Advertisement

Cohesive-Zone Modeling of Adhesive Joints

  • M. D. Thouless

Abstract

Two distinct failure criteria have traditionally been used to model adhesive joints: a strength-based criterion using the cohesive strength of the adhesive, and an energy-based criterion using the toughness of the adhesive. In practice there are conditions under which the properties of a joint may be controlled by either one of these criteria, or by both. Cohesive-zone models have an advantage in that they incorporate both criteria simultaneously, automatically allowing whichever one is dominant to control fracture in a numerical analysis. Cohesive-zone models are particularly useful for problems involving adhesive joints in which the crack path is generally known; there is a natural convenience in being able to assign the entire deformation of the adhesive layer to the cohesive process, and to distinguish this deformation from that of the adherends. It is recognized that such an approach means that the cohesive law may be affected by details of the geometry, such as adhesive thickness [1], but similar limitations are accepted when using linear-elastic fracture mechanics to describe fracture.

Keywords

Crack Opening Displacement Adhesive Layer Cohesive Zone Adhesive Joint Cohesive Strength 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kafkalidis, M.S., Thouless, M.D., Yang, Q.D., Ward, S.M.: J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 14, 1593–1607 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parmigiani, J.P., Thouless, M.D.: Eng. Frac. Mechs. 74, 2675–2699 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang, Q.D., Thouless, M.D.: Int. J. Fract. 110, 175–187 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutchinson, J.W., Suo, Z.: Adv. Appl. Mechs 29, 63–191 (1992)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suo, Z., Hutchinson, J.W.: Int. J. Fract. 43, 1–18 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, S., Wang, J., Thouless, M.D.: J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52, 193–214 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li, V.C., Chan, C.M., Leung, C.K.Y.: Cement and Concrete Research 17, 441–452 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sørensen, B.F., Jacobsen, T.K.: Eng. Frac. Mechs 70, 1841–185 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andersson, T., Stigh, U.: Int. J. Solids Structs 41, 413–434 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cavalli, M.N., Thouless, M.D.: J. Adhesion 76, 75–92 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, Q.D., Thouless, M.D., Ward, S.M.: J. Mech. Phys. Solids 47, 1337–1353 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yang, Q.D., Thouless, M.D., Ward, S.M.: Int. J. Solids Struct. 38, 3251–3262 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sun, C., Thouless, M.D., Waas, A.M., Schroeder, J.A., Zavattieri, P.D.: Int. J. Solids Structs 45, 3059–3073 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun, C., Thouless, M.D., Waas, A.M., Schroeder, J.A., Zavattieri, P.D.: Int. J. Solids Structs 45, 4725–4738 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations