Comparative evaluation of the Double-Cantilever Beam and Tapered Double-Cantilever Beam tests for estimation of the tensile fracture toughness of adhesive joints

• Autor(a) principal: Lopes, R.M.
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Outros Autores: Campilho, Raul, Silva, F.J.G. da, Faneco, T.M.S.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.22/9244
• topic: Epoxides; Polyurethane; Steels; Fracture toughness; Tapered Double Cantilever Beam

The continuous development observed in bonded joints, along with the improvements of the adhesives’ properties, are resulting in an increase of the bonded joint applications, as well as the variety of applications. Regarding the strength prediction of adhesive joints, two highly relevant methods are Fracture Mechanics and Cohesive Zone Models (CZM). By Fracture Mechanics, this is usually carried out by an energetic analysis. CZM enable the simulation of damage initiation and propagation. The tensile critical strain energy release rate (GIc) of adhesives is one of the most important parameters for predicting the joint strength. Two of the most commonly used tests are the Double-Cantilever Beam (DCB) and the Tapered Double-Cantilever Beam (TDCB). This work aims to assess the capability of the DCB and TDCB test to estimate the value of GIc of adhesive joints. Three types of adhesives with different levels of ductility are used, to study the accuracy of the typical data reduction methods under conditions that are not always consistent with Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) principles. For both test protocols, methods that do not require measurement of the crack length (a) during the test are evaluated. In the DCB test, these are the Compliance Calibration Method (CCM), Corrected Beam Theory (CBT) and Compliance-Based Beam Method (CBBM). The methods used in the TDCB test are the Simple Beam Theory (SBT), CCM and CBT. With few exceptions, the results were consistent between the different methods considered for each test. The discrepancy of results is higher when comparing the two types of tests, except for the brittle adhesive. It was concluded that the data reduction methods for the TDCB test are too conservative to measure GIc of ductile adhesives.