G26587 Vijay Kumar

Some Experimental and Numerical Studies on
Evaluation of Adhesive Bond Integrity of

Composite Lap Shear Joints
A Thesis
Submitted for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the Faculty of Engineering
By
Vijaya kumar R L
Department of Aerospace Engineering

Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore - 560 012
India
July 2014
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to my thesis advisors Prof. C R L Murthy and Dr. M R Bhat, I owe my

immense gratitude for their valuable guidance, their patience, advice, lucid explanations,
encouragement at every step of my work which made it an intensely educative and
valuable experience. Working with them has been a pleasant experience throughout the
course of my research work.
I am obliged to thank the chairman, Department of Aerospace Engineering and the
Director, Indian Institute of Science for providing me excellent facilities during the course
of my work. I sincerely thank the faculty of the Department of Aerospace Engineering for
their encouragement and help.
I deem it my privilege to thank my friend Dr. Gangadharan for his suggestions and
help in conducting experiments and computations. I am thankful to Prof. Suhasini gururaja
for her immense help during my work. I express my thanks to Mr. Ranganatha H N for his
help in preparing samples, moral support and encouragement. I also am indebted to thank
Mr. Sampathkumar, for his continuous support and help throughout the course of the
work.
I thank my friends Srikanth, Vivek, Ganesh, Keshav, Shivanand Bhavikatti who
made my research life in IISc pleasurable. I also thank Venkat, Prashant, S L Murthy,
Pradeep, Shruthi, Shashi, Sanjai, Naveen, Akshatha, Sandeep, Surya, Naresh, Binoy,
Saurab, Nida ali & Vishak for their help. I express my gratitude to all the staff of the
department who helped me directly or indirectly.
Last but not the least I would specially thank my parents and wife for their
continuous support and encouragement.
Vijaya kumar R L
i
Abstract
Adhesive bonding which has been in use for long as a traditional joining method has
gained ground in the last couple of decades due to the introduction of advanced composite
materials into the aerospace industry. Bonded structures have advantages such as high
corrosion and fatigue resistance, ability to join dissimilar materials, reduced stress
concentration, uniform stress distribution, good damping characteristics etc. They also
have certain limitations like environmental degradation, existence of defects like pores,
voids and disbonds, difficulty in maintenance and repair etc. A serious drawback in the
use of adhesively bonded structures has been that there are no established comprehensive
non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques for their evaluation. Further, a reliable
evaluation of the effect of the existing defects on strength and durability of adhesive joints
is yet to be achieved. This has been a challenge for the research and development
community over several decades and hence, been the motivation behind this piece of
research work. Under the scope of the work carried out in the thesis, some of the primary
factors such as the existence of defects, degradation of the adhesive, stress and strain
distribution in the bonded region etc., have been considered to study the bond integrity in
composite to composite lap shear joints.
The problem becomes complex if all the parameters affecting the adhesive joint are
varied simultaneously. Taking this into consideration, one of the key parameters affecting
the bond quality, viz., the adhesive layer degradation was chosen to study its effect on the
bonded joint. The epoxy layer was added with different, definite amount of Poly vinyl
alcohol (PVA) to arrive at sets of bonded joint specimens with varied adhesive layer
properties. A thorough review of different non destructive testing methods applied to this
particular problem showed that ultrasonic wave based techniques could be the right
choice.
To start with, preliminary experimental investigations were carried on
unidirectional glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP-epoxy) lap joints. The adhesive joints
were subjected to non destructive evaluation (NDE) using ultrasonic through transmission
and pulse echo techniques as also low energy digital X-ray techniques. The results
obtained showed a variation in reflected and transmitted ultrasonic pulse amplitude with
bond quality. Digital X-Ray radiography technique showed a variation in the intensity of
transmitted x-rays due to variation in the density of adhesive. Standard mechanical tests
revealed that the addition of PVA decreased the bond strength. A plot of coefficient of
reflection from the first interface and the bond strength showed a linear correlation
between them.
After obtaining a cursory feel and understanding of the parameters involved with
the preliminary experiments on GFRP adhesive joints which yielded interesting and
ii
Abstract iii
encouraging results, further work was carried on specimens made out of autoclave cured
carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP)-epoxy bonded joints. Normal incidence ultrasound
showed a similar trend. Analyses of the Acoustic Emission (AE) signals generated indicate
early AE activity for degraded joints compared to healthy joints. Literary evidences
suggest that the ultrasonic shear waves are more sensitive to interfacial degradation. An
attempt was made to use oblique incidence ultrasonic interrogation using shear waves. The
amplitude of reflected shear waves from the interface increased with an increase in
degradation. Further, a signal analysis approach in the frequency domain revealed a shift
in the frequency minimum towards lower range in degraded samples. This phenomenon
was verified using analytical models. An inversion algorithm was used to determine the
interfacial transverse stiffness which decreased significantly due to increase in
degradation.
Conventional ultrasonic evaluation methods are rendered ineffective when a direct
access to the test region is not possible; a different approach with guided wave techniques
can be explored in this scenario. Investigations on CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints using
Lamb waves showed a decrease in the amplitude of ‘So’ mode in degraded samples.
Theoretical dispersion curves exhibited a similar trend. Frequency domain studies on the
received modes using Gabor wavelet transform showed a negative shift in frequency with
increased degradation. It was also observed that the maximum transmission loss for the
most degraded sample with 40 percent PVA occurred in the range of 650 – 800 kHz. Non
linear ultrasonic (NLU) evaluation revealed that the nonlinearity parameter (β) increased
with increased degradation.
Kissing bonds are most commonly occurring type of defects in adhesive joints and
are very difficult to characterize. A recent non-contact imaging technique called digital
image correlation (DIC) was tried to evaluate composite adhesive joints with varied
percentage of inserted kissing bond defects. The results obtained indicate that DIC can
detect the kissing bonds even at 50 percent of the failure load.
In addition, to different experimental approaches to evaluate the bonded joint
discussed above, the effect of degradation on the stresses in the bond line region was
studied using analytical and numerical approach. A linear adhesive beam model based on
Euler beam theory and a nonlinear adhesive beam model based on Timoshenko beam
theory were used to determine the adhesive peel and shear stress in the joint. Digital image
correlation technique was used to experimentally obtain the bond line strains and
corresponding stresses were computed assuming a plane strain condition. It was found that
the experimental stresses followed a similar trend to that predicted by the two analytical
models. A maximum peel stress failure criterion was used to predict failure loads. A
failure mechanism was proposed based on the observations made during the experimental
work. It was further shown that the critical strain energy release rate for crack initiation in
a healthy joint is much higher compared to a degraded joint.
The analytical models become cumbersome if a larger number of factors have to be
taken into account. Numerical methods like finite element analysis are found to be
promising in overcoming these hurdles. Numerical investigation using 3D finite element
Abstract iv
analysis was carried out on CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints. The adherend – adhesive
interface was modeled using connector elements whose stiffness properties as well as the
bulk adhesive properties for joints with different amounts of PVA were determined using
ultrasonic inspection method. The peel and shear stress variation along the adhesive bond
line showed a similar trend as observed with the experimental stress distribution (DIC) but
with a lesser magnitude. A parametric study using finite element based Monte-Carlo
simulation was carried out to assess the effect of variation in various joint parameters like
adhesive modulus, bondline thickness, adherend geometrical and material properties on
peel and shear stress in the joint. It was found that the adhesive modulus and bond line
thickness had a significant influence on the magnitude of stresses developed in the bond
line.
Thus, to summarize, an attempt has been made to study the bond line integrity of a
composite epoxy adhesive lap joint using experimental, analytical and numerical
approaches. Advanced NDE tools like oblique incidence ultrasound, non linear ultrasound,
Lamb wave inspection and digital image correlation have been used to extract parameters
which can be used to evaluate composite bonded joints. The results obtained and reported
in the thesis have been encouraging and indicate that in specific cases where the bond line
thickness and other relevant parameters if can be maintained or presumed reasonably non
variant, it is possible to effectively evaluate the integrity of a composite bonded joint.
Contents
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
List of Figures x
List of Tables xv
Abbreviations xvi
Nomenclature xvii
List of Publications from this thesis xix
1 Introduction
1.1 Adhesive joints 1
1.2 Advantages and limitations of adhesive joints 1
1.3 Defining the Adhesive bond 2
1.4 Factors governing the strength of a joint 4
1.4.1 Adhesives 4
1.4.2 Substrate 5
1.4.3 Bondline thickness 6
1.4.4 Surface condition 7
1.4.5 Joint design and geometry 8
1.4.6 Service temperature and moisture 9
1.5 Testing of adhesive joints 11
1.6 Failure modes of adhesive joints 12
1.6.1 Cohesive failure 12
1.6.2 Interfacial failure 12
1.6.3 Miscellaneous failure modes 12
1.7 Motivation 13
1.8 Organization of the thesis. 14
2 Non destructive testing and evaluation of adhesive joints

2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Defects in bonded joints 16
2.3 NDT techniques for inspection of bonded structures 18
v
Contents vi
2.3.1 Low frequency NDT techniques 18

2.3.2 Optical techniques 18
2.3.3 Thermography 19
2.3.4 Radiography 19
2.3.5 Magnetic resonance imaging 19
2.3.6 Dielectric method 20
2.3.7 Eddy sonic inspection 20
2.3.8 Acoustic emission 20
2.4 Ultrasonic methods 20
2.4.1 Time domain bulk wave techniques 20
2.4.1.1 Pulse-Echo method 21
2.4.1.2 Through transmission method 24
2.4.2 Ultrasonic Spectroscopy 25
2.4.2.1 Resonance 26
2.4.3 Bond Testers 27
2.4.3.1 Fokker bond tester 27
2.4.3.2 MIZ-21SR multi mode bond tester 27
2.4.4 Guided waves 28

2.4.5 Non linear ultrasound 28
2.5 Summary 29
3 Non destructive evaluation of degradation in GFRP-

Epoxy-GFRP adhesive joints.
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 GFRP-Epoxy adhesive joint samples 32
3.3 Ultrasonic inspection 33
3.3.1 Ultrasonic through transmission method 33
3.3.2 Ultrasonic pulse echo method 35
3.4 Digital X-Ray radiography 41
3.5 Mechanical testing of adhesive joints 42
3.6 Summary 45
Contents vii
4 Normal incidence ultrasonic inspection of CFRP-

Epoxy-CFRP adhesive joints.
4.1 Introduction 47
4.2 Sample preparation 47
4.3 Normal incidence ultrasonic inspection 48
4.3.1 Ultrasonic through transmission method (immersion) 49
4.3.2 Ultrasonic pulse echo method (immersion) 50
4.3.3 Normal incidence ultrasonic inspection (Contact) 52
4.4 Real time digital x-ray radiography 54
4.5 Acoustic emission monitoring 56
4.6 Mechanical test results 60
4.7 Summary 62
5 Evaluation of degradation in composite adhesive joints

using oblique incidence ultrasonic technique
5.1 Introduction 64
5.2 Experimental setup and inspection 65
5.3 The transfer matrix method 70
5.4 Interface as an array of liquid filled disbonds 73
5.5 Determination of bulk and interfacial properties of an adhesive joint 78
5.5.1 Inversion Algorithm 79
5.5.2 Reconstruction of interfacial stiffness 81
5.6 Summary 82
6 Study of degradation in composite lap joints using

advanced ultrasonic techniques
6.1 Introduction 84
6.2 Dispersion curve considerations 85
6.2.1 Dispersion behavior in the bonded region 86
6.2.2 Dispersion behavior due to degradation in the adhesive 88
6.3 Experimental investigations 90
6.3.1 Time-frequency analysis 92
6.4 Finite element simulation 95

6.5 Nonlinear ultrasonic inspection 98
Contents viii
6.6 Nonlinear acoustic effect in materials 99

6.7 Experimental details 100
6.8 Summary 104
7 Evaluation of kissing bond in composite adhesive

lap joints using digital image correlation
7.1 Introduction 106
7.2 Materials and samples 107
7.3 Ultrasonic inspection 108
7.4 Digital image correlation 109
7.5 Shear Tests on Adhesive Joints with DIC 111
7.6 Results and discussion 112
7.7 Finite element analysis 115
7.8 Summary 118
8 Analytical and experimental analysis of composite

single Lap Joints
8.2 Analytical models for adhesively bonded joints 121
8.2.1 Average shear stress model 121
8.2.2 Volkersen’s shear lag analysis 121
8.2.3 Goland and Reissner 122
8.2.4 Limitations of classical analysis 124
8.2.5 Elastic-Plastic analysis of single lap joint (Hart-Smith) 124
8.2.6 Contributions towards analysis of composite adhesive Joints 125
8.3 Adhesive beam models 125

8.3.1 Linear adhesive beam model 126
8.3.2 Nonlinear adhesive beam model 129
8.4 Failure criterion based on continuum mechanics 132

8.5 Measurement of adhesive strains using DIC 133
8.5.1 Experimental procedure 133
8.6.1 Experimental strains from digital image correlation 134
8.6.2 Comparison between experimental and analytical stresses 139
Contents ix
8.6.3 Failure mechanism 144

8.7 Summary 145
9 Finite element analysis of composite single lap joint

9.2 Contributions towards finite element analysis of adhesive joints 148
9.3 Finite element modeling of composite single lap shear joints 149
9.4 Parametric studies on adhesive joints using Monte-Carlo method 152
9.5.1 Finite element analysis results 153
9.5.2 Monte-Carlo simulation results 160
9.5.2.1 Adhesive properties as random input variables 161
9.5.2.2 Substrate properties as random input variables 164
9.6 Summary 165
10 Conclusions and future work

10.1 Summary of conclusions 167
10.2 Contributions 172
10.3 Future work 173
References 175
Appendix A 199
Appendix B 204
List of Figures
1.1 Chemical structure of a typical epoxy 4

1.2 Effect of bond line thickness on tensile strength of an adhesive joint 6
1.3 Stress distribution in a single lap shear joint 8
1.4 Different joint geometries 9
1.5 Adherend shaping to decrease the peel stresses in lap joints 9
1.6 Different failure modes in bonded joints 13
2.1 Types of defects in an adhesive joint 17
2.2 Reflection and transmission from the interface between two media 21
2.3a.) Wave propagation in a three layered joint and a typical time domain
waveform 23
2.3b.) Reflection phase reversal due to ultrasonic wave travel through media
with different densities 23
2.4 Time domain waveform of a partially bonded adhesive joint 24
2.5 Resonance method 26
2.6 Principle of multi-mode bond tester 28
3.1 GFRP-Epoxy lap shear joint 32
3.2 GFRP adherends in the mold 33
3.3 Ultrasonic through transmission arrangement 34
3.4 Ultrasound image obtained in grey scale 34
3.5 Through transmission C-scans for different specimens 34
3.6 Variation of amplitude with different PVA percentages (ultrasonic through-
transmission inspection) 35
3.7 Received pulse showing reflection from different interfaces. 36
3.8 First interface C-Scans for different joints 36
3.9. Bulk adhesive samples prepared to measure adhesive property variation 37
3.10 Variation of amplitude of reflection from first interface with different
PVA percentages 38
3.11 Second interface C-Scans for different Specimens 39
3.12 Variation of amplitude of reflection from Second interface with different
PVA percentages. 39
3.13 Back wall echo C-Scans for different Specimens 40
3.14 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the bottom surface with
different PVA percentages 40
3.15 X-ray radiography images of different specimens 41
3.16 Variation of average intensity of the digital X-Ray images with respect to
different PVA percentages. 42
x
List of figures xi
3.17 Adhesive joints under load. 42

3.18 Loading configuration without and with spacers 43
3.19 Variation of shear strength with different PVA Percentages 43
3.20 Failure surface of adhesive joints 44
3.21 Correlation between amplitude of reflection from first interface and
average shear strength of lap shear joints. 44
3.22 Correlation between NDE parameters, average shear strength of lap shear joints
and degradation. 45
4.1 Single lap adhesive joints with CFRP substrates 48
4.2 Ultrasonic through transmission images for different joints 49
4.3 Variation of ultrasonic through transmission amplitude with different
PVA percentages 50
4.4 Ultrasonic pulse showing reflections from different interfaces 50
4.5 C-Scan images for the first interface of different joints 51
4.6 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the first interface for different joints 51
4.7 C-Scan images for the back surface of different joints 52
4.8 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the back surface for different joints 52
4.9 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the first interface (contact method) 53
4.10 Normalized amplitude of reflection from the back surface of
adhesive joint (contact method) 53
4.11 Normalized amplitude of the received pulse (through transmission) 54
4.12 X-Ray images (with pseudo colors) for a healthy CFRP joint and
a joint with edge disbond. 55
4.13 X-Ray images for different adhesive joint samples 55
4.14 Variation of average intensity of X-rays for different joints 56
4.15 Mechanical loading of CFRP adhesive joint samples 57
4.16 Acoustic emission hits versus shear strength for different CFRP adhesive lap joints 58
4.17 Acoustic emission cumulative hits and energy versus percentage PVA 59
4.18 Percentage of failure load at which emission was first observed for different
adhesive joints 60
4.19 Load displacement curves for different adhesive joint samples 60
4.20 Variation of shear strength of adhesive joints for different PVA percentages 61
4.21 Correlation between NDE parameters, average shear strength of lap shear
joints and degradation. 62
5.1 Oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection 65
5.2 Ultrasonic waveforms from oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection 65
5.3 Variation of reflection amplitude of shear wave from the first interface of the joint 66
5.4 Experimental spectra of reflected wave from the adhesive layer (5MHz) 67
5.5 Spectra of the reflected signal form oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection (20MHz) 67
5.6 Failure surface of different adhesive joints 68
5.7 Frequency shift of reflection minimum with average percentage interfacial failure area 69
5.8 Frequency shift of reflection minimum with average shear strength of adhesive joint 69
List of figures xii
5.9 Adhesive joint modeled as a three layered plate 70

5.10 Amplitude of reflection coefficient for transverse waves (transfer matrix model) 72
5.11 Magnified (10x) image of fractured surface of an adhesive joint with 40% PVA 73
5.12 Interface as an array of circular disbond 74
5.13 Reduction of transverse interfacial stiffness (Kt) with interfacial failure area 75
5.14 Adhesive joint model with interfaces 75
5.15 Shift in the reflection minima due to variation of interfacial transverse stiffness (Kt) 77
5.16 Reconstruction procedure 81
5.17 Variation of interfacial transverse stiffness Kt with different percentage of PVA 82
6.1 Phase velocity dispersion curves for a unidirectional CFRP laminate
(2.5mm thick, 14 layers) along the fiber direction 85
6.2 Schematic of Lamb wave propagation across a single lap joint 86
6.3 Phase velocity dispersion curves for the bonded region 88
6.4 Phase velocity dispersion curves in bonded region for a healthy sample (H) and
degraded sample (P40) 89
6.5 CFRP adhesive joints with PZT disk sensors bonded on either edge 90
6.6 Experimental amplitude versus time plots for the CFRP-Epoxy adhesive joints
with different bond quality 90
6.7 Variation of attenuation (imaginary part of wave number) for fundamental modes 92
6.8 Gabor wavelet transform scalogram of experimental signals 93
6.9 Variation of wavelet coefficients with Time and Frequency 94
6.10 Transmission loss in P40 sample as compared to a healthy sample 94
6.11 Finite element model of a single lap shear joint 95
6.12 Simulated amplitude versus time plots for the CFRP-Epoxy adhesive joints with
different bond quality 96
6.13 Decay in normalized wave amplitude with percentage PVA as seen in
experiment and finite element simulation. 97
6.14 Different stages of wave propagation in the joint 97
6.15 Experimental setup for nonlinear ultrasonic inspection of adhesive joints 100
6.16 Received time domain signals for a healthy sample and degraded P40 sample 101
6.17 Variation of the second harmonic amplitude (A2) with fundamental harmonic
(A1)2 at different levels of input voltage 103
6.18 Variation of the nonlinearity parameter (β) with PVA percentage 103
6.19 Variation of the nonlinearity parameter (β) with average shear strength of the
CFRP joints 104
7.1 GFRP adhesive single lap joint sample 107
7.2 Bonded region with planted kissing bond 107
7.3 Ultrasonic C-scans for different adhesive joint samples 108
7.4 Principle of digital image correlation 109
7.5 Experimental setup used for DIC and speckle pattern created on surface of
bonded joint 111
7.6 DIC strain field (εyy) images for a healthy adhesive joint 112
List of figures xiii
7.7 DIC strain field (εyy) images for a K25 adhesive joint 113
7.10 Mesh pattern in the FE model and applied boundary conditions 116
7.11 Finite element results at 50 % of failure load for different joints 118
8.1 Deformation in single lap joints with rigid adherends 121
8.2 Deformation in single lap joints with elastic adherends 122
8.3 Deformation in single lap joints (Goland and Reissner) 122
8.4 A single lap joint-geometric and applied load details 126
8.5 Free body diagram of a single lap joint based on linear Euler beam theory 126
8.6 Free body diagram of a single lap joint with nonlinear overlap 130
8.7 Speckle pattern created over the lateral surface of the joint 133
8.8 Shear strain εxy distribution in the bond line region of a healthy joint 134
8.9 Peel strain εxx distribution in the bond line region of a healthy joint 135
8.10 Bonded region of a healthy adhesive joint 135
8.11 Adhesive joint failure mechanism and fractured surfaces 136
8.12 Shear strain εxy distribution in the bond line region of a degraded P40 joint 137
8.13 Peel strain εxx distribution in the bond line region of a P40 joint 137
8.14 Variation of adhesive peel strain (εxx) at the joint edge with applied load 138
8.15 Variation of adhesive peel strain (εxx) in the bond line region (DIC) 138
8.16 Variation of adhesive shear strain (εxy) in the bond line region (DIC) 139
8.17 Variation of adhesive peel stress along the bond line region (theoretical result) 140
8.18 Variation of adhesive shear stress along the bond line region (theoretical result) 141
8.19 Comparison of experimental and theoretical stresses for a healthy joint 142
8.20 Comparison of experimental and analytical models for a degraded sample
with 20 percent PVA (P20) 142
8.21 Comparison of experimental and analytical models for a degraded sample
with 40 percent PVA (P40) 143
8.22 Failure load comparison between analytical models and experimental work. 144
8.23 J-integral for adhesive joints with different amounts of PVA 145
9.1 Mesh pattern used for adhesively bonded single lap shear joints 150
9.2 Boundary conditions and constraints for the single lap shear joints 151
9.3 Deformed CFRP-epoxy adhesive joint 153
9.4 Distribution of peel stress and shear stress along the bond line 154
9.5 Variation of stress along the bond line of a healthy joint 155
9.6 Variation of stress along the bond line for a degraded joint with 20 percent PVA 156
9.7 Variation of stress along the bond line of a degraded sample with 40 percent PVA 157
9.8 Distribution of peel stress across the joint width for a healthy sample 158
9.9 Variation of adhesive peel stress across the adhesive thickness 159
9.10 Failure load predicted by FEA for adhesive joints with different percentage
of PVA as compared to test average. 159
9.11 J-integral for adhesive joints with different percentage of PVA 160
List of figures xiv
9.12 Probability density function and cumulative distribution function of the

input variable (adhesive elastic modulus) 161
9.13 Relative frequency histogram of peel stress and shear stress 162
9.14 Cumulative distribution function of peel stress and shear stress 162
9.15 Probability density function and cumulative distribution function of the
input variable (Bond line thickness) 163
9.16 Relative frequency histogram of peel stress and shear stress
(Due to variation in bond line thickness) 164
9.17 Variation in peel stress when adherend thickness is given as random
input variable 165
List of Tables
1.1 Surface preparation techniques commonly employed in adhesive bonding 7

2.1 Summary of NDT methods used in the inspection of adhesive joints 29
3.1 Density, velocity and acoustic impedance values for the bulk adhesive samples 37
3.2 Reflection and transmission coefficients for different adhesive joints 38
4.1 Details of adhesive joint sample sets 48
4.2 Acoustic emission data for different adhesive joints 57
5.1 Summary of experimental results 68
5.2 Material properties used in computation of transverse stiffness 75
5.3 Material property values determined using ultrasonic inspection 79
6.1 Material properties considered in plotting the dispersion curves for CFRP laminate 86
6.2 Properties of the CFRP substrate and the epoxy adhesive considered in GMM 88
6.3 Material properties of the CFRP adherend and the epoxy adhesive considered
in finite element modeling. 95
7.1 Details of the adhesive joint samples prepared 108
7.2 Experimental and digital image correlation results 115
7.3 Material properties used in finite element analysis of adhesive joints 116
7.4 Comparison of experimental and finite element results 117
9.1 Properties of CFRP adherend 150
9.2 Properties of the epoxy adhesive used in CAE 151
9.3 Resulting peel and shear stress – statistics of the random output parameters 161
9.4 Resulting peel and shear stress variation due to variation in bond line thickness 164
9.5 Resulting peel and shear stress variation due to variation in adherend properties 165
xv
Abbreviations
GFRP Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic

CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
PVA Poly Vinyl Alcohol
NDT Non Destructive Testing
NDE Non Destructive Evaluation
TAST Thick Adherend Shear Test Method
DIC Digital Image Correlation
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
FFT Fast Fourier Transform
AE Acoustic Emission
PRR Pulse Repetition Rate
GMM Global Matrix Method
GWT Gabor Wavelet Transform
FEM Finite Element Method
ETFE Ethylene Tetra Fluoro Ethylene
CLPT Classical Laminated Plate Theory
xvi
Nomenclature
Tg Glass transition temperature
Zi Acoustic impedance of the medium ‘i'
ρ Density of the medium
c Bulk longitudinal wave velocity
λD Wave length of the standing wave
D Thickness of the joint
v Velocity of sound in the adherend
fD Resonant frequency of the joint
E' Apparent modulus of the adhesive
t Adhesive layer thickness
T Time of travel
S Thickness of the sample
k Bulk modulus of a fully cured adhesive
Shear modulus of a fully cured adhesive
Static viscosity of the adhesive
Circular frequency
ko Bulk modulus of a degraded adhesive
σy Stress normal to the interface
τyz Shear stress at the interface
uz Displacement in the transverse direction
uy Displacement in the normal direction
Kt Transverse interfacial stiffness
Kn Normal interfacial stiffness
E" Effective young’s modulus
υ Poisson’s ratio
Ad Interfacial failure area
KL Longitudinal wave number
KT Shear wave number
CL Longitudinal wave velocity
CT Transverse wave velocity
ηL Longitudinal damping parameter
ηT Transverse damping parameter
Gs Gabor shaping factor
xvii
Nomenclature xviii
E Young’s modulus of a material

β Nonlinearity parameter
A1 Amplitude of initial sound pressure
uo Initial displacement of the excited wave
u Displacement
x Propagation distance
A2 Magnitude of the second harmonic component
λ Wavelength
Ea Elastic modulus of the adhesive
N Axial force
M Bending moment
Q Transverse force
V Shear force
D1 Bending stiffness of the adherend
A1 Extensional stiffness of the adherend
Ga Shear modulus of the adhesive
ta Thickness of the adhesive layer
K Bending moment factor
σmax Maximum peel stress
τmax Maximum shear stress
σvon Von Mises stress
εe Equivalent plastic strain
εt Equivalent tensile strain
γ Shear strain
γp Plastic shear failure strain
D0 Bending stiffness of the joint region
Jc J-Integral
List of publications from this thesis
Journal publications
1. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Quality Assessment of Composite
Adhesively Bonded joints by Non-linear Ultrasonic Method, Journal of Non
destructive Testing & Evaluation 11(2) (2012) 37-41.
2. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Evaluation of kissing bond in
composite adhesive lap joints using digital image correlation: Preliminary studies,
International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 42 (2013) 60-68.
3. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Some studies on evaluation of

degradation in composite adhesive joints using ultrasonic techniques, Ultrasonics
53 (2013) 1150-1162.
4. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Study of Degradation in Composite
Lap Shear Joints using Guided Wave Technique. Materials Evaluation 71(9)
(2013) 1071-1080. (ASNT outstanding paper award 2014)
5. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Experimental analysis of composite
single-lap joints using digital image correlation and comparison with theoretical
models. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 32(23) (2013) 1858-1876.
6. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Non Destructive Evaluation of
Degradation in Bond Line of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite Adhesive
Lap Joints. International Journal of Aerospace Innovations 5(3-4) (2013) 61-72.
7. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Analysis of composite single lap
joints using numerical and experimental approach. Journal of Adhesion Science
and Technology, 28(10) (2014) 893-914.
8. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat. Probabilistic stress variation studies on composite

single lap joint using Monte Carlo simulation. Composite Structures 121 (2015)
351–361.
Conference publications
Adhesively Bonded Joints. National seminar and exhibition on Non-Destructive
Evaluation, Vadodara, Nov 28-30, 2007.
xix
List of publications xx

Adhesive Bond Quality in Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Single Lap Shear Joints.
IISc Centenary International Conference and Exhibition on Aerospace
Engineering ICEAE 2009, Bangalore, India, May 18-22, 2009.
3. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy, Non Destructive Evaluation of

Adhesively Bonded Carbon Fiber Reinforced composite lap joints with varied
bond quality, in: D.O.Thompson, Dale.E.Chementi (Eds.) Review of Progress in
Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, 31B, American Institute of Physics,
Melville, New York, 2012, pp 1276-1283.
4. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy, NDE OF Adhesively bonded

composite lap joints. National Seminar Cum Exhibition on –NDE – Delhi, India,
December 10-12, 2012.
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Adhesive joints

The advent of composite structures in aerospace and automotive industries necessitated the
need for new joining techniques. Conventional mechanical joining methods using rivets
and fasteners needed holes to be drilled in the structure which become potential sites for
failure initiation due to stress concentration and edge delamination. Methods like welding,
brazing and soldering are confined to metallic structures. Structures of late are made of
different materials, often, a combination of composite and metallic materials in which
adhesive joints are being increasingly used. There is a wide range of adhesives available
and selection of an adhesive depends upon the joint to be executed, substrates to be joined,
service environment etc. Even complex structures can be satisfactorily assembled using
adhesives provided the joint is well designed and executed. The major factors determining
the integrity of an adhesive bonded joint are selection of appropriate adhesive, joint
design, preparation of the bonding surfaces, strict quality control in production and if
feasible, condition monitoring in service.
The driving force for the increased use of adhesives in the recent past is the
widespread use of composite materials in aerospace structures although this has
precipitated an increasing number of other applications [1]. Since the introduction of fiber
reinforced composite structures in the aerospace domain, air vehicles have become
increasingly dependent on these materials to the extent that recent aircraft structures
consist of up to 60 percent of fiber composites. Many times these structures are highly
stressed and exposed to aggressive environments during service, particularly to moisture
and high temperatures. Under these circumstances, failure of a bonded joint in the
structure can be catastrophic. Thus, the role of NDE in assessing the bond integrity cannot
be over emphasized.
1.2 Advantages and limitations of adhesive joints

There are several reasons for the rapid expansion in usage of adhesive bonding to
assemble aircraft and automotive structures in the recent past. There are obvious benefits
in the use of an adhesive bond over other fastening techniques as listed below;
Reduced weight and part count.

Formation of a continuous bond resulting in stronger and stiffer structures.
Uniform stress distribution on loading and reduced local stress concentrations.
1
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
The ability to join dissimilar materials.

Excellent fatigue resistance and vibration damping.
Accurate bonding of even small parts.
Bonding of larger area without inducing stresses.
Little finishing if required.
With so many reasons in favor of adhesive bonding, there are few limitations which need
to be addressed before all of these can be realized in a wider range of applications.
New production and quality procedures must be developed and implemented.

Evaluation of a bonded joint for its strength and endurance is a tough challenge.
Quality of bonded joints and their properties depend upon a large number of
variables.
Durability is unpredictable and must be determined experimentally for each
application.
Surface preparation is critical to the success of the operation and complete wetting
of the substrate must be ensured.
Identification of defects by NDT requires a great deal of skill and experience,
tolerance to defects is impossible to predict in anything but a semi-quantitative
manner.
Increasing the service temperature decreases the bond strength.
Bonded structures are often difficult to dismantle for in-service repair.
1.3 Defining the adhesive bond.

