Discontinuous Joint

Related terms:

Corrosion, Resistors, Compressive Strength, Tensile Strength, Joint Set, Rock Mass
Strength

View all Topics

Strength Enhancement of Rock Mass in

Tunnels
Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

Tensile strength across discontinuous joints

The length of joints is generally less than 5 m in tunnels in young rock masses
except for bedding planes. Discontinuous joints thus have tensile strength. Mehrotra
(1996) conducted 44 shear block tests on both nearly dry and saturated rock masses.
He also obtained non-linear strength envelopes for various rock conditions. These
strength envelopes were extrapolated carefully in tensile stress regions so that they
were tangential to Mohr's circle for uniaxial tensile strength as shown in Figure
13.4. It was noted that the non-linear strength envelopes for both nearly dry and
saturated rock masses converged to nearly the same uniaxial tensile strength across
discontinuous joints (qtj) within the blocks of rock masses. It is related to Barton's
rock mass quality (Figure 13.5) as follows:
Figure 13.4. Estimation of tensile strength of rock mass from Mohr's envelope.

(From Mehrotra, 1992)

Figure 13.5. Plot between qtj and · Q0.31 ( in g/cc or T/m3).

(13.21)

where is the unit weight of the rock mass in g/cc (T/m3). In case of tensile stresses,
the criterion of failure is as shown in Eq. (13.22).

(13.22)

The tensile strength across discontinuous joints is not zero as generally assumed; it
is found to be significant in hard rocks.

The tensile stress in the tunnel roof of span B will be of the order of B in the
vertical direction. Equating this with qtj, the span of self-supporting tunnels obtained
from Eq. (13.21) would be 2.9 Q0.31 m. Barton, Lien, and Lunde (1974) found the
self-supporting span to be 2 Q0.4 m. This comparison is very encouraging. Thus, it
is understood that the wedge analysis considering qtj and in situ stress along the
tunnel axis may result in a more accurate value of the self-supporting tunnel span.
Equation (13.21) may also be used in distinct element software.

> Read full chapter

Sew-free technologies for intimate ap-

parel
K.L. Yick, C.Y. Hui, in Advances in Women's Intimate Apparel Technology, 2016

6.1 Introduction
Sewing thread is traditionally used to join cut components together using a sewing
machine, thus providing seams with adequate strength, elasticity, and aesthetic
properties. However, traditional thread-seaming produces discontinuous joints and
perforated seam structures. Nowadays, sew-free technologies such as ultrasonic
welding, adhesive bonding, and laser seaming that involve the melting and cooling
of thermoplastics at the joint interface are becoming more or more popular in the
apparel industry. Sew-free technologies were first applied to waterproof garments,
a product category particularly averse to needles and threads that pierce through
fabrics, which creates openings that allow water to seep in. More recently, sew-free
seaming has also been found to:

• reduce garment weight, because the seam allowance in traditional thread

seaming is reduced
• offer a sleek appearance

• have excellent seam elasticity and resilience

• enhance the overall comfort

Therefore, sew-free technologies have been widely adopted in the manufacture of

sportswear and intimate apparel.

> Read full chapter

Influence of large and highly perforated

fired-clay bricks in the improvement of
the equivalent thermal transmittance of
single-leaf masonry walls
M.P. Morales, M.C. Juárez, in Eco-Efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks, 2015

3.2.2 Horizontal joint in brickwork wall

The bricks described are examined with three different types of horizontal joint:

1. A horizontal joint made with standard mortar (Spanish Standard, 2008) and
penetration, called a full-bed joint.
2. A discontinuous joint with an air chamber (this type of arrangement is the one
most widely used in building), called a furrowed-bed joint.
3. A thin horizontal joint that uses a type of mortar grip that does not penetrate
the junction bricks of consecutive rows, called a thin joint.

In this last arrangement, the clays used in the brick should allow easy grinding, as
the bonding mortar is applied in very thin layers of 3 mm, according to the standard
(Spanish Standard, 2013). This arrangement requires proper alignment of the bricks,
suitable flatness between them and precision workmanship.

