The Tenth International Conference on Machine Design and Production 291

4 - 6 September 2002, Cappadocia, Turkey

Elasto-plastic Stress Analysis of an Adhesively Bonded

Single Lap Joint Subjected to a Bending Moment

M. Kemal APALAK1 and Aysel ENGIN2

1
The Department of Mechanical Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
2
Institute of Natural Sciences and Technology, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

Abstract: In this study, an elasto-plastic stress analysis of the single lap joint (SLJ) under bending
moment was investigated. The single lap joint consisted of Etial 5 H as the adherends bonded by Araldite
2011 as the adhesive. Since the failure criterion of the SLJ is based on the uniaxial tensile properties of
adhesive and adherends, the uniaxial tensile tests for the adhesive and the adherend were performed. These
stress-strain behaviors of the materials were used in stress analysis. The 2D incremental (nonlinear) finite
element method was used. The plastic deformations in adhesive and aluminium adherends were allowed. It
was also taken into account the geometrical non-linearity affecting on the stress and strain states of the SLJ.
The adhesively bonded single lap joint was considered without the fillets around the free ends of the
overlap. Thus, for the simplicity of the analysis, the SLJ with square adhesive free ends was analysed. In
numerical analysis the results showed that the stress and strain concentrations took place around the free
ends of the joint. Therefore the failure initiated from those regions on the adhesive-adherend interfaces and
propagated towards the middle adhesive layer. The crack propagations on the right free end were different
from those the left free end. The adhesive failure initiated at the adhesive-upper adherend interface on the
right free end and propagated along this interface, whereas on the left free end, the failure initiated the
adhesive-lower adherend interface and propagated across the adhesive thickness and reached upper
interface. The plastic strains weakened the SLJ at these critical locations and propagated in to the middle
adhesive region (along the adhesive-adherend interfaces). The aluminium adherends were much plastically
deformed. A series of bending tests of aluminium bonded single lap joints showed that the joint failure was
interfacial along the adhesive layer, and that blank surfaces occurred around the adhesive free ends. The
SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) also presented similar fracture surfaces to those of the non-linear
finite element analysis.
Keywords: Single lap joint; epoxy adhesive; aluminium adherends; elasto-plastic analysis; non-linear finite
element method; ANSYS.

1. INTRODUCTION
The adhesive bonding technique has been applied successfully in many engineering areas, since it
has some advantages to conventional methods. The adhesively bonded joints were studied as a
structural element by many researchers [1-3]. The single lap joint generally has been used for
analysing and testing due to its simple geometry. The ability to predict the strength of such joint
is thus an important step toward predicting the strength of more complex geometries under
different loading conditions. A prerequisite for succesfully predicting joint strength is an
understanding of the stresses, strains and mechanisms that are at work in promoting failure. As a
result, much work has been carried out to analyse the stress state in bonded lap joints so as to
provide a theoretical model of failure mechanisms. In bonding applications, adhesively bonded
joints are sensitive to peeling stresses, thus joint may fail under even low static loads. The single
lap joint was also used for the evaluation of the shear and tensile strengths of adhesives. The best
adhesive type can also be determined for a specific application from the single lap joint tests.
This study is a continuing part of a research programme in which the different assessment
methods (experimental and theoretically) of adhesively bonded joints are developed. The main
idea of the study is the prediction of non-linear behaviours of the adhesive and the adherends. In
this study, it was considered that the single lap joint consisted of an epoxy adhesive and an
292

