Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
c
School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, The University of Wollongong, Northelds Avenue, Wollongong,
NSW 2522, Australia
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 March 2014
Revised 2 January 2015
Accepted 3 January 2015
Available online 21 January 2015
Keywords:
CFRP
Strengthening
Steel beams
Debonding
Cohesive zone modelling
Finite element analysis
a b s t r a c t
A steel beam may be strengthened in exure by bonding a carbon bre-reinforced polymer (CFRP) plate
to the tension face. Such a beam may fail by debonding of the CFRP plate that initiates at one of the plate
ends (i.e. plate end debonding) or by debonding that initiates at a local damage (e.g. a crack or concentrated yielding) away from the plate ends (intermediate debonding). This paper presents the rst nite
element (FE) approach that is capable of accurate predictions of such debonding failures, with particular
attention to plate-end debonding. In the proposed FE approach, a mixed-mode cohesive law is employed
to depict interfacial behaviour under a combination of normal stresses (i.e. mode-I loading) and shear
stresses (i.e. mode-II loading); the interfacial behaviour under pure mode-I loading or pure mode-II loading is represented by bi-linear tractionseparation models. Damage initiation is dened using a quadratic
strength criterion, and damage evolution is dened using a linear fracture energy-based criterion.
Detailed FE models of steel beams tested by previous researchers are presented, and their predictions
are shown to be in close agreement with the test results. Using the proposed FE approach, the behaviour
of CFRP-strengthened steel beams is examined, indicating that: (1) if the failure is governed by plate end
debonding, the use of a CFRP plate with a higher elastic modulus and/or a larger thickness may lead to a
lower ultimate load because plate end debonding may then occur earlier; (2) plate end debonding is more
likely to occur when a short CFRP plate is used, as is commonly expected; and (3) the failure mode may
change to intermediate debonding or other failure modes such as compression ange buckling if a longer
plate is used.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Similar to concrete beams, steel beams or steelconcrete composite beams (referred to collectively as steel beams hereafter
for simplicity) can be strengthened in exure by bonding an FRP
(generally CFRP) laminate to the tension face [111]. Such beams
are herein referred to as FRP-strengthened steel beams. The
bonded FRP laminate may be prefabricated (e.g. by pultrusion) or
formed in-situ (e.g. by the wet-layup process), and is referred to
as a plate for simplicity in this paper. CFRP is commonly preferred
to other FRPs including glass FRP (GFRP) in the strengthening of
steel structures due to the much higher stiffness of CFRP [7], so this
paper is focused on CFRP strengthening only. For simplicity of
214
8
smax dd1
>
>
<
>
>
:
if
d 6 d1
if
d1 < d 6 df
if
d > df
df d
max d d
1
f
where s is the bond shear stress, smax is the peak bond shear stress,
d is the slip, d1 is the slip at peak bond shear stress, and df is the slip
at complete failure. Based on the experimental results of CFRP-steel
bonded joints with linear adhesives, Fernando [15] derived the following expressions for the above bond-slip parameters:
smax 0:9rmax
0:65
ta
rmax
d1 0:3
Ga
2Gf
mm
df
2
mm
smax
3
4
where rmax is the tensile strength (in MPa in Eq. (3)) of the adhesive, ta and Ga are the thickness and shear modulus of the adhesive
layer respectively, and Gf is the interfacial fracture energy given by
[15]:
2
Gf 628t0:5
a R
N=mm2 mm
R is the tensile strain energy per unit volume of the adhesive which
is equal to the area under the uni-axial tensile stress (in MPa)
strain curve.
The successful prediction of debonding failures in CFRPstrengthened steel beams requires a model for the CFRP-to-steel
interface which has the following characteristics: (1) it accurately
predicts the behaviour of the interface subjected to pure mode-I
loading and pure mode-II loading; (2) it appropriately accounts
for the effect of interaction between mode-I loading and mode-II
215
en
dn
;
T0
cs
ds
T0
and ct
dt
T0
8 9 2
K nn
>
< tn >
=
6
ts 4 0
>
: >
;
0
tt
0
K ss
0
38 9
>
< dn >
=
7
0 5 ds
>
: >
;
K tt
dt
0
Ea
T0
K ss K tt 3
0:65
Ga
T0
ht n i
rmax
Eq. (9) suggests that Kss and Ktt depend on the shear modulus Ga of
the adhesive. Therefore, the elastic stiffness in the two shear directions and that in the normal direction are inter-related through the
Poissons ratio.
2.1.3.2. Damage behaviour. Under pure mode-II loading, damage of
the interface initiates when the shear stress reaches the peak bond
shear stress [15]. Similarly, under pure mode-I loading, damage
initiates when the normal stress reaches the peak bond normal
stress. Under mixed-mode loading, a strength criterion needs to
2
ts
2
smax
tt
2
smax
10
8 9 2
1 D K nn
>
< tn >
=
6
ts 4
0
>
: >
;
tt
0
0
1 DK ss
0
38 9
>
< dn >
=
7
0
5 ds
>
: >
;
dt
1 DK tt
0
11
Gn Gs Gt
1
GI GII GII
12
where Gn, Gs, Gt are the works done by the tractions and their conjugate displacements in the normal and the two shear directions
respectively (Fig. 1a). GI and GII represent the interfacial fracture
energies required to cause failure when subjected to pure mode-I
loading and pure mode-II loading respectively.
To describe the evolution of damage, the denition of an effective displacement is introduced as follows:
dm
where Knn, Kss, Ktt are the elastic stiffness values of the normal and
the two shear directions respectively. It is obvious that Knn should
be equal to the initial slope of the bond-separation model for
mode-I loading and is given by
K nn
q
hdn i2 d2s d2t
13
dfm dmax
d0m
m
dmax
dfm d0m
m
14
216
Traction
max, max
Knn,
Kss,
Ktt
(1-D)K
GI-Gn,
GII-Gs,
GII-Gf
Gn,Gs,Gt
1
1 1
n, s , t
n, s
f
n
f
s
f
t
Four of the beams tested by Deng and Lee [13] were selected for
FE simulation, including one control beam without CFRP strengthening and three beams strengthened with 3 mm thick CFRP plates
of three different lengths (i.e. 300 mm, 400 mm, and 1000 mm)
respectively. These beams were selected because they all had the
same loading conguration (i.e. three-point bending), the same
steel section, and a single continuous CFRP plate; the only variable
was the plate length to examine how the failure mode would
change with the plate length (from plate end debonding to buckling of compression ange) and whether this could be accurately
predicted by the proposed FE approach. The four selected beams
were named by Deng and Lee [13] as specimens S300 (control
beam), S303, S304 and S310 respectively, where the last two numbers represent the length of the CFRP plate and the rst number
3 indicates that the beams were subjected to three-point bending. These four steel beams all had a length of 1.2 m (with a clear
span between the supports being 1.1 m) and a cross-section of type
127x76UB13; the dimensions of the steel beams are shown in
Fig. 2. Grade 275 steel was used, which means that the steel had
a nominal yield strength of 275 MPa (with the actual yield strength
often being larger than 275 MPa) and a tensile elastic modulus of
205 GPa. The CFRP plates used all had a thickness of 3 mm, a width
of 76 mm, and an elastic modulus in the bre direction of 212 GPa.
To avoid premature ange buckling and web crushing, two 4 mm
thick steel plate stiffeners were welded to each beam at the midspan, one on each side of the web. For beams with a short CFRP
plate (i.e. 300 mm or 400 mm), plate end debonding of the CFRP
plate was observed. However, when a longer CFRP plate (i.e.
1000 mm) was used, failure was controlled by the buckling of
the compression ange of the steel section, which was the same
Separation
Gmc
0
m
max
m
f
m
Separation
LCFRP
1100mm
1 mm thick adhesive layer
76mm
4mm
127mm
7.6mm
76mm
Fig. 2. Details of test specimens of Deng and Lee [13].