Adhesion is defined as the holding together of two surfaces by interfacial forces that will
resist separation [2]. For an adhesive to bond, it is required to flow and wet the surface of
the substrate. The surface energy of the adhesive must therefore be lower than that of the
substrate to ensure good wetting, the first stage in forming an adhesive bond. The second
stage is the generation of intrinsic adhesion forces across the interface. The mechanism of
adhesion is still not fully understood and is a matter of debate till date. There are three
primary mechanisms of adhesion
a.) Mechanical interlocking: Mechanical interlocking occurs when cured adhesive

becomes trapped in the irregular surface of the substrate. These surface asperities
act as a lock to the relative movement of the substrates, although attempts have
been made to show that attainment of good adhesion is possible between optically
smooth surfaces [3]. It is frequently observed that the joint strength increased with
substrate surface roughness, which can be attributed to factors like removal of
weak surface materials, improved wetting and larger surface area for bonding.
These factors emphasis the need for a good surface treatment procedure prior to the
bonding process.
b.) Diffusion: Adhesive and substrate may diffuse across the interface. Adhesive may
diffuse into the surface of a porous substrate and cure. The inter diffusion of the
polymer chains of the adhesive requires the adhesive and substrate to be mutually
soluble. Such conditions are thought to occur in the solvent welding of polymers
but are not considered capable of contributing significantly to the intrinsic strength
of the bond. Inter diffusion can also be promoted in polymer/metal bonds via pores
and other surface defects in the substrates. However, this effect tends to enhance
the bond by promoting adsorption of the adhesive rather than by the diffusion
process.
c.) Adsorption: Intimate contact between adhesive and substrate result in adsorption,
electrostatic and molecular attraction processes established between the atoms and
molecules of the adhesive and substrate. The most common of these are vander
Waal‟s forces and, to a lesser extent, hydrogen bonding. These are referred to as
secondary bonds which are weak in nature. Additionally, chemical bonds like
covalent bond and ionic bonds may sometimes be formed across the interface. The
establishment of ionic, covalent, or metallic bonds is known as chemisorption or
formation of primary bonds which are considered to be stronger.
Any or all of the mechanisms may be responsible for the strength of a particular joint.
Often the strength of a joint is due to a combination of two or more mechanisms which
makes the analysis of a joint interface complicated. However, the mechanism of
adsorption has got wider acceptance in the field of structural bonding and often adhesive
strength is attributed to inter atomic forces that exist between the substrate and the
adhesive.
Adhesive strength: Adhesive strength is described as the force required to pull the
adhesive cleanly away from the surface of the substrate. One of the factors
influencing the strength of an adhesive joint is the internal strength (cohesive
strength) of a cured adhesive and that of the substrates. The term cohesive strength
is used to differentiate from adhesion which is defined between the adhesive and a
substrate.
Structural bonding: Structural bonding is a term used to define a bond where it

performs a load bearing function. This allows the forces within a structure to be
transmitted from one member to another through the joint. The purpose of the
adhesive in this case is to facilitate this load transfer. The mechanics of load
transfer in an adhesive joint is given in detail by Dillard [4]. Despite an ever
increasing amount of research aimed at defining the properties of the adhesively
bonded joint, majority of the data is qualitative at best, necessitating extensive

testing and prototype evaluation. Hence, many test methods have been developed
to evaluate the properties of bonded structures; De Vries and Adams [5] have given
a detailed illustration of these test methods.
1.4 Factors governing the strength of a joint.

There are a number of factors which influence the strength of an adhesive joint. Of these
the important ones are;
- Adhesive used.
- Substrate.
- Bond line thickness.
- Surface preparation.
- Joint design and geometry
- Service temperature and moisture
- Other service dependent factors like solvents, chemicals (acids and alkalis), UV
radiation etc
1.4.1 Adhesives
An adhesive is a compound that adheres or bonds two items together. Adhesives may
come from either natural or synthetic sources. Some modern adhesives are extremely
strong, and are becoming increasingly important in assembling aerospace and automotive
structures. There are three main types of adhesives which are widely used.
Epoxies: Epoxy resins are characterized by the possession of two or more epoxy
functional groups per molecule (Figure1.1). They allow great versatility in
formulation as there are many resins and hardeners available commercially.
Epoxies form very strong bonds with a variety of substrates and are particularly
useful in joining metal/metal and metal/polymer structures. They are available as
one/two-part liquids, thixotropic pastes or as films. Some two part adhesives may
be cured at room temperature whereas the single part and film systems tend to be
heat cured. When an amine hardener is added to an epoxy resin the epoxy group in
the resin reacts with amine group in hardener resulting in a chain reaction and
forms a strong bond. Epoxy resins in general have low peel strengths compared to
their shear strengths and have low flexibility.
Figure1.1 Chemical structure of a typical epoxy [2]

Anaerobic adhesives: Anaerobic adhesives are single-component materials which

cure at room temperature when deprived of contact with oxygen. The curing
component in the liquid remains inactive for as long as it is in contact with
atmospheric oxygen. If the adhesive is deprived of oxygen within the mating parts
of a bond the curing occurs rapidly. The capillary action of the low viscosity liquid
adhesive allows it to fill any gaps in the joint. They are often referred to as locking
compounds, being used to secure, seal and retain turned, threaded or similarly
close fitting parts. Anaerobic adhesives are based on synthetic acrylic resins which
are characterised by high shear strength, good temperature and solvent resistance.
Cyanoacrylate adhesives: Cyanoacrylate adhesives, known colloquially as

„„super glues‟‟, cure through reaction with the alkalinity, in the form of moisture,
held on the surfaces to be bonded. As they have limited gap filling ability they
require close fitting joints and generally cure in few seconds. This speed of action
is of significance since it allows the joining of intricate parts without the need for
complex jigs and fixtures. Cyanoacrylates are particularly suited to small
polymeric components and elastomers.
In addition to these, there are other types of adhesives in use like acrylics which can
tolerate dirtier and less prepared surfaces, polyurethane adhesives which have high
resistance to fatigue, impact with better durability, silicone adhesives which have high
temperature resistance (up to 350°C) but low strength, phenolics with good strength
retention capabilities, polyamides with good thermal stability and Bismaleimides having
rigid, low peel properties.
Selection of the most suitable adhesive for a given application is the key to the
successful design of an adhesive joint. Variety of adhesives is commercially available and
selection process is difficult as there is no universal adhesive that will fulfill every
application. However, adhesive selection includes many factors like type and nature of the
substrates to be bonded, adhesive application and curing method, expected stresses and
environmental conditions that the joint will experience in service. The properties of the
adhesive like its modulus, density, thermal conductivity etc., also have a direct bearing on
the stresses developed [6] during load transfer and on the durability of bonded structure.
1.4.2 Substrate
The strength of a joint is also governed by the substrate used, its properties, thickness,
shape, length of joint overlap etc. One of the key advantages of adhesives is their ability to
join dissimilar materials. Materials like composites and plastics can be readily bonded to
metallic substrates [7]. The adhesive used should be compatible to the type of substrates to
be joined. A detailed insight into the effect of substrates on joint strength and performance
has been provided by Hart-Smith [8].
1.4.3 Bond line thickness

Another important aspect governing strength of a joint is the adhesive layer thickness or
bond line thickness. It is a general practice to have a thin adhesive layer without any
chance for bond starvation which translates into a bond line thickness of 0.05 mm to 0.2
mm. Bond strength will vary in this range due to the nature of adhesive, the substrates and
joint design [9]. Thicker adhesive bond lines often lead to higher void concentrations in
the joint and higher stresses at the corner because of the difficulty in keeping the loads
axial. Figure 1.2 shows the effect of bond line thickness on a steel-steel joint bonded using
an epoxy adhesive and cured with an amine hardener. The bond strength increases initially
with bond line thickness, reaches a maximum and asymptotically decreases thereafter
becoming fairly constant.
Adhesives are generally formulated to cure in thin sections since thicker sections
could change the curing properties and result in increased internal stresses and different
physical properties than those desired [10]. Substrates should be held parallel to ensure
uniformity in adhesive thickness across the bonded area; else the loading would not
remain aligned and lead to cleavage stresses in the adhesive joint. There are several
methods used for maintaining a constant, predetermined adhesive thickness. These
methods include adjusting the viscosity of the adhesive, application of a pre calculated
amount of pressure during cure, use of fixtures that are specifically designed for the
application, and to use shims or inserts like glass micro balloons within the bond line so
that a uniform, predetermined thickness can be maintained.
Figure 1.2 Effect of bond line thickness on tensile strength of an adhesive joint [9].
The effect of bond-line thickness on the stresses developed and on the joint strength has
been studied by many researchers. To mention a few, the role of bond line thickness on the
fracture toughness of adhesive joints has been studied by Lee et al [11]. They concluded
that as the bond-line thickness increases the fracture toughness decreases due to the
formation of additional failure zone at the interface. Analytical, numerical and
experimental study on the effect of bond-line thickness on adhesive failure has been
carried out by Fourney et al [9].
1.4.4 Surface condition

Surfaces play an important role in the bonding process and perhaps, the most important
aspect governing the quality of an adhesively bonded joint [12]. The formation of a
suitable surface chemistry is the most important step in the surface preparation process
because the integrity of this surface directly influences the durability of the adhesive bond
as pointed out by Davis and Bond [13]. The primary objective of the surface treatment is
to increase the surface energy of the adherend and removal of weak boundary layers.
Metallic substrates for example are often covered with a weak oxide scale which must be
removed prior to bonding. Polymeric materials often contain plasticizers and surface pre-
treatment of composite substrates becomes necessary due to the presence of mould
releasing agents. Other contaminants include dust, dirt, grease and oils. Surface pre-
treatment further serves to optimize the degree of contact between the adhesive and the
adherend. This can be achieved mechanically to increase the effective bonding area and
may be augmented by a chemical modification of the substrate surface layers [14, 15].
Surface treatment procedures may be divided into three major categories, mechanical,
chemical and energetic, each of which may be further subdivided into different techniques
as described in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. Surface preparation techniques commonly employed in adhesive bonding
Mechanical surface Chemical surface Energetic surface

preparation preparation preparation
Silicon Carbide abrasion Solvent degreasing
Plasma treatment
Grit Blasting Detergent washing
Corona discharge
Cryogenic blasting Etching
Flame
Soda/wet blasting Anodizing
Excimer laser
Peel ply primer
Mechanical abrasion is the most widely used surface preparation method being suitable for
almost all materials. Abrasion acts to remove the weak boundary layers and change the
topography of the substrate thereby increasing the bondable surface area on a microscopic
scale. It is further postulated that the roughened surface aids in the wetting action of the
adhesive and provides a modicum of mechanical „„keying‟‟ to augment the adhesive force.
However, the recommended surface preparation for composites is a light aluminum oxide
grit blast in dry nitrogen [13]. The abrasion should just remove the surface of the resin
without exposing fibers. Since the epoxy surface bonds well to other epoxies, no chemical
modification is required.
Experimental and theoretical investigations on the effect of surface roughness on
joint strength have been carried out by several investigators. Meyer and Rose [16]
introduced the „surface preparation model‟ for adhesive joints to study the interaction of
ultrasonic waves in the interface area to determine its strength. Dickstein et al [17, 18]
have studied the effect of surface roughness on ultrasonic features that can be used to
classify the adhesive joints based on interfacial condition. Variation in vibration damping
and frequency measurements due to different surface roughness has been studied by Yang
et al [19]. Dwyer et al [20] have given details of the use of ultrasound in investigating the
rough surface interfaces.
1.4.5 Joint design and geometry