annealed aluminium alloy. In the stress analysis, the stress-strain behaviors of the materials
should be known. In order to determine their mechanical properties, their uniaxial tests were
performed so that these properties were used in the non-linear stress analysis of the single lap
joint. The single lap joint was analysed for a bending and crack propagation along the adhesive
layer was observed. In addition, a series of single lap joint was tested, then the experimental
results and the SEM analysis of the fracture surfaces were compared with those of the non-linear
stress analysis. A good agreement was achieved.
2. BACKGROUND
Volkersen was among the firsts to model the single lap joint in which only shear distribution
along adhesive layer was analysed [4,5]. The effect of load eccentricity on the stresses of an
adhesively bonded single lap joint was considered by Goland and Reissner. They also thought the
bending effect on the peeling stresses around the adhesive free ends [6]. Many theoretical and
experimental studies are now available [1-3]. Generally, the properties of the adhesive and
adherends are assumed to be elastic. In practice, new adhesives particularly those such as the
rubber-modified epoxies, have a large plastic strain to failure. It is necessary to consider what
happens to the stress distribution when the adhesive yields. Since these adhesives are so strong,
the yielding in the adherends can be expected.
Hart-Smith presented a series of studies in which the stress distribution in adhesives being able to
sustain a large plastic strain is investigated using a continuum mechanics approach on the PABST
(Primary Adhesively Bonded Structure Technology) [7-13]. He tried to explain the elasto-plastic
behaviour of different types of adhesively bonded joints. He believed that the adhesive should
never be a weak link, thus, if peeling stresses are likely to occur these stresses should be
alleviated by tapering the adherends or by locally thickening the adhesive layer. His continuum
approach allowed him to carry out at low cost an parametric investigation concerning the effects
of adhesive thickness, joint length, and so on, together with adherend and adhesive mechanical
properties [2]. Hart-Smith characterized the adhesive choosing an elastic-plastic model such that
the total area under the stress-strain curve was equal to that under the true stress-strain curve. He
developed computer programs for analysing various joints, double-lap, single-lap with equal or
dissimilar adherends, for parallel, stepped, scarf and double-straps. Similar programs were also
developed by ESDU [14,15] for elastic and elastic-plastic calculations from the works of Grant
[16] of British Aerospace and were based on the works of Volkersen [4-5] and Goland and
Reissner [6]. Hart-Smith equated the yield stress and failure stress, and stated that failure occurs
when the adhesive reaches its limiting shear strain. He also showed that lengthening the overlap
in a double-lap joint loaded caused plastic deformations in the adhesive, particularly at the free
ends of adhesive but a large, low stress region in the middle of the joint exists.
Harris and Adams used a non-linear finite element technique which was able to account for large
displacements and rotations that might occur in a single lap joint under the tensile load. This
technique also allowed the effects of the non-linear material behaviour of both the adhesive and
the adherends. They showed that the mechanical properties of both the adhesive and the
adherends had considerable effect on the failure mode and loads [17,18]. Adams et al. also carried
out a stress analysis of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastic/steel double lap joints using an elastic-
plastic model for the rubber-modified epoxy adhesive in order to determine the strength of the
joints [19]. Crocombe was concerned with predicting the failure of adhesively bonded joints and
presented one technique, in three independent studies, giving reliable predictions of joint strength
[20]. This technique is based on a concept termed global yielding which applies when a path of
adhesive along the overlap region reaches the state in which it can sustain no further significant
increase in applied load. He showed that the strength of a joint increases with decreasing adhesive
thickness in non-linear analysis of a double lap joint.
 293

Bigwood and Crocombe [21,22], Crocombe et al. [23] considered the general plane strain
problem of adhesively bonded structures consisting of two different adherends and modelled the
adhesive joint as an adherend-adhesive sandwich allowing the application of any combination of
tensile, shear and moment loading at the adherend ends assuming that the adherends to behave as
linearly elastic cylindrically bent plates with the adhesive forming a non-linear interlayer between
them.
Reddy and Roy presented a geometrically non-linear FEM approach for analysis of the adhesively
bonded joints [24]. More recently Edlund and Klarbling [25,26] have presented a general analysis
method for determining the adhesive and adherend stresses and deformations in adhesively
bonded joints. They evaluated the joints as 3D structures and assumed the adherend and the
adhesive to have non-linear material properties. They also took into account the geometrical non-
linearity. Some of contributors who have used non-linear techniques for different adhesive joints
are Czarnocki and Piekarski [27] and Sawa et al [28,29], Pandey et al [30], Sato and Ikegami
[31], and Yang et al [32].

3. THEORY OF PLASTICITY AND ITS APPLICATION TO FEM

Under a high load a material suffers a permanent change of shape, it is said to undergo plastic
deformation. Material is ideally modelled until its yield point is reached, later it has a non-linear
behaviour and undergoes permanent deformations. Although the plasticity theory can be found in
detail in refs [33,34], the some important aspects of the plasticity are given as follows:
3.1 Yield surfaces
Material is assumed to initiate to yield when yield function reaches a critical level. The yield
function can be represented as
F ( ) = f ( ) Y = 0 (1)

where f ( ) is the yield function and Y is the critical value of this function. Different yield
functions are available. The von Mises criterion is applicable to model the plastic behaviour of
the flexible aluminium adherends of the SLJ. However, a modified von Mises criterion is more
suitable for modelling the adhesive yielding.
a. von Mises yield surface is expressed as
F = 3 J 2 YT = 0 (2)

where YT is the yield stress in uniaxial tension and J 2 is stress invariant. It is applicable to
flexible aluminium adherends.
b. Modified von Mises yield surface is expressed as

