Cohesive zone models are explored in order to study cleavage fracture in adhesive bonded joints. A mode I cohesive model is defined which correlates the tensile traction and the displacement jump (crack faces opening) along the fracture process zone. In order to determine the traction-separation relation, the main fracture parameters, namely the cohesive strength and the fracture energy, as well as its shape, must be specified. However, owing to the difficulties associated to the direct measurement of the fracture parameters, very often they are obtained by comparing a measured fracture property with numerical predictions based on an idealized traction separation relation. Likewise in this paper the cohesive strength of an adhesive layer sandwiched between elastic substrates is adjusted to achieve a match between simulations and experiments. To this aim, the fracture energy and the load-displacement curve are adopted as input in the simulations. In order to assess whether or not the shape of the cohesive model may have an influence on the results, three representative cohesive zone models have been investigated, i.e. exponential, bilinear and trapezoidal. A good agreement between experiments and simulations has been generally observed. However, a slight difference in predicting the loads for damage onset has been found using the different cohesive models.

Cohesive zone models are explored in order to study cleavage fracture in adhesive bonded joints. A mode I cohesive model is defined which correlates the tensile traction and the displacement jump (crack faces opening) along the fracture process zone. In order to determine the traction-separation relation, the main fracture parameters, namely the cohesive strength and the fracture energy, as well as its shape, must be specified. However, owing to the difficulties associated to the direct measurement of the fracture parameters, very often they are obtained by comparing a measured fracture property with numerical predictions based on an idealized traction separation relation. Likewise in this paper the cohesive strength of an adhesive layer sandwiched between elastic substrates is adjusted to achieve a match between simulations and experiments. To this aim, the fracture energy and the load-displacement curve are adopted as input in the simulations. In order to assess whether or not the shape of the cohesive model may have an influence on the results, three representative cohesive zone models have been investigated, i.e. exponential, bilinear and trapezoidal. A good agreement between experiments and simulations has been generally observed. However, a slight difference in predicting the loads for damage onset has been found using the different cohesive models.

Mode I fracture of adhesive joints using tailored cohesive zone models

ALFANO, Marco;FURGIUELE, Franco;MALETTA, Carmine;
2009

Abstract

Cohesive zone models are explored in order to study cleavage fracture in adhesive bonded joints. A mode I cohesive model is defined which correlates the tensile traction and the displacement jump (crack faces opening) along the fracture process zone. In order to determine the traction-separation relation, the main fracture parameters, namely the cohesive strength and the fracture energy, as well as its shape, must be specified. However, owing to the difficulties associated to the direct measurement of the fracture parameters, very often they are obtained by comparing a measured fracture property with numerical predictions based on an idealized traction separation relation. Likewise in this paper the cohesive strength of an adhesive layer sandwiched between elastic substrates is adjusted to achieve a match between simulations and experiments. To this aim, the fracture energy and the load-displacement curve are adopted as input in the simulations. In order to assess whether or not the shape of the cohesive model may have an influence on the results, three representative cohesive zone models have been investigated, i.e. exponential, bilinear and trapezoidal. A good agreement between experiments and simulations has been generally observed. However, a slight difference in predicting the loads for damage onset has been found using the different cohesive models.
Cohesive zone models are explored in order to study cleavage fracture in adhesive bonded joints. A mode I cohesive model is defined which correlates the tensile traction and the displacement jump (crack faces opening) along the fracture process zone. In order to determine the traction-separation relation, the main fracture parameters, namely the cohesive strength and the fracture energy, as well as its shape, must be specified. However, owing to the difficulties associated to the direct measurement of the fracture parameters, very often they are obtained by comparing a measured fracture property with numerical predictions based on an idealized traction separation relation. Likewise in this paper the cohesive strength of an adhesive layer sandwiched between elastic substrates is adjusted to achieve a match between simulations and experiments. To this aim, the fracture energy and the load-displacement curve are adopted as input in the simulations. In order to assess whether or not the shape of the cohesive model may have an influence on the results, three representative cohesive zone models have been investigated, i.e. exponential, bilinear and trapezoidal. A good agreement between experiments and simulations has been generally observed. However, a slight difference in predicting the loads for damage onset has been found using the different cohesive models.
Adhesives; Cohesive zone model; Cohesive zone model shape; Fracture energy
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11770/135701
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 92
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 74
social impact