Joint design and geometry plays a vital role in bonded structures in deciding their strength,
service life and mechanical behaviour under different types of loading conditions.
Adhesives have relatively superior compression and shear response compared to other
possible conditions such as tensile, peel-off and cleavage type of loading. The strength and
durability of a joint is a complex function of the stress concentrations set up by the applied
loads and operating conditions. In a single lap shear joint (Figure 1.3) there are two
predominant stresses, viz., peel stress and shear stress.
Figure1.3 Stress distribution in a single lap shear joint [21].
Both stresses have higher concentration at the edges due to geometrical discontinuity [21].
The peel stress tends to distort the joint and consequently weaken it. Any deflection of the
structure under load increases the peel stress component and may lead to premature
failure. Unsupported lap joints are one of the weakest configurations under peel load and
hence, call for other bond geometries like double strap joint, scarf joint, tapered double lap
joint etc., A wide variety of joints are available to the designer as discussed by Adams and
Wake [22] (Figure 1.4). Compared to single-lap shear joints, the double lap, the scarf, and
the strap lap joints are designed to decrease the peel stresses. However, single-lap joint is
the most common joint used mainly due to its simplicity and efficiency. Various
techniques have been adopted by researchers to improve the efficiency of the single-lap
joints. These include adherend shaping or altering the adherend geometry [23-25] (Figure
1.5), adhesive geometry [26, 27], and spew geometry [28-31].
Figure1.4 Different joint geometries [22]
Zeng and Sun [32] proposed a novel „wavy‟ lap joint configuration. In this joint, the
through thickness stresses at the edges of the overlap are compressive, which provided a
significant improvement in joint strength, particularly under fatigue. However,
geometrical changes have constraints when it comes to manufacturing.
Figure1.5 Adherend shaping to decrease the peel stresses in lap joints [24].
1.4.6 Service temperature and moisture

Adhesively bonded joints may be exposed to different environmental conditions during
their service life. The performance of adhesively bonded structures can considerably
deteriorate when exposed to such harsh environments [33]. These factors are considered
critical in determining the long-term durability of adhesively bonded joints and need to be
carefully identified and related to the type of service the material will perceive.
The environmental factors affecting the performance of a joint in service are
temperature and humidity. Prolonged exposure or even short-term exposure to elevated
temperatures may often produce irreversible chemical and physical changes within
adhesives. As the temperature increases, the bond strength decreases. Also, the moisture
absorbed in a polymeric material can lead to a wide range of effects, including
plasticization, swelling and degradation in its mechanical properties. At temperatures
below the glass transition temperature Tg, polymer property reduction is reversible upon
dehydration, whereas above Tg, the matrix properties are permanently degraded if the
cross links are broken.
In practice, thermal and structural loads, mismatch in properties of the adhesive
and adherends etc. can cause uneven stress distributions and deformations. For example,
adhesives with high curing temperatures may be unsuitable for some low temperature
applications because of large thermal stresses that develop when the joint cools down from
the curing temperature. Similarly, materials like carbon/epoxy which have low thermal
expansion, when bonded to metals, can produce differential thermal stresses.
Rastogi et al. [34] studied three-dimensional thermal stress distributions in
aluminum-to-composite, symmetric, double-lap joints subjected to uniform thermal loads.
They found that the joint corners are critical regions causing debond initiation. Owens and
Sullivan [35] studied stiffness loss due to crack growth in composite-to-aluminum joints.
They tested single-lap joints at room temperature and at -40°C at quasi-static conditions
and found that the joint stiffness is more affected by the response of the adherends to the
test temperature than by the modulus of the thin adhesive layer. The effect of thermal
stresses on performance and durability of a bonded joint have been studied and reported
by Sinha and Apalak [36, 37]. Chamis and Murthy [38] describe a step-by-step procedure
for the preliminary design of composite adhesive joints for use in hot/wet service
environments under static and cyclic loads.
The presence of moisture in adhesive joints not only weakens the physical and
chemical properties of the adhesive layer but also the interface between the adhesive and
the substrate [39, 40]. Kinloch [41] suggested a wide range of degradation mechanisms,
including plasticization, hydration, microcracking of the polymer, and fibre-matrix
interface weakening in composite joints. The degradation can be assessed by quasi-static
and fracture tests. Quasi-static tests on adhesives show a significant lowering of adhesive
strength and stiffness, often accompanied by an increase in ductility with increasing
moisture content [42].
Parker et al., [43-45] studied the effect of environment on carbon fiber-reinforced
plastic (CFRP) materials bonded with epoxy adhesives. They investigated the effect of
pre-bond moisture on strength of bonded joints by exposing dried adherend laminates to
humid environment before bonding. It is shown that moisture contained within the
composite prior to bonding can exert deleterious effect on joint performance. However,
drying of the composite adherend prior to bonding has been shown to alleviate these
deleterious effects and those drying procedures should form part of any prebond surface
treatment regime.
Many studies with attempts on life prediction of composite bonded joints have
been reported. One approach that has been extensively used to predict the durability of
adhesively bonded joints exposed to humid environments is the cohesive zone model [46-
50]. Hua et al. [51] proposed a strain-based failure model to deal with progressive
cohesive failure in ductile aluminium and composite single-lap adhesive bonded joints
subjected to range of environmental degradations. This model proposes prediction of not
only the failure loads of the joints but also the damage initiation and propagation in the
degraded adhesives.
Though in general various studies have been reported on the effects of
environment on some adhesive properties, it is necessary to address the performance of
specific adherend-adhesive combinations under specific set of conditions. For example, it
is known that moisture absorption results in varying degrees of plasticization, strength
loss, and increased ductility of some epoxy adhesives. However, evaluation and
quantification of effect of moisture on the fatigue and fracture properties of bonded joints
employing these adhesives is not established. Since different adhesive joints are systems
comprised of different types of adherends, adhesives, and interphase regions, the
performance of each of these components may strongly affect the performance of the joint.
Hence, knowledge of the behaviour of adhesives exposed to various environments must be
supplemented by knowledge of the behaviour of specific bonded systems.
1.5 Testing of adhesive joints

Before an adhesive can be specified for an application, screening tests should be
conducted to compare and evaluate the various adhesion parameters. This is particularly
true for structural adhesives where failures during actual use can have devastating
consequences. Properties of adhesives can vary greatly and an appropriate selection is
essential for a proper joint design. Thus, to determine the stresses and strains in adhesive
joints in a variety of configurations, it is necessary to characterize the adhesive behaviour
in terms of its mechanical properties, particularly the stress-strain curve and the modulus
[52]. The approaches used for determining the properties of bonded systems are the
measure of properties of bulk adhesive specimens and the use of specially designed joint
geometries with a thin bond line.
Currently there are many ASTM and ISO standards, which have been
recommended to analyze and experimentally verify adhesive properties. These standards
provide a basis for testing. Test methods that have been developed and used to obtain
properties of the adhesives include tensile tests, shear tests, compression, peel, durability
tests, and dynamic tests. The typical test for strength characterization is lap shear test.
Double cantilever beam test is used for the fracture toughness and wedge test is used for
the assessment of resistance to solvents.
Further, there are test methods to measure the shear properties of the adhesives,
such as the notched beam shear method, the notched plate shear method, torsion of bulk
material, butt torsion, and the thick-adherend shear test method (TAST). The TAST is
usually preferred for determining design parameters as the thick, rigid adherends reduce
the peel stresses. This leads to a state of stress that is predominantly shear. However, the
most widely used is the single-lap tension test. The failure mode of the single-lap joint is
seldom controlled by the shear strength of the adhesive but is largely the result of joint
deflections and rotations and induced peel stresses. Due to the rotation at the overlap, data
from a single overlap tension test specimen cannot be used to obtain adhesive shear design
data, but are often used for screening tests to compare several adhesive systems and the
effects of the environment on the adhesive properties in the selection process of the
adhesive.
1.6 Failure modes of adhesive joints

Failure modes in bonded joints depend upon the quality of the bond at each interface,
specimen geometry, and loading. They must be characterized to gain a full understanding
of the properties of the adhesive and the joint being investigated. When an adhesive joint
is subjected to a load, failure may occur at different locations (Figure 1.6) [53] based on
which failure can be classified as
1.6.1 Cohesive failure

Joint failure is said to be “cohesive” if a crack propagates in bulk adhesive. In this case the
surfaces of both substrates after failure will be covered by remnants of adhesive. The crack
may propagate within the adhesive layer or near an interface. The latter case of cohesive
failure is termed as “cohesive near the interface”.
1.6.2 Interfacial failure

The failure is said to be “adhesive” or “interfacial” when debonding occurs along the
interface between the adhesive and the substrate. In most cases, the occurrence of
interfacial fracture for a given adhesive goes along with low fracture toughness.
1.6.3 Miscellaneous failure modes

Besides the two modes briefed above there are other modes of failure such as
The mixed fracture mode which occurs when the crack propagates at some regions
in a cohesive and in others in an interfacial manner. Mixed fracture surfaces can be
characterized by certain percentage of cohesive and adhesive areas.
The alternating crack path fracture type occurs if the crack jumps from one
interface to the other.
Failure can also occur in the substrate if the adhesive bond is much stronger. In this
case the adhesive remains intact and is still bonded to one substrate and the
remnants of the other.
Figure1.6 Different failure modes in bonded joints [53]
Many researchers have experimentally investigated the influence of various parameters on

the failure behavior of composite bonded joints [54-68]. In these studies, the typical
bonding parameters considered are surface conditions (e.g. contamination, abrasion, and
plasma treatment), fillet, superposition length, bond-line thickness, surface ply angle,
stacking sequence, environmental conditions, and so on. However, estimation of bond
strength and failure prediction of the composite bonded joints is still a tough challenge.
1.7 Motivation
Single lap joint configuration is one of the most widely used joint types owing to its
simplicity and ease of manufacturing. Many versions of single lap joints are possible in a
bonded structure like the end lap, half lap, cross lap and dovetail crossed lap depending on
the geometry of the adherends. Lap joints can be found in many bonded structures like for
example; the spars, longitudinal stiffeners in the aircraft wings, doublers, stringers and
longerons in the fuselage etc. However, unsupported lap joints are one of the weakest
configurations under peel load and hence, call for the development of methods to improve
its efficiency and evaluate structural integrity. The mechanism and science of adhesion is
not yet completely understood due to the complexities involved owing to a number of
different variables. Strength of bonded joints is influenced by many factors like the
materials used as adhesive and adherend, bond-line thickness, surface preparation, joint
geometry, thickness of the substrate, service temperature, moisture, overlap length etc.,.
Non-availability of appropriate nondestructive testing techniques to evaluate the integrity
of bonded joints further complicates the issue. These limitations demand extensive
prototype testing and generating the structural history data base which is laborious, time
consuming and expensive. Thus, evaluation of integrity of adhesively bonded joints is a
tough challenge and hence, has been one of the most important and prime topics of
research in aerospace, automotive and other industries. In this context, developing
methods for predicting and assessing quality, durability and integrity of a bond at any
stage in its service life becomes highly important and valuable. To know whether the joint
can perform reliably under the intended loads and stresses the structure is subjected to, by
efficiently transferring the loads between different components of the assembly is thus
very challenging and involved. Therefore, these have been the main motivating factors to
formulate and investigate some key aspects with regard to a composite to composite single
lap bonded joint through experimental, analytical and numerical work under the scope of
the thesis.
1.8 Organization of the thesis

