journal article·2020-08Open access

On the influence of overlap topology on the tensile strength of composite bonded joints: Single overlap versus overlap stacking

J. Kupski, S. Teixeira de Freitas, D. Zarouchas, R. Benedictus

Abstract

The goal of this study is to explore new topologies for adhesively bonded composite overlap joints in order to improve their strength under tensile loading. Multiple stacked overlaps, also referred as finger joints, are compared with single overlap topologies. The quasi-static tensile behaviour of single lap joints with two overlap lengths 12.7 mm and 25.4 mm are compared to finger joints with 1 and 2 stacked overlaps through thickness with constant 12.7 mm overlap length. Two composite adherend stacking sequences are tested for each topology [0/90]4s and [90/0]4s. A non-linear FE-analysis is performed to analyse the shear and peel stresses along the adhesive bond line. A difference in peak shear and peel stress, at the tip of the bonded region could be observed: (i) for 1 finger, the peak peel stress is higher than in the single lap joint configurations because the beneficial effect of avoiding eccentricity in the finger joint is outperformed by the detrimental effect of reducing to half the adherend stiffness at the overlap; (ii) for 2 fingers, the stress field changes significantly leads to a 23% decrease in peak shear and 33% in peak peel stress, compared to the single lap joint topologies. In addition, experimental lap shear tests are performed and monitored using acoustic emission technique, to follow the damage events. Different trends at damage initation and at maximum load are believed to result from how the damage propagates inside the joint. A topology with 2 fingers and layup [90/0]4s, which fails entirely inside the adherend, provides the lowest peak shear and peel stress and the highest load at damage initiation. It is however outperformed in maximum load by a single lap joint topology with layup [0/90]4s, with mostly cohesive failure. It is further found that, unlike in single overlap topologies, the most dominant stress component for damage initiation inside the finger joints is the in-plane tensile stress, at the butt joint resin pockets, rather than peel stresses at the overlap region. Lastly, if weight efficiency is the main requirement, a finger joint design can effectively replace a single overlap joint design. However, for absolute maximum joint strength, the single overlap joint is a better choice than the finger joint.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Load-Bearing Analysis · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (23)

Show source-provided references
1. Strength Predictions for Lap Joints, Especially with Composite Adherends. A Review10.1080/00218468908048207 ↗
2. Failure analysis of adhesively-bonded skin-to-stiffener joints: Metal–metal vs. composite–metal10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.05.023 ↗
3. A.D. Crocombe, I.A. Ashcroft: Modelling of Adhesively Bonded Joints. Springer, 2008, Chapter 1: Simple Lap Joint Geometry, ISBN: 978-3-540-79055-6
4. SPS 1: Special Products Standard for Fingerjoined Structural Lumber. National Lumber Grades Authority, Vancouver, 2017
5. Investigation of structural bond lines in wind turbine blades by sub-component tests10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.01.021 ↗
6. Ply-interleaving technique for joining hybrid carbon/glass fibre composite materials
7. Adhesive tongue-and-groove joints for thick composite laminates10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00012-4 ↗
8. Analysis of tongue and groove joints for thick laminates10.1016/j.compositesb.2004.01.006 ↗
9. Strength estimation of adhesively bonded tongue and groove joint of thick composite sandwich structures using genetic algorithm approach10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2009.09.005 ↗
10. I. Sen: Design of A350 XWB Aircraft fuselage design study: Parametric modelling, structural analysis, material evaluation and optimization for aircraft fuselage. Master thesis at Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, 2010
11. Machining of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.135 ↗
12. ASTM D5868 - 01: Standard Test Method for Lap Shear Adhesion for Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Bonding, 2014
13. Layup variation Composite layup effect on the failure mechanism of single lap bonded joints10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.02.093 ↗
14. K. Kaw: Mechanics of Composite Materials. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, 200610.1201/9781420058291 ↗
15. Material datasheet: A75-T-2-0123-1-1. Airbus Material-Handbook Structure, 2014
16. Three-dimensional invariant-based failure criteria for fibre-reinforced composites10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.03.038 ↗
17. The use of acoustic emission and composite peel tests to detect weak adhesion in composite structures10.1080/00218464.2017.1396975 ↗
18. Material datasheet: Scotch-WeldTM Structural Adhesive Film AF 163-2AF163-2k. 3M, Multimedia database, 2009
19. J. Kupski, D. Zarouchas, S. Teixeira de Freitas: Thin-plies in adhesively bonded carbon fiber reinforced polymers. Composites Part B, vol. 184, 202010.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107627 ↗
20. Ultraviolet-Ozone Surface treatment. Three Bond Technical News, 1987
21. J.A. Poulis: Small cylindrical adhesive bonds. PhD thesis, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands, ISBN-90370-0082-7, pp. 39-62, 1993
22. Adhesion Properties of Bonded Composite-to-Aluminium Joints Using Peel Tests10.1080/00218464.2013.850424 ↗
23. Review on techniques to improve the strength of adhesive joints with composite adherends10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107363 ↗