Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijadhadh
Progressive damage modeling of adhesively bonded lap joints
Iordanis T. Masmanidis, Theodore P. Philippidis ^{n}
Department of Mechanical Engineering & Aeronautics, University of Patras, P.O. Box 1401, GR 26504 Panepistimioupolis Rion, Greece
article info
Article history:
Accepted 1 February 2015 Available online 8 February 2015
Keywords:
B. 
Composites 
D. 
Cohesive zone model 
E. 
Joggle lap joint 
Progressive damage
abstract
A continuum damage model for simulating damage propagation of bonded joints is presented, introducing a linear softening damage process for the adhesive agent. Material models simulating anisotropic nonlinear elastic behavior and distributed damage accumulation were used for the composite adherends as well. The proposed modeling procedure was applied to a series of lap joints accounting for adhesion either by means of secondary bonding or cobonding. Stress analysis was performed using plane strain elements of a commercial ﬁnite element code allowing implementation of user deﬁned constitutive equations. Numerical results for the different overlap lengths under investigation were in good agreement with experimental data in terms of joint strength and overall structural behavior.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The increasing size of structures built exclusively from light weight composite materials, such as wind turbine rotor blades, has raised the need for more advanced design tools to optimize the joints between the various components. Moreover, the fact that maintenance and repair of such structures is becoming a major issue, due to the high replacement cost, increases the demand of more efﬁcient joint design techniques. Numerous studies on the analysis of bonded joints with compo site adherends, using the Finite Element method, have been pub lished, see the recent reviews [1,2]. These studies can be categorized by their approach for predicting the strength of the adhesive joints. The continuum mechanics approach, that assumes perfect bonding between the adhesive and the adherends, suffers from the bi material singularities inherent in a bonded joint and as a result maximum stress and strain for such a model will vary greatly with mesh reﬁnement. The fracture mechanics approach addresses the singularity issue but still there are limitations such as the difﬁculty of the ﬁnite element modeling procedure to calculate the stress state at the crack tip and the need for measuring the fracture properties of the materials. Finally, there is the Cohesive Zone Modeling (CZM) approach which simulates the macroscopic damage along a pre deﬁned crack path by speciﬁcation of a tractionseparation response between initially coincident nodes on either side of the path. The great advantage of the cohesive models is their ability to simulate onset and nonselfsimilar growth of adhesive damage. However, except from the downside of predeﬁning the damage path in CZMs,
^{n} Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 30 2610 969450, 997235; fax: þ 30 2610 969417. Email address: philippidis@mech.upatras.gr (T.P. Philippidis).
01437496/ & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
fracture characterization experiments must be performed to specify the cohesive law parameters. In the present work a modeling procedure for simulating adhe sive joint behavior is presented. Degradation models, simulating damage propagation, without predeﬁning the failure path, are intro duced for both composite adherends and polymeric adhesives. Material nonlinearity of the adherends is also implemented, while the presented softening procedure accounts for energy dissipation during debonding. A series of secondary bonded and cobonded lap joints, of varying overlap length, were analyzed by means of the Finite Elements method to verify the predictive capabilities of the proposed model. The mesh reﬁnement issue is addressed by corre lating element size with the softening law parameters so that the FE results are independent from the mesh density. Validation of the FE modeling procedure was performed by comparing predictions with experimental results and numerical predictions using the CZM approach.