With the main objective of evaluating the bond integrity of composite lap shear joints
through non-destructive evaluation approach, the work formulated and carried out under
the scope of the thesis is organized and presented in 10 chapters as follows.
Chapter 1: Provides a brief, general introduction to the adhesively bonded joints, it gives
an overview of different adhesion mechanisms, inter-atomic forces and bond
configurations, factors influencing strength of an adhesive joint, failure of joints,
advantages and limitations of the bonded joints and also states the motivation and
objective of the current work.
Chapter 2: Gives a brief overview on different types of defects in adhesive joints,
different non destructive testing techniques available to detect and characterize these
defects. Special emphasis is given to ultrasonic methods as they are the most widely used
in the inspection of bonded structures.
Chapter 3: Details of preliminary experimental investigations carried out on different sets
of glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) adherend, epoxy adhesive bonded joints have been
discussed in this chapter. The results obtained from bond inspection using normal
incidence ultrasound, x-ray radiography etc have been laid out.
Chapter 4: This chapter presents details of experimental work carried out on carbon fiber
reinforced plastic (CFRP)-epoxy adhesive joint; both healthy as well as degraded.
Conventional NDE methods such as normal incidence ultrasonic inspection (both contact
and immersion) and Acoustic emission (AE) test details and results obtained during
mechanical loading of joints have been summarized.
Chapter 5: Provides details and results of oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection carried
out on different types of CFRP-epoxy bonded lap joints. The shift in the position of
reflection minima in the frequency domain observed has been explained using different
analytical models. Interfacial and bulk adhesive properties measured using ultrasonic
inspection methods and inversion algorithm has been summarized.
Chapter 6: Illustrates the Lamb wave inspection method for non destructive testing of
adhesive joints. The results obtained by testing CFRP-epoxy adhesive single lap joints and
by numerical methods have been summarized. Further, the fundamentals of nonlinear
ultrasound technique has been briefed along with details of the experimental work carried
out to evaluate the degradation in CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints.
Chapter 7: Explains the digital image correlation (DIC) procedure to detect and
characterize the kissing bonds in lap joints. It also brings out the limitations of
conventional and advanced ultrasonic methods in characterizing kissing bond and the
advantages of using DIC. A summary of results obtained has been provided.
Chapter 8: Gives details of experimental work carried out on different sets of CFRP-
epoxy adhesive lap joints to measure bond line normal and shear strains using digital
image correlation technique. Comparison of the experimental results has been made with
different analytical models.
Chapter 9: This chapter gives details of numerical modeling of adhesively bonded single
lap joints. Correlation with experimental and analytical models has been made. It also
illustrates the numerical probabilistic studies carried out on adhesive joints using Monte-
Carlo procedure.
Chapter 10: Presents the summary and conclusions drawn from the present study and
gives the scope for future work.
As can be observed from the contents presented in different chapters, four aspects have
been considered to evaluate the integrity of a bonded lap shear joint; a) estimation of
ultrasonic attenuation to assess the extent of degradation, b) detection and evaluation of
defects, c) assess the growth of localized defects, and d) estimate the stresses and strains
and their distribution. While the first three have been explored experimentally, the fourth
has been investigated through experimental, analytical and numerical methods. The four
aspects considered are complementary and accordingly the sequence of presentation in the
thesis has been designed taking into consideration the continuity and a smooth flow.
Chapter 2
Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation of Adhesive

Joints
2.1 Introduction
A general introduction to adhesive joints and their advantages over conventional joining
methods has been discussed in the previous chapter. It was brought out that one of the
major limitations in the use of bonded joints in a structure is the difficulty encountered in
estimating the bond strength and /or predicting potential performance after the structure
has been assembled. Further, once put into service, periodic inspection to assess the
residual strength and to predict life of these joints is a real challenge. Defects and damage
that can affect the performance of a bonded joint are different from those conventionally
encountered in structural components without a bonded joint. Thus, successful application
of adhesives joints is associated with development of a nondestructive evaluation
technique or a combination of techniques that help in achieving the objective of evaluating
the bond integrity. This chapter presents defects and damage associated with adhesive
bonding and different nondestructive testing methods available to evaluate them.
2.2 Defects in bonded joints

A number of possible anomalies have been identified with regard to bonded joints. These
may occur within the adhesive itself and /or at the adhesive-adherend interface. They can
propagate under different loading conditions leading to failure of the structure. Thus a
bonded joint may become the weakest link because of the inherent defects or due to in-
service degradation. The strength of the joint decides how successfully the loads are
transmitted by each part of the structure. Any weak link will, therefore, lead to premature
failure. Basic types of defects which may occur in an adhesively bonded joint [69-74] are
shown schematically in figure 2.1. These defects may occur due to
Poor adhesion, i.e., a weak bond between the adhesive and the adherend;
Poor cohesion, i.e., a weak adhesive layer;
Voids, disbonds or porosity
Poor adhesion is often a result of poor surface preparation or the presence of a

contaminant on the surface of a substrate. Adhesive strength is very difficult to estimate
nondestructively since it is an interfacial phenomenon involving a very thin layer of
16
Chapter 2. NDT & E of adhesive joints 17
material (usually less than 10μm). This aspect of quality control is, therefore usually
limited to assessing the nature of the adherend surfaces prior to bonding. Poor cohesive
strength results from either incomplete mixing, incorrect formulation, or from insufficient
cure of the adhesive. Unlike the adhesive strength, the cohesive strength of the adhesive
can be estimated with a reasonable degree of confidence by some nondestructive test
methods.
Voids, disbonds and porosity are other forms of defect needed to be detected
nondestructively. Porosity is caused by entrapped air and volatiles in the adhesive, and is
invariably present in bond-lines to some extent. Cracks in the adhesive are formed by
improper curing (and/or thermal shrinkage) or due to applied stress. Voids in the adhesive
are caused by air or gases getting entrapped during the application of the adhesive, or
because insufficient / improper application of the adhesive.
Figure 2.1 Types of defects in an adhesive joint [70]
Kissing bond or zero-volume debonds [75, 76] can occur during execution of the bonded
joint due to the presence of a contaminant, such as grease, on the bonding surface of an
adherend. The surfaces of such a disbond may be in close proximity or even in contact, but
will not transfer load from the adherend to the adhesive. Disbonds can also occur as a
result of impact [77] or due to environmental degradation of the adhesive caused by
moisture ingression into the interface [39-41]. Specific bonding problems can arise with
the peel ply which is frequently used when joining composite materials [78]. In practice,
these consumables are not removed until just prior to bonding and are employed in the
mistaken belief that the roughened surface which results is favorable for bonding. It is not
uncommon for the release agents used in formulating the peel ply to migrate into the
surface of the composite substrate which may lead to weakening of the subsequent bond.
The nature of the loading regime also affects the durability of the joint. Adhesive bonds,
like composite materials, rely on a perfect stress transfer between their constituents [79,
80]. High frequency (shock) loading may result in local stress concentrations, especially in
the presence of flaws and other inhomogeneities which exceed the bond strength and lead
to a progressive, or in the worst case, catastrophic failure.
2.3 NDT techniques for inspection of bonded structures

Non-destructive testing techniques for the inspection of structures to ensure their integrity
both during manufacture and their service life form an essential part of engineering today.
There are a large number of NDT techniques which cover a broad range of inspection
requirements and new techniques are evolving rapidly. However, of these existing
techniques, few have shown any significant promise for the detection of weak interfacial
strength in an adhesive joint. In determining the suitability of a given technique for the
inspection of an adhesive joint, one must be aware of the potential defects that are likely to
be encountered and how sensitive a given technique is to each type of defect. This gives a
very broad range of attributes required of a nondestructive test to detect all of these
possible problems associated with bonded joints. Many research laboratory solutions and
commercial instruments have been produced to nondestructively test the quality of bonded
joints. Numerous reviews have been made on the various techniques available [81-85]. Of
all the techniques used, ultrasonic techniques are perhaps the best suited for characterizing
defects in bonded joints and are most widely used. Hence, a detailed discussion of
ultrasonic methods has been made in a separate section (2.4). Feasibility and suitability
few other NDT methods are discussed in the following.
2.3.1 Low frequency NDT techniques

Different low frequency nondestructive testing techniques are used to detect defects in
bonded structures [69, 86]. These techniques are based on the fact that a defect in adhesive
layer alters the local stiffness and hence the local impedance which is measured at each
test point. The techniques include the coin tap test, mechanical impedance method,
membrane resonance and velocimetric method [87-90]. These methods are attractive for
on- site inspection as testing can be carried out quickly and can be dry coupled as they
operate at low frequency, typically less than 50 kHz. These methods are more sensitive to
larger defects which are closer to the surface where the base structure is relatively stiff.
Many commercially available bond testers are based on these techniques. However, low
frequency methods are not sensitive to defects in adhesive joints with thick adherends [88,
89].
2.3.2 Optical techniques

Different optical methods are in use to detect defects in bonded structures [91-98]. The test
structure is illuminated with coherent light from a laser and images are produced with the
structure in the stressed and unstressed states. When combined, interference fringes are
generated. The displacement in the stressed state will be greater around a defect and the
fringes will be closer. Recent advancements made in optical methods, particularly the
ability to capture images electronically have enabled them to be used in a variety of
applications including disbond detection in bonded aircraft structures [93-96]. Structural
Health Monitoring (SHM) of bonded joints using fiber optic sensors/ fiber bragg grating
(FBG) sensors is possible [97, 98]. Fiber optic sensors are embedded at different locations
of the joint and output is monitored under different loads. The output from a sensor is
compared with the baseline signal from a healthy joint and an assessment on joint quality
can be made. Optical methods are particularly well suited for testing large, relatively flat
surfaces quickly but the sensitivity depends on defect size-depth ratio which can make
defects at the rear bondline interface difficult to find.
2.3.3 Thermography
Thermography technique can be used to detect defects in adhesive joints by monitoring the
surface temperature of a structure with an infra-red thermal imaging camera after exposure
to a heat source. In transient thermography the structure is thermally pulsed with a heat
source, such as a camera flash [92, 99]. Defects can be identified by anomalous cooling
behavior due to a reduction in thermal diffusivity over the region. Provided the heat input
is fast enough, materials with a high thermal diffusivity such as aluminium can be tested.
The technique is used successfully in the aerospace industry for disbond and corrosion
detection in composite and metallic structures [100-105]. While these techniques are
suitable for detecting complete voids in the adhesive layer, the low thermal diffusivity of
the adhesive layer would prevent rear adherend disbond detection.
2.3.4 Radiography
Radiography can show the presence or absence of foreign materials in a structural
component, but cannot provide quantitative information on bond integrity [81, 84] because
absorption of the radiation in a thin layer of air at the joint interface is negligible. Low X-
ray energies may be used as the structures being inspected are thin. If the adhesive is
partially X-ray opaque, voids and porosity of the adhesive may be detected in a metal-to-
metal joint. However, this technique is least sensitive to defects such as disbonds which
run parallel to the surface under test. Neutron radiography has an advantage over x-rays
because it can interrogate the adhesive embedded in the metallic sandwich [106-108]. The
absorption of neutrons by hydrogen contained in the adhesive is much higher than that of
either aluminium or steel. This property makes the thin adhesive layer (0.1mm) readily
detectable even through thick layers of metallic substrates [108].
2.3.5 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

