrations are high only at interface free-ends (the central region of adhesive layer is almost stress-free). For these reasons, the free-ends of adhesive regions can be subjected to interfacial fracture due to either the normal or the shear stress or their combination exceeding the bond strength.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%