Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)-Based Single Lap Joint (SLJ) Mixed-Mode Analysis for Aerospace Structures

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


This paper investigates the study of crack propagation on single lap joint (SLJ) using cohesive zone modeling (CZM) for aerospace applications. To carry out the above task, linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) approach using finite element methods was used to study the damage propagation in adhesively bonded joints. A traction–separation law was used to simulate the mode-II and mixed-mode-I+II interfacial fractures of adhesively bonded specimens loaded (quasi-static) in three-point bending and mixed-mode bending. An initial crack opening was introduced at the interfaces of the adherend/adhesive. The boundary conditions for SLJ have been set to carry out the interlaminar mode-II (shear mode) and mixed-mode fracture analysis by end notched flexure (ENF) and mixed-mode bending (MMB) methods. Optimized cohesive parameters from the literature survey were used for simulation of the tests, and same parameters have been validated to continue the research work focusing mainly on progressive delamination in SLJ. The total displacement of 10 mm was applied at free end, and as a result the reaction forces at fixed end steadily progressed up to 60% of applied displacement; further it has been observed the model starts failing by reduction in load versus displacement slope curve.


Crack Linear elastic fracture mechanics Cohesive zone modeling Mode-II fracture toughness Mixed-mode analysis 



Single lap joint


Linear elastic fracture mechanics


Strain energy release rate


Cohesive zone model


End notched flexture


Mixed-mode bending


Critical strain energy release rate/fracture toughness


Total strain energy release rate


Fracture toughness in pure mode-I direction


Fracture toughness in pure mode-II and mode-III direction


Exponent in B–K law


Elastic parameters for traction–separation law in the normal direction and the two shear directions

Nmax, Smax, Tmax

Maximum stresses for traction–separation law in the normal direction and the two shear directions


Characteristic length of the cohesive element


Initial crack length


Delamination length


Cured ply thickness


  1. 1.
    Song K, Davila CG, Rose CA (2008) Guidelines and parameter selection for the simulation of progressive Delamination. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton. Abaqus users conferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Džugan J, Viehrig HW (2006) Crack initiation determination for three-point-bend specimens. J Test Eval 35(3), Paper ID JTE12611Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Girolamo D, Dávila CG, Leone FA, Lin SY (2013) Cohesive laws and progressive damage analysis of composite bonded joints, a combined numerical/experimental approach. National Institute of Aerospace, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Viswamurthy SR, Masood SN, Siva M, Ramachandra HV (2013) Interlaminar fracture toughness characterization of unidirectional carbon fiber composite (IMA/M21 prepreg). NAL Project Document PD-ACD/2013/1013Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ASTM D 5528: Standard test method for mode-I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fibre reinforced polymer matrix composites (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM D 7905: Standard test method for determination of the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM D 6671: Standard test method for mixed mode I-mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber reinforced polymer matrix composites (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Masood SN, Singh AK, Viswamurthy SR (2016) Simulation and validation of delamination growth in CFRP specimens under mixed mode loading using cohesive elements. INCCOM-14, Hyderabad January 22–23Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turon A, Dávila CG, Camanho PP, Costa J (2005) An engineering solution for using coarse meshes in the simulation of delamination with cohesive zone models. NASA/TM-2005–213547Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diehl T (2006) Using ABAQUS cohesive elements to model peeling of an epoxy-bonded aluminum strip: a benchmark study for inelastic peel arms. DuPont Engineering Technology, Abaqus users conferenceGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ABAQUS version 6.11 documentation (2011). ABAQUS Inc., Rhode Island, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benzeggagh ML, Kenane M (1996) Mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness using MMB apparatus for unidirectional glass/epoxy. Compos Sci Technol 56:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khoramishad H, Crocombe AD, Katnam KB, Ashcroft IA (2010) Predicting fatigue damage in adhesively bonded joints using a cohesive zone model. Int J Fatigue 32:1146–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsai MY, Morton J (1994) Morton: an evaluation of analytical and numerical solutions to the single-lap joint. Int J Solids StructGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ashcroft IA, Shenoy V, Critchlow GW, Crocombe AD (2010) A comparison of the prediction of fatigue damage and crack growth in adhesively bonded joints using fracture mechanics and damage mechanics progressive damage methods. J Adhes 86:1203–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li S, Thouless MD, Waas AM, Schroeder JA, Zavattieri PD (2006) Mixed-mode cohesive zone models for fracture of an adhesively bonded polymer-matrix composite. Eng Fract Mech 73Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Brien TK, Johnston WM, Toland GJ (2010) Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness and fatigue characterization of a graphite epoxy composite material. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23681–2199 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NMAM Institute of TechnologyNitteIndia
  2. 2.CSMST, CSIR-NALBangaloreIndia
  3. 3.ACD, CSIR-NALBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations