Paper Titles
A Consideration of Cleavage Crack Propagation in Fe2Si Steel
p.1
Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Analysis in a Titanium Alloy
p.5
A Criterion for Crack Kinking Out of an Interface
p.9
Geomatrically Nonlinear Analysis of Cracked Stiffened Curved Panels by DBEM
p.13
A Finite Element Analysis of Scarf Joint for Controlling the Triaxiality Function in Adhesive Bonding
p.17
A Study of the Dynamic Plane Strain Fracture Toughness of Concrete by SHPB
p.21
About the Effects of Residual Stress States Coming from Manufacturing Processes on the Behaviour of Riveted Joints
p.25
Failure Analysis of Diesel Engine Intake Valve
p.29
An Analysis of Aging Characteristics of Tilting Train under Accelerated Aging Environment
p.33

A Finite Element Analysis of Scarf Joint for Controlling the Triaxiality Function in Adhesive Bonding

Article Preview

Abstract:

Triaxiality function (Rv) has been known as one of the important factors that responsible for damage initiation in adhesive bonding. Damage evolution law for low cycle fatigue (LCF) is function of Rv, von Mises equivalent stress (Seqv) and number of cycles (N). From previous research, it was found that the Rv values of two cases: bulk adhesives and single lap joint (SLJ), were close to unity. Those values are uncontrollable. Meanwhile, the damage equation for general solution contains Rv as an independent variable. There is need to choose another joint type that can characterise Rv as an independent variable. This paper presents the choice of scarf joint as specimen that can simulate variation of Rv. Several types of adhesive joints have been modelled and analysed using ANSYS as finite element analysis (FEA) tool. In ANSYS, Rv values were calculated directly from direct output results: von Misses equivalent stress and Hydrostatic stress. From FEA, it was shown that Rv changed as a function of adhesive bondline angle of the scarf joint. The values of Rv are constant along adhesive line except at the free edges. This choice is better than Cleavage joint where the values of Rv are not constant along adhesive line due to the presence of bending moment.

You might also be interested in these eBooks
Advances in Fracture and Damage Mechanics VII View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 385-387)

Pages:

17-20

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.385-387.17

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

July 2008

Authors:

I. Hilmy, M.M. Abdel Wahab, Ian A. Ashcroft, A.D. Crocombe

Keywords:

Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Low Cycle Fatigue Damage, Scarf Joint, Triaxiality Function

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

© 2008 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

References

[1] B. W. Schafer, M. S. Zarghamee: Triaxiality and Fracture of Steel Moment Connections, Journal Of Structural Engineering, October 2000 / 1131.

DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2000)126:10(1131)

Google Scholar

[2] I. Barsoum: Ductile Failure And Rupture Mechanisms in Combined Tension and Shear, Licentiate Thesis no. 96, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden.

Google Scholar

[3] E. T. Seppala, J. Belak, R. E. Rudd: Effect of Stress-Triaxiality on Void Growth In Dynamic Fracture of Metals: a Molecular Dynamics Study, October 13, (2003).

DOI: 10.1103/physrevb.69.134101

Google Scholar

[4] B.K. Dutta, H.S. Kushwaha: A Modified Damage Potential to Predict Crack Initiation: Theory and Experimental Verification, Eng. Fracture Mechanics 71 (2004) 263-275.

DOI: 10.1016/s0013-7944(03)00085-7

Google Scholar

[5] J. Lemaitre, R Desmorat: Engineering Damage Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, (2005).

Google Scholar

[6] E.M. Petrie: Handbook of Adhesives and Sealants, McGraw-Hill, (2000).

Google Scholar

[7] ASTM D 1062-02: Test Method for Cleavage Strength of Metal-to-Metal Adhesive Bonds, Vol. 15. 06, 2003 (a) (b) (c) Figure 1: Adhesive joint solid models: (a) Butt joint, (b) cleavage joint and (c) scarf joint Figure 2: Triaxiality comparison in butt joint: (left) pure torsion, (centre) mixed load, (right) pure tension Figure 3: Triaxiality in cleavage joints: (left) 3D result, (right) 3D result in middle line vs plane strain Figure 4: Triaxiality in scarf joints: (left) 3D result, (right) plane strain result for several bondline angles.

DOI: 10.7554/elife.47177.011

Google Scholar