Analysis and Performance of Adhesively Bonded Crush Tube Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lighter structural and energy absorbing materials are essential to increase fuel efficiency in transportation systems and have provided a motivation to investigate the use of new joining techniques based on the use of high strength and high tenacity adhesives. Current joining techniques, such as spot-welding, limit the possible weight reduction that can be achieved if lighter sections, dissimilar materials and/or novel geometries were to be used. Adhesive materials can address many limitations of current joining techniques. \nTo take advantage of the available numerical codes for the simulation of bonded structures during dynamic crash events, a constitutive model for structural adhesive material using cohesive elements was assembled from the measured properties of two structural adhesives; DP-460NS and EC-2214 (3M, Canada). To verify that the proposed cohesive model accurately describes the behavior of the materials a two stage approach was used. First, a cohesive element formulation of the adhesive material was implemented to investigate a Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) (ASTM test D3433-99). The results of the simulation were compared against available experimental data. Second, using sub-size crush tube structures assembled from steel sections that were adhesively bonded, quasi-static and impact events were performed. The results from the experiment were compared against the numerical simulation of the same structure using cohesive elements to describe the adhesive joint. Later, Tie-Breaks were implemented to reduce computational times. Both types of elements successfully represented the adhesive joint and the numerical model of the crush tube was in good agreement with the overall load-displacement behavior of the experimental crush tubes. \nThe use and testing of sub-size structures not only permitted the validation of the numerical models; it also investigated the feasibility of adhesive-only joints in automotive structures that may be exposed to crash scenarios. Sub-sized tubes were used due to equipment capacity limits, but an analysis was undertaken to demonstrate appropriate structural scaling. Even though the results between the experiments and the simulations were in very good agreement, it is clear that current cohesive material models and Tie-Breaks cannot incorporate strain rate effects, which may be important under dynamic impact conditions. Although testing in the literature has reported that the mechanical properties of the bond are affected by the properties of the joined materials as well as the geometry of the joint, these effects in the case of crush tube structures seem perhaps negligible in view of the simulation results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".