Each wall was built as follows:

1. Normal arrangement using standard mortar ( m = 1.3 W/m-K), with 10-mm

bed joint thickness and 10 mm of penetration in each brick. Two different
horizontal joints were assessed:a.Full-bed jointb.Furrowed-bed with a 30-mm
gap
2. Assembly with a thin horizontal joint made of bonding mortar ( m-
 = 0.83 W/m-K), with 3-mm bed joint thickness and no penetration.

> Read full chapter

Strength of Discontinuities
Bhawani Singh, R.K. Goel, in Engineering Rock Mass Classification, 2011

Shear strength of joints

Barton and Choubey (1977) proposed the following accurate, non-linear correlation
for shear strength of natural joints.

(15.6)

where is the shear strength of joints, JRCn may be obtained easily from Figure 15.3,
JCSn from Eq. (15.3), and the rest of the parameters were defined earlier. Under very
high normal stress levels ( >> qc or JCSn) the JCSn value increases to the triaxial
compressive strength ( 1 − 3) of the rock material in Eq. (15.6) (Barton, 1976). It
may be noted that at high normal pressure ( = JCSn), no dilatation takes place as all
the asperities are sheared.

The effect of mismatching joint surface on its shear strength has been proposed by
Zhao (1997) in his JRC–JCS shear strength model as

(15.7)

and dilatation (Δ) across joints is as follows

(15.8)

The minimum value of JMC in Eq. (15.8) is 0.3. The cohesion along discontinuity is cj.
Field experience shows that natural joints are not continuous as assumed in theory
and laboratory tests; there are rock bridges in between them. The shear strength of
these rock bridges adds to the cohesion of the overall rock joint (0–0.1 MPa). The
real discontinuous joint should be simulated in the theory or computer program.
Further, it may be assumed that dilatancy ( ) is negligible before peak failure so the
net work done by shear stress and (−) normal stress is always positive. Analysis must
ensure that no strain energy is generated during dilatant behavior.

For highly jointed rock masses, failure takes place along the shear band (kink band)
and not along the critical discontinuity, due to rotation of rock blocks at a low
confining stress in rock slopes with continuous joint sets. The apparent angle of
friction may be significantly lower in slender blocks. Laboratory tests on models
with three continuous joint sets show some cohesion cj (Singh, 1997). More attention
should be given to strength of discontinuity in the jointed rock masses.

For joints filled with gouge or clay-coated joints, the following correlation of shear
strength is used for low effective normal stresses (Barton & Bandis, 1990)

(15.9)

Indaratna and Haque (2000) presented new models of rock joints. They showed a
minor effect of stress path on j, as peak slip is more evident in constant normal
stiffness than in the conventional constant normal loading at low normal stresses.

Sinha and Singh (2000) proposed an empirical criterion for shear strength of filled
joints. The angle of internal friction is correlated to the plasticity index (PI) of
normally consolidated clays (Lamb & Whitman, 1979). The same may be adopted
for thick and normally consolidated clayey gouge in the rock joints as follows (see
Chapter 24):

(15.10)
Choubey (1998) suggested that the peak strength parameters should be used when
designing a rock bolt system and retaining walls, where control measures do not
permit large deformations along joints. For long-term stability of unsupported rock
and soil slopes, residual strength parameters of rock joints and soil should be chosen
in the analyses, respectively, as large displacement may eventually reduce the shear
strength of the rock joint to its residual strength.

There is a wide statistical variation in the shear strength parameters found from
direct shear tests. For design purposes, average parameters are generally evaluated
from median values rejecting values that are too high and too low.

Barton, Bandis, & Bakhtar (1985) related the hydraulic aperture (e) to the measured
(geometric) aperture (t) of rock joints when shear displacement is less than 0.75 ×
peak slip:

(15.11)

where t and e are measured in μm. The permeability of rock mass may then be
estimated, assuming laminar flow of water through two parallel plates with spacing
(e) for each joint.

> Read full chapter

Principle of Electrochemical Corrosion

and Cathodic Protection
Alireza Bahadori Ph.D., in Cathodic Corrosion Protection Systems, 2014

1.3.8.1 Choice of Method

In addition to reconsidering the precautions taken during the installation of the
CP scheme, and to ensuring that the current is the minimum necessary to provide
an acceptable level of protection, one or more of the following methods should be
considered by the parties concerned as a means of reducing corrosion interaction
at the points on the secondary structure where positive changes in excess of the
recommended maximum have been measured.