217
a
b
Specimen/model
name
Mode I
behaviour
Compression ange
strengthening
S300a
S303a
S304a
S310a
S300-0-000b
S303-1-212b
S303-2-212b
S303-1-330b
S304-1-212b
S310-1-212b
S310-1-212-Pb
N/A
300
400
1000
N/A
300
300
300
400
1000
1000
N/A
212
212
212
N/A
212
212
330
212
212
212
N/A
3
3
3
N/A
3
3
3
3
3
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
Model
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
6 mm steel plate
A
B
A
A
A
A
as the failure mode of the control beam (i.e. specimen S300). The
details of the test beams are summarized in Table 1.
3.2. FE models
FE models were created using ABAQUS [37] for the four beams,
with the exact dimensions and support conditions (i.e. simply-supported boundary conditions) as given in Fig. 2 and Table 1. The
general purpose shell element S4R with reduced integration was
adopted for both the steel section and the CFRP plate, while the
adhesive layer was modelled using the cohesive element COHD8
available in ABAQUS. The two full-depth stiffeners on the two sides
of the web in the mid-span region were included, and the three
edges of each stiffener in contact with the I beam were tied to
the top ange, the bottom ange and the web of the cross section
respectively. Similarly, the top surface and the bottom surface of
the adhesive layer were tied to the bottom surface of the steel
beam and the top surface of the CFRP plate respectively. Based
on a mesh convergence study, 2.5 mm 2.5 mm elements were
selected for the steel beam and the CFRP plate, while
2.5 mm 2.5 mm 1 mm (with 1 mm being in the thickness
direction) elements were selected for the adhesive layer. In all
the FE simulations, the analysis was terminated soon after the ultimate load had been reached.
The well-known J2 ow theory was employed to model the
material behaviour of the steel. As the experimental stressstrain
curve of the steel was not given by Deng and Lee [13], a tri-linear
(i.e. elastic-perfectly plastic-hardening) stressstrain model [38]
with a yield strength of 330 MPa (determined by a trial-and-error
process to match the linear portion of the experimental loaddisplacement curve of specimen S300) and a ultimate tensile stress
of 430 MPa (as specied in BS EN 10025-1 [39]) was adopted.
The use of such an idealized stressstrain curve for the steel is
believed to be the best pragmatic solution possible in the absence
of the experimental stressstrain curve and has only minor effects
on the predictions for the steel beam (see [15]).
The CFRP plate was treated as an orthotropic material in the FE
models. In the bre direction, the elastic modulus (i.e. E3) provided
by Deng and Lee [13] was adopted (i.e. 212 GPa based on a nominal
thickness of 3 mm). The elastic modulus in the other two directions
(i.e. E1, E2), the Poissons ratios and the shear moduli were assumed
the following values respectively based on the values reported in
Deng et al. [16]: E1 = E2 = 10 GPa, m12 = 0.3, m13 = m23 = 0.0058,
G12 = 3.7 GPa and G13 = G23 = 26.5 GPa.
The coupled cohesive zone model presented earlier was
adopted to model the constitutive behaviour of the adhesive layer.
Deng and Lee [13] provided only the tensile strength (29.7 MPa),
the tensile elastic modulus (8 GPa) and the shear modulus
(2.6 GPa) for the adhesive. Considering that the adhesive used by
Deng and Lee [13] was a linear adhesive, the strain energy was calculated by assuming a bi-linear stressstrain curve with the slope
of the ascending branch being equal to the elastic modulus (i.e.
8 GPa), the peak stress being equal to the tensile strength (i.e.
29.7 MPa) and the ultimate strain being equal to 4% which is the
value provided by the manufacturer [13]. With the above parameters, the bond-slip model for mode-II loading can be determined
using Eqs. (1)(4), and the key parameters of the so-obtained
bond-slip model are given in Table 2. The bond-separation model
for mode-I loading can also be determined using the assumed bilinear stressstrain curve; the key parameters of the so-obtained
bond-separation model are given in Table 2 as model A. Besides
model A whose mode-I fracture energy is 0.059 N/mm, another
bond-separation model (i.e. model B, see Table 2) was also used,
whose mode-I fracture energy (i.e. 0.11 N/mm) is twice the elastic
energy of model A. The use of two different bond-separation models for mode-I loading was to explore the effect of mode-I fracture
energy on damage propagation in the adhesive layer.
