FT01

Analysis of rubber adhesive
FE simulation of damage propagation

over rubber adhesive under fatigue
in mixed-mode loading
Authors: Roberto Perez Romero

Alvaro Laz
uen Ramrez
Supervisor: Thomas Carlberger
Examiner: Ulf Stigh
Analysis of rubber adhesive. FE simulation of damage propagation over rubber adhesive under
fatigue in mixed-mode loading
Dissertation of Master of Science within Applied Mechanics 30 ECTS
ROBERTO
c PEREZ ROMERO & ALVARO LAZUEN RAMIREZ
Supervisor: Thomas Carlberger
Examiner: Ulf Stigh
Hogsolan i Sk
ovde (University of Sk
ovde)
Skovde (Sweden), December 2014
Abstract
This thesis refers to a simulation of an adhesive joint used to bond two metal sheets of a component
of the side skirt bracket implemented in trucks. The adhesive joint must support fatigue and mixed-
mode loading. The principal goal is the implementation of a novel material model, which governs
the damage produced by a mixed-mode fatigue loading in a rubber adhesive layer.
Two approaches to define the material model are implemented: the filament model and the
principal strain model. The models are fitted against experiments, which have been performed
parallel to the development of this thesis by the Mechanics of Materials (MoM) research group of
the University of Sk
ovde. The models incorporate fitting parameters with the aim of adjusting
the models against experimental results. Simulations are performed using the Finite Element (FE)
software, ABAQUS, and the material models are implemented using UMAT subroutines.
The filament model is inaccurate and it is considered unable to model the mixed-mode behaviour
of the adhesive joint. The principal strain model is considered a well-established method to define
the damage and to predict the fatigue life of the adhesive under fatigue in mixed-mode loading.
Acknowledgements
Regarding with the University of Sk

ovde (HiS), we would like to mention to our supervisor and
examiner, Thomas Carlberger and Ulf Stigh, for their guidance and support during this period. We
also mention to Alexander Eklind and Tomas Walander for their contribution. Besides, we want to
mention to Andreas Rietz from Scania, for giving us the opportunity to develop this thesis.
dedico este logro a mi familia, con una especial menci

on a mi pareja, por su
incondicional apoyo, gracias.
Roberto
a mi familia.

Alvaro
I
Acronyms
BFS Back Face Strain

CTS Compact Tension Shear
DCB Double Cantilever Beam
DM Damage Mechanics
ENF End-Notched Flexure
FE Finite Elements
FCG Fatigue Crack Growth
FM Fracture Mechanics
MMELS Mixed-mode End Loaded Split
ERR Energy Release Rate
SIF Stress Intensity Factor
CGR Crack Growth Rate
LEFM Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
CZM Cohesive Zone Model
II
Nomenclature
a Crack length [m]

C Fitting parameter of the filament model [-]
D Damage [-]
G Energy release rate [J/m2 ]
Gc Critical energy release rate [J/m2 ]
Gth Threshold energy release rate [J/m2 ]
GI Energy release rate under mode I [J/m2 ]
GII Energy release rate under mode II [J/m2 ]
GIc Critical energy release rate under mode I [J/m2 ]
GIIc Critical energy release rate under mode II [J/m2 ]
K Fitting parameter of the principal strain model [-]

Keq Equivalent stress intensity factor [Pa m]

K Stress intensity factor range [Pa m]

KI Stress intensity factor under mode I [Pa m]

KII Stress intensity factor under mode II [Pa m]
N Number of cycles [-]
w Peel displacement, mode I [m]
v Shear displacement, mode II [m]
u Shear displacement, mode III [m]
wc Critical peel displacement [m]
vc Critical shear displacement [m]
Eigenvalues [-]
III
IV
Equivalent displacement under mixed-mode loading in 2D [m]

Equivalent displacement under mixed-mode loading in 3D [m]
Strain [-]
I Principal strain I [-]
II Principal strain II [-]
e Equivalent strain under mixed-mode loading [-]
n Normal strain [-]
s Shear strain [-]
33 Peel strain, model I [-]
32 Shear strain, model II [-]
31 Shear strain, mode III [-]
33 Normal stress, mode I [Pa]
32 Shear stress, mode II [Pa]
31 Shear stress, mode III [Pa]
e Equivalent stress under mixed-mode loading [Pa]
Normal displacement caused by shear loading modes in 2D [m]
Normal displacement caused by shear loading modes in 3D [m]
En Elasticity modulus [Pa]
Kn Stiffness [N/m3 ]
Gm Shear elasticity modulus [Pa]
Em Elasticity modulus used to define Gm [Pa]
Poisson ratio []
Contents
Acknowledgements I
Acronyms II
Nomenclature III
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Goal & Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5.1 Loading Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5.2 Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Literature Study 10
2.1 Methodologies for the prediction of fatigue behaviour of adhesively bonded joints . . 10
2.1.1 Fracture Mechanics approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2 Damage Mechanics approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Criteria for Mixed-mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.1 ERR based approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.2 Strain based approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
V
CONTENTS VI
3 Previous studies 21
3.1 Fatigue in mode I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Experimental Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4 Method 26
4.1 Simulation of adhesive material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2 UMAT Subroutine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.3 Mixed-mode models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.1 Filament model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3.2 Principal strain model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5 Results 40
5.1 Adhesively bonded joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 Fitting mixed-mode models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.3 Damage produced over the adhesive layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6 Conclusions 52
7 Discussions 54
8 Future Work 56
Appendix A 57
Appendix B 60
Appendix C 63
References 66
Chapter 1
Introduction
During the last decades, the industry of adhesives has expanded due to the benefits of the adhesives
compared with other bonding methods such as welding, riveting or screwing. The possibility to
combine different materials, improvement of the distribution of stresses, or design flexibility, are
some the advantages of using adhesives in the industry.
The aeronautical industry is one of the areas in which adhesives have been used as an alternative
joining method. The bonding process is being studied in the automotive industry in recent years,
due to the benefits mentioned above and due to the convenience shown by many researches and
experiments performed with adhesives during last years.
In this thesis, an adhesive joint used to bond a bracket component implemented in trucks is
analysed using FE simulations. The bracket component is composed by two metal sheets, which
are bonded using the adhesive layer.
1.1 Background
The bracket component, chosen as the studied element of this thesis, is located under the cabin of
trucks. Figure 1.1 illustrates the location of the piece on a truck. The sketch of the piece is shown
in orange colour, where the two metal sheets are joined. The most remarkable aspect of the bracket
component is its irregular shape, which incorporates difficulties to perform experimental setups and
simulations.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
Figure 1.1: Sideskirt bracket component [1]
The current joining method for this piece is spot welding. Manufacturing time and stress
concentration around to the spot welds are the main issues in the traditional method cited.
In general, these components support cyclic loading in a variable load direction, thus, the joints
should be tested under fatigue and mixed-mode loading. Since experiments to test each different
component under fatigue and mixed-mode loading requires too much time, besides requiring com-
plicated experimental setups, FE simulations are the most suitable alternative method to replace
experiments.
Roughly, there are two kinds of failure in an adhesive joint. Figure 1.2 shows adhesive failure
and cohesive failure. The adherends are represented as components A and B, and the adhesive is
in between. Instead of considering both failures, only the cohesive failure has been considered. The
objective of this thesis is to analyse the cohesive failure through the adhesive layer.
Figure 1.2: Types of adhesive joint fracture
The adhesive joint implemented in the bracket component is a rubber adhesive, DOW BETA-
MATE 5096. The fatigue life and the crack propagation under mode I loading with a DCB specimen,
have been analysed previously by the MoM research group at the University of Skovde. Results of
the simulations showed agreements with experimental results.
1.2 Problem
The adhesive has been studied and tested previously under fatigue in mode I loading, by the
University of Sk
ovde (see chapter 3), but not under mixed-mode loading. Thus, the problem consists
in the analysis of the performance of the adhesive joint under fatigue in mixed-mode loading.
1.3 Goal & Purpose
The goal of this thesis is to simulate fatigue in mixed-mode of adhesively bonded joints. After
creating the material model for the mixed-mode loading, the adhesive joint is simulated using FE
in ABAQUS software. The simulations show damage produced and fatigue life of the adhesive.
The material model implemented for mixed-mode loading includes a fitting parameter in order
to fit the model to experimental results. The fitting process of the theoretical model is achieved
comparing simulations with experiments. These experiments are performed by the MoM research
group at the University of Sk
ovde (an in-depth explanation of experiments is given in chapter 3.2.).
Both experiments and simulations are performed over the adhesively bonded joint shown in figure
3.2.
The purpose of the material law implemented, which governs the damage of this particular
adhesive, is the possibility to analyse the adhesive material using simulations instead of expensive
experiments. In a future, this material law can be used to simulate other rubber adhesives, with
the aim of saving testing costs from experiments.
1.4 Methodology
The methodology used is divided in two parts: first, a material law is created which governs the
contribution of modes I, II and III into mixed-mode, and then, the material expression is introduced
in a FE software, in order to verify its validity. The results from the simulations are compared with
experimental results.
Two material models are implemented to define the mixed-mode loading as contribution of
modes I, II and III, and they are fitted against the experimental results. The first is based on
considering the adhesive as bridging the distance between the adherends, deforming axially when
a displacement is applied in any peel or shear direction. The second model calculates the strain in
principal directions of each integration point.
The simulation of the adhesive joint is performed in ABAQUS software. This software allows
for altering the material response by use of a subroutine. The subroutine used in the simulations is
UMAT. An in-depth explanation of this subroutine is done in chapter 4.
1.5 Theory
This thesis is based on fatigue crack growth (FCG) of a rubber adhesive. The different loading
modes and the fatigue loading process, are defined in this chapter.
1.5.1 Loading Modes
Three different ways to apply a load that causes a crack growth are possible. They are known as
mode I, mode II and mode III [2]. Any loading combination of two or more of these modes is named
mixed-mode loading.
Figure 1.3: Loading modes for crack growth
Mode I (opening) is the application of a load tending to create a peel displacement, w. Mode
II (in plane shear) causes a shear displacement, v. Mode III (out plane shear) causes a shear
displacement, u, perpendicular to the displacement in mode II (see figure 1.3).
Several experimental setups are used in order to determine the mechanical properties of ad-
hesives, such as the critical or threshold values of stress, strain or energy release rate (ERR). A
complete review of all the experiments designed for this purpose would be a very extensive work.
Thus, only the most common experimental setups are described in this paper.
Experimental setup for mode I

The double cantilever beam specimen (DCB) is used in many research papers [3] when mode
I is studied for an adhesive. This specimen consists of two equally dimensioned beams joined
with adhesive along a part of their length. The non-joined length a in the DCB simulates
an existing pre-crack. Loaded as figure 1.4 shows, a peel displacement w between the two
adherends is obtained.
Figure 1.4: DCB specimen loaded in mode I [2]
Experimental setup for mode II

In the study of mode II, the end-notched flexure specimen (ENF) is used by several authors
[4][5]. This specimen has a similar configuration as the DCB specimen for mode I, but sub-
jected to 3-point bending. With this configuration, almost pure shear displacement v between
the two adherends is reached; see figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5: ENF specimen loaded in mode II [2]
Other specimens can be used to study mode II, as the DCB fixed in one end, or the compact
tension shear specimen (CTS), shown in figure 1.6.
Experimental setups for mixed-mode loading.