The method adopted should aim at restoring the structure/soil potential of the
secondary structure to the original value, or preferably making it more negative
than the original value. Bonding between structures may be precluded by safety
considerations. For example, the bonding together of electric transmission towers
and pipelines containing flammable liquids or gases is generally to be avoided. In
such cases, the other measures for eliminating the effects of interaction, and below
in items 3–5, are to be preferred.

The following techniques are available:

1. A joint cathodic protection scheme should be used so that full protection is

given to both structures.
2. Connection of the two structures by means of one or more remedial bonds
should be made, which may include suitable resistors to limit the current to the
minimum necessary to correct the interaction. This is one of the most effective
methods of reducing possible corrosion interaction. A remedial bond should
preferably be connected to the secondary structure at or near the point where
the maximum positive structure/electrolyte potential change was measured,
but if the structures are some distance apart at this point, and it is more
convenient, the installation of a remedial bond at a point not too distant,
where the structures are closer together, may be satisfactory.For reasons, it
is essential that any structure to be so bonded be electrically continuous.
If it is suspected that the secondary structure may be discontinuous, joints
should be tested and continuity bonds should be installed as necessary. The
bond, the connections to the two structures, and any resistors, should be
constructed to specifications satisfactory to both parties. The bond should
be an insulated copper conductor and of an adequate size to carry any fault
current that may flow but should not be <16-mm2 cross-sectional area.The
bond should be installed inside a suitable housing or building where it can be
regularly inspected. When a buried bond is required, mechanical protection
against digging operations may be necessary; it is desirable that suitable
identification markings be provided. In circumstances where it is clear that
corrosion interaction will occur, much testing time will be saved if bonds
are installed at suitable positions before interaction tests are conducted. It is
always necessary to measure the current flowing in the bond, but if a regular
check of the current is required, for example, where resistance bonds have
been provided to control the current, a suitable enclosure and a removable
link or other bolted connection may be installed at a point accessible to both
parties.
3. A galvanic anode should be connected to the secondary structure if the positive
changes are small and localized, for example, a meter or so at each side of a
point where two structures are close to each other.
4. Resistance should be increased between the two structures, at a point where
a positive change is measured, by applying locally an additional good quality
coating or warping to the primary and/or secondary structure. If the secondary
structure is coated, it is essential that it be free from holidays.
5.
In the case of a pipeline, a section of pipe adjacent to secondary structures
should be isolated by means of isolating joints. The isolated section can then
be bridged by means of an insulated cable of an appropriate size to maintain
continuity along the main section of the pipeline. The isolated section can
be generally protected by means of galvanic anodes.Alternatively, one of the
isolating joints can be shunted by a resistor of such a value that the pipe
between the isolating joints is protected without causing excessive interaction.
This method is particularly applicable at parts of the route near ground beds
where the primary structure/electrolyte potentials are strongly negative, creat-
ing possible severe interaction on secondary structures. The method can be ap-
plied at road crossings where there may be a number of secondary structures,
or at railway crossing, to limit interaction with signaling and other equipment.
A section of the pipe can also be isolated at crossings with electrified railways
to reduce the effects of stray traction of the pipeline.It is very important to
ensure that methods that entail extending the CP to further structures are not
used in such a way that consequent negative changes on such structures, in
turn, cause corrosion interaction on a third structure.

> Read full chapter

Alternative fabric-joining technologies

E.M. Petrie, in Garment Manufacturing Technology, 2015

13.1 Alternatives to sewing

13.1.1 Competitive methods of joining garments

Garment manufacturers are developing innovative clothing designs that are placing
significant and critical demands on the way garments are joined. Manufacturers are
also facing increased economic and environmental pressures to increase processing
speeds, lower costs, add value to finished products, and amortize capital equipment
over more than one use. As a result, these manufacturers are seeking new and
alternative methods for joining garments.

Garments are made by joining several patterned substrates together. These sub-
strates can be various types of woven or nonwoven fabric that are joined together
or to accessories that could include linings, buttons, zippers, tapes, and decorative
pieces. The quality of the joint or seam in terms of strength, durability, permeability,
flexibility, and comfort can have a significant effect on the value of the final product.
Today, the most dominant method of joining these materials is by sewing or
stitching. In addition to sewing, numerous other joining methods are available for
garments. They can be categorized by the basic mechanisms that bring about the
joining, as shown in Figure 13.1. Of these alternative processes, adhesive bonding
and thermal welding are gaining the most prominence.

Figure 13.1. Methods of joining used to manufacture garments.

The traditional sewn seam produces high strength and low stiffness, which makes
it ideal for most common clothing manufacturers. Disadvantages with traditional
sewing include discontinuous joints producing perforated seams, sewing thread
deteriorating over time, thicker material at the point of joining, and production
speed limitations. As a result, innovative alternative processes have been and are
continuing to be developed. Such processes have a significant commercial impact
on specific applications, and they are rapidly gaining broader market share on
realization of their added value potential.

The alternative methods next to sewing include adhesive bonding, conventional

thermal (e.g., hot air and heated tool) welding, and advanced thermal (e.g., ultrasonic
or laser) welding. These joining methods are the focus of this chapter. A general
description of these processes, along with applicable substrates and applications, is
provided in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1. General description of adhesive-bonding and welding processes for

joining garments

Process Description Substrates/applications

Adhesive bonding
Conventional thermal welding
Adhesive bonding uses a sepa-
rate material at the joint inter-
face, which binds either chem-
ically or mechanically to the
substrate. The adhesive may be
chemically or thermally reactive
or may bond on evaporation of
a carrier (water or solvent).
Welding is a thermal process
requiring melting of fabric ma-
terials. A separate heat-activat-
ed adhesive material can also
Most synthetic or natural fabrics
(woven and nonwoven) inde-
pendent of synthetic fibre con-
tent. It can also be used to join
garments to nontextile acces-
sories (glitter, foil, etc.).
Fully or partially synthetic fab-
rics (woven and nonwoven) with
thermoplastic components that
are chemically and physically
 be used. Heating is achieved by compatible when fused togeth-
direct contact of the fabric with er.
a heated-tool surface or hot air.
Advanced thermal welding Advanced welding is similar Fully or partially synthetic fab-
to conventional thermal weld- rics (usually woven) with ther-
ing except that the heating is moplastic components that are
achieved by indirect contact of chemically and physically com-
the fabric with a source such patible when fused together.
as ultrasonic horn, electromag-
netic field, or laser. A separate
heat-activated adhesive mater-
ial can also be used.

Adhesives can set or cure by carrier (solvent or water) evaporation, chemical reaction,
or thermal activation. Chemically reactive adhesives solidify primarily by a chemical
reaction of one or more components in the adhesive formulation. It should be
noted that solvent welding cementing processes or solvent-borne adhesives are in
disfavor due to environmental, safety, and health concerns and regulations. As a re-
sult, waterborne adhesives and heat-activated adhesives are replacing solvent-based
adhesives in many applications.

In thermal-welding processes, adhesion occurs by melting the substrate surfaces so

that they flow into one another and then set on subsequent cooling. Heating can be
achieved using a range of different methods such as conventional external heating
sources, dielectric or high-frequency welding, ultrasonic welding, and laser-assisted
welding.

Arguably, thermal-welding processes can be considered a subset of adhesive bond-

ing. With thermal-joining processes, the substrate itself (in molten form) acts as the
adhesive. Once the substrate is liquefied, the principles of adhesion determine the
strength and durability of the bond. In addition, thermal methods can be used to
activate a hot-melt adhesive rather than the textile substrate.

13.1.2 Selecting a joining process

Usually, the decision of which joining process to use involves several trade-offs.
An analysis of the ultimate requirements is crucial in identifying probable joining
process. When this is performed, the potential for using adhesives or welding over
other methods of joining becomes apparent. The selection of a joining process is a
critical factor that will influence the entire manufacturing process as well as the final
performance of the garment. The selection will be dependent on various production,
performance, and consumer requirements including:

• The type and nature of substrates to be bonded.

• Availability of manufacturing equipment.

• Cost (material and process).

• Production speed necessary for producing a practical and economic joint.

• Strength and the expected stresses that the joint will face in service.

