Accepted Manuscript

Strength Improvement in Single Lap Adhesive Joints by Notching the Adherends

B. Bahrami, M.R. Ayatollahi, M.J. Beigrezaee, L.F.M. da Silva

PII: S0143-7496(19)30130-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2019.102401
Article Number: 102401
Reference: JAAD 102401

To appear in: International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives

Please cite this article as: Bahrami B, Ayatollahi MR, Beigrezaee MJ, da Silva LFM, Strength
Improvement in Single Lap Adhesive Joints by Notching the Adherends, International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2019.102401.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Strength Improvement in Single Lap Adhesive Joints by Notching the Adherends

B. Bahrami1, M. R. Ayatollahi1,*, M.J. Beigrezaee1, L.F.M. da Silva2

PT
1
Fatigue and Fracture Research Lab., Center of Excellence in Experimental Solid Mechanics and Dynamics, School of
Mechanical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

RI
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal

*
Corresponding author: m.ayat@iust.ac.ir (M.R. Ayatollahi)

SC
Abstract

U
In this study, an easy procedure is proposed to improve the strength of Single Lap Joints
AN
(SLJs) by introducing a notch in the adherends right after the overlap length. At first, the

effect of different notch parameters on the peel, shear and von Mises stress distributions of
M

the adhesive mid-plane layer is investigated by using the Finite Element (FE) method. The

considered parameters are the notch angle, the notch width, the notch depth, and the notch
D

distance from the overlap length. Afterwards, a simple 90-degree notch angle which can be
TE

easily manufactured is selected for adherend notching based on the numerical results. In
EP

addition, in order to experimentally investigate the effects of different notch parameters on

the failure load of adhesive joints, five various notch depths with two different adhesive
C

curing methods are considered. Finally, the experimentally obtained fracture loads are
AC

compared with the theoretical ones which are based on the predictions of von Mises stress

and peel. The results show that using the adherend notching can significantly improve the

load bearing capacity of SLJs. For instance, a simple notch with 20% notch depth ratio can

improve the load bearing capacity of the SLJ about 60%.

Keywords: Adhesive bond joint; Single lap joint; Adherend notching; Strength

improvement;
1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Nomenclature

free Free length

tab Tab length

L Overlap length

PT
T Adherend thickness

t Adhesive thickness

RI
a Adherend notch depth

SC
b Adherend notch width

r Adherend notch depth ratio

U
x Adherend notch distance from overlap length
AN
α Adherend notch angle
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction

The application of adhesive joints in lightweight structures such as aerospace and marine is

increasing. These joints are a good substitute for conventional methods of joining like

welding and riveting due to their advantages such as uniform stress distribution [1]. There are

PT
different types of adhesive joints being the most common ones the single lap joints (SLJs).

Therefore, the majority of research papers are dedicated to this type of joint. SLJs are easily

RI
manufactured, but the asymmetric geometry causes a rotation in the joint when loaded.

SC
Hence, the adhesive layer is subjected not only to shear but also to peel stresses which

significantly affect the joint strength. In addition, stress singularities at the overlap ends make

U
the stress distributions of the adhesive layer complicated. Therefore, different parameters to
AN
increase the load bearing capacity of SLJ have been investigated.
M

Several studies have proposed various methods to increase the joint efficiency. The main

purpose of the first group of these methods is to reduce the local peak shear and peel stress
D

distributions by modifying the joint geometry. Furthermore, some other methods such as
TE

changing the adhesive layer properties, modifying the adhesive geometry, using a spew fillet

and combining the adhesive with other methods of joining like bolts have also been proposed
EP

by researchers.
C

Among the methods which have used different types of adhesive joints to improve the load
AC

bearing capacity, the following research could be mentioned. Different spew fillet

configurations were investigated by Deng and Lee [2]. They used carbon fiber reinforced to

retrofit the beams to reduce the adhesive layer stress concentration. Their obtained Finite

Element (FE) results revealed that the spew fillet with inside taper with a triangular fillet

reduces the shear and normal peak stresses about 42.3% and 76.0% and presents the best

results. Chaves et al. [3] discussed practical aspects of T-joints for the industrial usage of

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
certain types of window-frames. Both FE and experiments showed that tapering the

adherends is not suitable for improving the T-joint strength, but the presence of a spew fillet

at the overlap ends could improve the T-joint strength. Furthermore, Akpinar et al. [4]

studied the effect of supports in T-joints by performing 3D FE analyses and showed that the

supports could improve the joint strength. Double lap joints which are regarded as an

PT
alternative for SLJs were numerically and experimentally analyzed by Adams et al. [5]. They

RI
considered four configurations including different types of adherends’ tapering and adhesive

filleting to find the best performance in the tensile tests. They claimed that the joint’s

SC
efficiency can be improved up to 73% by filleting the adhesive and tapering the adherend,

simultaneously. However, it was shown that the fillet increases thermal residual stresses by

da Silva and Adams [6].

U
AN
In addition, the effect of modifying the geometry of SLJs was also assessed by researchers.
M

For instance, the adherends’ tapering method was proposed by Sancaktar and Nirantar [7].

They performed some FE analyses together with experimental tests to find the optimized
D

taper angle for metal adherends in SLJs. They concluded that the highest strength
TE

improvement is achieved when the tapering angle reaches its minimum value. In their
EP

research, the minimum angle considered was 10° which resulted in about 30% improvement

in failure loads. Their conclusion was consistent with the study performed by Moya-Sanz et
C

al. [8]. Moya-Sanz et al. studied the chamfering effect in both adherends and adhesive layer.
AC

They reported that 15° chamfering angle for both adhesive and adherends is the best choice

for joint strength improvement. Pinto et al. investigated the effect of adherend recessing [9].

Their proposed notching technique can increase the SLJs’ strength up to 21%. Besides, they

showed that FE and cohesive zone model approaches can predict the failure load of their

configuration precisely. Zhao et.al suggested rounding the adherend corners in order to

reduce the peak of stress distributions [10,11]. Their numerical and experimental results

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
showed that the adherend corners with large radius increase the strength of joints with brittle

adhesive about 40% in comparison with the non-modified SLJs. Using non-flat adherends

was investigated by researchers in order to generate local compressive stresses at the overlap

ends. They demonstrated that this technique can move the peak stresses from the edges to the

middle of the overlap length and accordingly improve the SLJs’ strength. For instance,

PT
Ayatollahi et al. [12] used adherends’ sinusoid interfaces to evaluate the effect of this

RI
solution in the fatigue performance of SLJs. First, they compared the static strength of the flat

SLJs with the non-flat one. The experimental results demonstrated that the non-flat

SC
configuration strength was about 49% higher than the flat one. Then, by using the

experimental data, they showed that the non-flat SLJs have superior fatigue life to the flat

U
one. In a similar study, Ashrafi et al. analyzed non-flat SLJs using composite adherends [13].
AN
They used both numerical and experimental procedures to find out the mechanical properties
M

of SLJs having sinusoid interfaces. They demonstrated that there were remarkable differences

between the failure loads of various tested SLJs configurations. Furthermore, based on the
D

FEM computation, they found that the peel stress was the main reason of the failure. Their
TE

FEM results also showed that the shape of the interfaces and stiffness of the adhesive play an

important role in the failure of the SLJs. Next, Haghpanah et al. used another kind of non-flat
EP

interfaces in SLJs [14]. They fabricated a kind of zigzag interface which contains positive
C

and negative interlocking teeth. In addition, they analyzed their configurations by means of
AC

FEM to characterize the effect of the teeth parameters. In another study, Sancaktar and

Simmons [15] could improve the strength of SLJ by introducing some notches in the outer

surfaces of adherends. Brittle adhesives were used for preparing their SLJ test specimen.

In the present work, in the first step, comprehensive two-dimensional linear elastic FE

analyses are performed to study the influence of adherend notching on the SLJs’ adhesive

layer stress distributions. The notch angle, the notch width, the notch depth and the notch

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
distance from the overlap length are considered to analyze the selected geometry and find the

optimum adherend notch parameters. Afterwards, five various notch configurations with two

different adhesive curing methods are employed to assess the effect of adherend notching

experimentally. Finally, the results obtained from the experiments are compared with those

from the FE predictions which are based on the peel and von Mises stresses in the adhesive

PT
layer.

