Theoretical assessment of ELS test data reduction technique using virtual testing
Source abstract
Abstract
In this paper a theoretical analysis of crack initiation and propagation conditions in a bonded specimen loaded under pure mode II condition is proposed. The end-loaded-split (ELS) test response is evaluated using a semi-analytical model where the adherends are modeled as two deformable Timoshenko beams and considering non-linear behaviour of the adhesive. Bi-linear elastic-plastic, elastic-softening and trapezoidal adhesive layer shear behaviours (ALSBs) have been implemented and studied. From the results we observed that the load–displacement curve does not permit accurate evaluation of the adhesive layer shear behaviour. An alternative procedure consisting of analyzing the strain energy release rate versus shear displacement at the crack tip is proposed for data reduction of ELS test results.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. A GA (2013) The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solids, in: Encyclopedia of Tribology, Springer, Boston, pp. 1570–1573. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-92897-5_25910.1007/978-0-387-92897-5_259 ↗
2. Alfredsson K (2004) On the instantaneous energy release rate of the end-notch flexure adhesive joint specimen. Int J Solids Struct 41(16–17):4787–4807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.03.00810.1016/j.ijsolstr.2004.03.008 ↗
3. Bidaud P, Créac’hcadec R, Thévenet D, Cognard J-Y, Jousset P (2015) A prediction method of the behavior of adhesively bonded structures under cyclic shear loading based on a characterization of the viscous aspects of the adhesive in an assembly. J Adhes 91(9):701–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2014.96384010.1080/00218464.2014.963840 ↗
4. Blackman B, Kinloch A, Paraschi M (2005) The determination of the mode II adhesive fracture resistance, GIIC, of structural adhesive joints: an effective crack length approach. Eng Fracture Mech 72:877–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.08.00710.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.08.007 ↗
5. Blackman BRK, Brunner AJ, Williams JG (2006) Mode II fracture testing of composites: a new look at an old problem. Eng Fract Mech 73(16):2443–2455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.05.02210.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.05.022 ↗
6. Blaysat B, Hoefnagels J, Lubineau G, Alfano M, Geers M (2015) Interface debonding characterization by image correlation integrated with Double Cantilever Beam kinematics. Int J Solids Struct 55:79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.06.01210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2014.06.012 ↗
7. Budzik M, Jumel J (2017) Inverse end loaded split test configuration for stable mode II crack propagation in bonded joint: macroscopic analysis—effective crack length approach. Int J Fract 207(1):27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-017-0216-010.1007/s10704-017-0216-0 ↗
8. Cricrì G (2019) Cohesive law identification of adhesive layers subject to shear load: an exact inverse solution. Int J Solids Struct 158:150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2018.09.00110.1016/j.ijsolstr.2018.09.001 ↗
9. Davies P, Blackman BRK, Brunner AJ (1998) Standard test methods for delamination resistance of composite materials: current status. Appl Compos Mater 5(6):345–364. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100886981162610.1023/A:1008869811626 ↗
10. de Morais AB, de Moura MFSF (2006) Evaluation of initiation criteria used in interlaminar fracture tests. Eng Fract Mech 73(16):2264–2276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.05.00310.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.05.003 ↗
11. Gorman J, Thouless M (2019) The use of digital-image correlation to investigate the cohesive zone in a double-cantilever beam, with comparisons to numerical and analytical models. J Mech Phys Solids 123:315–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2018.08.01310.1016/j.jmps.2018.08.013 ↗
12. Hardy George F (1989) A review of: “adhesion and adhesives: science and technology, by A. J. Kinloch, Chapman and Hall, London and New York, 1987, 28(2-3):199–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/0021846890803088210.1080/00218468908030882 ↗
13. Hashemi S, Kinloch AJ, Williams JG (1990) The analysis of interlaminar fracture in uniaxial fibre–polymer composites. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci 427(1872):173–199
14. Kanninen M (1974) A dynamic analysis of unstable crack propagation and arrest in the DCB test specimen. Int J Fract 10(3):415–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0003550210.1007/BF00035502 ↗
15. Khoramishad H, Hamzenejad M, Ashofteh RS (2016) Characterizing cohesive zone model using a mixed-mode direct method. Eng Fract Mech 153:175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.10.04510.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.10.045 ↗
16. Leffler K, Alfredsson KS, Stigh U (2007) Shear behaviour of adhesive layers. Int J Solids Struct 44(2):530–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.04.03610.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.04.036 ↗
17. Liljedahl C, Crocombe A, Wahab M, Ashcroft I (2006) Damage modelling of adhesively bonded joints. Int J Fract 141(1–2):147–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-006-0072-910.1007/s10704-006-0072-9 ↗
18. Pérez-Galmés M, Renart J, Sarrado C, Rodríguez-Bellido A, Costa J (2016) A data reduction method based on the J-integral to obtain the interlaminar fracture toughness in a mode II end-loaded split (ELS) test. Compos Part A 90:670–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.08.02010.1016/j.compositesa.2016.08.020 ↗
19. Pérez-Galmés M, Renart J, Sarrado C, Costa J (2018) Suitable specimen dimensions for the determination of mode II fracture toughness of bonded joints by means of the ELS test. Eng Fract Mech 202:350–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.07.03910.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.07.039 ↗
20. Rice JR (1968) A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by Notches and Cracks. J Appl Mech 35(2):379–386. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.360120610.1115/1.3601206 ↗
21. Sorensen B, Jacobsen T (2003) Determination of cohesive laws by the J integral approach. Eng Fract Mech 70(14):1841–1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00127-910.1016/S0013-7944(03)00127-9 ↗
22. Wu C, Huang R, Liechti K (2019) Simultaneous extraction of tensile and shear interactions at interfaces. J Mech Phys Solids 125:225–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2018.12.00410.1016/j.jmps.2018.12.004 ↗
23. Zhang J, Wang J, Yuan Z, Jia H (2018) Effect of the cohesive law shape on the modelling of adhesive joints bonded with brittle and ductile adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes 85:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.05.01710.1016/j.ijadhadh.2018.05.017 ↗
24. Zineb T.Ben, Sedrakian A, Billoet J (2003) An original pure bending device with large displacements and rotations for static and fatigue tests of composite structures. Compos B Eng 34(5):447–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-8368(03)00017-910.1016/S1359-8368(03)00017-9 ↗