Mixed-mode loading can also be studied through a large number of different experimental
setups. Pirondi and Nicoletto [6] used the CTS specimen shown in figure 1.6, where the angle
between the pure mode I and pure mode II can be selected for different experiments. More
common is the application of specimens where the angle between the two pure modes cannot
be selected, as the mixed-mode end loaded split specimen (MMELS) or the asymmetric DCB
[7][8].
Figure 1.6: CTS specimen [9] (left) and asymmetric DCB (right) loaded in mixed-mode
1.5.2 Fatigue
Fatigue is defined as the process of weakening of a material caused by cyclic load. Fatigue creates
a progressive and localized damage. Fatigue occurs when the process of cyclic load, that is the
repeated loading and unloading of a part, reduces the strength or stiffness properties of a material.
Typically, stress is chosen as the characteristic magnitude and the threshold value above which
fatigue starts is called fatigue threshold. A part is damaged by fatigue if the cyclic process of
loading and unloading makes the stress reach the fatigue threshold. When that occurs, microscopic
cracks will appear acting as stress concentrators and favouring the appearance of a crack that will
grow with the number of cycles until eventually fast crack propagation starts followed by the fracture
of the part.
Historically, fatigue has been studied in metals and mostly in steel. Fatigue characteristics are
difficult to describe due to the stochastic nature of the phenomenon. A large number of experiments
is necessary to have enough statistical samples. Even in a highly controlled environment, the
dispersion of the experimental results makes a very large number of tests necessary. Some common
characteristics can be generalized for the majority of materials.
Fatigue is commonly associated with tensile stress, but compressive loads have been reported
as being able to cause fatigue cracks
Higher load leads to a faster crack growth and thus final fracture
Dispersion in experimental results is higher as fatigue life is increased, the fatigue life being
the number of cycles until fracturing
Temperature, surface finish, microstructure, residual stresses, and moisture often influence
the fatigue behaviour of materials.
High cycle fatigue (about 104 to 108 cycles) is governed by macroscopically elastic deforma-
tions. Stress can be the characteristic magnitude to describe it. Historically high cycle fatigue
has been more studied than low cycle fatigue, since it has been considered more relevant to a
majority of engineering situations.
Low cycle fatigue (less than 104 cycles) in metals is associated with localized plastic deforma-
tions. Strain is the magnitude commonly used for low cycle fatigue predictions in metals.
A common tool to express the behaviour of a material under fatigue loading is the W
ohler
diagram. It is a graph of the maximum cyclic stress plotted against the logarithmic scale of the
number of cycles needed to cause the failure of the material. The Wohler diagrams of different types
of steel and high cycle fatigue are well known, but that is not the case for many others materials.
Figure 1.7 shows the typical shapes of Wohler diagrams for steel (curve A) and aluminium (curve
B).
Figure 1.7: W
ohler diagrams for steel (curve A) and aluminium (curve B)
Some materials, such as steel, have a fatigue limit or endurance limit, being a level of stress such
that below its value, a fatigue failure of the material will never occur after any number of cycles. If
a structure suffers a level of stress below the endurance limit, is predicted to have an infinite life.
Steel has a very clear defined endurance limit and, it is believed that steel will never fracture after
being able of enduring one million cycles, such as it is shown in plot A of figure 1.7. Other materials,
for instance aluminium, seem not to have any endurance limit. Particularly in such materials, the
Wohler diagram is used to design parts for a certain life under a specific loading level.
In adhesively bonded joints, the threshold value for stress is normally given at a certain number
of cycles, usually one million [3]. There are two main approaches extensively studied in literature:
stress life approach and fatigue crack growth approach. In the first approach, the goal is to obtain the
Wohler diagram of the studied adhesive. In the second one, the crack growth rate (CGR) produced
in a material as function of number of cycles is studied. Several conclusions have been obtained by
the use of both approaches. Geometric parameters, such as shape and configuration of the joint,
material parameters, loading conditions, surface treatment and curing conditions, humidity and
temperature are affecting the fatigue strength and fatigue life of adhesively bonded parts [3].
Chapter 2
Literature Study
A literature study has been performed collecting studies about how to predict crack growth in an
adhesively bonded joint and how to analyse mixed-mode loading. Some researchers consider the
bonded joint as a composite material, therefore crack growth may be viewed as a delamination
process.
2.1 Methodologies for the prediction of fatigue behaviour of ad-

hesively bonded joints
The fatigue behaviour of adhesively bonded joints has been studied by many authors during the
last decade [10]-[18]. According to Shenoy et al. [10] the methods to predict fatigue lifetime can be
categorized in total life, Palmgren-Miner based, phenomenological based and progressive damage
models.
The total life based methods have been used traditionally regarding metals and composite mate-
rials with acceptable results. The W
ohler curve is widely used in the automotive industry, however,
this method is not directly applicable when the load applied has variable amplitude. In order to
solve this problem, PM approaches are used to predict the fatigue lifetime when variable amplitude
appears in the cyclic load. However, these methods together with the total life method cannot give
information about the damage produced before the appearance of macro cracks.
The phenomenological models are able to represent the change in strength under fatigue loading
with variable amplitude. This method is based on experimental results obtained in tests. The Back
10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE STUDY 11
Face Strain method (BFS) [11] is representative of this group, which consists basically of placing
gauges at specific points of the damaged material. This method can be used for studying crack
initiation and propagation under both static and fatigue loading.
Lack of information about the crack initiation and propagation made researchers investigate
alternative methods. The last group corresponds to the progressive damage models that can be
based on Fracture Mechanics (FM) or Damage Mechanics (DM) approaches.
2.1.1 Fracture Mechanics approach
Previously, adhesive joints had been designed using a kind of safe-life approach; it consisted in
comparing the average stress calculated at the bond line with the strength fatigue values. This
basic level method gives a fatigue life dependent on the shape of the adhesive joint. In order to
avoid this dependence, Pirondi & Moroni [18] propose to use the FM approach instead, in order to
analyse the fatigue life in adhesive joints.
The FM approach incorporates FCG to study fatigue behaviour in materials [12]. Using the
FM approach [18] crack propagation is modelled by an empirical crack growth power law, known
da
as Paris law [19]. Equation 2.1 shows the general form of Paris law, where dN is the CGR, Ki is
the stress intensity factor (SIF) range in any direction, and C and n are fitting parameters against
experiments. This equation is based on the assumption that CGR is linearly dependent of the SIF
range in a log-log scale.
da
= C (Ki )n (2.1)
dN
Equation 2.1 has been tested successfully in metals and polymers [20]. The first study using
FM to calculate the FCG was performed by Mostovoy et al. [21]. Originally, Paris law defined the
CGR as a power function of the SIF (equation 2.1); however, in the case of bonded joints, ERR is
frequently used instead of SIF range [12]-[18], equation 2.2.
da
= Cf (G)n (2.2)
dN
According with linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), SIF range and ERR can be defined
for mode I in an isotropic material under plane stress or plane strain as shown equation 2.3; where
E 0 = E for plane stress and E 0 = E/(1 ) for plane strain [2]. GI and KI are the ERR and SIF
under mode I, respectively.
KI2
GI = (2.3)
E0
Figure 2.1 illustrates Paris law referred to ERR, where the CGR, da/dN , is plotted against
ERR, G. The sigmoidal shape of this graph shows three differentiated zones: threshold, log-linear
and unstable growth. The log-linear zone corresponds to the Paris law application, defined above.
The left limit corresponds to the threshold zone; in this part characterized by constant values of
ERR when the CGR changes. The right limit corresponds to the unstable growth of the crack, which
means a non-linear relation between CGR and ERR. The delimitation point between log-linear and
threshold zones is known as threshold ERR,Gth . The delimitation point between log-linear and
unstable growth is known as critical ERR, Gc , also known as fracture toughness.
Figure 2.1: Paris law as function of ERR [22]
Originally, G is defined as Gmax Gmin , so that if the Gmin is established to zero, the G
is equal to Gmax . The definition of G has been modified by some researchers. Rans et al. [23]
2
proposed a non-linear relation between these two approaches: G = Gmax Gmin ; but for
small values of Gmin , G ' Gmax .
Some studies have been done modifying Paris law to incorporate Gc and Gth [13], equation 2.4.
Pirondi et al. [12] propose that Paris law and its modifications depend on the load ratio, R =
Pmin /Pmax , where Pmin and Pmax are the minimum and maximum values of the load respectively.
The fitting parameters m, B, n1 and n2 are obtained from experiments.
da 1 (Gth /Gmax )n1

= BGm (2.4)
dN max
1 (Gmax /Gc )n2
Further, this method does not give any information about the crack initiation or the damage
state before the macro crack appears. In order to solve this problem, the DM based approaches
were implemented to analyse the FCG in bonded joints.
2.1.2 Damage Mechanics approach
The DM approach gives information about the severity of material damage during fatigue loading.
Abdel Wahab et al. [14] used a Continuum Damage Mechanic CDM approach in a bonded double
lap joint to predict the fatigue lifetime, and good results were obtained compared with the FM
approach. Shenoy et al. [10] propose a progressive damage modelling based on DM using a power
law to define the damage evolution law, equation 2.5, where D is the damage parameter. This
parameter has a value between 0 and 1 depending on the damage produced, D = 0 corresponds to
zero damage and D = 1 is total damage. The p is the equivalent plastic strain and the parameters
m1 and m2 are constants obtained through experiments. The authors recommend to use a level of
strain below which damage is avoided, therefore, damage is only produced with high values of p .
dD
= m1 (p )m2 (2.5)
dN
On the other hand, some researchers [13], [15]-[17] consider using a damage law based on the
cohesive zone model, CZM. The CZM method was introduced by Dugdale and Barenblatt [24]-[25]
and it is characterized by assuming the existence of a zone at the crack tip of the delamination area
in which stresses are non zero, so that relative displacement occurs. Moroni et al. [16] consider using
the area under the cohesive zone, ACZ , and the ERR rate instead of opening strain displacement of
plastic strain, equation 2.6; B and d are fitting parameters.
dD 1
= BGd (2.6)
dN Acz
With the aim of obtaining a damage parameter that defines the delamination process, Robinson
et al. [17] define static delamination and delamination by fatigue. The damage parameter is
defined as a sum of static and fatigue delamination. In addition, Robinson et al. published a FE
approach using the maximum values of load during each cycle instead of analysing cycle by cycle;
this simplification reduces the computational time, and furthermore costs.
The use of a damage evolution law was also considered by Khoramishad et al. [15] With the
aim of developing a numerical fatigue damage model which depends only on the adhesive, the
authors define a bi-linear traction separation description of the CZM integrated with a strain-based
fatigue damage model, to simulate the progressive fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints.
The degradation of the bi-linear traction separation model is illustrated in figure 2.2, where the
constitutive law is degraded with the expression: Kn = (1 D)Kn0 . The damage law presented is
defined as a power law of the difference between the equivalent strain e and the threshold strain
th , equation 2.7 ( and are fitting parameters obtained through experiments). e is defined in
chapter 2.2.2.