RI
2. Finite element method

SC
2.1. Materials

U
A comprehensive FE study was performed in order to find the effects of different notch
AN
parameters on the stress distribution of the SLJ adhesive mid-plane layer by using COMSOL

Multiphysics commercial software. A non-modified SLJ model was considered as the

M

reference model and the strength of the modified SLJs were compared with this one. The
D

mechanical properties of the SLJs’ components are illustrated in Table 1. These mechanical
TE

properties are related to aluminum 7075 and UHU Gmbh & Co. KG [16] as the joint

adherend and the adhesive, respectively.

EP

Table 1. Mechanical properties of the joint’s components.

C

Mechanical properties Adherend Adhesive

AC

Young’s modules [GPa] 70.00 2.30

Poisson’s ratio 0.33 0.40

2.2. Geometry

Some of the possible variables of the notched SLJs were defined as the FE modeling

parameters in order to find the relation between them. According to Fig. 1, various joint

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
parameters like tab length, free and overlap lengths, adhesive and adherend thicknesses

together with different notch parameters such as notch width, notch angle and notch distance

from the overlap ends are represented by tab, free, L, t, T, b, α and x, respectively. In

addition, the notch depth ratio was defined as the ratio of notch depth (a) to the adherend

thickness (T) and is indicated by r. To investigate the effect of different adherend notch

PT
parameters, notch depth, notch width, notch angle and notch distance from the overlap ends

RI
were considered as the variable parameters, while the joint parameters such as tab length, free

and overlap lengths and adhesive and adherend thicknesses were considered to be constant.

SC
The constant SLJ parameters together with the variable notch parameters are illustrated in

Table 2.

U
AN
M

Fig.1. Schematic of the parametric geometry of the SLJs with the introduced adherend
D

notch at the overlap ends.

TE

Table 2. Parameters related to the single lap joint together with the parameters related to the
EP

introduced notch in the adherend.

C

SLJ parameter value Notch parameter range

tab 10 mm r=a/T 0 to 0.9
AC

free 40 mm b 0 to 30 mm
L 25 mm x -30 to 4 mm
T 5 mm α 10 to 150°
t 0.5 mm

2.3. Boundary conditions and mesh

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the left horizontal edge was fixed while the right one was under

uniaxial tension. Moreover, the both upper and bottom edges of adherends’ tab area can

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
solely move in the horizontal direction. An arbitrary uniaxial distributed load with total force

of 10 kN for all configurations was applied to both non-modified and modified geometries to

find the effect of adherend notching on different components of stress in the adhesive mid-

plane layer. A two-dimensional linear elastic plane strain model was simulated. Additionally,

quadratic quadrilateral elements were considered for meshing the geometry. The mesh pattern

PT
of the modified SLJ with 20% notch depth, 5 mm notch width and 2 mm distance from the

RI
overlap ends is shown in Fig. 3.

U SC
AN
Fig.2. Schematic geometry of the boundary conditions of the non-modified SLJ.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.3. Size and geometery of mesh in the vicinity of adhesive layer in the modified SLJ.

2.4. Numerical results

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A comprehensive parametric study was performed to find the optimum value for each of the

notch parameters. Therefore, peel and von Mises stress distributions from the adhesive mid-

plane layer were obtained from the FE results from the non-modified and modified SLJs to

find the effect of adherent notching. It is worth mentioning that more than 400 FE

computations were conducted to evaluate the effect of notch parameters. Fig. 4 shows the

PT
influence of notch depth ratio on the stress distribution for constant values of notch width,

RI
notch angle and notch distance from the overlap length. It is obvious from Fig. 4 that

introducing a notch to the adherent can significantly decrease the peak peel stress.