F=
1
2S

[
J 1 (S 1) + J 1 (S 1) + 12 J 2 S
2 2
]
1
2
YT = 0 (3)

YC
where S = , and YC is the yield surface in compression and J1, J2 are stress invariants.
YT
Raghava [35] proposed for the epoxy adhesives
3J 2 + (YC YT )J 1 = YC YT (4)
and Crocombe [20] obtained eq (3) by modifying eq (4). When S = 1 in the eq (3), it reduces to
eq (2).
294

3.2 Plastic Stress-Strain Relations

Total strain can be divided into elastic and plastic strain components as
= e + p (5)

The elastic strains e can be obtained from the stresses using the elastic-strain relations as
follows
e = D 1 (6)
where D is the modulus matrix. The plastic strain components are usually determined by
considering increments of strain. Levy [36] and von Mises [37] first suggested that the total strain
increments were proportional to their respective deviatoric stresses and proposed an incremental
relationship. Prandtl [38] and Reuss [39] modified the Levy-Mises equations and used the plastic
strain increments rather than the total strain increments proportional to the instantaneous
deviatoric stress which can be written as
d px d py
= = L = d (7)
'
x y'
where d is some instantaneous constant. This gives a general flow rule [40]. The rule can be
given as
f
d p = d (8)

This is known as the normality principle because the plastic strain increment to be normal to the
yield surface.
3.3 Application of Plasticity Theory to The Finite Element Method
In the finite element method, a solution is sought for the equation

= R B T dV = (9)

where residual vector, R load vector, B strain-displacement matrix and is stress matrix.
For small displacement, thus, elastic problems
B = B and = DB (10a)
0 0

where B 0 is a matrix consisting of derivatives of shape functions and eq (9) can be written as

= R K = 0 where K = B
T
0 DB 0 dV (11)

is the secant stiffness which is symmetric and constant, therefore, the solution of displacements is
direct. In the large displacement problems
1
B = B 0 + B L and = D B 0 + B L (10b)
2
where B L is a matrix being function of derivatives of shape functions and displacements. In this
case, the solution of eq (9) is more difficult because B L is a function of displacement and the
secant stiffness is non-symmetric. When plasticity occurs, the modulus matrix D is no longer
 295

constant. The solution is achieved iteratively using Newton-Raphson scheme. In addition, the full
load is applied incrementally and a solution is obtained at each step.
An initial guess to the next load increments is made by
1
ij = ij 1 ij 1 j
(12)
d

d i 1
where i and j are load step and iteration number, respectively. If eq (9) is differentiated
d = K T d (13)

where

[B ] (14)
T
KT = D ep B + G SG dV

where G and S are matrix of shape function derivatives and stress array, respectively. The only
difference in eq (14) is the elastic-plastic modulus matrix D ep which links an increment of stress
to an increment of strain. The tangential stiffness in eq (14) can be computed by replacing the
modulus matrix D by the elasto-plastic modulus matrix D ep in eq (11). Since this process
achieves convergence in less iteration, it was used in the analysis. More details can be found in
refs [41-43].
3.4 Plastic Stress-Strain Behaviour
If we combine the total strain expression eq (5) with the expression of elastic-plastic strain
increments eqs (6,8) it yields
d = D 1 d + d a (15)
df
where a = . The stresses remain on the yield surface during yielding, and so from eq (1)
d
dF = d { f ( ) YT ( )}
(16)
dF = a T d A d = 0

dY 1
where A = T d . Substituting eq (16) into eq (15) gives
d d
aT D
d = T d (17)
A + a Da
After re-arranging eq (15) and substituting eq (17) gives
d = D ep d (18)
where

(
D Daa T D
D ep = .
)
T
A + a Da
296

Stress increments corresponding to strain increments can be determined in terms of A ve a in

eq (17). Eq (8) can also be used to obtain the plastic strain increments. More details can be found
in Refs [41-43].
3.5 Correction to the Yield Surface
The yield function derivatives a can also be used to restore the stresses to the yield surface if
application of the elastic-plastic modulus D ep is sufficiently accurate. In case the stresses do not
lie on the yield surface (F 0) stresses can be corrected so that they are normal to the yield
surface. In case
d = a p (19)
where p is a scalar. If the required stress change is small,

dF F = a T d = a T a p
Re-arranging and substituting for p in the original equation for the stress change gives

a
d = F T (20)
a a ( )