dD (e th ) ,

e > th
= (2.7)
dN 0,

e <= th
Figure 2.2: Bi-linear traction separation model [15]
Khoramishad damage model refers to the maximum values of strain, thus it is not required to
analyse the bonded structure cycle by cycle, which was proposed years before by Robinson et al.
[17]. Figure 2.3 illustrates the cyclic load applied in a load-number of increments graph and in black
colour they are remarked the maximum values of load which are the values used to evaluate the
damage. This simplification improves the computational time considerably. In addition, Mu
noz et
al. [13] propose that the value N must be chosen to be at least two increments to advance the
crack over one element; lower values would give unnecessary increment of the computational cost.
Figure 2.3: Actual cyclic load replaced by numerically applied load [17]
2.2 Criteria for Mixed-mode
In pure modes I and II, the prediction of delamination is generally well defined [26], but the path-
dependent growth of delamination under mixed-mode loading makes modelling more complicated.
In the literature, mode III is often neglected in adhesive joints. With this idea, many arithmetic
models to describe mixed-mode have been developed using the combination of the well-known modes
I and II. Experimental verifications of the models have shown good accuracy in many of the cases
[27]-[28]. Despite fracture criteria is usually presented as a single expression valid for all the possible
loading modes, in some cases, it cannot model pure modes due to their material expressions are not
able to consider the non-contribution of some of the pure modes. Criteria capable to describe pure
loading modes are necessary to be able to fit simulations against experimental data of modes I and
II, measurable by standard tests [29].
In this section, several criteria to describe mixed-mode are presented. Many theories, frequently
developed to describe delamination in composite material, are applicable to model fracture in ad-
hesively bonded joints. Each fracture criterion is capable of describing only certain cases of real
experiments since they are able to suit only certain shapes of fracture locus. For that reason, se-
lecting the adequate criteria is crucial. ERR is largely adopted as measurement of the resistance to
delamination, but it is not the only parameter, strain based approaches are also used.
2.2.1 ERR based approaches
The following criteria define mode mixity using ERR, GT . GT is defined as an addition of ERR
in modes I, II and III. Mode III is neglected in the most of the literature found, therefore it is
expressed as a contribution of modes I and II, GT = GI + GII .
The linear criterion shown in equation 2.8, is one of the most simple and popular criterion in
literature based on ERR. It was developed before of the existence of consistent experimental data
in mixed-mode [26].
GI GII
+ =1 (2.8)
GIc GIIc
Equation 2.8 relates linearly the actual ERR in mode I, GI , with the actual ERR in mode II,
GII . GIc and GIIc are the critical ERR in peel and shear mode respectively. Figure 2.4 shows the
linear relation between GI and GII with the black continuous line. This criterion imposes upper
limits for the magnitudes of GI and GII : GI < GIc and GII < GIIc .
Figure 2.4: Mixed-mode criteria with linear and non-linear non-interaction

Experimental results under mixed-mode delamination of some composite materials showed limi-
tation of the linear non-interaction criterion, since the variation between GI and GII is not a simple
straight line [26]-[30]. That fact suggests a complex interaction between the two pure modes during
a mixed-mode fracture process. In order to match the previous criterion to experimental data, the
non-linear criteria were developed.
GI GII
+ =1 (2.9)
GIc GIIc
Equation 2.9 describes the criterion, where GIc and GIIc are replaced by varying fracture tough-
ness, GIc = GIc (GIc , GIIc ) and GIIc = GIIc (GIc , GIIc ). The upper limits for GI and GII are also
removed. Figure 2.4 shows different curvatures of the relation GI - GII according to this crite-
rion. The blue discontinuous curve corresponds to a second order polynomial relation, and the red
discontinuous line corresponds to a square root relation.
In the approaches described above, non-interaction is produced between GIc and GIc . The next
criteria family is based on the assumption that Gc = GIc = GIIc , where Gc is a common value for
the varying fracture toughness in each mode. Gc is supposed to be a contribution between fracture
toughness under mixed-mode loading, presented in equation 2.10, where the mode ratio r is the
relation between GII and GI , r = GII /GI .
Gc = rGIIc + (1 r) GIc (2.10)
Replacing the above expression into equation 2.9, equation 2.11 defines the criterion with mode
interaction.
GI + GII
=1 (2.11)
GIc + (GIIc GIc ) (GII /GI )
Into this family of criteria another expression to define the ratio parameter r was proposed,
p
r= GII /GI ; the alternative model expresses mixed-mode ratio as the square root relation between
modes I-II. Those criteria are applicable in many cases due to their generality, but only when mixed-
mode loading appears. Under pure mode I (GII = 0) the model is suitable but pure mode II (GI = 0)
cannot be modelled as shown figure 2.5, giving GII = 0
Figure 2.5: Mixed-mode criterion under mode interaction, equation 2.11
An improved version can be reached allowing the presence of pure mode II in the definition
n
GII
of the mixed-mode ratio, r = GI +GII . The n power parameter is an experimental data that
depends on the material analysed. With this modified ratio, the non-linear criterion becomes the
B-K criterion, equation 2.12, proposed by Benzeggagh & Kenane [30], who applied this model to
Glass/Epoxy composites. This semi-empirical model incorporates a fitting parameter, n, to fit the
expression against experimental data. This criterion is one of the most popular in literature due its
accuracy. Its applicability is expanded to modern FE software as ABAQUS.
GI + GII
=1 (2.12)
GIc + (GIIc GIc ) (GII /(GI + GII ))n
The B-K model solves the problems under pure modes presented by latter criteria family. This
model allows any configuration of mixed-mode loading. Figure 2.6 shows the B-K criterion with
different ratios of mixed-mode ratios, r = GII /GI . With ratio 1, in blue colour, the B-K criterion
becomes the basic straight criterion mentioned above, equation 2.8. The model adapts under
different ratios, as shows the pink, red and black curves of the figure. All the curves are performed
using n = 1.
Figure 2.6: B-K criterion, equation 2.12
Other author, Azari [31], analysed mixed-mode loading in an adhesive joint of two aluminium
parts. The author defines the mode ratio as the ERR under mixed-mode loading in a specific phase
angle , defined as: = arctan(GII /GI )0.5 . Tests were performed in asymmetric DCB specimen,
such as it is illustrated in figure 1.6. The 0 corresponds to the pure mode I, GIc . After carrying out
the experiments with different phase angles (0 65 ) in static loading, Azari realized that between
0 30 the values of ERR remain constant, which means the mixed-mode ERR can be considered
as for mode I. Based on this study, peel displacement causes higher damage in the adhesive than
an equivalent shear displacement (mode II or III).
The use of SIF to describe mixed-mode models is also relevant in the literature found [32].
Tanaka [33] proposed a SIF equivalent in mixed-mode, which represents a polynomial combination
of SIF under pure modes, equation 2.13. This polynomial expression was developed through fitting
results against experimental results. The mathematical expression shows higher contribution of
mode II into the equivalent SIF for mixed-mode loading. A drawback with this model is that pure

mode II gives: Keq = 4 8KII , which is higher than the actual SIF for mode II.
q
Keq = 4
KI4 + 8KII
4 (2.13)
2.2.2 Strain based approaches
A strain based approach to describe mixed-mode loading was developed by Tvergaard and Hutchin-
son [34], known as the T-H model. Equation 2.14 defines the mixed-mode model. The dimensionless
separation measure is function of w and v, which are the relative displacement in the normal and
tangential direction respectively, at the crack tip. The parameters wc and vc represent the critical
values in normal and tangential direction respectively.
q
= (w/wc )2 + (v/vc )2 (2.14)
Referring to T-H model, parameter couples the normal and tangential displacement in a value
in between 0 and 1. Figure 2.7 represents the cohesive law proposed in the T-H model. The graph
shows how stress increases until reaching 1 in which the critical stress c is constant until 2 , then
the graph decreases linearly until fracture, = 1.
Figure 2.7: The coupled cohesive law by Tvergaard and Hutchinson [35]
A similar criterion was developed by Hogberg [36], but with a different definition for cohesive
law. The author proposed a bilinear coupled cohesive law omitting the flat zone of the graph above.
Another strain based model was developed by Khoramishad et al. [15]. The authors proposed
the following based strain model to define mixed-mode loading, equation 2.15, where an equivalent
strain e is strain under mixed-mode conditions, n is normal strain and s is shear strain. The
equivalent strain obtained is used in equation 2.7 to define damage of material.
r
n n 2 s 2
e = + + (2.15)
2 2 2
Chapter 3
Previous studies
This paper is based on previous studies performed by the MoM research group of the University of
Skovde. The studies refer to the adhesive material analysed in this thesis. The first study analyses
the adhesive material under fatigue in mode I loading [37]. The second one analyses experiments
performed over the adhesively bonded joint simulated in this paper [38].
3.1 Fatigue in mode I
In this previous study, the MoM research group from the University of Skovde analyses the rubber
adhesive BETAMATE 5096 under fatigue in mode I loading [37].
Firstly, an experimental study is performed using DCB-specimen. From the experimental study,
mechanical properties of the adhesive material are obtained. Before starting with dynamic analysis,
static analysis are performed to obtain the cohesive law of the material. Figure 3.1 shows the
cohesive law of the adhesive, where, at the beginning, the material shows elastic behaviour, =
Kn w. Variables and w are traction and normal separation respectively, c and wc define critical
values and Kn ( mN3 ) is the stiffness of the adhesive.
21
CHAPTER 3. PREVIOUS STUDIES 22
Figure 3.1: Cohesive law under mode I [37]
In the fatigue experiments performed, elastic behaviour of the adhesive is assumed since the
stresses supported by the fatigue loading is lower than c . The experiments are performed under
displacement control, through which the threshold ERR, Gth of the adhesive material is obtained.
Considering that Gth is the area under the curve -w and the linearity between and w, the
threshold traction th and normal separation wth are obtained.
After performing the experiments, the adhesive material is analysed using FE simulations. The
fatigue experiment is simulated using FE in ABAQUS. In order to simulate the damage produced
over the adhesive layer, a damage law is implemented into the simulation. The damage law is based
on Khoramishad law, equation 2.7, replacing strains by stresses. Equation 3.1 shows the damage
law implemented, where damage parameter D (0, 1), max defines the maximum stress value
caused by the applied cyclic loading and , are material-dependent parameters fitted against
experiments.
max
!
dD 1D th
= (3.1)
dN th
The results from simulations are compared with experiments. High accuracy between the ex-
perimental and analytical results is obtained; thus, the material law used is considered suitable to
simulate the rubber adhesive under mode I loading.
3.2 Experimental Tests
Experiments are performed over the bracket component by the MoM research group of the University
of Skovde. Figure 3.2 shows the bracket component tested, composed by two metal sheets and
adhesive material. Point A of figure bellow marks the application of the cyclic load.
Figure 3.2: Specimen under study
In order to obtain an accurate joining, the adhesive is applied in between the sheets and cured
properly in an oven, according to the instructions from manufacturer. Keeping the thickness con-
stant along the adhesive layer is crucial. A wire of diameter 0.3 mm is placed around one of the
metal sheets. Then, the bracket component is compressed. Theoretically, the wires keeps thickness
constant, however, posterior measurements of the thickness in different points of the bracket com-
ponent show different values. Average thicknesses are used to define the thickness of each specimen,
see table 3.1.
The tests have been performed using an INSTRON machinery, which has been modified to
perform fatigue tests. Figure 3.3 shows a photo from one of the experiments. The picture shows the
clamping points, B, C, D, and the loading point, A. Displacement control is used in the experiments,
thus the applied load is a prescribed cyclical displacement. The amplitude of the displacements has
a frequency 4 Hz. The load is applied perpendicular to the surface of the specimen.
Part Average thickness (mm) Part Average thickness (mm)

