The manufacturing process of composite structural components involves the assembly of composite parts using adhesives, which introduces variations in the geometrical and mechanical properties of bonded joints. The fracture energy under mode-I loading (GIc) is a parameter used to predict crack propagation and evaluate the residual strength of the joint. This work proposes a numerical-experimental procedure to determine GIc in mode I, while considering the uncertainties inherent in the manufacturing process of bonded joints. The proposed procedure employs a three-dimensional finite element model to simulate a double cantilever beam test, using finite element commercial software. The cohesive zone model is applied to simulate the mechanical behavior of the adhesive, and experimental data are used to feed the computational model. A Plackett-Burman design is performed to reduce the number of experiments and evaluate the effect of the main influence parameters. Force-displacement curves are obtained, the compliance-based beam method is applied to determine GIc in mode I, employing both trapezoidal and triangular traction-separation laws. The results are thoroughly examined, taking into account the potential strengths and limitations of the proposed procedure, particularly in its application to predicting the behavior of bonded composite joints under mode I loading conditions. The proposed approach can help to understand the uncertainties effect related to the manufacturing process of bonded joints on GIc values, and improve the reliability of predicting crack propagation and residual strength assessment in bonded joints.
YangYZhaoJZhangS, et al. Determination of fracture toughness of an adhesive in civil engineering and interfacial damage analysis of carbon fiber reinforced polymer–steel structure bonded joints. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Mater: Des Appl2021; 235: 2423–2440.
2.
BaneaMDda SilvaLF. Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: an overview. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Mater: Des Appl2009; 223: 1–18.
3.
JonesRBakerAAMatthewsN, et al. Aircraft sustainment and repair. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2017.
4.
WangCHDuongCN. Bonded joints and repairs to composite airframe structures. Oxford: Academic Press, 2015.
5.
FernandesTACampilhoRDBaneaMD, et al. Adhesive selection for single lap bonded joints: experimentation and advanced techniques for strength prediction. J Adhes2015; 91: 841–862.
6.
CustódioJBroughtonJCruzH. A review of factors influencing the durability of structural bonded timber joints. Int J Adhes Adhes2009; 29: 173–185.
7.
Almeida JúniorJHS. Dano e falha em compósitos estruturais de carbono/epóxi processados por filament winding. Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/149826.
8.
ArandaMReinosoJGarcíaI. On different 3d printing methods and fracture performance in DCB composite specimens including structured interfaces. Theor Appl Fract Mech2022; 122: 103552.
9.
BenamarBMokhtariMMadaniK, et al. Using a cohesive zone modeling to predict the compressive and tensile behavior on the failure load of single lap bonded joint. Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale2019; 13: 112–125.
10.
De MedeirosRSouzaGMarquesD, et al. Vibration-based structural monitoring of bi-clamped metal-composite bonded joint: experimental and numerical analyses. J Adhes2021; 97: 891–917.
11.
GonçalvesDSánchez-ArceIRamalhoL, et al. Fracture propagation based on meshless method and energy release rate criterion extended to the double cantilever beam adhesive joint test. Theor Appl Fract Mech2022; 122: 103577.
12.
MarquesDRibeiroMLTitaV. Comparative study of adhesive fatigue in aeronautical bonded joints: a numerical approach in the frequency domain. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Mater: Des Appl2022; 236: 1400–1407.
AshcroftIHughesDShawS. Mode I fracture of epoxy bonded composite joints: 1. quasi-static loading. Int J Adhes Adhes2001; 21: 87–99.
15.
Hosseini-ToudeshkyHSheibanianFOvesyHR, et al. Prediction of interlaminar fatigue damages in adhesively bonded joints using mixed-mode strain based cohesive zone modeling. Theor Appl Fract Mech2020; 106: 102480.
16.
KhoramishadHCrocombeAKatnamK, et al. Predicting fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints using a cohesive zone model. Int J Fatigue2010; 32: 1146–1158.
17.