MRI technique uses magnetic properties of the nuclei of certain elements which behave
like spinning bar magnets. The interaction between these nuclei and a large externally
applied oscillating magnetic field then produces measurable signals which can be used to
characterize the materials. This technique can provide insight into the state and
composition of an adhesive layer. However, it cannot be used with metallic bonded
structures [109].
2.3.6 Dielectric method

This technique is used for metal to metal adhesive joints. The adhesive and surface oxide
layers behave as a dielectric between the conducting metallic adherends. Application of a
high frequency voltage to the adherend will cause waves to propagate along the dielectric
layer and be reflected from the end of the joint. Analysis of the received waveforms in the
time and frequency domains can reveal hydration of the interface layer due to water
ingress [110-112]. Identification of voids within the adhesive layer and measurements of
the cure state [113] have also been made using this technique.
2.3.7 Eddy-Sonic inspection

In this method, an electromagnetic probe excites ultrasonic vibrations in the top adherend
of the joint while an acoustic receiver receives the ultrasonic waves generated [84]. Since
the excitation is electromagnetic, it inspects only the metallic adherend.
2.3.8 Acoustic emission

Acoustic emission testing involves dynamic measurement which relates to the process of
moving the joint apart when it is stressed. Thus, it measures the growth of a defect.
Inspection with this method is therefore oriented more to the prediction of bond failure
than identifying individual defects. Therefore, one might expect it could be correlated
directly with bond strength. Investigations by Curtis and Hill [114,115] found that, in
general, weak joints emit early acoustic energy when stressed compared to strong joints. A
criterion to distinguish different types of rupture of composite bonded lap shear joints
using acoustic emission technique is defined by Magalhães and Moura [116].
2.4 Ultrasonic methods

Ultrasonic techniques are the most flexible and effective non destructive test methods.
Hence, are most widely used for non-destructive inspection of adhesive joints and
structures. Further, these techniques are more field inspection friendly and hence are more
effective as in-service inspection tool.
2.4.1 Time domain bulk wave techniques

The most widely used technique for the detection of defects in structures involves
propagating bulk longitudinal ultrasonic waves at normal incidence into the structure and
studying its interaction with the interior of the structure in terms of reflection or/ and
transmission. Accordingly, the technique can be ‘pulse-echo’ or ‘Through-transmission’
[117].
2.4.1.1 Pulse-Echo method

In the pulse-echo technique an acoustic pulse is transmitted into the bond. The same
transducer then receives the echoes from the interfaces. The pulse echo method can be
either contact or immersion type. When testing is to be carried out from only one side of
the structure, the pulse echo arrangement can be used. The transducer is connected to a
waveform generator which switches to receive mode after the excitation signal has been
transmitted. The output from the receiver amplifier can be connected to an oscilloscope
which shows the amplitude of reflections in the structure with respect to time. When the
acoustic waves pass from one medium to another, at the boundary, part of the wave is
reflected and part is transmitted as shown in figure 2.2. The amplitude of reflected signal
[118] can be quantified by the reflection coefficient (R).
Z1 - Z 2
R (2.1)
Z1 Z 2
Where Zi is the acoustic impedance of the medium ‘i’ and it is given by
Z c (2.2)
Where ‘ρ’ is the density of the medium and ‘c’ is the bulk longitudinal wave velocity.
During inspection of a structure, the ultrasonic wave from the transducer propagates into
the material through a coupling medium. There will be a large reflection from the rear face
due to large impedance mismatch between material and air. Reflection can also be
observed from the front face due to impedance mismatch between the coupled transducer
and the structure. Any interface between the front surface and the back surface of the
structure will result in additional reflection indicating the presence and depth of the defect.
Defect detection and characterization carried out using this method is dependent on the
resolution of the system. Individual reflection from the defect and the rear face must be
clearly separated in time domain. A high frequency, short duration pulse is therefore
required to inspect thin structures.
Figure 2.2 Reflection and transmission from the interface between two media
Time domain analysis of multilayer system such as adhesive joints can be quite complex.
It is convenient at this point to define the term ‘acoustic thickness’, which is the time taken
for a wave to propagate across the layer. The ratio of acoustic thickness in the adherend to
the adhesive is often less than unity (because of high ultrasonic wave velocity in adherend)
which results in dominant reverberations in adherend making it difficult to separate the
reflection from the rear face of the adhesive bond line. However, this may not be true in
cases where the adhesive layer is very thin compared to the adherend; this complicates the
ultrasonic inspection of thin bond line adhesive joints. A system comprising of a
transducer coupled to a three layer adhesive joint structure is depicted in Figure 2.3a. The
transducer is coupled to the front adherend at normal incidence and the system can be
considered one dimensional. Wave propagation through the different layers in the joint is
shown varying with time in order to illustrate the source of reflections which would be
received by the transducer. Figure 2.3a also shows a typical time domain waveform which
would be received by an ultrasonic transducer.
In this joint, the first rear bondline reflection (RB1) occurs between two front
adherend reverberations (FB1 and FB2). In order to resolve the rear bondline echo from
the front adherend reverberations, a high frequency, short pulse should be used. The figure
also shows the amplitude of reflections which depend on the impedance mismatch
between the adherend and adhesive, attenuation of ultrasonic waves in the media,
degradation of bulk adhesive and the interfacial degradation. If the adherend is a metal the
impedance mismatch between the adhesive and the metallic substrate is high as a result of
which most of the energy gets reflected from the first interface (FB1); a small portion of
energy gets transmitted to adhesive layer and a reflection from rear bond line (RB1) can
also be observed but the amplitude of this reflection is lesser due to attenuation of the
energy in adhesive layer as well as in the substrate. However, the presence of this rear
bondline reflection echo indicates that the front adherend and adhesive layer are bonded.
Detection of the reflection from the rear of the bottom adherend to confirm its
presence however is difficult as the amplitude of this echo would be very small, and it
occurs after the rear bondline reflection. Hence, it is likely to be masked by reverberations
in the other layers. Instead, the rear bond condition can be determined from the phase of
the rear bondline reflection, given by the sign of the reflection coefficient in equation 2.1.
The reflection at the interface between two media is phase reversed when wave
travels from a medium of higher density to a medium of lower density as shown in figure
2.3b. It can be seen in figure 2.3a that the phase of the first interface reverberation (FB1) is
reversed as compared to the incident wave form. On the other hand when the wave travels
from a medium of lower density to a medium of higher density the phase of the reflected
wave remains the same as it is evident from the rear bondline reflection (RB1). Figure 2.4
shows a typical representative signal, similar to figure 2.3a but from a joint where the rear
adherend is disbonded. The phase of the rear bondline reflection (RB1) gets reversed when
compared to the incident waveform since the density of adhesive is more compared to the
density of air (disbond). In this case detection of the phase of a rear bondline echo
provides an effective means of identifying that the joint is fully bonded.
a.)
b.)
Figure 2.3 a.) Wave propagation in a three layered joint and a typical time domain waveform b.)
Reflection phase reversal due to ultrasonic wave travel through media with different densities [82]
However, the time domain pulse echo method is only reliable within a very limited range
of adhesive thickness. Two problems are encountered when the adhesive thickness is
increased. First, when the ratio of acoustic thickness of the adhesive to adherend layers is
close to unity the small rear bondline reflection becomes masked by the second front
adherend reverberation (FB2). Secondly, at a given frequency, attenuation is proportional
to adhesive thickness, as the thickness is increased the attenuation of rear bondline
reflection will be significantly high which would render the reflection undetectable.
The presence of adhesive below the first adherend can also be tested based on the
decay rate of reflections in the adherend [119] which is sensitive to the impedance of the
material on the rear face. In case of a disbond at the rear face of the front adherend all of
the incident wave energy gets reflected resulting in a low decay rate of the reflections.
However, for a healthy bond some energy is transmitted into the adhesive damping the
adherend reflections. Freemantle [120] has proposed a decay parameter which is the
product of the reflection coefficients at the front and rear faces of the adherend. Typical
decay parameter values for a steel backed with air and cured adhesive are 0.75 and 0.54
respectively. This technique has proved successful in testing automotive structures.
Despite its success the main requirement of this technique is to ensure that joints are fully
bonded. Various techniques to improve the resolution of echoes in the time domain in
multilayer systems are reviewed by Freemantle and Challis [121] who concluded that
these techniques are either too computationally demanding for rapid, robust testing, or
introduce noise which can itself mask the diagnostic bondline echo.
Figure 2.4 Time domain waveform of a partially bonded adhesive joint [82]
The application of high frequency ultrasound in the time domain to detect a disbond at the
rear or second interface is limited due to the high attenuation in the adhesive layer.
However, high frequency time domain techniques can be used to inspect the thin
adherend-adhesive interface. Various models of the different types of defect which can
exist at the interface are reviewed by Nagy [122]. Environmental degradation at the
interface has been studied by vine et al [123] by scanning joints in an immersion tank at
normal incidence using a 50MHz focused transducer. Improved sensitivity would be
expected using oblique incidence measurements generating only shear waves [124-126]. It
is found that testing at a particular frequency and incidence angle, the reflection
coefficient is sensitive to the interfacial properties. This approach has been used by some
researchers to characterize the interface based on time domain data [127-130]. While the
technique is attractive since it is sensitive to the condition of the interface at the test point,
reliable and accurate amplitude measurements is still a challenge.
2.4.1.2 Through transmission method

In through transmission technique, the acoustic pulse is transmitted into the joint by one
transducer and is received by a second transducer on the other side of the joint. In case of a
disbond the acoustic wave is blocked by the defect and does not arrive at the receiver, thus
either no peak is seen on the screen or a low amplitude signal is received. Through
transmission is used where both sides of a structure or joint are accessible. The receiving
transducer is coaxial and placed opposite to the transmitting transducer across the bonded
joint. While this technique can provide a simple, effective means of disbond detection in
bonded joints, most often access on both sides of the structure is not possible and hence
limits its usage.
2.4.2 Ultrasonic spectroscopy

