Stress Analysis of Tubular Adhesive Joints with Delaminated Adherend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of adhesive joints is becoming increasingly important in aerospace, automotive and other industries where the use of traditional fasteners is discouraged. When using composite adherends, the use of adhesively bonded joints is preferable rather than the traditional bolts and other types of fasteners, because they do not require holes, thereby removing the problems of stress concentrations around the holes. However, when using an adhesively bonded joint, there will be concentrations of the distributions of shear and peel stresses within the adhesive layer which should be controlled effectively. Therefore, the investigation of such stress variation has attracted many researchers. The aforementioned stress distributions become more complicated if the composite adherend contains a pre-existing delamination. Delamination is one of the most common failure modes in laminated composite materials; it can occur due to sudden impact by an external object, during the manufacturing process (e.g., during the filament winding process), or as a result of excessive stresses due to an applied load. It is clear that the existence of a delamination in any composite structure causes a reduction in its stiffness and in some critical situations, it may cause complete failure. This paper investigates the effect of delamination on the structural response of an adhesively bonded tubular joint with composite and aluminum adherends. The finite element method, using the commercial package ABAQUS, is used to conduct a parametric investigation. The effects of the delamination's spatial location, length, width, and the applied loading are studied. Results provide interesting insight (not necessarily intuitive) into the effect of an interlayer delamination on the stress distribution within the adhesive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".