臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究設計了三種不同形式的膠接接頭，分別為高延展性的結構膠接頭、高強度脆性膠種的結構膠接頭和這兩種結構膠的混合式接頭，並使用牽引-分離理論計算不同膠合界面的破壞參數，為了模擬FRP與金屬異質接頭的破壞進展，建立FRP與金屬異質接合的數值模擬方法，本研究將結構膠拉伸與膠合剪切試片分別依照結構膠拉伸測試規範與單搭接剪切測試規範進行製作，並且以萬能試驗機進行拉伸和剪切試驗，進而得知破壞參數和了解其力學特性。本研究使用有限元素分析軟體ABAQUS中的膠合行為指令進行接頭剪切破壞的數值分析模擬， 一般常見的破壞模式有界面破壞、膠體本身的破壞、結構基材本身的破壞等三種，由本實驗得知剪切發生的破壞是發生在界面，所以在數值模擬分析方面就只考慮界面破壞來進行剪切破壞模擬，並將模擬的結果與實驗做比對。
最後由實驗與模擬的比較結果發現，在剪切強度方面模擬與實驗非常接近，單一種結構膠的搭接設計上，Araldite® AV138結構膠的強度的確比2968PT-689結構膠要來的高一點，在混合式接頭設計上，在強度方面雖然沒有提升多少，但是研究結果顯示確實能延緩剪切破壞的發生。

In this study, we design three kind of different types for adhesive joints, there are divided into single 2968PT-689 series, single Araldite® AV138 series and hybrid series. In order to simulate damage evolution of FRP-Steel heterogeneous joints and established the numerical analysis method, we used traction-separation law to calculated failure parameters for different bonding interface. According to the specification of ASTM-638 and ASTM3165, we used Universal testing machine to started tensile and shear test. In terms of simulation, we used cohesive behavior which is provided by ABAQUS to simulate the fracture of joint. We found that three kind of fracture modes, there are adhesive failure, cohesive failure and substrate failure, we only consider adhesive failure to simulate shear test because we found out the shear failure happened in interface from experiment.
Finally, through compared numerical simulation with experiment, the result of shear strength are very similar. In pure adhesive joint, the Araldite® AV138 joint strength is higher than 2968PT-689；In hybrid adhesive joint, the research show that can put off shear failure effective.

致 謝 i
摘 要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
目 錄 iv
圖 目 錄 vi
表 目 錄 viii
符 號 表 ix
第一章 導論 1
1.1研究動機 1
1.2文獻回顧 1
1.3論文架構 3
第二章 實驗方法 5
2.1接頭樣式設計 5
2.3試片材料與機具操作介紹 7
2.4試片命名及尺寸介紹 9
第三章 數值分析模擬 14
3.1數值模型介紹 14
3.2模型邊界條件與膠合設定 14
3.3材料與破壞參數 17
3.3.1金屬鋼板材料參數 17
3.3.2 FRP材料參數 17
3.3.3 結構膠材料參數 18
3.3.4 膠合力學 19
3.3.4 膠合界面破壞參數 22
3.3.5 模型的網格設定 27
第四章 結果與討論 29
4.1 同質剪切實驗與模擬結果比較 29
4.1.1 SS-PT系列實驗與模擬結果 29
4.1.2 FF-PT系列實驗與模擬結果 30
4.1.3 SS-AV系列實驗與模擬結果 32
4.1.4 FF-AV系列實驗與模擬結果 33
4.2 異質剪切實驗與模擬結果比較 34
4.2.1 SA-PT系列實驗與模擬結果 34
4.2.2 SA-AV系列實驗與模擬結果 37
4.2.3 SA-PTAV系列實驗與模擬結果 38
第五章 結論與展望 42
5.1 綜合結論 42
5.2 未來展望 42
參考文獻 43