RochaAAkhavan-SafarACarbasR, et al. Numerical analysis of mixed-mode fatigue crack growth of adhesive joints using CZM. Theor Appl Fract Mech2020; 106: 102493.
18.
SimõesBNunesPHenriquesB, et al. Determination of mode I cohesive law of structural adhesives using the direct method. J Adhes2022; 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2022.2152677.
19.
LopesRCampilhoRDa SilvaF, et al. Comparative evaluation of the double-cantilever beam and tapered double-cantilever beam tests for estimation of the tensile fracture toughness of adhesive joints. Int J Adhes Adhes2016; 67: 103–111.
20.
GhabeziPFarahaniM. Characterization of cohesive model and bridging laws in mode I and II fracture in nano composite laminates. J Mech Eng Sci2018; 12: 4329–4355.
21.
RekbiFMLHeciniMKhechaiA. Experimental and numerical analysis of mode-I interlaminar fracture of composite pipes. J Brazil Soc Mech Sci Eng2018; 40: 502.
22.
JaillonAJumelJParoissienE, et al. Mode I cohesive zone model parameters identification and comparison of measurement techniques for robustness to the law shape evaluation. J Adhes2020; 96: 272–299.
23.
MadureiraFda SilvaLFTitaV. Compliance methods for bonded joints: part I—investigation of the standardized methods to obtain the strain energy release rate for mode I. J Adhes2023; 99: 1769–1790.
24.
MadureiraFda SilvaLFTitaV. Compliance methods for bonded joints: part II—investigation of the equivalent crack methodology to obtain the strain energy release rate for mode I. J Adhes2023; 99: 1791–1808.
25.
Heidari-RaraniMSayedainM. Finite element modeling strategies for 2D and 3D delamination propagation in composite DCD specimens using VCCT, CZM and XFEM approaches. Theor Appl Fract Mech2019; 103: 102246.
26.
Di CaprioFSaputoSSellittoA. Numerical-experimental correlation of interlaminar damage growth in composite structures: setting cohesive zone model parameters. Adv Mater Sci Eng2019; 2019: 1–16.
27.
ValorosoNSessaSLeporeM, et al. Identification of mode-I cohesive parameters for bonded interfaces based on dcb test. Eng Fract Mech2013; 104: 56–79.
28.
TabieiAMengL. Improved cohesive zone model: integrating strain rate, plastic strain, variable damping, and enhanced constitutive law for fracture propagation. Int J Fract2023; july: 114548.
29.
LiXFLeeKY. Fracture of a thin power-law nonlinear material with a crack using the DCB model. Int J Fract2016; 201: 119–128.
30.
RajanSSuttonMAMcMakinW, et al. Characterization of mode I and mode II traction–separation laws for cohesive separation of uncured thermoset tows. Int J Fract2020; 221: 25–38.
31.
NetoJCampilhoRDDa SilvaL. Parametric study of adhesive joints with composites. Int J Adhes Adhes2012; 37: 96–101.
32.
ŠkecLAlfanoGJelenićG. Complete analytical solutions for double cantilever beam specimens with bi-linear quasi-brittle and brittle interfaces. Int J Fract2019; 215: 1–37.
33.
KałużaMHulimkaJBulaA. Fem analysis as a tool to study the behavior of methacrylate adhesive in a full-scale steel-steel shear joint. Materials2022; 15: 330.
34.
SalehMNBudzikMKSaeedifarM, et al. On the influence of the adhesive and the adherend ductility on mode I fracture characterization of thick adhesively-bonded joints. Int J Adhes Adhes2022; 115: 103123.
35.
TeixeiraPAkhavan-SafarACarbasRJ, et al. Influence of the cure state on mechanical properties of an epoxy-based adhesive: experimental characterization and numerical simulation. Polym Adv Technol2022; 33: 1163–1170.
36.
Dos ReisMBaneaMDa SilvaL, et al. Mechanical characterization of a modern epoxy adhesive for automotive industry. J Brazil Soc Mech Sci Eng2019; 41: 1–11.
37.