As failure of specimens S300 and S310 was controlled by compression ange buckling, their behaviour may be affected by geometric imperfections such as those specied in Section 14.4.3 of
AS4100 [40]. As no measured geometric imperfections were
reported by Deng and Lee [13] for the test beams, the out-ofsquare imperfection, which was found to be the most inuential
for ange compression buckling among the three types of imperfections specied in AS4100 [40] (see [15]), was chosen for inclusion in the FE models; a magnitude of 1.3 mm was selected by a
trial-and-error process to match the ultimate load of the control
beam (i.e. specimen S300). Residual stresses, as described in Pi
and Trahair [41], were also included in the FE models [15]. It
should be noted that although the geometric imperfection and
Table 2
Key parameters for tractionseparation models.
Loading mode
Mode I (model A)
Mode I (model B)
Mode II
29.7
29.7
26.7
0.00371
0.00371
0.0526
0.0594
0.110
1.59
140
120
Load (kN)
218
100
80
S300- Experimental
(Deng and Lee 2007)
60
40
S300-0-000
20
0
0
10
30
FE model was built, where all the details are exactly the same as
those of model S310-1-212 except that an additional 6 mm thick
steel plate identical in material properties to the steel section
was added (using tied nodes on the plate edges in the FE model)
to the top ange of the steel section, so that the buckling of the
top ange can be suppressed. This FE model is referred to as
S310-1-212-P where P indicates the addition of a steel plate on
the top ange.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Accuracy of assumed properties for the steel beam
The FE results are compared with the experimental loaddisplacement curve of the control beam (i.e. specimen S300) in
Fig. 3. As explained earlier, both the material stressstrain curve
Adhesive layer
Dark blue color: zero stress region
Red color: high stress region
20
Adhesive layer
Dark blue color: zero stress region
Red color: high stress region
219
Load (kN)
debonding initiation
of S303-1-212
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
debonding
initiation of
S303-1-330
Debonding
initiation
debonding initiation of
S303-2-212
S303-Experimental
(Deng and Lee 2007)
S303-1-212
damage initiation of
S303-1-212 and
S330-2-212
300mm
Midspan
S303-2-212
damage initiation
of S303-1-330
S303-1-330
10
12
Load (kN)
damage initiation of
S310-1-212-P
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Debonding
initiation
Z
76mm
debonding initiation of
S310-1-212-P
(a) 92.6 kN
S304- Experimental
(Deng and Lee 2007)
S310- Experimental
(Deng and Lee 2007)
S304-1-212
debonding initiation of
S304-1-212
10
Fig. 6. Longitudinal shear stresses in the adhesive from S303-1-212. (a) 92.6 kN. (b)
118.3 kN.
S310-1-212
damage initiation of
S304-1-212
(b) 118.3 kN
S310-1-212-P
20
30
In Deng and Lees tests [13], specimens S303 and S304 were
found to fail by the plate end debonding of the CFRP plate. The
same failure mode was also predicted by all the three FE models
of S303 (i.e. S303-1-212, S303-2-212, and S303-1-330) and the
FE model of S304 (i.e. S304-1-212). The failure mode (i.e. deformed
shape at ultimate load) obtained from model S303-1-212 is shown
in Fig. 4a while those for models S303-2-212 and S303-1-330 are
similar; the failure mode from model S304-1-212 is shown in
Fig. 4b.
The loaddeection curves obtained from these FE models are
compared with the experimental curve in Fig. 5; other key results
are summarized in Table 3. To further examine the FE results for
beams failing by debonding (i.e. S303, S304 and S310-1-212-P),
two key points are marked on each of the predicted loaddisplacement curves in Fig. 5: (1) the point when damage initiates in the
Table 3
Experimental and FE results.