3.6 Solution Procedure
The following scheme of procedure assumes that variables have been obtained suitably for the
(i 1)th iteration of a particular load increment. The large displacement solution procedures can
be found in Refs [41-43] in detail. The solution procedure of the plasticity equations is as follows:
a) Corrective displacements, etc. are calculated,
i = [K T ] i11 i 1 and i = i 1 + i
b) Strains and stresses are updated,
i = i 1 + B i i
[ ]
i = i 1 + D ep i B i i

c) Correct plastic stress corresponding to strain increment,

i. Stress is updated to estimated yield
ii. Remainder of increment is divided into steps d i

iii. [D ] ep i
j
and dij are evaluated for the beginning of step j

iv. Calculation of
1. [ ]
Stress ij = ij 1 + D ep i d i
j

Plastic strain [ ] = [ ]
j j 1
2. p i p i + a ij dij

3. Equivalent uniaxial plastic strain up [ ] = [ ]

i
j
up i
j 1
+dij

v. New yield stress and slope are evaluated,

 297

vi. If stress is too far from yield surface correct stress,

aT F
ij = ij
( )
aT a
vii. Go to (ii) and repeat for next step.
d) Residual for i th iteration is evaluated,

i = R i B Ti i dV

e) Residual for i th iteration is evaluated,

[K T ]i (B [D ] B )
T
= i ep i i + G Ti S i G i dV

f) Convergence is tested. If convergence is satisfied, next load increment is applied, if not,

it is returned to (a) for another iteration.

Figure 1. Dimensions of a) a single lap joint, b) an adhesive specimen, and c) an aluminium

specimen.
298

4. JOINT CONFIGURATION AND EXPERIMENTAL

The single lap joint is not only of interest as a test piece but also as a structural element generally
due to its simple geometries. It also used for the determination of adhesive properties, thus the
performance of the adhesively bonded joints having more complex geometries could be predicted.
In this study, the single lap joint made from an adhesive layer, Araldite 2011 (AW 106/HV
953U) and two aluminium plates (Etial 5 H) and the elasto-plastic analysis was carried out. In
order to compare with the analytical results, the single lap joint was tested experimentally.
The mechanical properties of adhesive and aluminium adherends are necessary for the non-linear
finite element analysis. For this purpose, the uniaxial tensile tests of the adhesive specimens and
the aluminium specimens were carried out. The adhesive specimen has dimensions as shown in
Fig 1b. Araldite 2011 (AW 106/HV 953U) has two component epoxy adhesive in liquid form;
therefore, it exhibits some difficulties in preparing of adhesive test specimens. The epoxy
adhesive in liquid form can solidify when some heat is applied for a certain period, known as
curing period.
A mould was designed so that the adhesive specimens can have dimensions shown in Fig 1b and
manufactured. However, since the mould is made from steel, it can not be directly filled with
adhesive; therefore, first the mould was filled with melted wax, it was used as a model for
adhesive specimen. This model was put in to the gypsum and waited until it took solid form. The
wax was melted by heating and a gypsum mould was obtained for adhesive specimen. Since
Araldite 2011 (AW 106/HV 953U) has two components, they were mixed carefully at a certain
rate from its manufacturer and filled in to the mould from gypsum. A special care was shown for
removing air bubbles causing voids inside the adhesive specimen. The cylindrical adhesive
specimens were prepared by keeping the liquid adhesive filled into the mould at 130C for 3-3.5
hours. After the curing period was completed the specimen and the mould were left cooling at
the room temperature.

25
   
0.0166 mm/sn

20

2


Uniaxial stress, N/mm

15 


10


5 


0
0 0,005 0,01 0,015 0,02

Uniaxial strain

Figure 2. True stress-strain curve for epoxy adhesive Araldite 2011 (AW 106/HV 953U).

The solidified specimens were taken from the mould. Later, the uniaxial tensile tests of the
adhesive specimens were performed. Figure 2 shows the true stress-strain curve of the adhesive
 299

obtained from the tests for a value of Poissons ratio of 0.5. The stress-strain curve was fitted
using the cubic spline fitting technique in order to obtain a continuous function used in the non-
linear finite element analysis.

Aluminium adherends were prepared from ETIAL 5-1/2 H sheets in a thickness of 3 mm

produced by Etibank Aluminium Company. The aluminium sheets were annealed at 345C, and
the aluminium specimens were produced in the dimensions as shown in Fig 1c. Their uniaxial
tensile tests were performed. The true stress-strain curves of the aluminium specimens were
obtained at three different rates of testing of 0.0166, 0.083 and 0.33 mm/s as shown in Fig 3. The
solid stress-strain curves were fitted using the cubic spline fitting technique.

140



 0.0166 mm/sn

 

120
0.083 mm/sn
      


  

0.33 mm/sn


 


Uniaxial stress, N/mm

100 



80
 



 
60




40


 





20

0 


0 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,1 0,12
Uniaxial strain

Figure 3. True stress-strain curves for aluminium (ETIAL 5-1/2 H).

5. NON-LINEAR STRESS ANALYSIS

The elasto-plastic analysis of the SLJ was carried out using the nonlinear finite element method.
The dimensions of the single lap joint are given in Fig 1a. In the finite element method, the finite
element type is important in modeling the structure in order to achieve a reasonably accurate
solution. Since the problem requires a two dimensional (plane strain) analysis, eight-noded
isoparametric quadratic quadrilateral plane elements with four integration points were used to
model adhesive layer and aluminium adherends. The finite element software ANSYS (current
version 5.6) was used to solve the problem [44].
In the analysis the material non-linearity was considered based on the uniaxial stress-strain
behaviours of the epoxy adhesive and aluminium adherends determined from uniaxial tensile tests
shown in Figs 2 and 3. The adhesive fillets were ignored for the simplicity of the analysis. The
single lap joint was subjected to a bending moment as shown in Fig 4. In order to create a
bending moment a transverse in displacement at the middle of the overlap was applied and the
left free end of the upper adherend and the right free end of the lower plate were fixed in y-
direction. The right free end of the plates was free in x- direction as shown in Fig 4. Since high
stress and strain concentrations occurred around the adhesive free ends these critical regions were
refined until the reasonable results are obtained. The free ends of the adhesive layer were divided
into 16 elements to increase computation accuracy as shown in Fig 4.
300

L/2

Figure 4. Mesh details of an adhesively bonded single lap joint.

The displacement at the middle of overlap was applied incrementally and a new solution
corresponding to each load step was obtained after the convergence values were satisfied based
on forces and displacements at the nodes of the each finite element forming the model of the
single lap joint. This process is needed in the non-linear finite element analysis to avoid the
 301

possibility of convergence to an incorrect solution. In addition, the geometrical non-linearity

(effect of the large displacements) was also taken into account in the analysis.

a)

b)
Figure 5. Undeformed (a) and deformed (b) joint geometries.

In the analysis, the high stress and strain concentrations occurred around the adhesive free ends.
The deformed and undeformed geometries are shown in Fig 5. The plastic strains in the adhesive
layer and in the aluminium adherends occurred when the displacement was 7 mm. Figure 6 shows
the equivalent stress eqv (MPa) concentrations for different displacements (7-17.36 mm). The
stresses concentrated on the adhesive free ends and gradually decreasingly propagated through
the fixed ends of the adherends. They are very low at the middle overlap region. The total
equivalent strains were shown in Fig 7. The plastic strain in the adhesive layer initiated at the
right free end of the adhesive-upper adherend interface and at the right free end of the adhesive-
lower adherend interface. At the left free end of the adhesive layer the plastic strain propagated
along the upper interface continuously, whereas the plastic strain at the right free end initiated at
the adhesive-lower adherend interface, it propagated across the adhesive thickness until reaching
adhesive-upper adherend interface. Fig 8 shows that the equivalent plastic strains distributions in
the joint region for different load steps. The magnitudes of the stresses and total strains decrease
through the middle joint region uniformly, thus, a large middle overlap region was subjected to
lower stresses and strains.
When the plastic strain penetration from each free end of the adhesive interfaces reached a small
region in the middle section of the joint this small region was not able to withstand to the applied
bending load; therefore, the adhesive layer was torn rapidly, and the single lap joint failed through
this small middle adhesive layer. The lower surfaces of the upper and lower adherends were in
tension whereas their other surface were in compression.
It was observed that the equivalent plastic strains covered a large region around the adhesive free
ends in the higher load steps. When the applied displacement was 7 mm the plastic strains
exceeded the adhesive strain limits, thus, the single lap joint fractures at the free ends of the
overlap. The plastic strain concentration region is enlarged, as the applied displacement is
increased gradually. The plastic strain is noticed to be propagated unsymetrically through the
adhesive layer. The plastic strain regions through the adhesive layer from the both left and right
free ends of the adhesive layer exhibit different propagation behaviours. While the applied
displacement was 17.36 mm, the crack length at the left edge of the overlap was 5.973 mm. The
crack length at the right edge of the overlap was 2.089 mm at the adhesive-upper adherend
interface and 1.867 mm at the adhesive-lower adherend interface.
In order to compare the analysis results with the experimental results, a series of single lap joint
was prepared as mentioned above. The strength and durability of the single lap joints are also
dependent on pretreatment of surfaces to be bonded.
302
=7.0 m 0.489 mm
m A = 4.1
B = 11.9
C = 19.8
D = 27.6
E = 35.5
F = 43.3
G = 51.2
0.488 mm H = 59.0
I = 66.9

=13.0 mm 1.378 mm
A = 5.8
B = 17.1
C = 28.4
D = 39.7
E = 51.0
F = 62.4
G = 73.7
H = 85.0
I = 96.3
2.311 mm 1.333 mm

=15.82 mm 1.911 mm

A = 6.3
B = 18.7
C = 31.1
D = 43.5
E = 56.0
F = 68.4
G = 80.8
4.053 mm 1.689 mm H = 93.2
I = 106.0

=17.36 mm 2.089 mm
A = 6.5
B = 19.3
C = 32.1
D = 44.9
E = 57.7
F = 70.5
G = 83.3
H = 96.2
I = 109.0
5.973 mm 1.867 mm

Figure 6. The equivalent stress eqv ( in MPa) distributions and crack lengths (mm) at the right
and left free ends of the SLJ for different load steps (=7.0-17.36 mm).
 303
=7.0 mm 0.489
mm A = 0.001194
B = 0.003549
C = 0.005905
D = 0.008260
E = 0.010615
F = 0.012971
G = 0.015326
H = 0.017682
I = 0.020037
0.488
mm =13.0 m 1.378
m mm A = 0.001169
B = 0.003475
C = 0.005780
D = 0.008086
E = 0.010391
F = 0.012697
G = 0.015003
H = 0.017308
I = 0.019614
2.311 1.333 mm
mm 1.911
=15.82 mm
mm
A = 0.001287
B = 0.003848
C = 0.006409
D = 0.008969
E = 0.011530
F = 0.014091
G = 0.016652
H = 0.019213
I = 0.021774
4.053 1.689 mm
mm
=17.36 mm 2.089
A = 0.001305
B = 0.003904
C = 0.006503
D = 0.009103
E = 0.011702
F = 0.014301
G = 0.016901
H = 0.019500
I = 0.022099
5.973 1.867

Figure 7. The total equivalent strain (m/m) distributions and crack lengths (mm) at the right and
left free ends of the SLJ for different load steps (=7.0-17.36 mm).
304

=7.0 mm A = 0.000780
B = 0.002341
C = 0.003902
D = 0.005463
E = 0.007024
F = 0.008585
0.488 mm G = 0.010146
0.489 H = 0.011707
I = 0.013268
=13.0 mm
1.378 mm A = 0.001005
B = 0.003014
C = 0.005024
D = 0.007033
E = 0.009042
F = 0.011052
2.311 G = 0.013061
mm 1.333 mm
H = 0.015071
I = 0.017080

=15.82 mm A = 0.001307
1.911 mm B = 0.003920
C = 0.006533
D = 0.009147
E = 0.011760
F = 0.014373
4.053 mm
G = 0.016987
H = 0.019600
1.689 mm I = 0.022213

=17.36 mm
A = 0.001288
2.089 mm B = 0.003865
C = 0.006442
D = 0.009019
E = 0.011595
F = 0.014172
G = 0.016749
5.973 mm
H = 0.019326
I = 0.021902
1.867 mm

Figure 8. The equivalent plastic strain (m/m) distributions and crack lengths (mm) at the right
and left free ends of the SLJ for different load steps (=7.0-17.36 mm).
 305

a)

65
b)

c)

Figure 9. SEM photographs of fracture surfaces of the failed single lap joint under a bending load
a) The right free end of the upper plate at the enlarged scale 5
b) Adhesive thickness on the upper adherend surface at the enlarged scale 20
c) Adhesive thickness on the upper adherend surface at the enlarged scale 30

Finally, their bending tests were carried out. The fracture surfaces of the failed single lap joints
were examined by means of SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope). The SEM photographs of the
fracture surfaces of the single lap joints are shown in Fig 9. A certain region around the adhesive
306

