Hindawi Publishing Corporation

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Volume 2012, Article ID 925340, 10 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/925340

Research Article
Experimental and Numerical Failure Analysis of
Adhesive Composite Joints
Farhad Asgari Mehrabadi
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch, Arak 567-38135, Iran
Correspondence should be addressed to Farhad Asgari Mehrabadi, [email protected]
Received 20 October 2011; Revised 8 January 2012; Accepted 23 January 2012
Academic Editor: R. Ganguli
Copyright 2012 Farhad Asgari Mehrabadi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
In the first section of this work, a suitable data reduction scheme is developed to measure the adhesive joints strain energy release
rate under pure mode-I loading, and in the second section, three types of adhesive hybrid lap-joints, that is, Aluminum-GFRP
(Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic), GFRP-GFRP, and Steel-GFRP were employed in the determination of adhesive hybrid joints
strengths and failures that occur at these assemblies under tension loading. To achieve the aims, Double Cantilever Beam (DCB)
was used to evaluate the fracture state under the mode-I loading (opening mode) and also hybrid lap-joint was employed to
investigate the failure load and strength of bonded joints. The finite-element study was carried out to understand the stress intensity
factors in DCB test to account fracture toughness using J-integral method as a useful tool for predicting crack failures. In the
case of hybrid lap-joint tests, a numerical modeling was also performed to determine the adhesive stress distribution and stress
concentrations in the side of lap-joint. Results are discussed in terms of their relationship with adhesively bonded joints and thus
can be used to develop appropriate approaches aimed at using adhesive bonding and extending the lives of adhesively bonded
repairs for aerospace structures.

1. Introduction
In recent years, adhesively bonded joints are used extensively
in various industrial and technological applications including space technology, microelectronic packaging, as well as
aerospace and automobile industries. These joints are being
increasingly employed due to their interesting characteristics.
Adhesive joints have good behavior under fatigue loads,
allow the joining of dierent materials, and result in less
stress concentrations compared to alternative joining techniques. In order to increase the confidence of designers, it
is necessary to accurately predict their strengths. Adhesively
bonded joints and bonded repairs of cracked metallic structures have been continuously receiving attention from the
aerospace industry to enhance fatigue resistance and to restore the stiness and strength of damaged/cracked structures. Therefore, there is a need for reliable models to predict
the performance and durability of adhesively bonded assemblies.

Fracture characterization of bonded joints under pure

mode-I has been extensively studied by several authors.
Double Cantilever Beam (DCB) test is the most widely used
method for measuring mode-I fracture toughness [15].
Various attempts have been made to characterize fracture
toughness under mode-II and mixed-mode loading conditions in adhesively bonded joints [611]. Recently, cohesive
zone models (CZMs) have been used to simulate damage
onset and growth in order to predict the fracture behavior of
bonded joints accurately [12, 13]. In numerical approaches,
Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) was used to calculate Strain Energy Release Rate (SERR) in adhesive bonding
joint [14, 15]. However, the mode-I, loading condition has
particular importance for adhesive joints. In the case of
strength of adhesive joint, extensive work has been done on
the testing and modeling of single lap-joints under tension
[16, 17]. Several works can be found in the literature presenting the best solutions to improve the bond strength of
dierent materials [1821].

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

The authors in [22] studied Aluminum/mild steel adherends subjected to tensile shear loading. The lap-joint
has been used to study metal joints, composite joints, and
metal-to-composite joints and has also been used to look at
fracture in composites that are representative of loading in
real aerospace structures [2329]. The overlap length for an
ideal joint depends on the adhesive as well as the adherend
materials [30].
The first part of this study focuses on fracture behavior of
adhesive-bonded joints under pure opening condition employing DCB specimens. Three methods were applied in the
experimental tests and their validity was confirmed through
a numerical approach using J-integral method in order to
account the fracture toughness in the adhesive joint.
In the second section of this study, the hybrid lap-joint
specimen was employed to evaluate the strength of adhesive
hybrid lap-joints under tension condition. The behavior of
the joints was examined with changing various parameters
such as overlap length and loading speed. A numerical modeling was performed by finite-element analysis to determine
the adhesive stress distribution and stress concentrations in
the lap-joint side.

2. Data Reduction to Obtain

Fracture Toughness
The classical reduction schemes in the determination of the
critical fracture energy in pure mode-I (GIC ) are usually
based on compliance calibration or the beam theory. The
CCM is based on the Irwin-Kies equation [31]:
GIC =

P 2 dC
,
2B da

(1)

where P represents the load, B is the specimen width, and

C = /P shows the compliance. The compliance values were
used to fit log C versus log a curve, leading to
GIC =

nP
,
2Ba

(2)

where n is the slop of log C versus log a curve. Beam theories

were also used to measure GIC . Based on elementary beam
theory, the DBT gives
GIC =

12P 2 a2
,
B 2 h 3 E1

3P
,
2B(a + ||)

(4)

where || is a crack length correction for crack tip rotation

and deflection. Using the beam theory, the relationship
between compliance and crack length can be expressed as
C=

8(a + ||)3
.
E1 Bh3

C 1/3 =

2
(a + ||),
h(E1 B)1/3

(6)

which allows determining || from a linear regression of C 1/3

versus a data.

3. Classification of Failure Modes in

Adhesive Joints
According to the ASTM standard D5573-99 [32], there are
seven classes of failure modes in adhesive joints that the test
specimens (hybrid lap joints) will be classified based on the
failure types described in the said standard. Failure modes
are as follows.
(1) Adhesive failure (AF) (sometimes referred to as interfacial failure): separation appears to be at the adhesive-adherend interface.
(2) Cohesive failure (CF): separation is within the adhesive.
(3) Thin-layer cohesive failure (TLCF) (sometimes referred to as inter-phase failure): failure similar to cohesive failure, except that the failure is very close to
the adhesive-adherend interface, characterized by a
light dusting of adhesive on one adherend surface and
a thick layer of adhesive left of the other.
(4) Fiber-tear failure (FTF): failure occurring exclusively
within the fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) matrix,
characterized by the appearance of reinforcing fibers
on both ruptured surfaces.
(5) Light-fiber-tear failure (LFTF): failure occurring
within the FRP adherend, near the surface, characterized by a thin layer of the FRP resin matrix visible on
the adhesive, with few or no glass fibers transferred
from the adherend to the adhesive.
(6) Stock-break failure: this occurs when the separation
is within the adherend but outside the bonded region.
(7) Mixed failure: a mixture of dierent classes.

4. Sample Preparation and Testing

(3)

where h represents the height of each specimen arm and

E1 is Youngs modulus of the adherends in the longitudinal
direction. Using the CBM, GIC is obtained using
GIC =

Thus,

(5)

4.1. DCB. DCB Samples were prepared with seven dierent

crack lengths as a = 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 mm by GFRP
adherends.
The geometry of the DCB specimens is presented in
Figure 1 where L = 120 mm, h = 5.2 mm, B = 22 mm, and
t = 0.4 mm. The GFRP adherends were made of composite
laminates with twelve laminas and designated as [0/90 ]12 .
Each lamina was made of E-glass woven cloth (AF 201, Colan
Co., Australia) and epoxy resin (ML-506, Mokarrar Co., Ltd.,
Iran). The fiber volume fraction, Vf , in the GFRP adherends
was 50 percent. GFRP has been produced as a plate and
then cut into required dimensions using the water jet. To
fabricate the DCB samples, a constant adhesive thickness
(0.4 mm) was guaranteed by placing the calibrated steel bars

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

5. Experimental Results

P,
3, z

B
2, y
1, x
a0

5.1. The Mode I Fracture Toughness (DCB Test). For modeI loading conditions, at least three specimens were tested for
each crack length and the average values of critical loads were
obtained as it is shown in Table 2. Typically, the fracture test
method requires obtaining three critical strain energy release
rate values [35].

Figure 1: Schematic representation of the DCB test.

(0.40 0.01 mm) between the adherends and a non-adhering

film (Teflon film with 0.076 mm thickness) during the curing
process of the adhesive, thereafter, it was inserted into the
interface of the adhesive layer in order to produce the starter
crack. About three DCB specimens were tested with each
crack length. The fracture tests were conducted by controlling the constant displacement rate of 1 mm/min for DCBs
in opening mode.
4.2. Lap-Joint. Three types of joints have been created to test
hybrid lap-joint strength as follows:
Type I: Aluminum alloy-GFRP.
Type II: GFRP-GFRP.
Type III: Steel-GFRP.
The dimensions of hybrid lap-joints are based on the ASTM
D 5868-01 standard. Figure 2 shows the geometry and dimensions of the test specimens. To make lap-joints, the
calibrated steel plates were left at the room temperature
during the bonding process of the adherends to ensure a constant adhesive thickness (0.75 mm). To investigate the influence of overlap length on the failure load and strength of
bonded lap-joints, three dierent overlap length values were
chosen: 15, 25.4, and 35 mm and also to find out the adhesive
hybrid lap-joint assemblies sensitivity to the loading speed,
three dierent loading speeds were chosen: v = 0.1, 1.27, and
10 mm/min and at least three samples have been tested in
each state.
The epoxy adhesive (Araldite, AD-314, Mokarrar Co.
Iran) as a two-component toughened epoxy adhesive with
desirable properties such as mechanical stability up to thicknesses of about 10 mm and also good bonding to composite
materials and metals was employed in the bonding process.
The properties of the adhesive taken from the manufacturer
data sheets are given in Table 1. The adhesive was processed
according to the manufacturers specification. All the DCB
and hybrid lap specimens were polished with 100# mesh
sandpaper and cleaned with acetone to increase its adhesion
and to avoid adhesive failures.
All the DCB and lap joint specimens were tested with
a universal testing machine (Galdabini, Sun 20) at room
temperature. Figure 3(a) shows the DCB specimen under the
mode-I loading and Figure 3(b) presents the experimental
setup of hybrid lap test.

(1) GC (NL)corresponds to the point where load

versus Displacement curve of the test becomes nonlinear.
(2) GC (5%/max)corresponds to the point where a line
5% oset of the slope intersect the load displacement
curve or the maximum load point, whichever occurs
first.
(3) GC (VIS)corresponds to the point where the actual
crack initiation is visually observed by the testing
personnel.
It is important to stress that only the maximum load point
is proposed as the critical load at failure (initiation of crack
growth) in this investigation. The average values of critical
fracture loads were used to determine the critical strain
energy values. It can be seen that the critical load at failure
decreases with the increase of crack length. It should be
mentioned that no plastic deformation observed in adherends after unloading and all the tested samples showed essentially a linear elastic behavior in failure. The critical fracture energy in the mode-I was evaluated using the three
methods presented in Section 2. Figure 4 shows the experimental R-curve (Resistance curve) obtained for tested
specimens through all the mentioned methods. As it is
shown in Figure 4, the CCM and CBM present a slight difference compared to the DBT in dierent crack lengths.
The calculated strain energy release rates, GIC values, are
indications of bond durability because they quantitatively
show how much energy should be put into the specimen to
create the fracture. A two-polynomial curve was fitted on
values obtained by the CBM. It shows the slope of R-curve
increases in smaller crack lengths and gradually approaches
into constant values. This is also true in the DBT and CCM.
The mean value of critical fracture energy obtained by
DBT, CBM, and CCM is shown in Table 3.
A typical picture of crack path kinking for the mode-I
load case is shown in Figure 5(a). The image of crack kinking
was recorded during the DCB testing, using a 16 -MPixel
digital camera. This case corresponds to the extreme case of
nominal pure mode-I. Here, the most important observation
is the persistence of crack kinking in all the specimens. Under
this load case, the embedded crack initiated upwards into the
adhesive layer and penetrated into it quickly. It is observed
that the failure approaches to a separate adhesive layer and
adherend, so the crack turned into upper adherend with
kinking angle about 60 .
This issue has been investigated by [36] and it was
observed that the turning angle increases as the mode-I
grows towards the mode mixity (I+II) and mode-II (shearing
mode). Figure 5(b) shows the failure surfaces for the DCB

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Adhesive
Additional tab
0.75

100
t

25
100

Dimension in mm

Plate

Adherends

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Dimensions of adherends and adhesive layer of lap-joints.

Table 1: Material properties of adherends and adhesive [33, 34].