Scania02 0.447125 / Scania09 0.453625
Scania03 0.448125 / Scania11 0.453875
Scania04 0.445375 / Scania12 0.469000
Scania06 0.450500 / Scania13 0.450500
Scania07 0.449625 / Scania14 0.453500
Table 3.1: Average thickness of each specimen
Figure 3.3: Experimental setup [38]
Different amplitudes are applied to different specimens, in order to create a Wohler diagram of
the adhesive material. The force applied to reach the prescribed displacement of each experiment
is plotted against the fatigue life (number of cycles, N ). According to the failure criterion used, the
failure is produced when the maximum force applied in each cycle decreases until 80% of its initial
value. Figure 3.4 shows the W
ohler diagram, where fatigue life is plotted against load. A total of
15 experiments are performed.
Figure 3.4: W
ohler diagram from experimental results [38]
Chapter 4
Method
This thesis continues the line of research the MoM of the University of Skovde. For that reason,
the material law implemented to simulate the adhesive is based on the previous study for mode I
[37], described in chapter 3.1.
The simulations are performed using the FE software ABAQUS 6.13. In the simulations per-
formed over the adhesively bonded joint, the adhesive is defined with elastic behaviour with traction-
separation response and no coupling among modes. The material model is defined using UMAT
subroutine, in which is implemented damage law and mixed-mode model. There are implemented
two approaches for defining mixed-mode loading, both are strain based theories: the filament model
and the principal strain model.
4.1 Simulation of adhesive material
The adhesive material is simulated using cohesive elements, COH3D6 and COH3D8, which are
illustrated in figure 4.1. These element types are predefined in Abaqus/Standard library. According
to Abaqus/Standard manual, cohesive element type are suitable to model the behaviour of adhesive
joints. Besides, cohesive element allows to modify the mechanical constitutive behaviour of the
adhesive material.
26
CHAPTER 4. METHOD 27
Figure 4.1: Cohesive element type: COH3D8 (left) and COH3D6 (right)
In accordance with the previous study under mode I [37] described in chapter 3.1, the mechanical
behaviour of the adhesive is also considered linear under mixed-mode loading. The fatigue loading
applied in simulations is located at the linear zone of the cohesive law; therefore, the material
response is based on Hookes law: = E. If damage is produced, the modulus of elasticity of the
adhesive material will be reduced, but the linearity will continue; an in-depth explanation of this
procedure in next sub-chapter.
One dimension of the adhesive layer is much smaller than the others, which means that the
thickness can be neglected. Therefore, the cohesive element used to simulate the adhesive layer
has one measurable area. In addition, the cohesive element is simulated with traction-separation
behaviour instead of continuum. This involves three stress states: one tensile stress denoted by 33
and two shear stresses, 32 and 31 , as shown figure 4.2. This assumption involves using three strain
states in the same directions. The coordinate system used in the figure corresponds to ABAQUS
software, where 3 correspond to normal direction, and 2 and 1 are shear directions.
Figure 4.2: Stress directions for cohesive element
Coupling among loading modes is not considered. The cohesive element used avoids relation
among loading modes. The constitutive matrix of the element is formed by the main diagonal and
0 to the rest of components, equation 4.1. The equation defines Hooke law in matrix mode, where
i represents strain, i stress and En and Gm the normal and shear elasticity modulus respectively.
Subscripts represent direction of figure 4.2.

33 En 0 0 33

= 0 Gm 0 (4.1)
32

32

31 0 0 Gm 31
In order to obtain a better comprehension of the cohesive element used in the simulations,
preliminary studies under pure modes were performed with one element. Results from simulations
displayed a logical behaviour of the element, without coupling.
The simulation of the adhesively bonded joint is executed in ABAQUS using UMAT subrou-
tine. The FE software works reading an input file (.inp), which includes all the information about
simulation: element type, material properties, boundary conditions and loads, output parameters,
time increment and total time, among others. The input file can be created using Abaqus/CAE or
manually. The input file used in this simulation is written manually (see appendix A). Two external
files (.incl), which have been created using Hypermesh-Abaqus, are included in the input to define
nodes and elements of the mesh. These files are created by the MoM of the University of Skovde.
In accordance with the subroutine UMAT, a total of 8 parameters define the mechanical prop-
erties of the adhesive, which are defined in the input file and introduced in the UMAT subroutine.
The parameters are: fitting parameters and , thickness H, elasticity modulus Em , stiffness Kn ,
Poisson ratio , the threshold stress th and fitting parameters C or K depending on the mixed-
mode model used. Table 4.1 defines values to each parameter excluding the values of C or K
because they depends on specimen simulated (in-depth explanation in chapter 5). It is important
Em
to note that shear elasticity modulus Gm is calculated in the UMAT subroutine using Gm = 2(1+) ,
see appendix B-C. Em is used as an assistant elasticity modulus which is only used to calculate
Gm ; this value together with the rest of parameters are obtained from the previous study in fatigue
mode I [37].
Kn ( mN3 ) Em (Pa) th (Pa) H (m)

9e-6 8 4.2e12 1.7e9 0.45 11e6 4.5e-4
Table 4.1: INPUT parameters of the UMAT subroutine

In the experiments, the load is applied cyclically with a frequency of 4 Hz. In the simulations,
the load is defined static such as it is defined by some researchers in the literature study [15][17].
The simulations are performed using different loads according to experimental results, see figure
3.4.
4.2 UMAT Subroutine
Abaqus/Standard uses different subroutines in order to modify standard procedures (routines) that
the software applies. With more than 40 subroutines, the software is able to modify standard
procedures and adapt material models to specific requirements of each problem. Subroutines are
usually programming in FORTRAN 77, proposed by default in Abaqus/Standard.
In order to achieve the goal of this thesis, which is to simulate the damage produced in the
adhesive joint under fatigue in mixed-mode loading, a subroutine is implemented to define damage
model of the adhesive material. The subroutine used is UMAT, which allows modifying the con-
stitutive behaviour of material. Flow-chart described in figure 4.3 shows the location of subroutine
UMAT in a standard analysis of Abaqus/Standard.
Figure 4.3: Flow Chart Abaqus
When the input file is read, the first increment starts with a pre-defined initial time increment.
Strains are calculated by Abaqus/standard routine before starting the UMAT subroutine. The
subroutine calculates an equivalent stress in mixed-mode loading, which is introduced in a damage
law to calculate the damage produced by this equivalent stress. Then, the constitutive law of the
material and stresses are calculated according to the damage obtained. The subroutine UMAT
performs calculations in each integration point. Then, the equilibrium equations are solved by
iterations. If result converges, the output files will be created and next increment will starts;
otherwise, next iteration starts with smaller time increment than initial.
The subroutine UMAT is defined using FORTRAN 77. The UMAT starts calculating displace-
ments in the three spatial dimensions, w, v, u, which correspond with directions I, II, III respectively.
Displacements are obtained from strains (calculated previously in Abaqus/Standard), equation 4.2,
where H is the thickness of the adhesive layer.
w = 33 H
u = 32 H (4.2)
v = 31 H
Once the displacements are obtained, an equivalent displacement in mixed-mode loading, ,
is calculated. Two different models are used to define , which are described in-depth in chapter
4.3. The equivalent displacement allows calculating equivalent stress in mixed-mode loading through
e = Kn , which decreases according to the damage produced in previous increments. Based on the
damage law from the previous study under mode I [37] (equation 3.1 chapter 3.1), a modified damage
model is used. Equation 4.3 defines the damage law applied under mixed-mode loading conditions,
where Di is the actual damage and Di1 is the accumulated damage from previous increments; Ni
is defined as the number of cycles, which is defined in the software as time increment. Parameters
, are the fitted parameters from the previous study under mode I [37]; their values are collected
in table 4.1.
!
e th
Di = Di1 + Ni (4.3)
th
In each increment, the damage law is applied when e > th ; otherwise, damage is not produced
in that increment.
The stiffness of the adhesive is degraded after calculating damage. If damage appears a decre-

ment of the stiffness is produced. The Jacobian matrix of the constitutive model, is used to
modify the constitutive behaviour of the cohesive element, equation 4.4. Ei refers to elasticity
modulus in each direction. This matrix is characterized by being a diagonal matrix, such as it is
defined in equation 4.1.
i
= Ei (1 D) (4.4)
i
The reduction of the stiffness is displayed graphically in figure 4.4, where the cohesive law is
degraded in accordance with the increment of D, being D (0, 1). If D 1 means total damage
is produced in this specific integration point and a flag parameter is used to define this state.
Therefore, stresses are zero in that integration point.
Figure 4.4: Degradation of cohesive law
The constitutive matrix is used together with strains to calculate stresses, according to equation
4.5. Linear/elastic behaviour is considered in order to calculate stresses.
i
i = i (4.5)
i
With the aim of schematizing the subroutine process described above, flow-chart of figure 4.5
describes the procedure.
Figure 4.5: Flow Chart UMAT subroutine

4.3 Mixed-mode models
Two different models are used to define mixed-mode loading over the adhesive material: filament
model, and principal strain model. The models are implemented in the UMAT subroutine.
4.3.1 Filament model
According to the literature found on this paper, peel displacement (mode I) causes higher damage in
the adhesive than an equivalent shear displacement (mode II or III) [31]. Mode I loading contributes
to crack opening and tends to separate the bonded surfaces.
The filaments model is developed in this study by assuming the adhesive as bridging the distance
between adherends, deforming axially when a displacement is applied in any peel or shear direction.
The axial deformation is produced mostly by the peel displacement. Figure 4.6 sketches the section
of the adhesive layer in 2D. The adhesive is represented by vertical fibres or filaments. After applying
mixed-mode loading, the dashed lines represent deformed filaments. The axial deformation of the
filaments is the equivalent mixed-mode displacement, according to this method.
Figure 4.6: Adhesive layer section represented by filaments
At the beginning, the filaments model is applied in 2D. The mixed-mode loading is composed
of peel displacement, mode I, and shear displacement, mode II. Figure 4.7 shows a sketch of those
displacements, where H is the thickness of the adhesive layer and initial longitude of the filament,
w is peel displacement and v shear displacement. After applying the mixed-mode loading, the
longitude of the filament becomes H + ; thus, is an equivalent displacement under mixed-mode
loading. Applying trigonometry, is defined in equation 4.6 as function of the thickness and
displacements w, v.
Figure 4.7: Filaments model in 2D
q
= (H + w)2 + v 2 H (4.6)
Displacement can be defined as the sum of w and , where is the elongation of the filament
caused only by the shear displacement v. Elongation is considerably shorter than v, as shown figure
4.7, which means that v barely modifies the equivalent displacement under mixed-mode loading, .
Due to the filaments model is fitted against experimental results, a fitting parameter is included
into the model. The fitting parameter modifies the contribution of shear displacement into the
equivalent mixed-mode displacement. Equation 4.7 defines including the fitting parameter C.
= w + C (4.7)
Using C > 1 the elongation associated with shear displacement is increased and it has higher
contribution in . If C = 1, the filament model reproduces perfectly the adhesive behaviour without
the necessity of the fitting parameter. Replacing = w into equation 4.7 and considering equation
4.6, equation 4.8 describes as function of peel and shear displacement, thickness and parameter
C.
q
=w+C (H + w)2 + v2 (H + w) (4.8)
After applying the filament model in 2D, the 3D model is explained, which is the true case in
the simulations. Figure 4.8 shows a sketch of the method in 3D, where the shear displacement u is
included, in vertical direction. Mixed-mode loading composed of modes I+II is represented in the
figure. Parameter is the equivalent displacement in mixed-mode as contribution of w, v and u.
Parameter is the elongation produced by the shear displacements v and u. This contribution is
only a short part of the total elongation , as shown in the 2D model described above.
Figure 4.8: Filaments model in 3D
Similarly to equation 4.8, equation 4.9 defines as function of displacements in the three
directions, thickness and the fitting parameter C. This parameter controls the contribution of shear
displacements, v and u, into the equivalent mixed-mode elongation, .
q
= w + C (H + w)2 + v 2 + u2 (H + w) (4.9)
In order to test the validity of the C parameter, a simple cubic element is simulated with
prescribed cyclic displacement in mixed-mode loading. The simulation is performed using different
values of the C parameter. Figure 4.9 plots the damage D produced using different values of C.
The damage is obtained using the damage law described in this paper, equation 4.3, where e is
obtained through e = Kn . This simulation is performed over 200 s.
Figure 4.9: Influence of C parameter in damage
4.3.2 Principal strain model
With the aim of getting a better comprehension of the mixed-mode behaviour over the adhesive
layer, an alternative approach to define mixed-mode loading is implemented: the principal strain
model.
The principal strain model calculates strains in principal directions to each integration point.
Solving principal strains, principal stresses are obtained in each integration point through Hooke
law. This principal stress in the normal direction is used into the damage law, equation 4.3, to
define the damage of the adhesive material.
The principal strains are obtained solving the eigen-values of the strain matrix, equation 4.10,
where [] is the strain matrix, I identity matrix and i the eigen-values. The strain matrix is a
square symmetric matrix since shear strains are equilibrated, equation 4.11, where 23 represents
peel strain, 13 and 23 shear strains. The rest of the values are 0 because the stresses produced by
these strains are neglected; an in-depth explanation in chapter 4.1. Figure 4.10 shows strains caused
by mixed-mode loading over the cohesive element chosen. The strains are produced in planes 3-2
and 3-1, therefore, the figure illustrates the planes individually to a better understanding.
{[] i [I]} = 0 (4.10)

0 0 13

[] =
0 0 23
(4.11)

31 32 33
Figure 4.10: Normal and shear strains in cohesive element
The determinant |[] i [I]| from equation 4.10 is equalled to 0, in order to obtain the eigen-
values which represent principal strains. A second order polynomial equation is obtained. There are
two solutions for i . One is normal to the principal surface, I , and the other one is normal to the
transversal surface, II , see figure 4.11. This transversal surface is neglected because the thickness
is much smaller than other dimensions (see chapter 4.1.). Thus, the principal strain model solves
the principal strain I to each integration point of the cohesive element, equation 4.12. The model
includes a fitting parameter K which allows controlling the contribution of shear strains into I .
Figure 4.11: Principal strains
s
33 33 2 (32 2 + 31 2 )
I = + + (4.12)
2 4 K
The K parameter from the principal strain model is analogous to the C parameter from the
filament model. As a difference between models, according to the contribution of shear strains into
the principal strain, the higher value of C the higher contribution, whereas the higher K, the lower
contribution. Another difference between models is the influence of the thickness in the filament
model, = (H); the principal strain model depends merely on the strain values.
After calculating I , the principal stress is obtained using Hooke law. The principal stress refers
to the equivalent stress for mixed-mode loading e , according to this model. Due to the stiffness of
the adhesive is defined with Kn instead of elasticity modulus E, the equivalent displacement is
calculated, instead of defining I ; see FORTRAN code in appendix C.
In order to test the reliability of K parameter, a simple cubic element is simulated with prescribed
cyclic displacement in mixed-mode. The simulation is performed using two different values of the
K parameter. Figure 4.12 plots the damage D produced against time. A similar simulation is
performed using the filament model, figure 4.9. Comparing both graphs, can be concluded that
damage D is extremely sensitive to the fitting parameter K, in the principal strain model. The low
effect of C from the filament model into damage can be justified because the model depends on the
thickness, which in this study is 100 times higher than the strain values; hence the contribution
from modes II and III in the mixed-mode is insignificant without high values of C.
Figure 4.12: Influence of K parameter in damage
In addition, the principal strain model is very similar to Khoramishad model [15], cited in
literature study. That fact increases the reliability of this model.
Chapter 5
Results
Results from the simulation performed over the adhesively bonded joint are shown and described
in this chapter. Firstly, CAD model of the bracket component and the adhesive layer are shown.
Mixed-mode models previously described are implemented and fitted against experimental data,
using Wohler diagrams. The plotted curves from simulations accomplish the dispersion of the
experimental results. Besides, a static simulation is performed using a progressive load. Finally,
a F-N graph is plotted where the load degradation produced in one of the fatigue simulations
performed is illustrated and described.
5.1 Adhesively bonded joint
With the aim of getting a visual perception of the piece analysed, CAD pictures1 of the adhesively
bonded joint are shown. The adhesively bonded joint, composed of two metal sheets and the
adhesive layer, is illustrated in figure 5.1. The two metal sheets of the bracket component are
displayed in red and blue colour respectively, and the adhesive layer in white colour. The picture
shows the boundary conditions applied in orange colour: three constrains located at the corners
of the bracket piece and the applied prescribed displacement, which is denoted with the vertical
orange arrow.
1
The CAD model is created by the MoM research group of the University of Sk
ovde.
40
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS 41
Figure 5.1: CAD picture of the whole adhesively bonded joint
Coordinate system xyz is related with loading directions I,II,III as shown figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2: Relation between coordinate system and loading modes
An exploded view of the adhesively bonded joint is shown in figure 5.3, where the individual
components are defined with the same colours than the previous figure.
Figure 5.3: Exploded view of the adhesively bonded joint
5.2 Fitting mixed-mode models
The results from simulations performed over the adhesive layer of the adhesively bonded joint are
shown. Two different mixed-mode models are used in the simulations: filament model and principal
strain model (described in chapter 4.3.).
The filament model and the principal strain model are both fitted against experiments. At the
beginning the fitting parameter of each model is adjusted in order to obtain same results than
experiments; W
ohler diagram of figure 3.4. Then, maximum and minimum value of the fitting
parameters are used to create the curves in a Wohler diagram. The purpose is to create a region
delimited by the two curves, in which experimental results are located. This fact allows knowing
which is the suitable range of the fitting parameter of each model to cover experimental results.
It is reminded that the mixed-mode models are defined using fitting variables C and K, accord-
ingly to each method. If the C value is increased in the filament model or K is decreased in the
principal strain model a certain value, means an increment of the contribution of modes II-III into
mixed-mode.
The filament model and principal strain model are fitted against experiments using different
values of C and K respectively, as shown figures 5.4, 5.4. The S0i are the experiments performed
and the points represent the failure of each specimen. The values of the fitting parameters are
represented by C of K followed by its value; for instance, C45 means that the filament model is
fitted against this particular experiment using C = 45.
Figure 5.4: Fitting of C from the filament model against experiments