SC
65 r=0

U
70 r=10%
55 65.89 53.33 r=20%
60
AN
44.89 r=30%
45 r=40%
Peel stress (MPa)

50 38.93
33.97 r=50%
35 40 28.88
x=0mm
M

25 30 b=5mm
α=90°
15 20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
D

5
TE

-5
-15
0 5 10 15 20 25
EP

Overlap length (mm)

Fig. 4. Peel stress distribution of adhesive mid-plane layer for different values of notch
C

ratio r.
AC

Afterwards, the peaks of the adhesive mid-plane peel and von Mises stress distributions for

each configuration were extracted. The maximum values of the peel and von Mises stresses

in the modified SLJs have been first subtracted. Next, these values were divided by the peak

peel and von Mises stresses of the modified SLJs. For example, if the maximum peel stresses

of the unmodified and modified geometries have arbitrary values of σunmodified = 100 MPa and

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
σmodified = 50 MPa, the corresponding failure loads of these geometries based on the peel stress

predictions will be Funmodified = 10 kN and Fmodified = 20 kN, respectively. Thus, the strength

improvement of this example can be calculated as follows.

 −  20 − 10

ℎ
 
 = 100 ∗ = 100 ∗ = 100%
 10

PT
 −  10 − 5

ℎ
 
 = 100 ∗ = 100 ∗ = 100%
 5

RI
The effect of each notch parameter is discussed next.

SC
a- Notch angle

U
At the first step, the notch angle effect was evaluated. To do so, the notch was located at the
AN
overlap ends x=0 while the notch width was remained constant b=5mm and six different
M

notch depth of r=10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% & 60% were considered for FE analyses. The

obtained strength improvement from peel and von Mises stresses are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig.
D

6. It can be concluded from both Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 that introducing the notch can improve the
TE

peel and von Mises stresses while increasing r has a significant effect on the strength

improvement. In addition, increasing the notch angle can generally raise the strength
EP

improving both peel and von Mises stresses but this improvement decreases for high values
C

of α.
AC

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Fig. 5. Effect of adherend notch angle on the SLJ peel strength for six values of r.

U
AN
120 r=10% r=20%
von Mises strength improvement (%)

r=30% r=40%
M

100 r=50% r=60%

x=0mm
b=5mm
80
D

60
TE

40
EP

20

0
C

10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150

Angle effect α (°)
AC

Fig. 6. Effect of adherend notch angle on the SLJ von Mises strength for six values of r.

As can be seen in Figs. 5 and 6, the strength improvement for both peel and von Mises

stresses for 90-degrees notches is higher than the strength improvement for lower angles and

approximately the same as those for higher angles, while manufacturing the 90-degrees angle

notch is easier and more applicable. Thus, a 90 degrees notch is a suitable choice and the

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
angle of the adherend notch for further investigations was considered constant and equal to

90-degrees.

b- Notch distance from the overlap ends

The results of the variation of the strength improvement against the notch distance from the

PT
overlap ends are demonstrated in Fig. 7. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the notch depth and width

are constant and equal to r=20% & 50% and b=5mm. Fig. 7 shows that locating the notch far

RI
from the overlap ends does not have a considerable effect on the SLJ strength improvement.

SC
Therefore, it is recommended to locate the notch very close to the joint overlap ends to

achieve the maximum strength improvement.

U
AN
120 x=0mm
Peel stress (r=20%)
von Mises stress (r=20%)
M

100 Peel stress (r=50%)

Strength improvement (%)

von Mises (r=50%)

80 b=5mm
D

α=90°

60
TE

40
EP

20

0
C

-25 -22 -19 -16 -13 -10 -7 -4 -1 2

Distance from overlap end x (mm)
AC

Fig. 7. Effect of notch distance from the overlap ends on the SLJ strength for two different

values of r.

c- Notch width

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
In this section, the effect of notch width on the strength improvement of the modified SLJs is

investigated. The notch width was considered to be variable with the magnitudes mentioned

in Table 2 while the notch depth ratio was equal to r=20% & 50%. Fig. 8 shows that the

variation of the notch width does not have a significant effect on the modified SLJs with

r=20%, but improves the peel stress for r=50%. Since, the adherend notch has a considerable

PT
effect on the SLJ improvement (at least 45% improvement of von Mises stress for r=20%

RI
configuration), its width can be neglected for low notch depth ratios.