Ex (GPa)
E y (GPa)
Gxy (GPa)
xy

GFRP
20
20
2.8
.13

Aluminum alloy
71.7

.333

sample after debonding. As it can be seen, under quasistatic

loading, the crack path was mostly cohesive in which 1020%
of the failure surface is being interfacial failure. As expected,
after the crack initiation, the failure surface propagated stably
and became unstable when the adhesive damage zone had
fully developed.
It can be seen from the R-curve that the length of stable
crack grows during the rising part of the R-curve in the
DCB tests and the length of unstable crack grows during
the stabilizing of the resistance curve. This observation can
eliminate the need for the examination of competing failure
mechanisms in adhesively bonded composite joints under
pure opening condition.
5.2. Strength of Hybrid Lap-Joints and Failure Modes. Table 4
shows the results for the strength of adhesive hybrid lapjoints with dierent bonding length: L = 15, 25.4, 35 mm
and strength of the joints type I, II, and III in dierent
loading speeds: v = 0.1, 1.27, 10 mm/min. As mentioned in
Section 4.2, at least three samples have been tested in each
state and Table 4 data is ultimate loads average. The failure
mode of hybrid lap-joint specimens is fairly complicated
with the appearance of interfacial failure on the failure surface. The failure process is not easy to determine because
the final failure occurred abruptly and instantaneously. The
failure process could initiate in the adhesive at the free ends
of the joints. The microcracks in the adhesive layer subsequently propagated along the interface between the adhesive
and adherend after a short period of time. This process could
occur at both free ends of the hybrid lap bonded joint. Based
on Table 4, it can be seen that the ultimate strength is also
increased with longer overlap. In the joint type III, when the
overlap is augmented in length, the increment in ultimate
strength is less significant in comparison with other joints
such as type I and II.
When the length of overlap in joint type I increases from
L = 15 mm to L = 35 mm, the joints strength is also
increased by 175% and shows that it is heavily influenced
by the longitude of its overlap. Also, in joint type II, the

Steel (stainless)
190

.29

Adhesive araldite AD-314

2.25

.3

ultimate strength is amplified by 76% with the augmentation

of overlaps length from L = 15 mm to L = 35 mm. Its value
for joint type III is 47%. As it is explicit in the results, adding
of the overlaps length with the increase of the joints strength
has the maximum eect on the joint type III, and the minimum eect on the joint type III.
Another point inferred by the results is that when the
length of overlap is L = 15 and 25 mm the ultimate strength
of joint type II is greater than that of joint type I. And their
ultimate strength is roughly equal when the overlaps length
is b = 35 mm. With respect to the joint type III, it can be said
that its ultimate strength is greater than joints type I and type
II in every given length of dierent overlaps.
This suggests that increasing the overlap length to obtain
a higher failure level for a bonded joint probably is ecient
only within a limited range. The specific relationship between the failure load and the length may depend on many
joint-related factors. This often means that joints made with
high-strength adhesives are more likely to fail prematurely in
the composite adherend (fiber and matrix) before the occurrence of failure in the adhesive.
From Table 4, it is clear that the ultimate strength decreases when the loading speed increases from 0.1 mm/s to
10 mm/s. This decline is 19.36% for the joint type I, 13.34%
for the joint type II, and 17.2% for the joint type III. Here
again the joint type III has the greatest ultimate strength
compared to the other joints in any applied loading speed,
and the joint type I is the weakest.
In the joint type I when the loading speed was v =
1.27 mm/s, the cohesive failure and light-fiber failure were
detected after disjointing. Figure 6(a) shows the point clearly.
With the loading speed of v = 0.1 mm/s, adhesive failure and
light-fiber failure were discovered. The detection of adhesive
and cohesive failure can be obtained with loading speed of
v = 10 m/s. All in all, the common failure of the joint type I
is of adhesive and cohesive types.
In the joint type II, the light fiber failure was observed at
the loading speed of v = 1.27 mm/s, and the prior failure was
repeated at v = 0.1, 10 mm/s. This is true for all the lengths

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: Overview of loading device and test setup of specimens. (a) DCBs, (b) adhesive hybrid lap-joint.
Table 2: Average critical fracture loads Pc (N) for the DCB specimens with dierent crack lengths.
Crack length (mm)

Test
1
2
3

Critical load (N)

Average

30
102
90
94
95.3

40
82.5
91
83
85.5

50
70.5
69
65
68.17

2
GI (KJ/m2 )

70
47.5
50
51.5
49.7

80
42
39
42.5
41.17

90
35
38
29.5
34.17

adhesive failure occurred at the speeds of v = 0.1 and v =

10 mm/s. The adhesive and cohesive failures were prevalent
in this joint. The failure in the joint type 3 is apparent in
Figure 6(c). It is necessary to note that the adherend failure
was not observed in none of the cases.

2.5

1.5
1

6. Finite-Element (FE) Analysis

0.5
0
25

60
62
58.8
61
60.6

35

45

55
65
75
Crack length (mm)

85

95

DBT
CBM
CCM

Figure 4: R-curves obtained by the experimental methods for the

DCB tests.

of the overlaps. In one case, with the loading speed of

v = 10 mm/s, the adhesive failure was identified. Generally,
the light-fiber failure was the most prevailing failure mode.
Figure 6(b) shows the result clearly. With regard to the failure
of joint type II, it can be said that the joint of glue has been
stronger than the joint of resin and fibers.
In the joint type III with the loading speed of v =
1.27 mm/s, the cohesive failure was observed, and the

6.1. Fracture Mechanics-Based Analysis for DCBs. The numerical simulation of the mode I fracture tests has been
achieved by the finite element method using the commercial
ABAQUS software [37]. The J-integral and stress intensity
factor are widely used fracture mechanics concepts in the
assessment of the fracture resistance in adhesively bonded
joints [38, 39]. In this study, the J-integral formulation was
employed because it is useful for a coarse-meshed finiteelement analysis. The method is applicable to cracks in the
isotropic and anisotropic materials. In the context of quasistatic analysis, the J-integral in two dimensions is defined
as



u
(7)
qd,
J = lim n WI
0
x
where is an arbitrary contour, W is the elastic strain energy
for elastic material, q is a unit vector in the virtual crack
extension direction, n is the outward normal to , is the
stress tensor, and u is the displacement vector, as shown in

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Table 3: Fracture energies in the pure mode II obtained by the DBT, CBM, and CCM (KJ/m2 ).

Crack length (mm)

30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Average GI

DBT
1.34
1.66
2
1.876
1.86
1.9
1.72
1.765

Crack path

(a)

Stable crack growth

Unstable crack growth

Interfacial failure

Cohesive failure

(b)

Figure 5: (a) A typical crack path under the opening load case, (b)
failure surfaces of the DCB specimen after debonding.

Figure 7(a). Several contours integral evaluations are possible at each location along a crack. In a finite-element model,
each evaluation could be thought of as the virtual motion
of a block of material surrounding the crack tip (in two
dimensions) or surrounding each node along the crack line
(in three dimensions). Each contour provides an evaluation
of the contour integral. The number of possible evaluations
is the number of such rings of elements. Figure 7(b) shows
contours surrounding the crack tip. In the linear elastic
fracture mechanics, the J-integral is equal to total energy
release rate, J = GT = GI + GII + GIII , where GI , GII , and

CBM
1.1
1.34
1.66
1.714
1.74
1.9
1.83
1.612

CCM
1.2
1.41
1.66
1.83
1.86
2
1.95
1.701

GIII are the energy release rates associated with the mode-I,
mode-II, and mode-III loading conditions. In the DCB test,
just the mode-I exists and it can be expressed as J = GT = GI .
Figure 7(c) shows an example of the mesh pattern around
the crack tip using the ABAQUS software. The entire specimen was modeled using eight node collapsed quadrilateral
element and the mesh was refined around the crack tip, so
that the smallest element size found in the crack-tip elements
was approximately 0.2 mm. A linear elastic finite-element
analysis
was performed under a plain strain condition
using

1/ r stress field singularity. To obtain a 1/ r singularity

term of the crack-tip stress field, the elements around the
crack tip were focused on the crack-tip and the mid-side
nodes were moved to a quarter point of each element side.
The loads corresponding to the crack initiation in the DCB
tests were used to the finite-element solution. As a part
of study, the variation of GIC versus dierent crack length
has been investigated. Figure 8 shows the R-curve computed
by J-integral method. The mean value of critical fracture
energy by FE results is GJ-integral = 1.765 (Kj/m2 ). According to numerical prediction, GIC are obtained with good
comparability with the corresponding experimental results
(Section 5.1) for all crack lengths. It can be seen that GIC
obtained from the numerical analyses increase with the
growth of crack length, while the increase of crack length
leads to a stable fracture resistance in the DCB tests. The
results of experiment tests (Section 5.1) and numerical analysis showed good agreement demonstrating the eectiveness
of the proposed experiment and numerical methods.
6.2. Stress Distribution of Adhesive Layer in Hybrid LapJoints. Numerical analysis of the adhesive joints for singlelap adhesive joint involved determining the mean value of
the destructive load as recorded in the experimental tests.
The adhesive used was an elastic-traction material, which
recorded failure of cohesive elements. ABAQUS/Standard
software was used as the numerical tool for calculations in
order to conduct FEM analyses. The number of elements of
tested materials was on average 3,0003,500 elements for
each sample, and about 500600 elements for the adhesive
layer. The number of elements for the entire mesh and for
the adhesive layer depended on the type of adhesive joints.
The adhesive joint was modeled with cohesive type elements
COH3D8 characteristic of the specific properties demonstrated by such materials as adhesives. These elements are

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Table 4: Adhesive hybrid lap-joint strength in tension for three type of joints (N).
Joint type
I
II
III

Overlap length (mm)

15
2420
3650
5025

25.4
4462
5160
5800

Loading speed (mm/min)