2. 
Material nonlinearity and progressive damage model 
2.1. 
Composite nonlinear behavior 
Mechanical properties of both, the glass ﬁber composite adher ends and adhesive paste, used for coupon manufacturing, were determined experimentally in a comprehensive material character ization campaign. The epoxy resin system used was HUNTSMAN Araldite ^{s} LY 3505 / Hardener Aradur ^{s} 3405 and laminate unidirec tional reinforcement was AHLSTROM Eglass ﬁbers of an areal weight equal to 700 g/m ^{2} . Slight material nonlinearity was found parallel to the ﬁbers, whereas a more pronounced one was mea sured transverse to the ﬁbers, different in tension and compression.
54
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
As expected, a highly nonlinear behavior under inplane shear was observed as well. To account for material nonlinearity, incremental stress – strain relations were implemented, retaining the validity of the general ized Hooke law for each individual interval as described in [3,4] :
E
1 t
ν 12 E 2 t
2 t
12
12
d
d
ε _{2}
ε _{2}
d σ _{1} ¼
1 ð E _{2} _{t} = E _{1} _{t} Þν ^{2}
E
d σ _{2} ¼
1 ð E _{2} _{t} = E _{1} _{t} Þν ^{2}
ð 1 Þ
The tangential elastic moduli in the principal coordinate system of the orthotropic material, E _{1} _{t} (parallel to the ﬁber), E _{2} _{t} (transversely), G _{1}_{2} _{t} (inplane shear) were derived as follows by adopting the nonlinear constitutive model introduced by Richard and Blacklock [5]:
d σ _{6} ¼ G _{1}_{2} _{t} d ε _{6}
1 ð E _{2} _{t} = E _{1} _{t} Þν ^{2}
12
ν 12 E 2 t
1 ð E _{2} _{t} = E _{1} _{t} Þν ^{2}
12
d ε _{1} þ
d ε _{1} þ
σ _{i} ¼
^{E} ^{o} ^{i} ^{ε} ^{i}
h
1 þ E _{o} _{i} ε _{i} = σ _{o} _{i}
^{} n i
^{i} _{ð} _{1} _{=} _{n} _{i} _{Þ} ^{;}
i ¼ 1 ; 2 ; 6
ð 2 Þ
By differentiating Eq. (2) one has:
E it ¼ ^{d} ^{σ} ^{i}
d
ε _{i}
¼
^{G} 12 t ^{¼} d σ ^{6}
d
ε _{6}
E _{o} _{i} 1
^{¼} ^{G} o 12
σ
i
σ
o i
^{} n i
ðð 1 = n _{i} Þþ 1 Þ
i ¼ 1 ; 2 ;
1
σ
6
σ
o 6
^{} n 6
ðð 1 = n _{6} Þþ 1 Þ
ð
3 Þ
A summary of the numerical values for all constants in elasticity expressions can be found in Table 1 ; they were derived through nonlinear regression on the experimental data. Mean values for tensile and compressive strength properties in the ﬁ ber direction (X _{T} , X _{c} ), transversely to the ﬁ bers (Y _{T} , Y _{c} ) and in shear (S) for the composite tested are given in Table 2. The relatively low elastic properties of the adherend are due to the wet handlayup manu facturing technique, characteristic of the insitu patching procedure of the industrial partner; typically this results in a ﬁber weight fraction of ca. 51%. Mean values were deduced from 5 tests for each specimen type while engineering elastic constants were derived as suggested by relevant standards.
2.2. Polymer matrix and adhesive resin properties
The epoxy resin, used as adhesive for the secondary bonded specimens, is HUNTSMAN XD 4734 with XD 4741S hardener cured at 80 1C for 1 h. The response of both the, previously described, polymer matrix of the adherends and adhesive resin was found to be slightly nonlinear especially under shear stressing. In this work the epoxy resins are assumed to have linear behavior until failure since
Table 1 Elasticity constants for the nonlinear model, Eq. (3) , of UD Glass/Epoxy composite.
ν _{1}_{2} ¼ 0 : 26 

E _{o} _{i} ½ MPa 
σ _{o} _{i} ½ MPa 
n _{i} 

E _{1} _{t} 
26,870.00 
9,016.00 
1.00 

E 
ð T Þ 
9,478.00 
49.00 
3.04 

2 
t 

E 
ð C Þ 
10,473.00 
178.00 
2.54 

2 
t 

G _{1}_{2} _{t} 
2,760.00 
44.00 
1.87 

Table 2 Failure stresses for the Composite material (in MPa). 

X T 
X C 
Y T 
Y C 
S 

558.60 
411.12 
40.00 
128.14 
38.42 
the experimental stress–strain curve deviates from linearity close to coupon failure. Properties of the two resins are listed in Table 3.
2.3. 
Progressive damage model 
2.3.1. 
Composite adherends 
Besides nonlinear mechanical response, progressive damage
mechanics were also implemented in the FE modeling procedure.
To account for the composite adherends progressive failure, the
Puck criterion [6] with the associated property degradation strategy is used. Details of the failure mode dependent stiffness degrada tion were described in [3] and are summarized for completeness in Table 4 . According to Puck theory, there are 5 ply damage modes, two associated with either tensile or compressive ﬁber failure (FF) and three describing matrix cracking or interﬁ ber failure (IFF); IFFA, B, C resulting mainly from a combination of transverse to the ﬁber normal stress and inplane shear. Index (k) in the above relations refers to an arbitrary load step after failure has been detected. The degradation factor, _{η} r 1, multi plying the engineering elastic constants to account for damage growth in the ply is given by [6]:
_{η} ð k 1 Þ _{¼}
^{1} ^{} ^{η} r
1 þ c ð f
ð k 1 Þ
ð IFF Þ
E
1 Þ ^{ξ} ^{þ}^{η} ^{r}
ð 4 Þ
where f _{E}_{(}_{I}_{F}_{F}_{)} is the failure effort as calculated by Puck's matrix failure criterion while c ¼ 5, ξ¼ 3 and η _{r} ¼ 1 10 ^{} ^{6} are the values of the parameters of Eq. (4).
2.3.2. Polymer resin
To account for the adhesive paste progressive damage (micro cracking), since a brittle isotropic adhesive material is assumed, the paraboloid failure surface criterion by Stassi D' Alia [7], adapted for generalized plane strain, is implemented:
σ _{x} σ _{y}
^{} ^{2} þ
σ _{y} σ _{z} ^{} ^{2} þ σ _{z} σ _{x}
ð
Þ ^{2} þ 6 τ _{x}_{y} þ 2 σ _{u} ð R 1 Þ σ _{x} þσ _{y} þσ _{z} ^{} 2 R σ _{u} r 0
2
2
ð 5 Þ
where σ _{u} represents the adhesive tensile strength and R , expressing the strength differential effect, is the ratio of compressive to tensile failure stress. Here R is calculated in terms of the measured values
Table 3 Engineering elastic constants and failure stresses for the polymer systems.
E [GPa] 
G [GPa] 
σ _{u} [MPa] 
τ _{u} [MPa] 

Araldite LY3505/Aradur 3405 XD 4734/XD 4741S 
3.98 
1.48 
56.94 
51.64 
4.01 
1.39 
35.29 
39.94 
Table 4 Progressive stiffness degradation model for the composite adherends.
Failure mode 

FF(T) or FF(C) 
_{E} ð k Þ 1 ¼ 10 ^{} ^{1}^{0} E _{1} 

E 
k Þ ð 2 ¼ 10 ^{} ^{1}^{0} E _{2} 

_{G} ð k Þ ¼ 10 ^{} ^{1}^{0} G _{1}_{2} 

12 

IFF(A) 
_{E} 
k Þ ð 2 _{¼} _{η} ð k 1 Þ _{} _{E} 2 
_{G} ð k Þ _{¼} _{η} ð k 1 Þ _{} _{G} 12 

12 

IFF(B) 
_{G} ð k Þ 12 _{¼} _{η} ð k 1 Þ _{} _{G} 12 

IFF(C) 
_{E} 
k Þ ð 2 ¼ 10 ^{} ^{1}^{0} E _{2} 
_{G} ð k Þ
12
¼ 10 ^{} ^{1}^{0} G _{1}_{2}
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
55
of shear strength τ _{u} and σ _{u} of the adhesive. As it can be readily derived from Eq. (5):
R ¼ 3
τ
u
σ
u
2
ð
6 Þ
When failure is detected a softening process is imposed to the
adhesive to account for damage evolution. For the k th step, after failure has been detected, the degraded moduli are calculated by:
A continuum damage approach has been also introduced in [8] , where a stress/strain softening relationship is used as well. There the area under the stress/strain curve was related to the critical
energy release rate by introducing a characteristic length in order to transform displacements to strains.
3. Coupon description and FE implementation
_{E} ð k Þ _{¼}
_{1} _{} _{d} ð k 1 Þ
E
The lap joint geometry presented here, see Fig. 2, is usually referred to as joggle lap joint (JLJ) and is often encountered in joints where a smooth ﬁnal surface is required, such as wind turbine rotor blade restoration procedures. The presence of the joggle increases the complexity of the problem due to the curvature; a study in which the JLJ con ﬁguration was also considered can be found in [9] . Total length and width of the coupons are equal to l ¼ 500 mm and
equals to a ¼ 15 mm. In both
ð secondary bonded and cobonded joint types the overlap length (2c) varied from 50 to 200 mm in steps of 50mm, see Fig. 3. An alternative approach concerning coupon geometry could be
to keep constant the ratio of overlap to total specimen length;
ð
another, to keep constant the distance of the joint edges from the clamp area, both resulting in specimens of varying overall length. Nevertheless, a preliminary numerical investigation has revealed no signi ﬁ cant differences in the ultimate load capacity and thus results concerning joint behavior from the comparison between the various overlap lengths presented in Section 4 are believed unaffected of said geometry variations. All JLJ coupon adherends consist of 2 layers of the Glass/Epoxy
UD previously mentioned, ﬁ bers directed along the coupon long axis, with a nominal total thickness equal to t _{c} ¼ 1.744 mm.
ð 7 Þ
G ^{ð} ^{k} ^{Þ} ¼ E ^{ð} ^{k} ^{Þ} = 2 ðÞ1 þν
The damage index, d , is calculated by considering the linear softening process shown in Fig. 1 for the equivalent stress and strain:
σ eq ¼
ε eq ¼
r
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1
2
σ x σ y
2
þ
σ y σ z
2
þ ð
σ z σ x
Þ
2
2
xy
þ 6 τ
^{1}
p
ﬃﬃﬃ
2 ð 1 þνÞ
r
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
ε _{x} ε _{y}
^{} ^{2} þ
ε _{y} ε _{z} ^{} ^{2} þ ε
ð
z ε
x
Þ ^{2} þ ^{3}
2
^{γ}
2
xy
8
9
Þ
Þ
As it can be readily proved from the above equations, σ _{e}_{q} ¼ E ε _{e}_{q} and thus the scalar parameter d of Eq. (7) expressing the damage accumulation for the current load step ( k ) is given by:
_{d} ð k Þ _{¼}
ε
eq _{u}
ε
ð
eq
k Þ
ε
eq
o
ε
k Þ
eq
ð
ε
eq
u
ε
eq
o
ð 10 Þ
is the
where ε
equivalent strain of the material at the ( n th) load step when the failure criterion was satis ﬁ ed and the softening process began and
ﬁ nally ε _{e}_{q} _{u} is its maximum value.
Therefore, by updating the stiffness matrix, the stress for this
step is calculated by:
eq
is the equivalent strain at that load step, ε _{e}_{q} _{o} ¼ ε
eq
ð
k Þ
ð
n Þ
ð
σ i
k Þ
¼ C
k Þ
ð
ij
ð
j
ε
k Þ
with
i ; j ¼ 1 ; … ; 6
ð 11 Þ
The slope of line AB in Fig. 1 de ﬁ nes the new stiffness of the degraded material for a load step during the softening process. The value σ _{e}_{q} _{o} is of the equivalent stress when the failure criterion is satis ﬁ ed ( n th load step) and therefore, it can have different values at the various elements depending on the current stress combina tion when failure is detected. On the other hand, the value of the maximum equivalent strain,ε _{e}_{q} _{u} , for which complete failure occurs is assumed dependent only on joint geometry and the adhesive material; it is derived by adapting numerical simulations on the observed experimental behavior of an arbitrary overlap length specimen from each joint type. See Section 3.3 for details.
w ¼ 25 mm while the curvature length
3.1. Secondary bonded coupons
In the coupons manufactured with secondary bonding the adhesive thickness was measured with the use of a digital caliper and by analyzing coupon free edge pictures with Mathworks Matlab Image Processing toolbox, resulting in an average thickness of t _{a} ¼ 1.30 mm for all coupons. For each overlap length, the curved adherend plate was manufactured by the industrial partner using a mold and was bonded to the already cured ﬂ at adherend plate using spacers to ensure even distribution of adhesive thickness.
Fig. 1. Softening stressstrain curve after failure onset of the adhesive.
Fig. 2. Geometry of the JLJ repair coupons.
Fig. 3. Adhesively bonded JLJ coupons of varying overlap length.
56
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
Specimens were then cut using water jet. The adhesive paste spew, present in all coupons, was included in the FE models, see Fig. 4 , since it was found to drastically in ﬂ uence the predicted joint behavior.
3.2. Cobonded coupon modeling
While the previously described progressive damage modeling can be implemented straightforwardly for secondary bonded joints, the same does not apply for the cobonded ones since there is no distinct adhesive layer present. Nevertheless, since adhesion is mainly achieved by the interaction between the matrix resin located at the joined faces of the composite adherends, a model is introduced that replaces the ply of the composite adherend by a twolayer effective material, consisting of a modiﬁed composite and a distinct polymer layer, see Fig. 5. Motivation was provided by an early concept by Puppo and Evensen [10]. More speci ﬁ cally, the total thickness, t _{c} , of the composite adherend is assumed to be equal to the sum of t _{e}_{c} , thickness of an equivalent composite layer and t _{r} / 2 , that of the polymer resin
Fig. 4. Closeup view of the 50 mm coupon model showing mesh density.
Fig. 5. Cobonded JLJ coupon model.
determined by:
t r ¼ ^{t} ^{c}
2
^{A} ^{f}
ρ f
and
t _{e}_{c} ¼ t _{c} ^{t} ^{r}
2
ð 12 Þ
where t _{r} and t _{f} are calculated as the thicknesses of the polymer and ﬁ ber layer respectively of a single UD ply as shown in Fig. 6 . In the above relations A _{f} is the areal mass of the UD glass fabric, equal to 0.7 kg/m ^{2} and ρ _{f} the density of the Eglass ﬁ bers, 2560 kg/m ^{3} . The ﬁber elastic properties were back calculated using the ply and resin effective properties E _{o} _{i} of Tables 1 and 3 and the micromecha nics equations (38ad) of VDI 2014 Part 3 [11]. Then, by means of the same equations the elastic constants for the higher ﬁber volume fraction equivalent composite layer, with t _{e}_{c} ¼ 1.445 mm, were derived and are shown in Table 5. The nonlinear trend, deﬁned by the other parameters of Table 1, and failure stresses of the equivalent composite layer were assumed to be equal to the ones of the original composite. Finally, the resin layer of thickness t _{r} /2 ¼ 0.299 mm has the properties of the polymer matrix in the UD composite ply, Araldite LY 3505, already described in Table 3.
3.3. FE mesh optimization
Nonlinear material behavior and progressive damage models were implemented in ANSYS commercial FE code using the user programmable features of the PLANE182 element. In order to reduce computational effort, generalized plane strain analysis was chosen since relatively small strains are expected in the width direction of the model. Geometric nonlinearity was also included in the analysis by taking into account large strain effects. Traditional ﬁ nite elements have dif ﬁ culties in resolving the stress state at bimaterial wedges due to the existence of singula rities and their results vary with mesh re ﬁ nement. The current work addresses this issue by correlating mesh density with the maximum equivalent strain, ε _{e}_{q} _{u} of Eq. (10) . Square elements are used around the overlap region, as it can be seen in Fig. 4 , and by changing the mesh density the value of _{ε} _{e}_{q} _{u} , for which satisfactory agreement for joint strength was reached between numerical predictions and test results, was calculated. The study was performed with element size ranging from ℓ ¼ 0 : 1 mm to ℓ ¼ 0 : 4 mm in steps of 0.05 mm. The relationship between _{ε} _{e}_{q} _{u} and ℓ was derived by nonlinear regression; for the epoxy resin of the cobonded joints it was found that _{ε} _{e}_{q} _{u} ¼ 1 : 28 10 ^{} ^{5} ℓ ^{} ^{1} ^{:} ^{1}^{7}^{4} while for the adhesive paste of the secondary bonded joints ε _{e}_{q} _{u} ¼ 4 : 65 10 ^{} ^{5} ℓ ^{} ^{1} ^{:} ^{0}^{3}^{1} , ℓ in [m]. Calculations were performed for the coupon geometry with the largest overlap, i.e. 200 mm, for each joint type and have proven to be valid for all overlap lengths resolving the mesh convergence issue. For the results presented later on this work an element size of ℓ ¼ 0 : 3 mm was used.
Fig. 6. Composite adherend modeled as (a) two homogeneous UD plies (b) a set of resin and ﬁ ber layers and (c) as an equivalent composite layer and a resin layer at the interface.
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
57
Table 5 Elasticity constants for the adherend equivalent composite.
E _{o} _{1} [MPa] 
_{E} 
ð T Þ 
[MPa] 
E 
ð C Þ 
_{[}_{M}_{P}_{a}_{]} 
G _{o} _{1}_{2} [MPa] 
ν _{1}_{2} 