FE model
S300-0000a
S303-1212b
S303-2212b
S303-1330b
S304-1212b
S310-1212a
S310-1212-Pc
a
b
c
Experimental results
FE results
Ultimate load,
Pu (kN)
Deection at ultimate
load, Du (mm)
Ultimate load,
Pu-FE (kN)
Deection at ultimate
load, Du-FE (mm)
Load at debonding
initiation, Pd-FE (kN)
Deection at debonding
initiation, Dp-FE (mm)
123
20.7
120
21.0
N/A
N/A
120
5.12
125
7.05
118
5.08
120
5.12
125
7.07
122
5.78
N/A
N/A
123
6.17
115
4.60
135
7.00
136
11.0
132
8.00
160
20.1
158
20.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
188
27.3
188
27.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Normalized stress
Normalized stress
220
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.8
Longitudinal shearS303-1-212
0.7
Normal-S303-1-212
0.6
0.5
Longitudinal shearS303-2-212
0.4
Normal-S303-2-212
0.3
0.2
Longitudinal shearS303-1-330
0.1
Normal-S303-1-330
Strain
0
Fig. 7. Interfacial stressstrain behaviour at the plate end from model S303-1-212.
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Load (kN)
Fig. 8. Normalized interfacial stresses at the plate end for specimen S303.
High
shear
stress
Midspan
Softening
near midspan
1000mm
Z
76mm
(a) 102 kN
(b) 140.5 kN
Red colour: high stress region; Green colour: intermediate stress region; Blue colour: low
stress region
Fig. 9. Longitudinal shear stresses in the adhesive from model S310-1-212. (a) 102 kN. (b) 140.5 kN. (c) 159.7 kN (peak load).
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05 0
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Normal
stress
100
200
300
400
500
Longitudinal
shear stress
0.8
0.6
0.4
Normal stress
0.2
0
-0.2
100
200
300
400
500
Longitudinal
shear stress
-0.4
-0.6
(b) 140.5 kN
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Normal stress
100
200
300
400
500
Longitudinal
shear stress
221
222
1000mm
High
longitudinal
shear
stresses
Midspan
Z
76mm
(a) 33.7kN
Midspan
Debonding
(b) 159.5kN
Debonding
initiation
Red colour: high stress region; Green colour: intermediate stress region; Blue colour: low
stress region
Fig. 11. Damage propagation in the adhesive layer in model S310-1-212-P. (a) 33.7 kN. (b) 159.5 kN. (c) 188.05 kN (peak load). (d) 186.7 kN (post peak curve).
The interfacial longitudinal shear stress patterns over the adhesive layer at different load levels are shown in Fig. 9, while the normalized interfacial stress distributions along section ZZ at
different load levels are shown in Fig. 10. Before the load reaches
102 kN, both the normal stress and the longitudinal shear stress
are relatively low, and the maximum interfacial stresses occur at
the plate end (Fig. 10a). As the load increases, the longitudinal
shear stress at the mid-span becomes higher than those at the
plate ends (Fig. 10b). At the ultimate load, softening in the region
close to the mid-span has already begun (Fig. 10c), but no debonding occurs before the buckling of the compression ange.