35
6675
6460
7405

.1
5320
5383
6098

AF

1.27
4462
5160
5765

10
4290
4665
5050

LFTF

CF
(a)

(b)

AF

CF
(c)

Figure 6: Failure modes for joints in the tensile test, (a) joint type I, (b) joint type II, (c) joint type III.

but a few used in ABAQUS and as such are subject to threedimensional analyses [37]. The model presents a situation
in which connecting cohesive elements to other components
(materials) was realized by applying surface-base tie constraints as there was no match between the meshes of two
neighboring parts. Owing to these elements, it was possible
to model the adhesive joint failure in the analyzed adhesive
joints. The literature [3, 12, 13, 29, 36] provide increasing
amounts of information on modeling adhesive joints using
this type of element. Figure 9 shows detailed view of FEM
modeled. The essential constitutive law describing cohesive elements is failure criterion called traction-separation
(tearing force-maximum separation value) which allows
taking into consideration both normal interactions (tearing)
and the eects of failure caused by tangential interaction.
Figure 10 shows the normalized von-misses stress distribution of the cohesive layer with the applied failure load.

As can be seen from the figure, the stress at the free edges
of the joint (ends of the lap zone) shows the maximum value
and the minimum value of stress occurred at the middle of
adhesive layer.
This, in turn, results in possible failure of bonding in
this region (free edges of the joint). In the experiments, it
was found that the initiation failure accrues at the free edges.
The FE showed that the maximum stress concentration at the
free edges and confirmed the failure initiation at this zone.
Recent issue was observed in all types of connections type I,
II, and III.

7. Conclusions
In this study, the mode-I fracture behavior and strength of
adhesively bonded bimaterial joints was investigated under
tension condition based on the experimental and numerical

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

X2

C+

X1

Crack
tip

First
crack
integral

Crack
front
A

(a)

(b)

a
b
a
b
c

a, b, c

Y
X

(c)

Figure 7: (a) Contour for evaluation of the J-integral. (b) Contour integral around the crack tip. (c) Finite element mesh pattern of around
the crack-tip of DCB [36].

2.5

GI (KJ/m2 )

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
20

30

40

50
60
70
Crack length (mm)

80

90

J-integral

Figure 8: R-curves obtained by J-integral method for DCB tests.

analyses. The results obtained from the DCB tests and

detailed examinations of the failure surfaces and numerical
methods indicate the following.
(1) In all of the crack lengths, the crack growth is stable
without any instability in the cracks growth.
(2) Under this loading condition, the embedded crack
initiated upwards into the adhesive layer with kinking
angle of 60 .

(3) The given procedures in the Section 2 for strain

energy release rate calculation produced nearly equal
quantities and it can be said that these procedures are
suitable for the estimation of fracture energy in the
mode-I loading.
(4) By comparing the numerical outcomes through the
J-integral method and the resultant quantities generated by DBT, CBM, and CCM, it is proved that the
suggested numerical procedures are acceptable for
the measurement of fracture energy in these adhesive
joints.
The main conclusions of this work in the case of adhesive
hybrid lap-joints are as follows.
(1) Based on the test results presented in Table 4, it could
be said that the greatest strength was obtained for the
adhesive joints type III, and the lowest strength is for
type I.
(2) In all of the joints, increasing the overlaps length adds
to the ultimate strength. Also, the ultimate strength
decreases with the escalation of the loading speed.
(3) AD and CF are the common failures for the joint type
I, LFTF for joint type II, and AF and CF for joint type
III.
(4) Numerical statistics depicted that stresses are at their
maximum intensity in the free edges of the joint;

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Part 1
Tie constraints

Cohesive elements
Part 2

Normalized von-mises stresses

Figure 9: Detailed view of FEM modeled [37].

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
25
20
15

15

10
Width of specimen (mm)

5
0

20

25

10
Overlap length (mm)

investigating alternate approach using elastic-plastic fracture

mechanics in the adhesively bonded joints. In order to extend
understanding of the fracture behavior and more accurately
determine a failure criterion for adhesively bonded composite joints, additional tests should be conducted with other
specimen geometries. These could be accomplished using a
number of methods including, ENF (End Notched Flexure)
for mode-II and MMB (Mixed Mode Bending) for mixedmode fracture tests. Some more analytical work may also be
required to consider the fracture of adhesively bonded joints.
Existing methods and codes may be modified or new ones
developed to predict strain energy release rate values and
failures of adhesively bonded joints. Finally, while this work
has made contributions to the knowledge of adhesively
bonded joints, much more research needs to be accomplished; particularly the eect of environmental exposure
(temperature and humidity) on the performance of adhesively bonded joints must also not be ignored.