ShanmugamVPenmetsaRTuegelE, et al. Stochastic modeling of delamination growth in unidirectional composite dcb specimens using cohesive zone models. Compos Struct2013; 102: 38–60.
38.
JensenSMMartosMLindgaardE, et al. Inverse parameter identification of n-segmented multilinear cohesive laws using parametric finite element modeling. Compos Struct2019; 225: 111074.
39.
EzzineMAmiriATarfaouiM. Experimental and numerical investigation of the fracture behavior of adhesive shear tests single lap joints. J Brazil Soc Mech Sci Eng2018; 40: 1–11.
40.
Akhavan-SafarABeygiRDelzendehrooyF, et al. Fracture energy assessment of adhesives—part I: Is GIC an adhesive property? A neural network analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part L: J Mater: Des Appl2021; 235: 1461–1476.
41.
Da SilvaJAda SilvaLFFerreiraAJ, et al. Parametric investigation of bonded composite joints under mode II using a new methodology based on design of experiments. J Adhes2023; online, 1–22.
42.
DelzendehrooyFBeygiRAkhavan-SafarA, et al. Fracture energy assessment of adhesives part II: Is giic an adhesive material property? (a neural network analysis). J Adv Join Proc2021; 3: 100049.
43.
Dos Santos SouzaLFVandepitteDTitaV, et al. Dynamic response of laminated composites using design of experiments: An experimental and numerical study. Mech Syst Signal Process2019; 115: 82–101.
44.
DinizCAMéndezYde AlmeidaFAda CunhaJrGomesG, et al. Optimum design of composite structures with ply drop-offs using response surface methodology. Eng Comput (Swansea)2021; 38: 3036–3060.
45.
AlzebdehKINassarMMArunachalamR. Effect of fabrication parameters on strength of natural fiber polypropylene composites: statistical assessment. Measurement2019; 146: 195–207.
46.
GualbertoHRdo Carmo AmorimFCostaHRM. A review of the relationship between design factors and environmental agents regarding adhesive bonded joints. J Brazil Soc Mech Sci Eng2021; 43: 389.
47.
De MouraMCampilhoRGonçalvesJ. Crack equivalent concept applied to the fracture characterization of bonded joints under pure mode I loading. Compos Sci Technol2008; 68: 2224–2230.
48.
CampilhoRDBaneaMDNetoJ, et al. Modelling adhesive joints with cohesive zone models: effect of the cohesive law shape of the adhesive layer. Int J Adhes Adhes2013; 44: 48–56.
49.
De MouraMDaniaudRMagalhãesA. Simulation of mechanical behaviour of composite bonded joints containing strip defects. Int J Adhes Adhes2006; 26: 464–473.
50.
SantosMCampilhoR. Mixed-mode fracture analysis of composite bonded joints considering adhesives of different ductility. Int J Fract2017; 207: 55–71.
51.
ChavesFJDa SilvaLDe MouraM, et al. Fracture mechanics tests in adhesively bonded joints: a literature review. J Adhes2014; 90: 955–992.
52.
D5528-01 A. Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007.
53.
VanajaKShobha RaniR. Design of experiments: concept and applications of Plackett Burman design. Clin Res Regul Aff2007; 24: 1–23.
54.
PlackettRLBurmanJP. The design of optimum multifactorial experiments. Biometrika1946; 33: 305–325.
55.
CamanhoPPDávilaCG. Mixed-mode decohesion finite elements for the simulation of delamination in composite materials. Technical Report, 2002.
56.
MachadoJGamarraPRMarquesE, et al. Numerical study of the behaviour of composite mixed adhesive joints under impact strength for the automotive industry. Compos Struct2018; 185: 373–380.
57.
De MenezesVGSouzaGSVandepitteD, et al. Defect and damage detection in filament wound carbon composite cylinders: a new numerical-experimental methodology based on vibrational analyses. Compos Struct2021; 276: 114548.
58.
MartinyPLaniFKinlochA, et al. A multiscale parametric study of mode I fracture in metal-to-metal low-toughness adhesive joints. Int J Fract2012; 173: 105–133.