Figure 5.5: Fitting of K from the principal strain model against experiments
Experimental results S02, S03, S05, S07, S08, S10, S14 and S15 are not used to adjust the
simulations. S02 and S03 experiments are neglected because they are considered low cycle fatigue
experiments; failure produced in specimens under 10,000 cycles are considered low cycle fatigue
and the damage model used in this study skips this process. Other experimental results are not
considered since they support same prescribed load, as S10 and S14. In addition, S07. S05, S15
and S08 are omitted because crack initiation is not produced in 1 million cycles.
According to the filament model, there is a huge range between the maximum and minimum
values of C. Using these values, the upper and lower curve are created, making the region in
which the filament model accomplishes the experimental results, figure 5.6. The upper curve is
created using C = 114, and the lower one with C = 39. Different loads are applied to each value
of C in order to create the curves of the Wohler diagram. The curve created with the maximum
C is displayed with black squares and the minimum with black diamonds. The experiments are
represented by pink diamonds.
Figure 5.6: Wohler curves for the filament model
After presenting the fitting of the filament model, the fitting of the principal strain model is
performed, using the same procedure in both models. With the maximum and minimum values of
K, 1.5 and 4.5 respectively, the upper and lower curves of the region that delimits experimental
data are plotted, figure 5.7. The maximum K is denoted with black diamonds and the minimum
one with black squares. The experiments are represented by pink diamonds.
Figure 5.7: W
ohler curves for the principal strain model
After presenting both models, the principal strain model seems to be more accurate than the
filament model, due to the spread of values of the fitting parameter is smaller than in the filament
model. In addition, if the models are considered without the extra contribution of the parameters,
which means with C = K = 1, the adhesive material fails in a point in between these two approaches,
as shown figure 5.8. The figure displays the position of the experiments against the simulations using
both models. The principal strain model with K = 1 is placed on the left because the simulations
performed with this model produces failure at low cycles, whereas the filament model with C = 1
produces failure at high cycles.
Figure 5.8: Resume sketch of mixed-mode models analysed
5.3 Damage produced over the adhesive layer
The damage growth over the adhesive layer is simulated. An aside before continuing on this subject,
little differences in the location of the damage initiation from simulations are perceived, due to the
fitting parameters C and K relocate the maximum strain value over the adhesive layer. This
maximum strain value produces the initial damage in the adhesive material.
Due to higher accuracy of the principal strain model in front of the filament model, the damage
growth is displayed using the first model. The damage growth is displayed in four stages, as shown
figure 5.9. The figure illustrates the damage growth of the adhesive layer of specimen S09 using
K = 4.5.
The damage sequence from figure 5.9 starts at 100, 000 cycles in the upper image, where damage
initiation is located at the left arm of the adhesive layer, in green colour. After 1, 000 cycles, damage
is extended to neighbouring elements, as shown second image where elements with total damage
are red coloured. At this point starts a quick damage propagation. The next image represents the
end of the propagation, when the strength of the adhesive is lower than 80% of its initial value. The
quick damage propagation is produced in less than 100 cycles. The last image illustrates damage
produced under 3 million cycles. Although the damage continues growing, the end of the damage
propagation is chosen when the strength is reduced to 80%. The slow damage propagation can
be considered as crack stabilization. Thus, the fatigue life of this specimen is reached at 101, 100
cycles.
Figure 5.9: Damage growth of adhesive layer
With the aim of verifying the results obtained, a strain distribution study is performed over the
same specimen than the one analysed above, figure 5.9. Figure 5.10 shows the strain distribution
over the adhesive layer. The upper image illustrates strains in mode I, the second and third ones
represent modes II and III, accordingly. The higher strain value is the shear strain 31 , depicted in
second image in blue colour. This zone corresponds to the location of the damage initiation from
figure 5.9. Thus, it can be defined that the damage initiation is produced mostly by the contribution
of mode II into the mixed-mode, in this specific simulation.
Figure 5.10: Strain values of adhesive layer
Once the principal strain model has been fitted against experiments, the degradation of the
force applied is described. Force degradation is produced due to damage propagation. The failure
of the adhesive material is produced when the stiffness of the bracket component is reduced at
80%. This is the same criterion than the one applied in experiments. Due to the displacement is
applied with constant amplitude and the adhesive behaviour is considered elastic, this criterion can
be extrapolated directly to the force; when the force applied to reach the prescribed displacement
reaches 80% of its initial value, the failure is produced. Simulations of S12 and S09 specimens have
been used to create F-N graphs, figure 5.11. The simulations are fitted against experiments using
K = 1.5 to S12 and K = 4.5 to S09, figure 5.7.
Figure 5.11: F-N diagram of S09 and S12 specimens
The F-N graph from figure 5.11 denotes the sudden fall down of force when damage propagates.
This process is produced very quickly in relation with the total simulation time. Letters A, B, C
and D represent the phases of the damage from figure 5.9, where the damage process is illustrated.
A static analysis is performed over the adhesive layer using the principal strain model, due to
better agreements against experimental results. Figure 5.12 shows F relation when a progressive
load is applied. The graph shows a linear relation between these parameters, which agrees with
experiments performed under mode I [37]. The critical force and critical displacement are reached
at 3, 033 N and 11.1 mm respectively; this point (in red colour) refers to maximum admissible load
before damage initiation. Damage growth until total damage is produced instantaneously when the
critical values are reached.
Figure 5.12: Static analysis force vs displacement

Chapter 6
Conclusions
After presenting and analysing results, the simulations are in agreement with the experiments.
The models to define mixed-mode loading have been fitted against experimental data, obtaining
successful results.
According to the filament model, the high dispersion of the values of C denotes low accuracy
of this model. Values of C are much larger than expected. In the most favourable case, C = 39,
which means that elongation associated with shear displacements needs to be increased 39 times
to fit the model against experiments. Therefore, the filament model is not considered suitable to
simulate the adhesive material under fatigue in mixed-mode loading.
The principal strain model exhibits also dispersion in the values of the parameter K, with
maximum value 3 times larger than the minimum. Such a difference is reasonable considering the
high dispersion of the experimental results. Therefore, the principal strain model is considered
suitable to describe the behaviour of the adhesive layer under fatigue in mixed-mode loading, which
is the aim of this study.
The models have different shape of Wohler diagram. Figure 6.1 displays approximately the
shape of each model. The filament model (left) presents a flatter appearance than the principal
strain model (right), which seems to agree better with the declining trend of experimental results,
figure 3.4. However, due to the range of C and K, the principal strain model gives better results;
thus, the principal strain model is the most suitable model to describe the behaviour of the adhesive
under fatigue in mixed-mode loading.
52
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS 53
Figure 6.1: Declining trend of W

ohler diagrams: filament model (left), principal strain model (right)
According to the damage produced over the adhesive layer, damage initiation from simulations is
produced mostly by shear displacement v. It can be concluded that damage is produced under mode
II loading. Besides, the damaged zones obtained from simulations are in agreement with damaged
zones from experiments. Experiments show different zones of crack initiation in the specimens.
According to the aim of this thesis, the principal strain model is totally capable of simulating
the damage produced over the adhesive layer under fatigue in mixed-mode loading. Thus, the aim
of this thesis is fulfilled.
Chapter 7
Discussions
The mixed-mode models implemented have been fitted against experiments, which are performed
under fatigue in mixed-mode loading. In order to obtain more consistent results from experiments,
more tests are required. Besides a statistic treatment of them is proposed, due to the experiments
show high dispersion in their results; the statistic treatment would allow knowing which results
are reliable. If number of experiments increases and statistic treatment is done, the parameters C
and K, from the filaments model and principal strain model respectively, will reduce their range,
showing better fitting against experiments.
The mixed-mode models implemented in the simulations incorporate fitting parameters. An
alternative methodology could be modifying parameters and , instead of introducing the extra
fitting parameters, C and K.
Some aspects of the experimental setup could be changed in order to improve the veracity of
the experimental results. One aspect is the thickness of the adhesive layer, which is irregular. In
some specimens, the difference between measurements is higher than 12% of the average thickness of
the specimen. This irregularity affects the accuracy of results in the simulations, since simulations
consider constant thickness along the adhesive layer. Simulations are highly sensitive to thickness
values since little deviations modify strains along the adhesive layer, and therefore stresses and
damage. A more regular thickness would contribute to decrease the dispersion in the experimental
results and therefore, to decrease the range of the parameters C and K, becoming mixed-mode
models more accurate.
Another aspect to consider in the experimental setup is the use of wires, which define the
54
CHAPTER 7. DISCUSSIONS 55
thickness of the adhesive layer. Wires are used to keep both metal sheets separated when the
adhesive is applied and during experiments; thus, the thickness of the adhesive is equal to the
diameter of the wire. The wires are not removed before testing the specimens, making the adhesive
layer discontinuous. That fact causes stress concentration in the adhesive and could be a crack
initiation factor. Some specimens show cracks in regions where wires are located, which suggests
influence of the wires in crack initiation.
The bracket component chosen to develop this study has irregular geometry and presents dif-
ficulties to achieve experiments and simulations. That fact contributes to generate uncertainty in
the results obtained from experiments and simulations. Taking into account that the purpose of
this thesis is to develop a new model able to describe accurately the behaviour of an adhesive layer
under fatigue in mixed-mode loading, the geometry of the bracket component might not be the
most appropriate. The selection of a piece with a simpler geometry would make it easier to achieve
the goal of this thesis and it would increase veracity of results.
Chapter 8
Future Work
For a better adjustment of models against experiments, some proposals are suggested as future
work.
A larger number of experiments allows implementing a statistic treatment and therefore, it

could decrease dispersion of results. Thus the range of the parameters C and K could be
reduced.
An alternative experimental setup, replacing the use of wires to define thickness of the adhesive
layer. The alternative method should avoid or reduce discontinuity and stress concentration.
This fact could decrease the dispersion of experimental results and again reduce the range in
the parameters C and K.
A simpler specimen to perform the analysis is recommendable. This fact will make exper-
imental setup easier and it will reduce the uncertainty in the experimental results. Those
specimens could be the CTS or ENF specimen.
In order to test the applicability of the mixed-mode models presented in this study, similar
simulations are suggested over other rubber adhesives. The ranges of the fitting parameters could
be different to the ones obtained in this thesis, and they could be a property of the adhesive material
used.
56
Appendix A
INPUT file
1 Generated u s i n g HyperMeshAbaqus Template V e r s i o n : 1 2 . 0