Figure 10: Distribution of von-misses stress in adhesive layer.

Acknowledgments
and this was observed in the practical experiment
which confirmed the fact that the failures had been
happened in the free edges of the joint.
The research conducted for this paper assumed that the
adhesive bond line was homogenous and linear elastic. To
accurately understand the durability of adhesively bonded
joints, it is necessary to have knowledge of the eect of high
temperatures and/or high humidity levels on the entire
adherend-adhesive system. In order to understand deeply of
the fracture behaviour of adhesively bonded joints and to
fully achieve the benefits of adhesive bonding, the determination of environmental eects such as combinations of
moisture and temperature both in the cohesive and interfacial regions is needed. In many cases, environmental attack causes adhesive degradation (interface or interphase
regions); however, adhesive properties may also be aected
(cohesive degradation). The durability of adhesively bonded
joints presented by several researchers suggests that heat and
moisture are detrimental to bond performance. For example,
moisture absorption and elevated temperatures by increasing
plasticization may aect the applicability of linear elastic
fracture mechanics criterion and increase the toughness of
a bond line. Some degree of future work can focus on

The author would like to thank the Institute of Standard and

Industrial Researches (Arak, Iran) for kindly provided access
to their facilities. He also would like to thank the collaboration of Mr. Yousefi and his valuable time, advice and guidance throughout this work.

References
[1] I. A. Ashcroft, D. J. Hughes, and S. J. Shaw, Mode I fracture
of epoxy bonded composite joints: 1. Quasi-static loading,
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 8789, 2001.
[2] B. R. K. Blackman, A. J. Kinloch, M. Paraschi, and W. S.
Teo, Measuring the mode I adhesive fracture energy, GIC, of
structural adhesive joints: the results of an international
round-robin, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives,
vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 293305, 2003.
[3] M. F. S. F. D. Moura, R. D. S. G. Campilho, and J. P. M.
Goncalves, Crack equivalent concept applied to the fracture
characterization of bonded joints under pure mode I loading,
Composites Science and Technology, vol. 68, no. 10-11, pp.
22242230, 2008.
[4] T. Andersson and U. Stigh, The stress-elongation relation for
an adhesive layer loaded in peel using equilibrium of energetic
forces, International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 41,
no. 2, pp. 413434, 2004.

10
[5] J. A. Nairn, Energy release rate analysis for adhesive and laminate double cantilever beam specimens emphasizing the eect
of residual stresses, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 5970, 2000.
[6] B. R. K. Blackman, A. J. Kinloch, M. Paraschi, and W. S.
Teo, The determination of the mode II adhesive fracture
resistance, GIIC, of structural adhesive joints: an eective
crack length approach, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol.
72, no. 6, pp. 877897, 2005.
[7] M. F. S. F. D. Moura, R. D. S. G. Campilho, and J. P. M.
Goncalves, Pure mode II fracture characterization of composite bonded joints, International Journal of Solids and
Structures, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 15891595, 2009.
[8] K. Leer, K. S. Alfredsson, and U. Stigh, Shear behaviour of
adhesive layers, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 530545, 2007.
[9] T. A. Hafiz, M. M. A. Wahab, A. D. Crocombe, and P. A. Smith,
Mixed-mode fracture of adhesively bonded metallic joints
under quasi-static loading, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
vol. 77, no. 17, pp. 34343445, 2010.
[10] A. Ameli, M. Papini, J. A. Schroeder, and J. K. Spelt, Fracture
R-curve characterization of toughened epoxy adhesives, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 521534, 2010.
[11] N. Choupani, Mixed-mode cohesive fracture of adhesive
joints: experimental and numerical studies, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 75, no. 15, pp. 43634382, 2008.
[12] B. R. K. Blackman, H. Hadavinia, A. J. Kinloch, and J. G.
Williams, The use of a cohesive zone model to study the fracture of fibre composites and adhesively-bonded joints, International Journal of Fracture, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 2546, 2003.
[13] S. Li, M. D. Thouless, A. M. Waas, J. A. Schroeder, and P. D.
Zavattieri, Use of mode-I cohesive-zone models to describe
the fracture of an adhesively-bonded polymer-matrix composite, Composites Science and Technology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp.
281293, 2005.
[14] G. Alfano and M. A. Crisfield, Finite element interface
models for the delamination analysis of laminated composites:
mechanical and computational issues, International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 1701
1736, 2001.
[15] D. Xie and S. B. Biggers Jr., Progressive crack growth analysis
using interface element based on the virtual crack closure
technique, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, vol. 42, no.
11, pp. 977984, 2006.
[16] R. D. Adams, J. Comyn, and W. C. Wake, Structural Adhesive
Joints in Engineering, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 2nd
edition, 1997.
[17] A. J. Kinloch, Adhesion and Adhesives. Science and Technology,
Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 1987.
[18] A. Baldan, Adhesively-bonded joints and repairs in metallic
alloys, polymers and composite materials: adhesives, adhesion
theories and surface pretreatment, Journal of Materials Science, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 149, 2004.
[19] C. Borsellino, G. D. Bella, and V. F. Ruisi, Adhesive joining
of aluminium AA6082: the eects of resin and surface treatment, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 29,
no. 1, pp. 3644, 2009.
[20] J. H. Kweon, J. W. Jung, T. H. Kim, J. H. Choi, and D. H.
Kim, Failure of carbon composite-to-aluminum joints with
combined mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding, Composite Structures, vol. 75, no. 14, pp. 192198, 2006.
[21] A. M. G. Pinto, R. D. S. G. Campilho, I. R. Mendes, S. M. Aires,
and A. P. M. Baptista, Eect of hole drilling at the overlap