• Durability and the expected environments that the joint will face in service.

• Aesthetic appeal.

• Wearing comfort.

In most cases, the garment joint must be highly resistant to exposure to sunlight.
The joint must be sufficiently soft to provide good hand and drape, yet must be
tough and strong enough to have good life and be resistant to scuffing and abrasion.
The joint must adhere even after periods of flexing in cold or heat, and high levels
of moisture resistance are necessary in outdoor clothing.

Consumers purchase apparel on the basis of hand, drape, colour, texture, and fit.
They expect long wear without scuffing or picking and no delaminating or opening
of seams. In many cases, the apparel will be dry-cleaned, and consumers will expect
the garments to return from the cleaners unchanged. These consumer requirements
can be translated into requirements for the adhesive or welded garment joint.

It is usually necessary to compromise on some of these requirements when selecting

a practical joining system. Some properties and characteristics that are desired will
be more important than others, and a thoughtful prioritization of these criteria will
be necessary in selecting a process.

Once sewing, adhesive bonding, or thermal welding is selected based on the require-
ments noted above, the garment manufacturer must define the specific process to
be used (e.g., adhesive bonding with thermally activated adhesive films, ultrasonic
welding, heated-tool welding, and so forth). Adhesive-bonding and thermal-welding
processes are difficult to define and control because many factors must be consid-
ered, and there is no universal material or process that will fulfill every application.

To achieve optimum economics, reliability, and performance; one must carefully

plan every stage of the joining process. One needs to optimize the entire bonding
process and not merely a single part of the process. Considerations need to be given
concurrently to the substrates, joint design, surface pretreatment, quality control,
application and curing methods, as well as other subprocesses (Figure 13.2).
Figure 13.2. Adhesive selection requires a number of early considerations.

When the joining process is first considered by the designer or manufacturer,

seldom is anything firmly fixed except possibly the substrates that will be used.
Alternative substrates, processes, etc. should always be considered. For example, a
slight change in the application methods or the type of substrate could open the
door for consideration of an entirely new joining technology.

> Read full chapter

Inverse kinematic model of serial ro-

bots
W Khalil, E Dombre, in Modeling, Identification and Control of Robots, 2002

6.4 Solution in the neighborhood of singularities

When the robot is non-redundant, the singular configurations are the roots of det(J)
= 0. In the redundant case, they are given by the roots of det(JJT) = 0. Thus, singular-
ities are identified by the rank deficiency of the matrix J, which physically represents
the inability of the robot to generate an arbitrary velocity in the task space. The
neighborhood of a singular position is more precisely detected by using the singular
values. In fact, the decrease of one or several singular values is generally more
significant to indicate the vicinity of a singular configuration than that of examining
the value of the determinant. In the neighborhood of these configurations, the use
of the classical inverse of the Jacobian matrix will give excessive joint velocities. Since
such high velocities are physically unrealizable, we cannot obtain an accurate motion.

The redundancy can be exploited to design robots that avoid singularities [Holler-
bach 84b], [Luh 85a]. However, robots with revolute joints will have unavoidable
singularities [Baillieul 84]. In § 6.5, we will see that redundancy may be exploited
to go away from avoidable singularities [Baillieul 84]. An avoidable singularity is a
singular configuration where the corresponding tool location can be reached with a
different non-singular configuration.

6.4.1 Use of the pseudoinverse

The most widely proposed methods for solving the inverse kinematic problem near
singularities involve the use of the pseudoinverse J+ of the matrix J (Appendix 4):

[6.11]

This solution, proposed by Whitney[Whitney 69], minimizes Depending on , the

following cases are distinguished:

• belongs to , representing the range space ofJ: equation [6.11] gives an exact
solution with zero error even though the inverse Jacobian J−1 is not defined;
• belongs to the subspace of the degenerated directions there are no joint
velocities that can generate this velocity. In this case, the solution [6.11] gives
. If the next desired velocity is also defined along this direction, the robot is
blocked and it is necessary to define strategies to release it [Chevallereau 88];
• belongs to both and the solution [6.11] gives , which only realizes the
components belonging to .

