• Composites Research
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.15-22
• /
• 2006

One of the primary factors limiting the application of composite-metal adhesively bonded joints in structural design is the lack of a good evaluation tool for the interfacial strength to predict the load bearing capacity of boned joints. In this paper composite-steel adhesion strength is evaluated in terms of stress intensity factor and fracture toughness of the interface corner. The load bearing capacity of double lap joints, fabricated by co-cured bonding of composite-steel adherends has been determined using fracture mechanical analysis. Bi-material interface comer stress singularity and its order are presented. Finally stress intensities and fracture toughness of the wedge shape bi-material interface corner are determined. Double lap joint failure locus and its mixed mode crack propagation criterion on $K_1-K_{11}$ plane have been developed by tension tests with different bond lengths.

• Journal of Korean Society of Coastal and Ocean Engineers
• /
• v.22 no.6
• /
• pp.415-422
• /
• 2010

Development of the reliability-based design program in the GUI environment is inadequate for engineers familiar with the deterministic design to deal with the international design criterion based on the probabilistic design. In this study, the design program based on the GUI environment is developed in order to more efficiently input the design factor and more easily carry out the design works. The GUI environment is the GUIDE (Graphic User Interface Development Environment) tool supported by the latest MATALB version 7.1. In order to test the model reliability, the probabilities of failure (POF) on the breakwater armor block (AB) and gravity quay-wall (QW) in the sliding mode are computed using the model in the Level II and Level III. The POF are 55.4~55.7% for breakwater AB and 0.0006~0.0007% for gravity QW. A non-GUI environment program results of the POF are 55.6% for breakwater AB and 0.0018% for gravity QW. In comparison, the POF difference is negligible for breakwater AB because the exact input design parameters are available, whereas the large POF difference, but within the same order, for gravity QW can be explained by the difference of the input design factors because of the poor input data information.