o 
2 
o 
2 

31,606.00 
11,981.00 
13,932.00 
3,097.00 
0.24 
Fig. 7. Loading and boundary conditions.
3.4. Boundary conditions
The FE models boundary conditions were selected to properly simulate the testing procedure. For all coupon models stepwise loading is introduced by applying axial displacement increments on the nodes at the right end of the coupons. To avoid the dependence of load step convergence to mesh density, every time an element failure is detected the load is not increased for the following solution steps, until element failure stops propagating to adjacent elements and then the next increment is applied. After a thorough load step convergence study, including a range of displacement increments of 0.06 mm to 0.005 mm, it was found out that for a step equal to 0.01 mm, all models have fully converged. The above loading strategy resulted in the calculation of an average of more than 1000 steps until joint ﬁnal failure. All other nodal displacements were con strained for a distance of d ¼ 50 mm at either end of the coupon model to account for the gripping of the test machine, Fig. 7.
3.5. Cohesive zone models
In order to further validate the modeling procedure introduced in the previous section of this manuscript, the cobonded coupon behavior has been also simulated by modeling the progressive debonding using ANSYS contact elements and its integrated bilinear Cohesive Zone Material model [12] . Values for the critical strain energy release rate for the mixed mode CZM model are taken equal to G _{Ι} _{c} ¼ 1160 N = m and G _{Ι}_{Ι} _{c} ¼ 2030 N = m [13,14], while the relative displacement for damage initiation is equal to δ _{ο} ¼ 1 10 ^{} ^{6} m . All FE runs using the CZM model have fully converged regarding mesh density and number of load increments.
4. 
Results and discussion 
4.1. 
Test procedure 
Seven samples from each joint con ﬁ guration were tested on a 100 kN MAYES DH 100 S test rig equipped with a 407 MTS controller with its crosshead speed set to 5.8 mm/min. All coupons were inserted in the grips for 50 mm at each side leaving a gauge length of 400 mm. Load and displacement were measured by acquiring the test machine load cell and LVDT signals respectively. Strain monitoring on several key positions was also performed in a number of JLJ specimens in order to validate the predictions of the numerical models.
4.2. JLJ coupons joined by secondary bonding
The average failure loads and coefﬁ cient of variation (COV) from 7 coupons for each JLJ con ﬁguration are summarized in Table 6 along with the ultimate load from 7 continuous 2 layer UD coupons, of same geometry with the JLJ specimens, as a reference.
The progressive damage models described earlier were used to predict ultimate loads at failure for all the series of coupons. The term failure at the numerical procedure denotes the complete
separation of the adherends. Even though localized failure at areas with high stress concentration and along the bondlines was observed for the adherend elements, the stress developed until coupon failure was low for extensive composite damage. This agrees with the experimental results where the extent of damage at the composite increased with overlap length but only reached a failure mode of moderate ﬁber tear out. More speciﬁcally the failure mode for the 50 mm overlap is pure adhesive failure; for the 100 mm overlap, while mostly adhesive, some spots of cohesive failure are also observed. The dominant failure modes observed by further increasing overlap length to 150 and 200 mm, were light and moderate ﬁber tearout respectively, as it can be seen in Fig. 8 . Even though average stress at the adherends is much lower than the respective failure stress, localized damage in the composite plies is observed at the overlap regions due to high stress concentrations induced by the joint geometry and dissimilar material interfaces. While increasing overlap length, a plateau in joint strength was reached since the majority of the coupons with 200 mm overlap failed at almost the same loads with the 150 mm ones, see Table 6. Similar observations for single lap joints with a brittle adhesive were reported in [15]; the increase of strength restoration was limited to a certain overlap length, accompanied with more extensive adherend damage as well. A comparison between the numerically predicted loaddis placement curves and the experimental data is presented in Fig. 9; the FE results compare well with the test data even though the strength of the coupons with smaller overlap is overestimated. The trend for the coupons to reach their maximum strength for an overlap length of 150 mm, observed in the tests, is fairly corrobo rated by the FE results. This behavior is driven by the geometry and material nonlinearity combined with stress concentration at the edges of the overlap during debonding progression, leading to the variation in failure mode as observed in Fig. 8. A systematic and
Table 6 JLJ coupons failure loads.
Overlap length (mm) 
Secondary bonding 
Cobonding 
Reference 