2
3 Template : ABAQUS/STANDARD 3D
4
5 INCLUDE, INPUT =o v r e b a l k n o d e r . i n c l
6 INCLUDE, INPUT =o v r e b a l k e l e m s . i n c l
7
8
9
10 Parameter
11 t = 0 . 4 5 2 8 1 2 5 e 03
12 nu = 4 . 5 0 0 0 0 e 01
13 Kn = 4 . 2 0 0 0 0 e+12
14 Em = 1 . 7 0 0 0 0 e+09
15 alpha = 9 . 0 0 0 0 0 e 06
16 beta = 8 . 0 0 0 0 0 e+00
17 SigTH = 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 e+06
18 C =
19 COHESIVE SECTION, RESPONSE=TRACTION SEPARATION, THICKNESS=SPECIFIED , MATERIAL=
a d h e s i v , ELSET=a d h e s i v 1
20 <t>
21 SHELL SECTION, ELSET=fem 2212300 , OFFSET= SNEG, MATERIAL=STEEL
22 0.002 ,
23 SHELL SECTION, ELSET=fem 2257062 , OFFSET= SNEG, MATERIAL=STEEL
24 0.002 ,
57
25 BEAM SECTION, ELSET=M6, MATERIAL= STEEL, SECTION=CIRC
26 0.005 ,
27 1.0 ,2.0 ,3.0
28 NSET, NSET=BC
29 7255818 , 7255820 , 7255821 , 7255822 , 7255823 , 7255824 , 7255825 ,
7255826 ,
30 7255827 , 7255828 , 7256775 , 7256776 , 7256777 , 7256778 , 7283694 ,
7283695 ,
31 7283696 , 7283697 , 7283715 , 7283716 , 7283717 , 7283718 , 7283719 ,
7283720 ,
32 7283725 , 7283726 , 7283727 , 7283728 , 7283912 , 7283913 , 7283914 ,
7283915 ,
33 7283934 , 7283935 , 7283936 , 7283937 , 7283938 , 7283939 , 7283944 ,
7283945 ,
34 7283946 , 7283947 , 7289007 , 7289008 , 7289073 , 7289074 , 7289075 ,
7289182 ,
35 7289183 , 7289184 , 7289185 , 7289186 , 7289187 , 7289188 , 7289189 ,
7289190 ,
36 7289191 , 7289192 , 7289193 , 7289313 , 7289314 , 7289315 , 7289316 ,
7289317 ,
37 7289318 , 7289319 , 7289320 , 7289321 , 7289323 , 7289324
38 NSET, NSET=S p i d e r
39 9607486
40 NSET, NSET=Hole
41 7 2 8 8 4 9 0 , 7 2 8 8 4 9 1 , 7 2 8 8 4 9 2 , 7288493 , 7 2 8 8 4 9 4 , 7 2 8 8 4 9 5 , 7 2 8 8 4 9 6 , 7288497 , 7 2 8 8 4 9 8 ,
7288499 ,
42 7 2 8 8 4 8 9 , 7 2 8 8 5 0 0 , 7 2 8 8 5 0 1 , 7288502
43 MATERIAL, NAME=a d h e s i v
44 u s e r m a t e r i a l , c o n s t=8
45 <nu>,<Kn>,<t >,<Em>,<alpha >,<beta >,<SigTH>,<C>
46 Depvar
47 4
48 Amplitude , name= amp1
49 0. , 1. , 1. , 1.
50 MATERIAL, NAME=STEEL
51 DENSITY
52 7880.0 ,0.0
53 ELASTIC , TYPE = ISOTROPIC
54 2 . 0 7 0 0E+11 ,0.3 ,0.0
55 BOUNDARY
56 BC, 1 , 3
57 STATIC STEP
58 Step , name=s t e p 1 , I n c =5000000
59 Static
60 1 e 4 , 1 e6 , 1 e 10 , 10000
61 BOUNDARY, a m p l i t u d e=amp1
62 s p i d e r , 2 , 2 , 1 . 8 7 5 e3
63 OUTPUT, FIELD , FREQUENCY=1
64 ELEMENT OUTPUT, ELSET=a d h e s i v 1
65 S , E , sdv
66 NODE OUTPUT, NSET=s p i d e r
67 U, RF
68 END STEP
Appendix B
Fortran code for the filament model
1 SUBROUTINE UMAT(STRESS ,STATEV,DDSDDE, SSE , SPD, SCD,

2 1 RPL,DDSDDT,DRPLDE,DRPLDT,
3 2 STRAN,DSTRAN, TIME, DTIME,TEMP,DTEMP,PREDEF,DPRED,CMNAME,
4 3 NDI ,NSHR,NTENS,NSTATV, PROPS,NPROPS,COORDS,DROT,PNEWDT,
5 4 CELENT,DFGRD0,DFGRD1,NOEL,NPT,LAYER, KSPT, KSTEP, KINC)
6 C
7 INCLUDE ABA PARAM. INC
8 C
9 CHARACTER80 CMNAME
10 DIMENSION STRESS(NTENS) ,STATEV(NSTATV) ,
11 1 DDSDDE(NTENS,NTENS) ,DDSDDT(NTENS) ,DRPLDE(NTENS) ,
12 2 STRAN(NTENS) ,DSTRAN(NTENS) ,TIME( 2 ) ,PREDEF( 1 ) ,DPRED( 1 ) ,
13 3 PROPS(NPROPS) ,COORDS( 3 ) ,DROT( 3 , 3 ) ,DFGRD0( 3 , 3 ) ,DFGRD1( 3 , 3 )
14 c
15 PARAMETER ( z e r o = 0 . d0 , one =1. d0 )
16
17 REAL8 Em, nu , eps , t h i c k , w, alpha , beta ,
18 1 ddamage , Kn, En , Gm, sigma
19 2 sigmath , u , v , lamb , C
20
21 INTEGER j 1 , j 2
22
23 c u s e r c o d i n g to d e f i n e DDSDDE, STRESS , STATEV, SSE , SPD, SCD
24 c and , i f n e c e s s a r y , RPL, DDSDDT, DRPLDE, DRPLDT, PNEWDT
25 nu = props ( 1 )
60
26 Kn = props ( 2 )
27 t h i c k = props ( 3 )
28 Em = props ( 4 )
29 alpha = props ( 5 )
30 beta = props ( 6 )
31 sigmath = p r o p s ( 7 )
32 C = props ( 8 )
33
34 En = Kn t h i c k
35 Gm=Em/ ( 2 . d0(1+nu ) )
36
37 i f ( time ( 1 ) . eq . z e r o ) then
38 statev (1) = zero
43 end i f
44 c
45 i f ( s t a t e v ( 1 ) . l t . one ) then
46
47 w = ( s t r a n ( 1 )+d s t r a n ( 1 ) ) t h i c k ! A c t u a l MODEI s e p a r a t i o n
48 v = ( s t r a n ( 2 )+d s t r a n ( 2 ) ) t h i c k ! A c t u a l MODEI I s e p a r a t i o n
49 u = ( s t r a n ( 3 )+d s t r a n ( 3 ) ) t h i c k ! A c t u a l MODEI I I s e p a r a t i o n
50
51 c s t a t e v ( 5 )=w
52 e p s = ( ( t h i c k+w) 2+v2+u 2 ) 0 . 5 ( t h i c k + w)
53
54 lamb = w+(C e p s ) ! mixedmode f i t t e d e q u a t i o n
55
56 s t a t e v (3) = eps
57 s t a t e v ( 4 ) = lamb
58 sigma =(ones t a t e v ( 1 ) ) Knlamb
59
60 i f ( sigma / ( ones t a t e v ( 1 ) ) . gt . sigmath ) then ! What i f D i s l a r g e ?
61 s t a t e v ( 1 ) = s t a t e v ( 1 )+a l p h a ( ( sigma / ( ones t a t e v ( 1 ) ) s i g
62 . math ) / ( sigmath ) ) b e t a dtime
63 end i f
64 end i f
65
66 s t a t e v ( 1 ) = min( s t a t e v ( 1 ) , one )
67
68 i f ( s t a t e v ( 1 ) . ge . one ) then
69 s t a t e v ( 2 ) = one ! S t a t u s
70 end i f
71
72
73 do j 1 =1, n t e n s
74 do j 2 =1, n t e n s
75 ddsdde ( j 1 , j 2 )=z e r o
76 end do
77 end do
78
79 C s t a t e v ( 1 )=z e r o
80 ddsdde ( 1 , 1 ) = En ( ones t a t e v ( 1 ) )
81 ddsdde ( 2 , 2 ) = Gm ( ones t a t e v ( 1 ) )
83 s t r e s s ( 1 ) = ddsdde ( 1 , 1 ) ( s t r a n ( 1 )+d s t r a n ( 1 ) )
86
87 C write ( , ) SIGMA , (SIGMA)
88 RETURN
89 END
Appendix C
Fortran code for the principal direction model
1
2 SUBROUTINE UMAT(STRESS ,STATEV,DDSDDE, SSE , SPD, SCD,
3 1 RPL,DDSDDT,DRPLDE,DRPLDT,
4 2 STRAN,DSTRAN, TIME, DTIME,TEMP,DTEMP,PREDEF,DPRED,CMNAME,
5 3 NDI ,NSHR,NTENS,NSTATV, PROPS,NPROPS,COORDS,DROT,PNEWDT,
6 4 CELENT,DFGRD0,DFGRD1,NOEL,NPT,LAYER, KSPT, KSTEP, KINC)
7 C
8 INCLUDE ABA PARAM. INC
9 C
10 CHARACTER80 CMNAME
11 DIMENSION STRESS(NTENS) ,STATEV(NSTATV) ,
12 1 DDSDDE(NTENS,NTENS) ,DDSDDT(NTENS) ,DRPLDE(NTENS) ,
13 2 STRAN(NTENS) ,DSTRAN(NTENS) ,TIME( 2 ) ,PREDEF( 1 ) ,DPRED( 1 ) ,
14 3 PROPS(NPROPS) ,COORDS( 3 ) ,DROT( 3 , 3 ) ,DFGRD0( 3 , 3 ) ,DFGRD1( 3 , 3 )
15 c
16 PARAMETER ( z e r o = 0 . d0 , one =1. d0 )
17
18 REAL8 Em, nu , eps , t h i c k , w, alpha , beta ,
19 1 ddamage , Kn, En , Gm, sigma
20 2 sigmath , u , v , lamb , C
21
22 INTEGER j 1 , j 2
23
24 c u s e r c o d i n g to d e f i n e DDSDDE, STRESS , STATEV, SSE , SPD, SCD
25 c and , i f n e c e s s a r y , RPL, DDSDDT, DRPLDE, DRPLDT, PNEWDT
63
26 nu = props ( 1 )
27 Kn = props ( 2 )
28 t h i c k = props ( 3 )
29 Em = props ( 4 )
30 alpha = props ( 5 )
31 beta = props ( 6 )
32 sigmath = p r o p s ( 7 )
33 C = props ( 8 )
34
35 En = Kn t h i c k
36 Gm=Em/ ( 2 . d0(1+nu ) )
37
38 i f ( time ( 1 ) . eq . z e r o ) then
44 end i f
45 c
46 i f ( s t a t e v ( 1 ) . l t . one ) then
47
48 w = ( s t r a n ( 1 )+d s t r a n ( 1 ) ) t h i c k ! A c t u a l MODEI s e p a r a t i o n
49 v = ( s t r a n ( 2 )+d s t r a n ( 2 ) ) t h i c k ! A c t u a l MODEI I s e p a r a t i o n
50 u = ( s t r a n ( 3 )+d s t r a n ( 3 ) ) t h i c k ! A c t u a l MODEI I I s e p a r a t i o n
51
52 lamb = w/2 + sqrt ( (w 2 ) /4 + ( v2+u 2 ) /C)
53
54 s t a t e v ( 4 ) = lamb
55 sigma =(ones t a t e v ( 1 ) ) Knlamb
56
57 i f ( sigma / ( ones t a t e v ( 1 ) ) . gt . sigmath ) then
58 s t a t e v ( 1 ) = s t a t e v ( 1 )+a l p h a ( ( sigma / ( ones t a t e v ( 1 ) ) s i g
59 . math ) / ( sigmath ) ) b e t a dtime
60 end i f
61 end i f
62
63 s t a t e v ( 1 ) = min( s t a t e v ( 1 ) , one )
64
65 i f ( s t a t e v ( 1 ) . ge . one ) then
66 s t a t e v ( 2 ) = one ! S t a t u s
67 end i f
68
69
70 do j 1 =1, n t e n s
71 do j 2 =1, n t e n s
72 ddsdde ( j 1 , j 2 )=z e r o
73 end do
74 end do
75
76 C s t a t e v ( 1 )=z e r o
77 ddsdde ( 1 , 1 ) = En ( ones t a t e v ( 1 ) )
83
84 C write ( , ) lamb , ( lamb )
85 RETURN
86 END
Bibliography
[1] A. Rietz, Internal reports with Scania company, 2014.
[2] T.L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamental and Applications, 3rd Edition, Taylor &
Francis, 2005.
[3] M.M. AbdelWahab, Fatigue in Adhesively Bonded Joints: A Review, International Scholarly
Research Network, ISRN Materials Science, 2013.
[4] M. Dessureault and J.K. Spelt, Observations of fatigue crack initiation and propagation in
an epoxy adhesive, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 17, n 3, pp. 183-195,
1997.
[5] F.C. Edde and Y. Verreman, Nominally Constant strain energy release rate specimen for
the study of mode II fracture and fatigue in adhesively bonded joints, International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives, vol. 17, n 3, pp. 183-195, 1997.
[6] A. Pirondi and G. Nicoletto, Mixed-mode I/II fatigue crack growth in adhesive joints,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 73, n 16, pp. 2557-2568, 2006.
[7] G.V. Marannano, L. Mistretta, A. Cirello, and S. Pasta, Crack growth analysis
at adhesive-adherend interface in bonded joints under mixed-mode I/II, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, vol. 75, n 18, pp. 5122-5133, 2008.
[8] S. Azari, M. Papini, and J.K. Spelt, Effect of adhesive thickness on fatigue and fracture
of toughened epoxy jointspart I: experiments, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 78, n 1, pp.
138-162, 2011.
66
[9] Polymer Service GmbH Merseburg, Web site: http://wiki.polymerservice-
merseburg.de/index.php/CTS-Pr%C3%BCfk%C3%B6rper, Germany 2014.
[10] V. Shenoy, I.A. Ashcroft, G.W. Critchlow and A.D. Crocombe, Unified methodology
for the prediction of the fatigue behaviour of adhesively bonded joints, International Journal of
Fatigue 32, pp. 1278-1288, 2010.
[11] V. Shenoy, I.A. Ashcroft, G.W. Critchlowb, A.D. Crocombe and M.M. AbdelWa-
hab, An investigation into the crack initiation and propagation behaviour of bonded single-lap
joints using back face strain, International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 29, pp. 361-371,
2009.
[12] A. Pirondi and G. Nicoletto, Fatigue crack growth in bonded DCB specimens, Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 71, pp. 859-871, 2004.
[13] J.J. Mun

