Mode I Fracture Energy of One-Component Polyurethane Adhesive Joints as Function of Bond Thickness for the Automotive Industry

  • Yasmina Boutar
  • Sami Naïmi
  • Taieb Daami
  • Salah Mezlini
  • Lucas F. M. da Silva
  • Moez Ben Sik Ali
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


The interfacial fracture of adhesively bonded structures is a serious issue for the widespread application of a variety of modern industries. For many manufacturing applications such as automotive structures, bond line thickness can vary considerably. This factor influences adhesively bonded joints performance. Therefore, its effect has to be examined experimentally and should be taken into consideration in the design of adhesive joints. Most of the results from the literature are for usual structural epoxy adhesives, which are usually formulated to perform in thin sections. However, polyurethane adhesives are designed to execute in thicker sections and might have a different behaviour as a function of adhesive thickness. In this study, an experimental procedure is undertaken to characterise the effect of different adhesive thicknesses between aluminium substrates on the mechanical behaviour of a one-component polyurethane adhesive. The mode I fracture toughness of the adhesive was measured using double cantilever beam (DCB) tests with various thicknesses of the adhesive layer ranging from 0.3 to 2 mm. The fracture energy, GIC, was found to be directed by the thickness of the adhesive layer. It increased linearly up to 1 mm adhesive thickness and then it decreases.


Fracture mechanics Aluminium Automotive industry Polyurethane Double cantilever beam Adhesive thickness 



These research and innovation are made in the context of an MOBIDOC thesis financed by the EU within the framework of the PASRI program. The authors would like to thank ICAR industry Tunisia, for supporting the work here presented.


  1. ASTM D 3433 –99 (2004) Standard Test Method for Fracture Strength in Cleavage of Adhesives in Bonded Metal Joints. ASTM, 100 Barr Harb Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, United States 98:1–5.
  2. Banea MD, da Silva LFM (2009) Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: an overview. J Mater Des Appl 223:1–18. Google Scholar
  3. Banea MD, da Silva LFM, Campilho RDSG (2015) The effect of adhesive thickness on the mechanical behavior of a structural polyurethane adhesive. J Adhes 91:331–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banea MD, da Silva LFM, Campilho RDSG, Sato C (2014) Smart adhesive joints: an overview of recent developments. J Adhes 90:16–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banea MD, de Sousa FSM, da Silva LFM et al (2011) Effects of temperature and loading rate on the mechanical properties of a high temperature epoxy adhesive. J Adhes Sci Technol 25:2461–2474. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackman BRK, Hadavinia H, Kinloch AJ, Williams JG (2003) The use of a cohesive zone model to study the fracture of fibre composites and adhesively-bonded joints. Int J Fract 119:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boutar Y, Naïmi S, Mezlini S et al (2016) Effect of adhesive thickness and surface roughness on the shear strength of aluminium one-component polyurethane adhesive single-lap joints for automotive applications. Int J Adhes Sci Technol 4243:1–17. Google Scholar
  8. Carlberger T, Biel A, Stigh U (2009) Influence of temperature and strain rate on cohesive properties of a structural epoxy adhesive. Int J Fract 155:155–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castagnetti D, Spaggiari A, Dragoni E (2011) Effect of bondline thickness on the static strength of structural adhesives under nearly-homogeneous shear stresses. J Adhes 87:780–803. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaves FJP, da Silva LFM, de Moura MFSF et al (2014) Fracture mechanics tests in adhesively bonded joints: a literature review. J Adhes 90:955–992. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa-Mattos HS, Monteiro AH, Sampaio EM (2010) Modelling the strength of bonded butt-joints. Compos Part B Eng 41:654–662. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Moura MFSF, Campilho RDSG, Gonçalves JPM (2008) Crack equivalent concept applied to the fracture characterization of bonded joints under pure mode I loading. Compos Sci Technol 68:2224–2230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasegawa K, Crocombe AD, Coppuck F et al (2015) Characterising bonded joints with a thick and flexible adhesive layer—Part 1: fracture testing and behaviour. Int J Adhes Adhes 63:124–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO 25217:2009 (2009) Determination of the mode 1 adhesive fracture energy of structural adhesive joints using double cantilever beam and tapered double cantilever beam specimens. Int Stand.
  15. Ji G, Ouyang Z, Li G (2013) Effects of bondline thickness on mode-i nonlinear interfacial fracture of laminated composites: an experimental study. Compos Part B Eng 47:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kinloch AJ, Shaw SJ (1981) The fracture resistance of a toughened epoxy adhesive. J Adhes 12:59–77.
  17. Kinloch AJ, Shaw SJ, Tod DA, Hunston DL (1983) Deformation and fracture behaviour of a rubber-toughened epoxy: 1. Microstruct Fract Stud Polym (Guildf) 24:1341–1354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee D-B, Ikeda T, Miyazaki N, Choi N-S (2004) Effect of bond thickness on the fracture toughness of adhesive joints. J Eng Mater Technol 126:14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loureiro AL, da Silva LFM, Sato C, Figueiredo MAV (2010) Comparison of the mechanical behaviour between stiff and flexible adhesive joints for the automotive industry. J Adhes 86:765–787.
  20. Martínez MA., Chocron IS, Rodríguez J et al (1998) Confined compression of elastic adhesives at high rates of strain. Int J Adhes Adhes 18:375–383.
  21. Naito K, Onta M, Kogo Y (2012) The effect of adhesive thickness on tensile and shear strength of polyimide adhesive. Int J Adhes Adhes 36:77–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Papini M, Fernlund G, Spelt JK (1994) The effect of temperature on the strength of adhesive joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 14:185–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ranade SR, Guan Y, Ohanehi DC et al (2014) A tapered bondline thickness double cantilever beam (DCB) specimen geometry for combinatorial fracture studies of adhesive bonds. Int J Adhes Adhes 55:155–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sun C, Thouless MD, Waas AM et al (2008) Ductile–brittle transitions in the fracture of plastically-deforming, adhesively-bonded structures. Part I: experimental studies. Int J Solids Struct 45:3059–3073. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasmina Boutar
    • 1
  • Sami Naïmi
    • 1
  • Taieb Daami
    • 1
  • Salah Mezlini
    • 1
  • Lucas F. M. da Silva
    • 2
  • Moez Ben Sik Ali
    • 3
  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering Laboratory, National Engineering School of MonastirMonastir UniversityMonastirTunisia
  2. 2.Faculdade de Engenharia, Departamento de Engenharia MecanicaDa Universidade Do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Automotive Industry- ICARSousseTunisia

Personalised recommendations