FEA 
Test 
COV 
FEA 
Test 
COV 
Test 
COV 

(kN) 
(kN) 
(%) 
(kN) 
(kN) 
(%) 
(kN) 
(%) 

– 
24.88 
3.10 

50 
10.27 
6.64 
22.10 15.60 
11.61 
9.70 

100 
13.62 10.51 
8.80 16.36 
16.31 
9.23 

150 
14.10 
14.83 
4.67 16.74 
16.82 
7.63 

200 
14.11 
14.65 
4.20 16.60 
16.33 
3.28 
Fig. 8. Typical fracture surfaces of the JLJ secondary bonded coupons.
58
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
Fig. 9. Comparison of numerical predictions and test results for the adhesively bonded JLJs.
Fig. 10. Location of strain gauges overlaid on the 2c ¼ 150 mm overlap FE model.
Fig. 11. Measured vs. FEA calculated strains at the edge of lower adherend.
thorough study of this mechanism should be undertaken in the future. The sudden load drop observed in the experimental curves at a magnitude around 4 kN marks the onset of debonding. The observed
^{F}^{i}^{g}^{.} ^{1}^{2}^{.} ^{M}^{e}^{a}^{s}^{u}^{r}^{e}^{d} ^{v}^{s}^{.} ^{F}^{E}^{M} ^{c}^{a}^{l}^{c}^{u}^{l}^{a}^{t}^{e}^{d} ^{s}^{t}^{r}^{a}^{i}^{n}^{s} ^{a}^{t} ^{t}^{h}^{e} ^{m}^{i}^{d}^{d}^{l}^{e} ^{o}^{f} ^{t}^{h}^{e} ^{o}^{v}^{e}^{r}^{l}^{a}^{p}^{.}
slope change in the FEA curve indicates that debonding onset is predicted at somewhat lower loads by the numerical model; to further verify and validate its predictions, strain measurements were performed in some specimens of 150 mm overlap.
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
59
Fig. 13. Comparison of numerically predicted and experimental damage patterns. (For interpretation of the references to color in this ﬁ gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 14. Progressive debonding of the JLJ coupon at 20, 50, 75, 95 and 100% of the ultimate load.
Strain gauges 5 mm long were placed on the upper adherend in the middle of the overlap length, i.e. c ¼ 75 mm, and on the lower adherend at a distance of s ¼ 5 mm from the edge as shown in Fig. 10. Their measurements were compared with the strains calculated from FEA at the corresponding nodes of the JLJ model. The strain gauge placed at the lower adherend edge measures zero strain when total debonding of the ﬁrst 10 mm of the joint has occurred. As it is seen in Fig. 11 , complete debonding of the overlap edge area was indeed predicted by the FE model. However the softening procedure, eventually leading to the complete debonding, begins at lower load levels than the experimentally observed abrupt failure of the area. The strain gauge placed on the upper adherend was strained up to 14 kN, see Fig. 12 , indicating that the middle of the overlap is close to the region to be debonded just before complete joint failure. This was veri ﬁ ed by the FE model strain calculations and also by damage progression patterns, as those shown in Fig. 13 where the debonding pattern is very similar to the experimental observation. The red colored elements in the FE model correspond to failed adhesive material while other colors correspond to the various failure modes of the adherends
according to Puck criteria; FFT and FFC denote Tensile and Compressive Fiber Failure respectively while IFFA, IFFB and IFFC refer to the 3 matrix failure modes as described in Section 2.3.1 . It should be noted that even the trend for the adhesive spew to remain attached to the upper adherend after complete debonding, see Fig. 8 , was reproduced for all joints. A more detailed sequence of damage progression in the JLJ coupon of 150 mm overlap is also displayed in Fig. 14 showing consistency with the observed fracture surfaces of the repair coupons indicating light ﬁ ber tear out, see Fig. 8 .
4.3. JLJ coupons joined by cobonding
Comparison of experimental results in the form of load – displacement curves from tests of JLJ coupons produced by co bonding and numerical predictions are presented in Fig. 15 , where FEA curves compare well with experimental ones. The predictions of the Cohesive Zone Model (CZM), described in Section 3.5 , are also plotted along with the ones of the Continuum Damage Model (CDM), introduced in this work.
60
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
Fig. 15. Numerical against test results for JLJs manufactured with cobonding.
The trend to reach maximum strength restoration at 100 mm was closely predicted as well by the FE results of both the proposed model and the use of cohesive elements. It is of great signi ﬁcance to note that the time needed by the solver for the fully converged CZM analysis approach, in some cases was even 7 times greater than the one required for the proposed procedure.
5. Conclusions
A bilinear softening model combined with a failure criterion
suitable for brittle polymers has been introduced to account for damage progression and accumulation phenomena associated with
lap joints failure. Interaction of all stress components was taken into account using equivalent stress–strain response at the crack tip to drive the softening procedure.
In addition to the proposed model, implementation of a progres
sive damage strategy for the composite adherends along with material and geometrical nonlinearity resulted in load–displacement curves that showed good agreement with the experimental response. Esti mating for an arbitrary overlap length the only model parameter that is not related to the adhesive effective properties, resulted in satisfac tory predictions for the other cases as well. Comparison of numerical predictions from cohesive zone models and the current approach was also favorable. Furthermore, the lack of need for a predeﬁned crack path and use of generalized plane strain with a relatively coarse mesh make the proposed FEA procedure adaptable for potentially modeling large scale repair patches of complex geometries. Numerical simulation provided satisfactory results for ultimate loads in most cases. Test results demonstrate the existence of a limit
at the strength recovery that can be achieved using JLJ joint conﬁg uration. In the current study experiments showed no increase in joint strength for overlap length greater than 150 mm or even 100 mm for the cobonded coupons and this behavior was closely predicted by the FE analysis.
Acknowledgments
Financial support by Compblades Ltd. ( www.compblades.com ) through contract D3572011 with the Research Committee of the University of Patras is gratefully acknowledged. The research work was also partially funded by EYDEETAK of the Greek Ministry of Development, in the frame of SYNERGASIA 2011 under contract Σ YN11_7_1000 (REWIND).
References
[1] Banea MD, Da Silva LFM. Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: an overview. Proc IMechE Part L: J Mater.: Des. Appl 2009:1 – 18 . [2] Xiaocong He. A review of ﬁ nite element analysis of adhesively bonded joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 2011;31:248 – 64 . [3] Antoniou AE, Kensche C, Philippidis TP. Mechanical behavior of glass/epoxy tubes under combined static loading. Part II: Validation of FEA progressive damage model. Compos Sci Technol 2009;69:2248 – 55 . [4] Philippidis TP, Antoniou AE. A progressive damage FEA model for glass/epoxy shell structures. J Compos Mater 2013;47(5):623 – 37 . [5] Richard RM, Blacklock JR. Finite element analysis of inelastic structures. AIAA 1969;7:432 – 8 . [6] Puck A, Shürmann H. Failure analysis of FPF laminates by means of physically based phenomenological models. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62:1633 – 62 . [7] Stassi FD.' Alia. Teoria Della Plasticita e Sue Applicazioni. G. Denaro Ed. Palermo 1958.
I.T. Masmanidis, T.P. Philippidis / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 59 (2015) 53 – 61
61
[8] de Moura MFSF, Chousal JAG. Cohesive and continuum damage models applied to fracture characterization of bonded joints. Int J Mech Sci 2006;48:493–503. [9] Taib AA, Boukhili R, Achiou S, Gordon S, Boukehili. H. Bonded joints with composite adherends. Part II. Finite element analysis of joggle lap joints. Int
[10] Puppo AH, Evensen HA. Interlaminar shear in laminated composites under generalized plane stress. J Compos Mater 1970;4:204 – 20 . [11] VDI 2014 Part 3. Development of FRP components Analysis. Verein Deutscer Ingenieure e.V., 2006.
[13] Tsouvalis NG, Anyfantis KN. Determination of the fracture process zone under Mode I fracture in glass ﬁ ber composites. J Compos Mater 2011;46(1):27 – 41 . [14] Anyfantis KN, Tsouvalis NG. Experimental and numerical investigation of Mode II fracture in ﬁ brous reinforced composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2011;30(6):473 – 87 . [15] Neto JABP, Campilho RDSG, da Silva LFM. Parametric study of adhesive joints with composites. Int J Adhes Adhes 2012;37:96 – 101 .
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.