Fracture Behavior of Typical Structural Adhesive Joints Under Quasi-Static and Cyclic Loadings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural adhesive joints are expected to retain integrity in their entire service-life that normally involves cyclic loading concurrent with environmental exposure. Under such a severe working condition, effective determination of fatigue life at different temperatures is crucial for reliable joint design. The main goal of this work was thus defined as evaluation of fatigue performance of adhesive joints at their extreme working temperatures in order to be compared with their fracture properties under static loading. A series of standard double-cantilever-beam (DCB) specimens have been bonded by three structural 3M epoxy adhesives selected from different applications. The specimens were tested under monotonic and cyclic opening loads (mode-I) in order to evaluate the quasi-static and fatigue performances of selected adhesives at room temperature, 80°C and -40°C. The test results revealed that the fatigue damage occurred at relatively low load levels when compared to quasi-static fracture forces. At room temperature, the maximum cyclic fatigue forces varied between 25% and 40% of corresponding quasi-static fracture loads of selected adhesives. More significant reductions in adhesive mechanical performances were observed at 80°C. At cryogenic temperature, the adhesives had their own characterizations; mainly increasing the fatigue resistance but very sensitive to testing parameters such as loading rate or crosshead speed. In conclusion, the experimental observations showed a significant influence of fatigue loading on adhesive joints mechanical performances that should be considered in joint design, particularly at non-ambient temperatures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".