4.5. Intermediate debonding failures
As expected, the failure mode predicted by model S310-1-212-P
is the intermediate debonding of the CFRP plate initiating from
near the mid-span (Fig. 11c). The loaddeection curve predicted
by model S310-1-212-P is shown in Fig. 5b. The interfacial
0.8
0.6
0.4
Normal stress
0.2
0
-0.2
100
200
300
400
500
Longitudinal
shear stress
-0.4
-0.6
223
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Normal stress
0.2
0
-0.2 0
100
200
300
400
500
-0.4
Longitudinal
shear stress
-0.6
(b) 184.8 kN
Normalized stress (MPa)
5. Conclusions
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Normal stress
100
200
300
400
500
Longitudinal
shear stress
Normal stress
100
200
300
400
500
Longitudinal
shear stress
longitudinal shear stress patterns over the adhesive layer at different load levels are shown in Fig. 11, while Fig. 12 shows the
normalized interfacial stress distributions along section ZZ
(Fig. 11a) at different load levels. The interfacial stress distributions
from model S310-1-212-P at low load levels are similar to those
from model S310-1-212. However, as the load increases, a large
increase in the longitudinal shear stress near the mid-span is seen,
which also means a higher contribution of the CFRP plate. At the
ultimate load, the longitudinal shear stress near the mid-span is
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the nancial support received from
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University provided through an International Postgraduate Scholarship for PhD Studies to the second
author and through a Postdoctoral Fellowship to the third author.
224
References
[1] Colombi P, Poggi C. An experimental, analytical and numerical study of the
static behavior of steel beams reinforced by pultruded CFRP strips. Compos B:
Eng 2006;37(1):6473.
[2] Lenwari A, Thepchatri T, Albrecht P. Debonding strength of steel beams
strengthened with CFRP plates. J Compos Constr 2006;10(1):6978.
[3] Sallam HEM, Ahmad SSE, Badawy AAM, Mamdouh W. Evaluation of steel Ibeams strengthened by various plating methods. Adv Struct Eng
2006;9(4):53544.
[4] Youssef MA. Analytical prediction of the linear and nonlinear behaviour of
steel I beams rehabilitated using FRP sheets. Eng Struct 2006;28(6):90311.
[5] Benachour A, Benyoucef S, Tounsi A, Adda bedia EA. Interfacial stress analysis
of steel beams reinforced with bonded prestressed FRP plate. Eng Struct
2008;30(11):330515.
[6] Linghoff D, Haghani R, Al-Emrani M. Carbon-bre composites for
strengthening steel structures. Thin-Wall Struct 2009;47(10):104858.
[7] Teng JG, Yu T, Fernando D. Strengthening of steel structures with bre
reinforced polymer composites. J Constr Steel Res 2012;78:13143.
[8] Nozaka K, Shield CK, Hajjar JF. Effective bond length of carbon ber reinforced
polymer strips bonded to fatigued steel bridge I-girders. J Bridge Eng
2005;9(4):30412.
[9] Nozaka K, Shield CK, Hajjar JF. Design of a test specimen to assess the effective
bond length of carbon ber reinforced polymer strips bonded to fatigued steel
bridge girders. J Compos Constr 2005;10(2):195205.
[10] Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E. Fatigue and overloading behavior of steelconcrete composite exural members strengthened with high modulus CFRP
materials. J Compos Constr 2007;11(6):65969.
[11] Schnerch D, Rizkalla S. Flexural strengthening of steel bridges with high
modulus CFRP strips. J Bridge Eng 2008;13(2):192201.
[12] Schnerch D, Dawood M, Rizkalla S, Sumner E. Proposed design guidelines for
strengthening of steel bridges with FRP materials. Constr Build Mater
2007;21(5):100110.
[13] Deng J, Lee MMK. Behaviour under static loading of metallic beams reinforced
with a bonded CFRP plate. Compos Struct 2007;78(2):23242.
[14] Teng JG, Smith ST, Yao J, Chen JF. Intermediate crack-induced debonding in RC
beams and slabs. Constr Build Mater 2003;17(67):44762.
[15] Fernando ND. Bond behaviour and debonding failures in CFRP-strengthened
steel members. PhD thesis, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong,
China; 2010.
[16] Deng J, Lee MMK, Moy SSJ. Stress analysis of steel beams reinforced with a
bonded CFRP plate. Compos Struct 2004;65(2):20515.
[17] Zhang L, Teng JG. Finite element prediction of interfacial stresses in structural
members bonded with a thin plate. Eng Struct 2010;32(2):45971.
[18] De Lorenzis L, Fernando D, Teng JG. Coupled mixed-mode cohesive zone
modeling of interfacial stresses in plated beams. Int J Solids Struct
2013;50(1415):247794.
