4.7 Article

A study on the strength of adhesively bonded joints with different adherends

期刊

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 167-174

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.03.001

关键词

Carbon-carbon composites (CCCs); Stress concentrations; Finite element analysis (FEA); Mechanical testing; Joints/joining

资金

  1. Ataturk University [2012/438]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, mechanical properties of adhesively bonded single-lap joint (SLJ) geometry with different configurations of lower and upper adherends under tensile loading were investigated experimentally and numerically. The adherends were AA2024-T3 aluminum and carbon/epoxy composite with 16 laminates while, the adhesive was a two-part liquid, structural adhesive DP 460. In experimental studies, four different types of single-lap joints were produced and used namely; composite-composite (Type-I) with lower and upper adherends of the same thicknesses and four different stacking sequences, composite-aluminum (Type-II) with lower and upper adherends of the same thicknesses and four different stacking sequences, composite-aluminum (Type-III) with lower adherend (composite) of the same thickness but upper adherend of three different thicknesses, aluminum-aluminum (Type-IV) with lower adherend of the same thickness but upper adherend of three different thicknesses, composite-composite (Type-V) with 10116 stacking sequences and three different overlap length, aluminum-aluminum (Type-VI) with three different overlap length. In the numerical analysis, the composite adherends were assumed to behave as linearly elastic materials while the adhesive layer and aluminum adherend were assumed to be nonlinear. The results obtained from experimental and numerical analyses showed that composite adherends with different fiber orientation sequence, different adherend thicknesses and overlap length affected the failure load of the joint and stress distributions in the SLJ. (C) 2014 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