free ends along the overlap region of an adherend is blank. The fracture mechanism along the
adhesive layer was interfacial. However, a large region, in which the crack propagates along the
adhesive layer, still exists.
The experimental is a good agreement with the theoretical results. The finite element analysis had
some limitations. The ruptured adhesive layer are dependent on the finite element size. If the
finite element can not carry the internal load, this element is not considered for next load step.
Therefore, the direction of the crack path can not be predicted, instead, the ruptured adhesive
region are predicted. Some modifications are needed in the analysis considering the elasto-plastic
fracture theory. This study is a part of the research programme in which the analysis methods are
developed to predict the strength of adhesive joints.
Consequently, the analysis results are informative about the non-linear behaviour of an adhesive
single lap joint, and it can provide a background for the analysis of the adhesive joints with more
complicated geometry. However, the experimental and theoretical studies are continuing for
different metals, alloys and adhesive types, and the load-bearing capabilities of the adhesive joint
are tested, and the most succesful theory is investigated for predicting the adhesive joint strength.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The non-linear stress analysis and the experimental study of an adhesively bonded single lap joint
under the bending load showed that the most critical joint regions were the free ends of the
adhesive layer, thus adhesive plastic strains initiated at the free ends of the adhesive-adherend
interfaces, and the plastic zones spread along these interfaces and across the adhesive thickness.
Therefore, the joint failure was interfacial along the adhesive layer. However the adhesive failure
was different at the left edge and the right edge. In addition, the plastic zones in the aluminium
adherends initiated the adherend regions neighbouring to the critical adhesive locations, and
spread the adherend surfaces; therefore, the aluminium adherends may subject to plastic
deformations as much as the adhesive layer. The analysis showed that fracture under the bending
loads is different from those for tension loads. The analysis results are limited for a specific
adherend material and adhesive type. The effects of adhesive fillet, stronger adhesive, overlap
length, and adhesive thickness should be analysed in order to obtain a more realistic design of
single lap joint.
7. REFERENCES
1. Semerdjiev S. (1970), Metal to Metal Adhesive Bonding, Business Books Ltd, London.
2. Adams R.D. and Wake W.C. (1984), Structural Adhesive Joints in Engineering, Elsevier
Applied Science, London.
3. Kinloch A.J. (1987), Adhesion and Adhesives, Chapman and Hall, London.
4. Volkersen O. (1938), Die Nietkraftverteilung in Zugbeanspruchten Nieverbindungen mit
Konstanten Laschenquerschnitten, Luftfahrtforschung, vol 15, pp 41-47.
5. Volkersen O. (1965), Construction Metallique, vol 4, pp 3-13.
6. Goland M. and Reissner E. (1944), Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech., vol 11, A17-A27.
7. Hart-Smith L.J. (1972), McDonnell-Douglas Co. Report No: 6059A, California.
8. Hart-Smith L.J. (1973), NASA CR-112235, Langley Research Centre, Virginia.
9. Hart-Smith L.J. (1973), NASA CR-112236, Langley Research Centre, Virginia.
10. Hart-Smith L.J. (1973), NASA CR-112237, Langley Research Centre, Virginia.
11. Hart-Smith L.J. (1973), NASA CR-112238, Langley Research Centre, Virginia.
12. Hart-Smith L.J. (1974), NASA CR-2218, Langley Research Centre, Virginia.
13. Hart-Smith L.J. (1981), in: Developments in Adhesives - 2, A.J. Kinloch (Ed.), pp 1-44,
Elsevier Applied Science, London.
14. ESDU 78042 (1978), Shear Stresses in the Adhesives in Bonded Joints, Single Step Double
Lap Joints Loaded in Tension, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, London.
 307

