Issue 48

M. Bezzerrouki et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 48 (2019) 491-502; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.48.47 498 Study of the stress distribution for model 2 The Fig. 8 represents the variation of the stresses in the adhesive layer after modification in one of the two plates by removal of the material with a thickness of 0.2 mm so that the adhesive is entirely placed in one of the two plates, this will allow the adhesive to be exposed on one side to temperature and humidity. This method reduces the stresses at one of the two edges by reducing the bending moment. Likewise, the increase in the applied stress increases the value of the various stresses in the adhesive layer. The depth of the adhesive will be less stressed comparing to the case of model1. The shear stress becomes a little weak in the adhesive and whatever the value of the stress applied at the edge and the core of the adhesive. Likewise for peeling stresses, the values become weaker and the risk of peeling becomes negligible even for high stresses. Adding that as the first model the distribution of stresses remain unsymmetrical. Study of the stress distribution for model 3 The Fig. 9 shows the variation of different stresses for the third model. It is clearly seen that the modification made to the two plates by removing the 0.1 mm material on each side of the plates has a considerable reduction in the various stresses at the edge and at the depth. In addition, symmetry is present in the stress distribution at the adhesive layer. We also note that the increase in the various stresses (Von-Mises, shearing and peeling) is low especially compared to model 1. It is concluded that the risk of separation is almost negligible in model 3. (a) (b) (c) Figure 9 : Variation of a) Von-Mises, b) Shear and c) Peel stresses in the adhesive layer along the overlap length (case of Model 3).