A concept for defining the mixed-mode behaviour of tough epoxy film adhesives by single specimen design

References

• Dillard DA, Singh HK, Pohlit DJ, et al. Observations of decreased fracture toughness for mixed mode fracture testing of adhesively bonded joints. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2009;23(10-11):1515–1530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benzeggagh ML, Kenane M. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Composite Sci Technol. 1996;56(4):439–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeder JR. An evaluation of mixed-mode delamination failure criteria, NASA Technical Memorandum 104210, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Ramkumar RL. Performance of a quantitative study of instabilityrelated delamination growth, NASA Contractor Report 166046, 1983.
   Google Scholar
• Dassault Systemes, Abaqus 2017 Documentation, User manual, 2017.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 25217. Adhesives – Determination of the mode 1 adhesive fracture energy of structural adhesive joints using double cantilever beam and tapered double cantilever beam specimens, International Organization for Standardization, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Marzi S, Hesebeck O, Brede M, et al. An end-loaded shear joint (ELSJ) specimen to measure the critical energy release rate in mode II of tough, structural adhesive joints. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2009;23(15):1883–1891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASTM D6671. Standard Test Method for Mixed Mode I-Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Park S, Dillard DA. Development of a simple mixed-mode fracture test and the resulting fracture energy envelope for an adhesive bond. Int J Fract. 2007;148(3):261–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackman BRK, Kinloch AJ, Rodriguez-Sanchez FS, et al. The fracture behaviour of adhesively-bonded composite joints: Effects of rate of test and mode of loading. Int J Solids Struct. 2012;49(13):1434–1452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pang HLJ, Seetoh CW. A compact mixed mode (CMM) fracture specimen for adhesive bonded joints. Eng Fract Mech. 1997;57(1):57–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakherlou TN, Hakim SR, Mohammadpour A, et al. Experimental and numerical investigations of crack face adhesive bonding effect on the mixed-mode fracture strength of PMMA. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2016;30(20):2236–2256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez MV, de Moura MFSF, da Silva LFM, et al. Mixed-mode I + II fatigue/fracture characterization of composite bonded joints using the Single-Leg Bending test. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2013;44:63–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokinen J, Wallin M, Saarela O. Applicability of VCCT in mode I loading of yielding adhesively bonded joints – a case study. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2015;62:85–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishai O, Rosenthal H, Sela N, et al. Effect of selective adhesive interleaving on interlaminar fracture toughness of graphite/epoxy composite laminates. Composites. 1988;19(1):49–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aakkula J, Jokinen J, Saarela O, et al. Testing and modelling of DIARC plasma coated elastic-plastic steel wedge specimens. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2016;68:219–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones EMC, Iadicola MAE. A good practices guide for digital image correlation. International Digital Image Correlation Society, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Bornert M, Bremand F, Doumalin P, et al. Assessment of digital image correlation measurement errors: methodology and results. Exp Mech. 2009;49(3):353–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi M, Lava P, Pierron F, et al. Effect of DIC spatial resolution, noise and interpolation error on identification results with the VFM. Strain. 2015;51(3):206–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Högberg JL, Sørensen BF, Stigh U. Constitutive behaviour of mixed mode loaded adhesive layer. Int J Solids Struct. 2007;44(25–26):8335–8354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rybicki EF, Kanninen MF. A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack closure integral. Eng Fract Mech. 1977;9(4):931–938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marannano G, Mistretta L, Cirello A, et al. Crack growth analysis at adhesive-adherent interface in bonded joints under mixed mode I/II. Eng Fract Mech. 2008;75(18):5122–5133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behera RK, Parida SK, Das RR. Effect of the aspect ratio of the pre-existing rectangular adhesion failure on the structural integrity of the adhesively bonded single lap joint. J Adhes Technol. 2019;33(19):2093–2111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokinen J, Kanerva M, Wallin M, et al. The simulation of a double cantilever beam test using the virtual crack closure technique with the cohesive zone modelling. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2019;88:50–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy GG, Feraboli P, Kedward KT. A new mixed mode test for carbon/epoxy composite systems. Composites: Part A. 2003;34(11):1125–1131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenchev RT, Falzon BG. Experimental and numerical study of debonding in composite adhesive joints. 16th International Conference on Composite Materials, Kyoto, Japan, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Donough M, Gunnion A, Orifici A, et al. Critical assessment of failure criteria for adhesively bonded composite repair design. Proceedings of the 28th Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Brisbane, Australia, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Kim MK, Elder DJ, Wang CH, et al. Interaction of laminate damage and adhesive disbonding in composite scarf joints subjected to combined in-plane loading and impact. Compos Struct. 2012;94(3):945–953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FM 300-2 film adhesive, Technical data sheet, Cytec Engineered Materials, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Duong CN, Wang CH. Composite repair Theory and design. Elsevier, 2007.
   Google Scholar