15. ESDU 79016 (1979), In Elastic Shear Stresses and Strains in the Adhesive Bonding Lap
Joints Loaded in Tension or Shear, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, London.
16. Grant, P. (1976), Strength and Stress Analysis of Bonded Joints, British Aircraft Corp. Ltd.
Rep. 50R(P).
17. Harris, J.A. and Adams, R.D. (1982), The Impact Strength of Adhesive Lap Joints,
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Adhesive Joints, Kansas City, pp 611-626.
18. Adams, R.D. and Harris, J.A. (1987), The Influence of Local Geometry on the Strength of
Adhesive Joints, Int. J. Adhesion and Adhesives, vol 7, no 2, pp 69-80.
19. Adams, R.D. Atkins, R.W., Harris, J.A. and Kinloch, A.J. (1986), Stress Analysis and
Failure Properties of Carbon-Fibre-Reinforced-Plastic/Steel Double-Lap Joints, J. Adhesion, vol
20, pp 29-53.
20. Crocombe, A.D. (1989), Global Yielding as a Failure Criterion for Bonded Joints, Int. J.
Adhesion and Adhesives, vol 9, no 3, pp 167-178.
21. Bigwood, D.A. and Crocombe, A.D. (1990), Non-linear Adhesive Bonded Joint Design
Analyses, Int. J. Adhesion and Adhesives, vol 10, no 1, pp 31-41.
22. Crocombe, A.D. and Bigwood, D.A. (1992), Development of a Full Elasto-plastic Adhesive
Joint Design Analysis, J. of Strain Analysis, vol 27, no 4, pp 211-218.
23. Crocombe, A.D., Bigwood, D.A. and Richardson, G. (1990), Analysing Structural Adhesive
Joints for Failure, Int. J. Adhesion and Adhesives, vol 10, no 3, pp 167-178.
24. Reddy, J.N. and Roy, S. (1988), Non-linear Analysis of Adhesively Bonded Joints, Int. J.
Non-linear Mechanics, vol 23, no 2, pp 97-112.
25. Edlund, U. and Klarbling, A. (1990), Analysis of Elastic-plastic Adhesive Joints Using a
Mathematical Programming Approach, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, vol 78, pp 19-47.
26. Edlund, U. and Klarbling, A. (1992), A Geometrically Non-linear Model of the Adhesive
Joint Problem and its Numerical Treatment, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, vol 96, pp 329-350.
27. Czarnocki, P. and Piekarski, P. (1986), Non-linear Numerical Stress Analysis of a
Symmetric Adhesive-Bonded Lap Joint, Int. J. Adhesion and Adhesives, vol 6, no 3, pp 157-
160.
28. Sawa, T., Aoki, M. and Nishikawa, O. (1997), Elasto-plastic Finite Element Analysis and
Strength Evaluation of Adhesive Butt Joints of Similar and Dissimilar Hollow Shafts Subjected to
External Bending Moments, J. of Adhesion, vol 61, no 1-4, pp 55-69.
29. Kawawaki, M., Nakano, Y. and Sawa, T. (1998), Elasto-plastic Finite Element Stress
Analysis and Strength Evaluation of Adhesive Lap Joints of Hollow Shafts Subjected to Tensile
Loads, J. of Adhesion Science and Technology, vol 12, no 9, pp 907-922.
30. Pandey, P.C., Shankaragouda, H. and Singh, A.K. (1999), Non-linear Analysis of
Adhesively Bonded Lap Joints Considering Viscoplasticity in Adhesives, Computers and
Structures, vol 70, no 4, pp 387-413.
31. Sato, C. and Ikegami, K. (1999), Strength of Adhesively-Bonded Butt Joints of Tubes
Subjected to Combined High-Rate Loads, J. of Adhesion, vol 70, no 1-2, pp 57-73.
32. Yang, Q.D., Thoules, M.D. and Ward, S.M. (1999), Numerical Simulations of Adhesively-
Bonded Beams Failing with Extensive Plastic-Deformation, J. of The Mechanics and Physics of
Solids, vol 47, no 6, pp 1337-1353.
33. Malvern, L.E. (1969), Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, Prentice-Hall.
34. Johnson, W. and Mellor, P.B. (1973), Engineering Plasticity, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
35. Raghava, R.S. and Cadell, R.M. (1973), The Macroscopic Yield Behaviour of Polymers, J.
Material Science, vol 8, pp 225.
36. Lvy, M. (1870), Mmare sur les equations gnrales des mouvements intrieurs des corps
solides ductiles au del des limites ou lelasticit pourrait les ramener leur premier elat,
Comptes. Rendus, Paris, vol 70, pp 1323.
308

37. Mises, R. von (1928), Mechanik der festen Krper in plastisch deformablem Zustant,
Gttingen Nachr. Maths. Phys. Vol 1, pp 582.
38. Prandtl, L. (1924), Spannungsverteilung in Plastichen Krpem, Proc. 1st Int. Cong. Appl.
Mech. Delft, pp 43.
39. Reuss, A. (1930), Berucksichtigung der Elastichen Formanderungen in der
Plastizitatststherie, Zeits. Ang. Math. Mech. vol 10, pp 266.
40. Zienkiewicz, O.C. and Taylor, R.C. (1991), The Finite Element Method (Solid and Fluid
Mechanics, Dynamics and Non-linearity), vol. 2, McGraw-Hill Company, UK.
41. Crisfield, M.A. (1993), Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, vol I,
John Wiley.
42. M. Kleiber (1989), Incremental Finite Element Modelling in Non-linear Solid Mechanics,
Ellis Horwood.
43. Ishai, O. (1967), Delayed Yielding of Epoxy Resin Under Tension, Compression or Flexure
I. Behaviour Under Constant Strain Rate, J. Appl. Poly. Sci., vol 11, pp 963.
44. ANSYS, The General Purpose Finite Element Software (version 5.6), Swanson Analysis
Systems, Inc., Houston, Texas.
45. Apalak, M.K. and Engin, A. (2000), Elasto-Plastic Analysis of an Adhesively Bonded Joints,
The 9th International Machine Design and Production Conference UMTIK 2000, Ankara, Turkey.