oz, U. Galvanetto and P. Robinson, On the numerical simulation of fatigue
driven delamination with interface elements, International Journal of Fatigue 28, pp. 1136-
1146, 2006.
[14] M.M. Abdel Wahab, I.A. Ashcroft, A.D. Crocombe and S.J. Shaw, Prediction of
fatigue threshold in adhesively bonded joints using damage mechanics and fracture mechanics,
J. Adhes. Sci Technol, 7: pp. 763-781, 2001.
[15] H. Khoramishad, A.D. Crocombe, K.B. Katnam and I.A. Ashcroft, Predicting fa-
tigue damage in adhesively bonded joints using a cohesive zone model, International Journal of
Fatigue 32, pp. 1146-1158, 2010.
[16] F. Moroni and A. Pirondi, A procedure for the simulation of fatigue crack growth in ad-
hesively bonded joints based on the cohesive zone model and different mixed-mode propagation
criteria, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 78, pp. 1808-1816, 2011.
[17] P. Robinson, U. Galvanetto, D. Tumino, G. Bellucci and D. Violeau, Numerical

simulation of fatigue-driven delamination using interface elements, International Journal for
numerical methods in engineering; 63: pp. 1824-1848, 2005.
[18] A. Pirondi and F. Moroni, An investigation of fatigue failure prediction of adhesively bonded
metal/metal joints. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 29, pp. 796-805, 2009.
[19] P. Paris, M. Gomez and W. Anderson, A rational analytic theory of fatigue, The Trend
in Engineering, 1961.
[20] R.W. Hertzberg, Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering materials. 4th ed. New
York: John Wiley & Sons; 1995.
[21] S. Mostovoy S and E.J. Ripling, Flaw tolerance of a number of commercial and experi-
mental adhesives. In: Adhesion science and technology, vol. 9. New York: Plenum Press; pp.
64-80, 1975.
[22] J.A. Pascoe, R.C. Alderliesten and R. Benedictus, Methods for the prediction of fa-
tigue delamination growth in composites and adhesive bonds, Structural Integrity & Composites
Group, Faculty of Aeros pace Engineering, Delf University of Technology, The Netherlands,
2013.
[23] C. Rans, R.C. Alderliesten and R. Benedictus, Misinterpreting the results: How simil-
itude can improve our understanding of fatigue delamination growth. Compos Sci Technol 71,
pp. 230-238, 2011.
[24] D.S. Dugdale, Yielding of steel sheets containing slits. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics
of Solids, 8, pp. 100-104, 1960.
[25] G.I. Barenblatt, The material theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture. Advances in
Applied Mechanics; 7: pp. 55-129, 1962.
[26] Q.V. Bui, A Modified Benzeggagh-Kenane Fracture Criterion for Mixed-mode Delamination,
Journal of Composite Materials, September 2010.
[27] L.P. Borrego, F.V. Antunes, J.D.Costa and J.M. Ferreira, Fatigue crack growth
behaviour under mixed-mode loading, Anales de mecanica de la fractura, vol. 22, 2005.
[28] H. Hosseini-Toudeshky, M. Saber and B. Mohammadi, Finite element crack propagation

of adhesively bonded repaired panels in general mixed-mode conditions, Aerospace Engineering
Department and Center of Excellence in Computational Aerospace Engineering, Amirkabir
University of Technology, Iran, 2009.
[29] J.R. Reeder, An Evaluation of Mixed-mode Delamination Failure Criteria, Technical Report:
NASA/TM-1992-104210, NASA Langley Technical Report Server, 1992.
[30] M.L. Benzeggagh and M. Kenane, Measurement of Mixed-mode Delamination Fracture

Toughness of Unidirectional Glass Epoxy Composites with Mixed-mode Bending Apparatus,
Composites Science and Technology, 56: 439-449, 1996.
[31] S. Azari, Near-threshold fatigue of adhesive joints: Effect of mode ratio, bond strength and
bondline thickness, PhD Thesis Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. Univer-
sity of Toronto, 2010.
[32] M. J. Pais, Variable amplitude fatigue analysis using surrogate models and exact XFEM re-
analysis, PhD thesis, University of Florida, December 2011.
[33] K. Tanaka , Fatigue crack propagation from a crack inclined to the cyclic tension axis, Engi-
neering Fracture Mechanics 6(3): 493-507, 1974.
[34] V. Tvergaargd and J.W. Hutchinson, On the toughness of ductile adhesive, J. Mech.
Phys. Solids, vol. 44, n 5, pp. 789-800, 1996.
[35] J.L. Ho
gberg and K. Salomonsson, Simulation of an adhesive layer using a novel mixed-
mode cohesive law, Mechanics of Materials, University of Skovde, 2006.
[36] J.L. Ho
gberg, Mixed-mode cohesive law, International Journal of Fracture, 2006.
[37] A. Eklind, Unpublished material; oral conversations and internal reports, University of
Skovde, 2013.
[38] A. Eklind A. and T. Walander, Experiments performed by the MoM research group of the
University of Sk
ovde, 2014

FT01

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FT01

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Analysis of rubber adhesive

FE simulation of damage propagation

Authors: Roberto Perez Romero

Dissertation of Master of Science within Applied Mechanics 30 ECTS

Regarding with the University of Sk

dedico este logro a mi familia, con una especial menci

BFS Back Face Strain

a Crack length [m]

Equivalent displacement under mixed-mode loading in 2D [m]

Figure 1.1: Sideskirt bracket component [1]

Figure 1.2: Types of adhesive joint fracture

1.3 Goal & Purpose

1.5.1 Loading Modes

Figure 1.3: Loading modes for crack growth

Experimental setup for mode I

Figure 1.4: DCB specimen loaded in mode I [2]

Experimental setup for mode II

Figure 1.5: ENF specimen loaded in mode II [2]

Experimental setups for mixed-mode loading.

2.1 Methodologies for the prediction of fatigue behaviour of ad-

2.1.1 Fracture Mechanics approach

Figure 2.1: Paris law as function of ERR [22]

da 1 (Gth /Gmax )n1

2.1.2 Damage Mechanics approach

Figure 2.2: Bi-linear traction separation model [15]

2.2 Criteria for Mixed-mode

2.2.1 ERR based approaches

Figure 2.4: Mixed-mode criteria with linear and non-linear non-interaction

Gc = rGIIc + (1 r) GIc (2.10)

Figure 2.5: Mixed-mode criterion under mode interaction, equation 2.11

Figure 2.6: B-K criterion, equation 2.12

2.2.2 Strain based approaches

3.1 Fatigue in mode I

Figure 3.1: Cohesive law under mode I [37]

3.2 Experimental Tests

Figure 3.2: Specimen under study

Part Average thickness (mm) Part Average thickness (mm)

Table 3.1: Average thickness of each specimen

Figure 3.3: Experimental setup [38]

4.1 Simulation of adhesive material

Figure 4.2: Stress directions for cohesive element

Kn ( mN3 ) Em (Pa) th (Pa) H (m)

Table 4.1: INPUT parameters of the UMAT subroutine

4.2 UMAT Subroutine

Figure 4.3: Flow Chart Abaqus

Figure 4.4: Degradation of cohesive law

Figure 4.5: Flow Chart UMAT subroutine

4.3 Mixed-mode models

4.3.1 Filament model

Figure 4.6: Adhesive layer section represented by filaments

Figure 4.7: Filaments model in 2D

Figure 4.8: Filaments model in 3D

Figure 4.9: Influence of C parameter in damage

4.3.2 Principal strain model

{[] i [I]} = 0 (4.10)

Figure 4.10: Normal and shear strains in cohesive element

Figure 4.11: Principal strains

Figure 4.12: Influence of K parameter in damage

5.1 Adhesively bonded joint

Figure 5.1: CAD picture of the whole adhesively bonded joint

Figure 5.2: Relation between coordinate system and loading modes

Figure 5.3: Exploded view of the adhesively bonded joint

5.2 Fitting mixed-mode models

Figure 5.4: Fitting of C from the filament model against experiments