1. Marco Gaiotti, Enrico Ravina, Cesare M. Rizzo, Andrea Ungaro. 2018, Testing
and simulation of a bolted and bonded joint between steel deck and composite
side shell plating of a naval vessel. Engineering Structures.
2. A.P. Mouritz, E. Gellert, P. Burchill, K. Challis. 2001, Review of advanced
composite structures for naval ships and submarines. Composite Sturctures.
3. Jun Zhang, Jiaqi Wang, Zhenwei Yuan, Hong Jia. 2018, Effect of the cohesive
law shape on the modelling of adhesive joints bonded with brittle and
ductile adhesives. Adhesion and Adhesives.
4. T.F. Santos, R.D.S.G. Campilho. 2017, Numerical modelling of adhesively-
bonded double-lap joints by the eXtended Finite Element Method. Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design 133, 1–9.
5. M.D.Banea, M.Rosioara, R.J.C.Carbas, L.F.M.da Silva. 2018, Multi-material
adhesive joints for automotive industry. Composites Part B: Engineering
Volume 151.
6. Jun He, Guijun Xian. 2016, Debonding of CFRP-to-steel joints with CFRP
delamination. Composite Structures.
7. T.Yu, D.Fernando, J.G.Teng, X.L.Zhao. 2012, Experimental study on CFRP-to-
steel bonded interfaces. Composites Part B: 43 2279–2289.
8. K. S. kim, J. S. Yoo, Y. M. Yi, C. G. Kim. 2006, Failure mode and strength
of uni-directional composite single lap bonded joints with Different bonding
methods. Composite Structures, 72, pp.477-485.
9. X. L. Zhao, L. Zhang. 2007, State-of-the-art review on FRP strengthened
steel structure. Engineering Structure, 29(8), pp.1809-1823.
10. Xiaocong He. 2011, A review of finite element analysis of adhesively bonded
joints. Adhesion & Adhesives.
11. L. Goglio, M. Rossetto, E. Dragoni. 2008, Design of adhesive joints based
on peak elastic stresses. Adhesion & Adhesives.
12. Dragoș Ungureanu, Nicolae Țăranu, Vlad Lupășteanu, Dorina Nicolina
Isopescu, Gabriel Oprișan, Petru Mihai. 2018, Experimental and numerical
investigation of adhesively bonded single lap and thick adherents joints
between pultruded GFRP composite profiles. Composites Part B: 146, 49-59.
13. Lucas F.M. da Silvaa, R.D. Adams. 2006, Joint strength predictions for
adhesive joints to be used over a wide temperature range. Adhesion &
Adhesives.
14. G. DiBella, G.Galtieri, E.Pollicino, C.Borsellino. 2012, Mechanical
characterization of adhesive joints with dissimilar substrates for marine
applications. Adhesion & Adhesives.
15. Nabil Chowdhury, Wing Kong Chiu, John Wang, Paul Chang. 2014, Static and
fatigue testing thin riveted, bonded and hybrid carbon fiber double lap
joints used in aircraft structures. Composite Structures.
16. M. Mariam, M. Afendi, M.S. Abdul Majid, M.J.M. Ridzuan, A.G. Gibson. 2018,
Tensile and fatigue properties of single lap joints of aluminium
alloy/glass fibre reinforced composites fabricated with different joining
methods. Composite Structures.
17. Lijuan Liao, Chenguang Huang, Toshiyuki Sawa. 2013, Effect of adhesive
thickness, adhesive type and scarf angle on the mechanical properties of
scarf adhesive joints. International Journal of Solids and Structures.
18. M.Ridha, V.B.C.Tan, T.E.Tay. 2011, Traction–separation laws for progressive
failure of bonded scarf repair of composite panel. Composite Structures
Volume 93, Issue 4.
19. David A. Dillard, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.
2014, Improving adhesive joint design using fracture mechanics. Advances in
Structural Adhesive Bonding.
20. David R. Speth, Yu Ping Yang, George W. Ritter. 2010, Qualification of
adhesives for marine composite-to-steel applications. Adhesion and
Adhesives, 30(2), 55–62.
21. Nitesh.S.Hirulkar, Pankaj.R.Jaiswal, Pirondi Alessandro, Paulo Reis. 2018,
Influence of Mechanical surface treatment on the strength of mixed adhesive
joint. Materialstoday：Proceedings.
22. A. Akhavan-Safar, M.R. Ayatollahi, L.F.M. da Silva. 2017, Strength
prediction of adhesively bonded single lap joints with different bondline
thicknesses: A critical longitudinal strain approach. International Journal
of Solids and Structures.
23. ABAQUS/CAE Version, A. 6.10 Documentation (Abaqus). Abaqus user’s guide.
User’s Manual 25.1.1, 2018.