[19] Yu T, Fernando D, Teng JG, Zhao XL. Experimental study on CFRP-to-steel
bonded interfaces. Compos B: Eng 2012;43(5):227989.
[20] Fernando D, Teng JG, Yu T, Zhao XL. Preparation and characterization of steel
surfaces for adhesive bonding. J Compos Constr 2013;17(6):04013012.
[21] De Moura MFSF, Chousal JAG. Cohesive and continuum damage models
applied to fracture characterization of bonded joints. Int J Mech Sci
2006;48(5):493503.
[22] Yuan H, Xu Y. Computational fracture mechanics assessment of adhesive
joints. Comput Mater Sci 2008;43(1):14656.
[23] De Lorenzis L, Zavarise G. Cohesive zone modeling of interfacial stresses in
plated beams. Int J Solids Struct 2009;46(24):418191.
[24] Sorensen BF. Cohesive law and notch sensitivity of adhesive joints. Acta Mater
2002;50(5):105361.
[25] Li S, Thouless MD, Waas AM, Schroeder JA, Zavattieri PD. Mixed-mode
cohesive-zone models for fracture of an adhesively bonded polymer-matrix
composite. Eng Fract Mech 2006;73(1):6478.
[26] Goncalves JPM, de Moura MFSF, Magalhaes AG, de Castro PMST. Application of
interface nite elements to three-dimensional progressive failure analysis of
adhesive joints. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2003;26(5):47986.
[27] Liljedahl CDM, Crocombe AD, Wahab MA, Ashcroft IA. Damage modelling of
adhesively bonded joints. Int J Fract 2006;141(12):14761.
[28] Bocciarelli M, Colombi P, Fava G, Poggi C. Interaction of interface delamination
and plasticity in tensile steel members reinforced by CFRP plates. Int J Fract
2007;146(12):7992.
[29] Pardoen T, Ferracin T, Landis CM, Delannay F. Constraint effects in adhesive
joint fracture. J Mech Phys Solids 2005;53(9):195183.
[30] Campilho RDSG, de Moura MFSF, Domingues JJMS. Using a cohesive damage
model to predict the tensile behaviour of CFRP single-strap repairs. Int J Solids
Struct 2008;45(5):1497512.
[31] Hogberg JL. Mixed mode cohesive law. Int J Fract 2006;141(34):54959.
[32] Xu XP, Needleman A. Void nucleation by inclusion debonding in a crystal
matrix. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 1993;1(2):11132.
[33] Da vila CG, Johnson ER. Analysis of delamination initiation in post buckled
dropped-ply laminates. AIAA J 1993;31(4):7217.
[34] Camanho PP, Davila CG, de Moura MF. Numerical simulation of mixed-mode
progressive delamination in composite materials. J Compos Mater
2003;37(16):141538.
[35] Benzeggagh ML, Kenane M. Measurement of mixed-mode delamination
fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixedmode bending apparatus. Compos Sci Technol 1996;56(4):43949.
[36] Xie D, Chung J, Wass AM, Shahwan KW, Schroeder JA, Boeman RG, Kunc V,
Klett LB. Failure analysis of adhesively bonded structures: from coupon level to
structural level predictions and verication. Int J Fract 2005;134:23150.
[37] ABAQUS Users Manual. Version 6.5; Inc., Rising Sun Mills, 166 Valley Street,
Providence, RI 02909-2499, USA; 2004.
[38] Bayeld MP, Davies JM, Dhanalakshmi M. Calculation of the strain hardening
behavior of steel structures based on mill tests. J Constr Steel Res
2005;61(2):13350.
[39] BS EN 10025-1. Hot rolled products of non-alloy structural steels. Technical
delivery conditions. British Standards Institution; 2004.
[40] AS4100. Steel structures. Standards Australia, NSW 2142, Australia; 1998.
[41] Pi YL, Trahair NS. Inelastic bending and torsion of steel I-beams. J Struct Eng
1994;120(12):3397417.