A major shortcoming of this method is that it produces discontinuous joint velocities

near singularities [Wampler 86]. This can be seen by expressing the joint velocity
solution in terms of singular value decomposition (§ 5.8.1). In fact, far from singu-
larities, the joint velocities are given by:

[6.12]

While approaching a singularity, min becomes small, leading to high joint velocities.
At singularity, the smallest singular value min becomes zero, consequently, it is not
taken into account any more. The summation in equation [6.12] is carried out up to
m − 1, and the joint velocity decreases significantly.

NOTE.– Both may contain elements with different units. However, using radians
for the angles and meters for the distances gives good results for industrial robots
of common size (1 to 2 meters reach).
6.4.2 Use of the damped pseudoinverse
A general approach to solving the problem of discontinuity of the pseudoinverse
solution at a singular configuration is to use the damped least-squares method,
which is known as the Levenberg-Marquardt stabilization method [Wampler 86],
[Nakamura 87]. This solution minimizes the following expression:

[6.13]

where is a constant.

This new criterion means that the end-effector tracking error is weighted against the
norm of joint velocity by using the factor , also known as the damping factor. This
solution is typically obtained as the least-squares solution of the following system:

[6.14]

which is given as:

[6.15]

When n > m, the following equivalent relation is easier to compute [Maciejewski 88]:

[6.16]

Using the singular value decomposition, the solution is written as:

[6.17]

If i , then If i , then The error due to the damping factor in the joint
coordinates is expressed as:

[6.18]

The error in is obtained as:

[6.19]

The damping factor limits the norm of the solution. However, at positions far away
from singularities, no damping is needed. Thus, a trade-off must be found between
the precision of the solution and the possibility of its realization.

Wampler[Wampler 86] proposes to use a fixed damping factor = 0.003, while

Nakamura [Nakamura 86] suggests the computation of the damping factor as a
function of the manipulability w (equation [5.38]) as follows:

[6.20]
where 0 is a positive constant and w0 is a threshold, which defines the boundary of
the neighborhood of singular points.

A more appropriate solution can be obtained by adjusting the value of as a function

of the smallest singular value min, which is the exact measure of the neighborhood
of a singular position. Maciejewski and Klein[Maciejewski 88] propose to compute
the damping factor as follows:

[6.21]

where is a constant.

in [Maciejewski 88], we find an efficient method to estimate min. In the damping

least-squares method, the robot can stay blocked in a singular configuration if the
desired velocity is along the degenerated directions, i.e. when (equations [5.30] and
[5.31]):

[6.22]

where r < m gives the rank of J.

6.4.3 Other approaches for controlling motion near singularities

The kinematic model, which is a first order linearization, does not give an exact
solution respecting the actuator constraints in the neighborhood of singularities.
Some authors [Nielsen 91], [Chevallereau 98] have used the IGM or a kinematic
model of higher order to determine the joint variables corresponding to a Cartesian
motion passing through a singularity. Recently, it has been shown [Lloyd 96] that
the end-effector could move along any specified path using a suitable time law.

To show the efficiency of such techniques, let us consider the case of a two
degree-of-freedom planar robot in the singular configuration “extended arm”. Let
us suppose that we want to move the terminal point towards the origin along the
x-axis (Figure 6.1a) (which is a degenerated direction for the kinematic model). It is
easy to deduce from the kinematic model that a constant velocity motion along this
direction is not feasible. However, a motion with a constant end-effector acceleration
and a zero initial velocity can be proved realizable (Figure 6.1b) by developing the
IGM up to the second order [Nielsen 91] or by using the second-order kinematic
model [Chevallereau 98].
 Figure 6.1. Displacement along a degenerated direction

In addition, Egeland and Spangelo[Egeland 91] showed that, in certain cases, a

non-feasible path could become realizable after carrying out a specific motion in
the null space of J. This motion does not modify the end-effector coordinates
but it modifies the degenerated direction. Let us illustrate this method for the
two degree-of-freedom planar robot with identical link lengths. From the initial
configuration “folded arm” of Figure 6.2a, it is not possible to track a trajectory along
the xdirection. However, after a π/2 rotation of the first joint, which does not modify
the terminal point coordinates but modifies the degenerated direction (Figure 6.2b),
we can produce a velocity along the x-axis by using the kinematic model.

Figure 6.2. Motion in the null space of J

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.