160

SC
Peel stress (r=20%)
140 von Mises stress (r=20%)
Strength improvement (%)

Peel stress (r=50%)

U
von Mises stress (r=50%)
120
x=0mm
AN
α=90°
100
M

80

60
D

40
TE

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width b (mm)
Fig. 8. Notch width effect on the SLJ strength for two values of r.
EP

d- Notch depth
C

In this section, two values of b=2.5 & 5 mm were selected for the notch width and the notch
AC

was located right at the end of the overlap length. According to Fig. 9, the notch depth can

significantly affect the modified SLJ strength. It can be deduced from Fig. 9 that the

maximum values of peak stress improvement occurs for r>60% which shows more than

150% improvement for both peel and von Mises stresses, while the improvement decreases

for r>75% demonstrating that the notch depth ratio has an optimum value.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Similar to previous sections, differences between the peel and von Mises stress improvements

can be seen in Fig. 9. Regarding Fig. 9, the strength improvement of the peel stress for

r>25% is more than that of the von Mises. Besides, by increasing the adherend notch depth

ratio more than r=30%, the strength improvement related to a notch with b=5mm width is a

little more than the strength improvement related to a notch with b=2.5mm width. Therefore,

PT
it is concluded that a higher width can make higher improvement for notch depth ratios

RI
r>25%.

SC
300 Peel stress (b=2.5mm)
von Mises stress (b=2.5mm)
Peel stress (b=5mm)
Strength improvement (%)

250

U
von Mises stress (b=5mm)
x=0mm
200
AN
α=90°

150
M

100
D

50
TE

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Notch depth ratio r
EP

Fig. 9. Notch depth effect on the SLJ strength for two different values of b.

It is worth mentioning that introducing a notch in the adherends will make the adherends
C

weak due to the stress concentration at the notch corners. Hence, adherend notch parameters,
AC

especially its depth, should be chosen according to the adherends and adhesive’s strength.

The main propose of this section was to find the influence of the adherend notching on the

SLJs strength. It was concluded from this part that the adherend notching can decrease the

SLJs peel and von Mises stresses significantly. This improvement is a function of four

different notch parameters such as notch angle, notch width, notch depth and notch distance

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
from the overlap length. In addition, it was demonstrated that the major effective notch

parameter is the notch depth ratio. Furthermore, it was recommended to locate the adherend

notch at the overlap edges and it was explained that the adherend notch width is not a very

affecting parameter especially when the notch depth ratio is relatively small. In the next

section, the experimental procedure of the adherent notching technique is explained.

PT
3. Experiments

RI
SC
In this section, the parametric study performed in the previous section was used to investigate

the effect of adherent notching experimentally. According to the FE results, the notch angle

U
for the experimental tests was considered to be 90 degrees which could be easily produced.
AN
Moreover, the notches were located right at the overlaps edges. The materials’ selection and

specimens’ preparation is described next.

M

3.1. Joints geometry and preparation

D

Aluminum alloy 7075 T6 was selected for the adherends and UHU endfest 300 plus was used
TE

as the adhesive material. UHU endfest 300 plus is a two-part epoxy-based adhesive which
EP

according to Ayatollahi et al [17] has brittle tensile behavior.

The geometry of the manufactured adherends is shown in Fig. 10. This geometry is the same
C

as the geometry used in numerical study in the previous section. Based on UHU adhesive
AC

datasheet [16], the aluminum adherends had to be pre-treated for joining. Thus, specimens

were dipped in a caustic solution for given time and temperature and were post cleaned

according to the datasheet [16].

In order to check the adherend notching technique, two different curing methods were

considered for the joints which resulted in two different adhesive bond strengths. These

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
curing methods are depicted in Table 3. Based on Table 3, it is expected that SLJs which

were cured according to method 2 bear 1.67 times more load than the SLJs which were cured

according to method 1.

Table 3. Curing temperatures and times for the adhesive [16].

PT
Curing method number Temperature Hardening time Bond strength
1 40 3 hrs Approx. 1800 N/cm2
2 180 5 min Approx. 3000 N/cm2

RI
SC
Ø10

U
AN
M

Fig. 10. Schematic of the specimens (dimension in mm).

