Meeting sul tema

Gli Adesivi Strutturali

L'incollaggio all'origine dell'innovazione industriale del futuro 26-27 Giugno 2006 Vercelli

COHESIVE ZONE MODELLING OF T-peel JOINTS FAILURE

A. Pirondi
Department of Industrial Engineering University of Parma, Italy

AGENDA
Introduction Objectives Modelling Results and discussion Conclusions

INTRODUCTION
COHESIVE ZONE MODEL Cohesive fracture mechanisms
Atomic bonds Yield strip Intergranular bridging

Cohesive Zone Description

()

Fibre bridging

Gearing and friction

Multiple cracking

INTRODUCTION
EXAMPLES OF ADHESIVE JOINT FAILURE SIMULATION WITH CZM Ceramic-to-ceramic metal adhesives (Tvergaard, Hutchinson, 1996) T-peel joint (Thouless et al., 1999) Separation from interface corners (Liechti, Mohammed, 2000) Rate-dependent fracture of DCB joints (Siegmund et al., 2002) Internal flaws (Jensen, Feraren, 2004)

INTRODUCTION
...AND SOME POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS IN ENGINEERING DESIGN Stiffener delamination

Crash and collapse (including joints)

INTRODUCTION
Cohesive Zone Model of adhesive joint

Adherend contribution (elastic and plastic)

Intrinsic fracture properties of the adhesive layer

From: Hutchinson, Evans, Acta Mater. 48, 2000, 125-135

INTRODUCTION
Cohesive Zone Model + adhesive layer Adhesive behaviour Viscoplastic dissipation Constraint to deformation
increasing adherend thickness

= plastic zone

crack tip

Decohesion work (intrinsic property of the adhesive)

h/2
From: Martiny et al., Proc. Adh. Sociecty, USA, 2005

OBJECTIVES
Calibration of the CZ parameters on DCB joints fracture experiments CZ and CZ + adhesive layer (CZA) Simulation of T-peel tests and comparison with experiments.

EXPERIMENTS

DCB Loctite Multibond 330 ta = 0.25mm Aluminum alloy t = 15mm T-peel Loctite Multibond 330 ta = 0.1mm Unalloyed steel t = 1.5mm
(courtesy Prof. M. Rossetto, Polytechnic of Turin, Italy)

= 1mm/min

= 2.5mm/min

EXPERIMENTS
Loctite Multibond 330 bulk tensile behaviour
F
10 9 8
thickness = 1mm 28

7 Stress (MP 6 5

E = 878M Pa = 0.15 Pa Rp0.2 = 5.6M R = 8.6M Pa A% = 2.14%

0.00E+00

0.001

0.002

y (mm/mm

55 22

-1.00E-04 -2.00E-04 y = -0.149x - 8E-06 -3.00E-04 -4.00E-04

4 3

y x

2 1 0 0 0.005 0.01

x (mm/mm)

0.015

0.02

0.025

F
From: Pirondi, Nicoletto, Proc.IGF 2000, Bari, 2000

Strain (mm/mm)

MODELLING
F, Adherend 8 node, plane stress, reduced integration F, F, Cohesive Zone 4 node cohesive element Adhesive (CZA models only) 4 node, plane strain (hybrid formulation) Failure within adhesive (cohesive failure) F,

MODELLING

DCB T-peel

Adherend Cohesive Zone Adhesive

CZ only models

DCB T-peel

CZA models

RESULTS
EXAMPLE OF SIMULATION RUN ON DCB

RESULTS
CZM calibration
1600 1400 1200 Load, F (N 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Opening, (mm)
partial unloading to evaluate the compliance (crack length)

Experiment Triangular law, c1=0.01, sm=10MPa Triangular law, c1=0.01, sm=5MPa Triangular law, c1=0.01, sm=2.5MPa

0 = GIc = 550J/m2

bounds for CZ calibration

RESULTS
CZM calibration
Experiment Trapezoidal law, c1=0.2, c2=0.5 Triangular law, c1=0.01 Exponential law

1600 1400 1200 Load, F (N 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

m = 5MPa

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Opening, (mm)

RESULTS
CZM calibration

1400 1200

Experiment CZ + adhesive layer CZ only

1000 Load, F (N 800 600 400 200 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Opening, (mm)
0 = 550J/m2 m = 5MPa 0 = 450J/m2 m = 6MPa

RESULTS
T-peel simulation: CZ only Lower adhesive layer thickness (0.1mm) compared to DCB (0.25mm) - increase of stiffness m = 5*0.25/0.1 = 12.5MPa - possible influence on 0 not considered
800 700 600 Load (N 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Displacement (mm) 2.00 2.50 3.00
Experiment Simulation

0 = 550J/m2 m = 5*0.25/0.1 = 12.5MPa

RESULTS
T-peel simulation: CZA Adhesive layer modelled in addition to the cohesive zone - 0 and m as calibrated on DCB
800 700 600 Load (N 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00
Experim ent Sim ulation

0 = 550J/m2 m = 5MPa

0.50

1.00

1.50 Displacement (mm)

2.00

2.50

3.00

RESULTS
T-peel simulation: CZA Transient initial cohesive strength = peel stress for tensile failure (FE analysis) Steady-state fracture cohesive strength = DCB-calibrated*(influence of adherend material)*(influence of ahesive thickness) m = 5*1.18*1.4 = 8.3MPa
800 700
Pa] [M m
18 16 14 12 10

0 = 550J/m2

600 Load (N 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00

Experiment Simulation

Dis tance [mm]

6 0 1 2 3 4 5

0.50

1.00

1.50 Displacement (mm)

2.00

2.50

3.00

CONCLUSIONS
The CZ parameters have been calibrated on DCB experiments. CZ only an CZ + adhesive layer didnt give in this case significantly different parameters. The simulation of fracture of T-peel joints with CZ only showed that the propagation phase was well matched, while the maximum stress has to be increased to get closer to the experimental peak load. The simulation of T-peel joints with CZ + adhesive layer needs recalibration in the same way as with CZ to match the experimental peak load. A way to perform recalibration was evaluated. It is worth to underline that the shape of the adhesive layer root in T-peel joints may affect the results: careful control is needed.