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]
[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]
[32]

[33]
[34]
[35]

[36]

[37]
[38]

[39]

on the strength of single-lap joints, International Journal of

Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 380387, 2011.
T. Sawa, J. Liu, K. Nakano, and J. Tanaka, A two-dimensional
stress analysis of single-lap adhesive joints of dissimilar adherends subjected to tensile loads, Journal of Adhesion Science and
Technology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4366, 2000.
C. Yang, H. Huang, J. S. Tomblin, and W. Sun, Elastic-plastic
model of adhesive-bonded single-lap composite joints, Journal of Composite Materials, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 293309, 2004.
L. Tong, Strength of adhesively bonded single-lap and lapshear joints, International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol.
35, no. 20, pp. 26012616, 1998.
X. S. Xiao, P. H. Foss, and J. A. Schroeder, Stiness prediction
of the double lap shear joint. Part1: analytical solution,
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 24, no. 3,
pp. 229237, 2004.
M. Y. Tsai, D. W. Oplinger, and J. Morton, Improved
theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints, International
Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 11631185,
1998.
S. C. Her, Stress analysis of adhesively-bonded lap joints,
Composite Structures, vol. 47, no. 14, pp. 673678, 1999.
Q. Luo and L. Tong, Linear and higher order displacement
theories for adhesively bonded lap joints, International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 41, no. 22-23, pp. 63516381,
2004.
S. M. R. Khalili, A. Shokuhfar, S. D. Hoseini, M. Bidkhori, S.
Khalili, and R. K. Mittal, Experimental study of the influence
of adhesive reinforcement in lap joints for composite structures subjected to mechanical loads, International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 436444, 2008.
L. Tong, A. Sheppard, and D. Kelly, The eect of adherend
alignment on the behaviour of adhesively bonded double lap
joints, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 16,
no. 4, pp. 241247, 1996.
T. L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanic: Fundamental and Applications, CRC press, 2nd edition, 1995.
ASTM Standard D 5573-99, Standard practice for classifying
failure modes in fiber-reinforced-plastic (FRP) joints, in
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 15.03, ASTM, Conshohocken, Pa, USA, 2007.
D. Gay, S. V. Hoa, and S. W. Tsai, Composite materials: Design
and Applications, CRC press, 2003.
2011, http://www.mokarrar.com.
ASTM Standard D-5528, Test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites, in Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
vol. 15.03, ASTM, Conshohocken, Pa, USA, 2004.
D. Xie, A. M. Waas, K. W. Shahwan, J. A. Schroeder, and R.
G. Boeman, Fracture criterion for kinking cracks in a trimaterial adhesively bonded joint under mixed mode loading,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 72, no. 16, pp. 24872504,
2005.
ABAQUS Users Manual Version 6.2.4, Habbit, Karlsson and
Sorensen, Pawtucket, RI, USA, 2004.
N. Choupani, Interfacial mixed-mode fracture characterization of adhesively bonded joints, International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 267282, 2008.
Z. Chen, R. D. Adams, and L. F. M. da Silva, The use of the
J-integral vector to analyse adhesive bonds with and without
a crack, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol.
31, no. 1, pp. 4855, 2011.