D

One of the most important factors in manufacturing the SLJs is the adhesive layer thickness
TE

uniformity. In this study, the adhesive layer thickness was considered to be t = 0.4 mm. To

achieve the uniform adhesive layer thickness, the fixture shown in Fig. 11 was made and
EP

used. This fixture helps to control not only the thickness of the adhesive layer but also the

alignment of the substrates. The SLJs were cured in a ATRA® Oven based on Table 3 curing
C
AC

times and temperatures. Finally, the joints were kept at the room temperature for 7 days. Prior

to testing, the thickness uniformity of the joints was evaluated and if the variation of the

thickness was more than 5% the joint was rejected for testing. Four sample configurations of

the manufactured SLJs which are ready for the test are shown in Fig. 12.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
a) b)

RI
Fig. 11. The fixture used for manufacturing the joints a) the fixture with upper lid b) the

fixture with substrates and adhesive.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 12. Manufactured SLJs, (from left to right): r=0%, 10%, 20% & 30%.
C

3.2. Tests condition and method

AC

The modified and non-modified SLJs were experimentally tested in order to find the failure

loads. For the illustrated geometries in Fig. 10, five configurations with different notch depths

r=0%, 5%, 10%, 20% & 30% with constant notch width and location were tested. For each

configuration, two different adhesive curing procedures were considered. For each SLJ

configuration and curing method, at least three tests were performed in order to check the

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
repeatability. All in all, 30 tests were conducted. The tests were carried out at room

temperature in a universal tensile testing machine SANTAM® STM-150. The quasi-static

loading condition was simulated for tested samples by using a constant displacement rate of

0.5 mm/min. All the joints’ load-displacement curves were almost linear up to fracture and

the joints had a cohesive failure surface. Fig. 13 shows the comparison of the experimental

PT
load-displacement curves between the modified and non-modified SLJs with two different

RI
curing methods.

SC
12
r=0% 12 r=0%
r=20% r=10%
9
9

U
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

AN
6 6

3 3
M

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
D

Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

a) b)
TE

Fig. 13. A sample load-displacement curve for a) method 1 b) method 2 curings.

EP

4. Results and discussion

C

As mentioned above, in order to experimentally evaluate the effect of the adherend notching
AC

on the SLJs strength improvement, at least three joints with the same configuration were

tested. Fig. 14 depicts the failure loads of each configuration and curing method. According

to Fig. 14, the results show less than 5% scatter for all configurations and curing methods

demonstrating the repeatability of the tests.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14.5

12.5
Failure load (kN)

10.5

8.5

PT
6.5

RI
Curing method 1
Curing method 2
4.5

SC
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Notch depth ratio r
Fig. 14. Failure loads recorded from the experimental tests.

U
As shown in Table 3, curing method 1gives an adhesive strength less than curing method 2 so
AN
that the failure loads of the SLJs with method 2 curing are distinctly higher. As shown in Fig.

14, by increasing the adherend notch depth ratio, the failure load increases which is in
M

accordance with the improvement of the calculated peel and von Mises stresses from the
D

FEM results. It is worth mentioning that SLJs cured with method 2 led to a higher deflection
TE

of the adherends. Thus, a minor plastic deformation was seen in the adherends for method 2

when the notch depth ratio was r=30%.

EP

It should be mentioned that as stated before, the adherent notching technique might lead to
C

plastic deformation in the adherents based on the notch geometry and material properties of
AC

the adhesive and adherents. This plastic deformation could be an additional source for energy

dissipation in the joint which can improve the joint’s toughness. Therefore, this could be

another advantage of this method especially where the brittle adhesives which generally have

low energy absorption capability are used.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5. Conclusion

The current study presented a new technique named adherend notching for SLJs to increase

the joint strength. Numerical and experimental methods were used to analyze this method.

Aluminum alloy 7075-T6 and UHU enfest 300 plus were selected as the adherends and

PT
adhesive materials, respectively. Four design parameters of the notch including notch depth,

notch width, notch angle and notch distance from the overlap were analyzed to find the

RI
optimum values. A numerical analysis was carried out where the FE method was used. In

SC
addition, for the experimental method, two curing methods for the adhesive layer were

considered and tested. The main conclusions of this work are:

•
U
Adherend notching can improve the SLJs strength significantly.
AN
• A simple 90-degrees notch with just 20% notch ratio can improve the SLJs strength
M

up to 55%.

• The adherend notching technique is independent of the curing method and for both
D

considered curing conditions the average of the improvement were the same.
TE
C EP
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
References

[1] Alfano M, Morano C, Bruno L, Muzzupappa M, Pagnotta L. Analysis of debonding in

bio-inspired interfaces obtained by additive manufacturing. Procedia Struct Integr
2018;8:604–9. doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2017.12.059.

[2] Deng J, Lee MMK. Effect of plate end and adhesive spew geometries on stresses in
retrofitted beams bonded with a CFRP plate. Compos Part B Eng 2008;39:731–9.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2007.05.004.

PT
[3] Chaves FJP, Da Silva LFM, De Castro PMST. Adhesively bonded T-joints in
polyvinyl chloride windows. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl

RI
2008;222:159–74. doi:10.1243/14644207JMDA182.

[4] Akpinar S, Aydin MD, Temiz Ş, Özel A. 3-D non-linear stress analysis on the
adhesively bonded T-joints with embedded supports. Compos Part B Eng

SC
2013;53:314–23. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.04.049.

[5] Adams RD, Atkins RW, Harris JA, Kinloch AJ. Stress Analysis and Failure Properties

U
of Carbon-Fibre-Reinforced-Plastic/Steel Double-Lap Joints. J Adhes 1986;20:29–53.
doi:10.1080/00218468608073238.
AN
[6] F M da Silva L, D Adams R. Techniques to reduce the peel stresses in adhesive joints
with composites. Int J Adhes Adhes 2007;27:227–35.
doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2006.04.001.
M

[7] Sancaktar E, Nirantar P. Increasing strength of single lap joints of metal adherends by
taper minimization. J Adhes Sci Technol 2003;17:655–75.
D

doi:10.1163/156856103321340796.
TE

[8] Moya-Sanz EM, Ivañez I, Garcia-Castillo SK. Effect of the geometry in the strength of
single-lap adhesive joints of composite laminates under uniaxial tensile load. Int J
Adhes Adhes 2017;72:23–9. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.10.009.
EP

[9] Pinto AMG, Ribeiro NFQR, Campilho RDSG, Mendes IR. Effect of adherend
recessing on the tensile strength of single lap joints. J Adhes 2014;90:649–66.
doi:10.1080/00218464.2013.766132.
C

[10] Zhao X, Adams RD, Da Silva LFM. Single lap joints with rounded adherend corners:
AC

Stress and strain analysis. J Adhes Sci Technol 2011;25:819–36.

doi:10.1163/016942410X520871.

[11] Zhao X, Adams RD, Da Silva LFM. Single lap joints with rounded adherend corners:
Experimental results and strength prediction. J Adhes Sci Technol 2011;25:837–56.
doi:10.1163/016942410X520880.

[12] Ayatollahi MR, Samari M, Razavi SMJ, da Silva LFM. Fatigue performance of
adhesively bonded single lap joints with non-flat sinusoid interfaces. Fatigue Fract Eng
Mater Struct 2017;40:1355–63. doi:10.1111/ffe.12575.

[13] Ashrafi M, Ajdari A, Rahbar N, Papadopoulos J, Nayeb-Hashemi H, Vaziri A.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Adhesively bonded single lap joints with non-flat interfaces. Int J Adhes Adhes
2012;32:46–52. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2011.09.004.

[14] Haghpanah B, Chiu S, Vaziri A. Adhesively bonded lap joints with extreme interface
geometry. Int J Adhes Adhes 2014;48:130–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.09.041.

[15] Sancaktar E, Simmons SR. Optimization of adhesively-bonded single lap joints by

adherend notching. J Adhes Sci Technol 2000;14:1363–404.
doi:10.1163/156856100742258.

PT
[16] UHU plus endfest 300 technical data sheet n.d.
https://media2.supermagnete.de/docs/uhu_%0Aplus_endfest_300_eng.pdf.

RI
[17] Ayatollahi MR, Rastegar S, Silva LFM, Ayatollahi MR, Rastegar S, Silva LFM, et al.
Impact of geometry on the critical values of the stress intensity factor of adhesively
bonded joints. J Adhes Sci Technol 2017;31:2071–87.

SC
doi:10.1080/01694243.2017.1297064.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

22