Ultrasonic spectroscopy involves the analysis of resonance in a structure in the frequency
domain. Early work in the field of spectroscopy was in the form of bond testers. Later, the
advent of frequency analysers and computers has enabled capture of waveform data and to
transform it to the frequency domain using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) routines. This
has increased the interest and scope of using spectroscopy. Spectroscopy can reveal
frequency dependent features which are not evident in the time domain and does not
require echoes from different layers in a joint to be resolved. In pulse echo with a
broadband pulse, any resonance within the frequency range input into the structure will be
excited and will destructively interfere with the reflection from the front face of the
structure, appearing as minima in the frequency domain spectrum. Analysis of the bonded
joints to detect disbonds and determine bondline thickness has been carried out using
frequency spectrum by several investigators. Hutchins et al [131] used a multilayer wave
propagation model to study reflection coefficient spectra from bonded joints using
longitudinal and shear waves. The amplitude and frequency were seen to change rapidly in
the presence of a defect. Weise [132] studied the viability of using ultrasonic spectroscopy
to determine the bond condition.
The cohesive properties of an adhesive layer can vary depending primarily on the
cure state and composition. Several investigators have studied the resonance in adhesive
joints over a wide frequency band in an attempt to determine the cohesive strength. Early
work, for example by Flynn et al [133,134] correlated adhesive stiffness with velocity, and
cohesive strength with attenuation coefficient assuming the geometry of the bond
remained constant. Cawley and Hodson [135] refined a previous technique [136] allowing
adhesive modulus to be measured to within 6.5% and bondline thickness to micrometer
accuracy; however, Dewen [137] showed that the technique is sensitive to small
measurement errors.
Much work has been carried out to solve the inverse problem and determine the
properties like density, bondline thickness, wave velocity and attenuation from ultrasonic
data. Lavrentyev and Rokhlin [138] have used a spectroscopic technique to solve the
inverse problem and determine the acoustic properties of the adhesive layer from the
ultrasonic data. Kinra and Iyer [139,140] have developed a technique to identify the
acoustic properties of the adhesive from a through thickness ultrasonic measurement. This
technique makes use of the entire spectrum, rather than using just the frequency of the
resonance peaks as many other techniques have done. These techniques have proved
suitable to determine cohesive properties in a controlled laboratory set-up.
The task of characterizing the interfacial properties is difficult compared to
cohesive properties. Different approaches have been adopted using time domain and
guided waves, and some also rely on frequency domain analysis. A review of early work is
provided by Thompson [141]. Lavrentyev and Rokhlin [142] used the difference in
frequency between minima from the spectra obtained at normal incidence and oblique
incidence to measure the degradation at the interface. Further, they modeled the shift in
the frequency of the minima when the interface gets degraded using an array of micro-
disbonds filled with a viscoelastic liquid [143]. The interface can also be modeled as
springs [144] where the reflection from the interface is a function of the impedances of the
two contacting surfaces and the interfacial stiffness.
2.4.2.1 Resonance
In resonance method a continuous acoustic wave (CW) is locally coupled to the joint. The
frequency of the wave is altered until resonance is achieved. At this frequency a standing
wave is established [84] defined by equation (2.3).
v
D 2D (2.3)
fD
Where ‘λD’ is the wave length of the standing wave for the whole joint; ‘D’ is the
thickness of the joint; ‘v’ is the velocity of sound in the adherend and ‘fD’ is the resonant
frequency of the joint. When a defect is present a sharp change in the resonant frequency
is observed (Figure 2.5). The thickness then seen by the transducer is ‘d’ and the
corresponding frequency is
v
fd (2.4)
2d
Many commercial bond testers are built on this principle. The resonance phenomenon is
also used by the spectrum analysis method to determine bond line thickness.
Figure 2.5 Resonance method

2.4.3 Bond testers

Different bond testing instruments have been developed to detect defects in bonded joints.
The first through thickness mode of vibration of a three layered bonded joint was
identified initially to be suitable for testing as its resonance frequency is sensitive to
adhesive thickness and modulus [145]. This mode can be modeled using a one
dimensional spring mass system where the adherends are modeled as rigid masses and the
adhesive layer is treated as spring. The frequency predictions made using this model was
found to correlate well with the experimental results, however variation in bondline
thickness and adhesive cohesive properties resulted in a wide range of possible
frequencies which could not be monitored using the instruments developed early on.
2.4.3.1 Fokker bond tester

The Fokker Mk 2 bond testers developed by Fokker aircraft, Netherlands overcame this
problem by coupling a probe to the joint and measuring the resonance of the combined
probe-joint system [146-148]. This limits the resonance frequency range, but at the cost of
decreased sensitivity to the joint properties. The probe is made of a piezoelectric crystal
and is connected electrically in series with a resistor. The impedance of the system reaches
a minimum at resonance. This instrument operates by sweeping the driving frequency
across a chosen range in which the resonance is expected, and displays the resonant
frequency shift from a reference value. The reference is obtained by tuning the probe to
the resonance when it is coupled to top adherend only. In use, the response will change
when the probe is over a bonded region and the operator uses the shift in frequency and
amplitude to diagnose the bond condition. The shift in frequency is related to the specific
stiffness of the adhesive layer [149], K" which is defined as
E'
K" (2.5)
t
Where, E ' is the apparent modulus of the adhesive and t is the layer thickness. Correlation
curves provided by the manufacturer have attempted to use the readings given by the
instrument to measure the cohesive strength. Such measurements have since been shown
to be unreliable unless the adhesive has a low specific stiffness and the bond line thickness
is monitored independently [150]. The instrument has however, proved to be more reliable
for disbond detection but is limited to defects with diameter greater than the probe
diameter.
2.4.3.2 MIZ-21SR multi mode bond tester

The advent of advanced microprocessors, memory chips and software has allowed a
number of different acoustic and ultrasonic test methods to be combined in a single,
portable instrument. These instruments are primarily used to detect defects like
delamination and disbonds in composite, sandwich and adhesive joint structures. The
instrument employs a dual-element, point-contact, dry-coupled ultrasonic probe. One

element transmits (pitches) a burst of acoustic energy into the test part and a separate
element receives (catches) the sound propagated across the test piece between the two
probe tips. The bond condition beneath the two probe tips will affect the characteristics of
the acoustic energy that is transmitted between the two tips (Figure 2.6); these
characteristics can be displayed in terms of phase and amplitude change. In a bonded
condition, a portion of the acoustic energy is attenuated by the structure below the
inspection surface, resulting in lower signal amplitude being displayed on the instrument.
In a disbond condition, the waves travel between the transmit element and the receive
element with very little attenuation or damping from the bonded structure. The result is
that higher signal amplitude is displayed.
Figure 2.6 Principle of multi-mode bond tester
2.4.4 Guided waves

Guided wave techniques have the attractive advantage that they can propagate over long
distances. Guided wave modes have been studied by many workers in the context of
characterizing the cohesive and adhesive properties of bonded joints [151-154]. Lamb
waves have been shown to be relatively insensitive to adhesive and interfacial properties
[153]. This is because Lamb modes are for the whole joint, and the properties are
dominated by the adherends. Guided wave modes propagating only in the adhesive layer
are more attractive since the properties of the wave are dependent on the conditions at the
adhesive-adherend interface. The disadvantage is that they cannot be excited through the
adherends which precludes them as a practical testing technique. However, leaky guided
wave modes which leak energy into the surrounding media, propagating in the adhesive
layer can be excited through the adherends and are therefore viable for testing [83,129]. It
is also possible to generate waves along the interface itself, and these have been used to
measure adhesive and cohesive properties [81].
2.4.5 Non linear ultrasound

In the last few years the NDE community has turned its attention to investigate the
possibility of using non linear ultrasound techniques to measure properties of adhesive
joints [155-158]. The basic parameter that has to be evaluated in this context is the non
linearity parameter ‘β’. It is thought that the imperfect interface will introduce a greater
degree of non linearity into the system. This non linearity can be either due to clapped
surface (due to compressive stresses) or from the non linear stress strain behavior inherent
in the contact. This causes the interface to have increased non-linearity and results in
effects such as the generation of harmonics of the interrogating ultrasonic frequency.
2.5 Summary
A variety of different NDT techniques are available which can be used for testing adhesive
joints, but no single technique is able to detect all the classes of defects, viz., voids and
disbonds in the adhesive layer, poor cohesion and poor adhesion. A brief overview of the
methods available and their suitability for inspection of adhesive joints has been provided
in table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Summary of NDT methods used in the inspection of adhesive joints
Technique Potential for inspection of adhesive joints

X-ray radiography little
Shearography detection of disbonds
holography detection of disbonds
Thermography detection of disbonds
Ultrasonics excellent and most commonly used
MRI detection of state of cure and presence of moisture
Eddy current poor
Dielectric detection of state of cure and presence of moisture
Neutron radiography presence of adhesive
Mechanical impedance poor
Guided/Lamb wave inspection little
Non linear ultrasound disbond and cohesive property
Ultrasonic spectroscopy disbond detection, cohesive and adhesive property
measurement
Acoustic emission little
Several techniques have been established to provide cohesive bond quality measurements
from ultrasonic based approach. However, these require experimental set up that are not
well suited for field testing. Also, these being qualitative in nature, characterization of the
interfacial properties has become more of a challenge. Normal and oblique incidence bulk
and guided wave measurements have been used to identify variation in interfacial
properties. Resonance or impedance measurement based bond testers have been used with
reasonable success in the aerospace industry, but require the probe to be coupled directly
to the structure making them unsuitable for many applications. Guided waves can offer
inspection across the width of a joint with a transmitter and receiver placed remotely from
the bonded region, and would therefore be useful where joints are inaccessible. More
recently attempts have been made to use non linear acoustic technique to characterize
adhesive joints. A detailed presentation of the experimental investigations carried out to
evaluate composite single lap joints using different non destructive test methods has been
provided in the succeeding chapters.
Chapter 3
Non Destructive Evaluation of Degradation in GFRP-

Epoxy-GFRP Adhesive Joints.
3.1 Introduction
The previous chapters gave a brief overview of adhesive joints, their advantages,
limitations, various parameters influencing the bond strength and non destructive
evaluation of bonded joints. As discussed, there are different nondestructive test methods
available to inspect adhesive joints. However, ultrasonic methods are widely used and
acceptable owing to their advantages compared to other NDT methods [71, 72]. Numerous
attempts have been reported on nondestructive evaluation of degradation in metal to metal
adhesive joints, in particular aluminium-epoxy-aluminium joints [81-83]. Utilization of
polymer composites has increased significantly for contemporary aerospace and
automobile structures, often with adhesively bonded joints to accomplish their assembly.
But not much information / literature is available with regard to a reliable evaluation of
composite to composite adhesive joints [80]. Hence, the primary focus of this work is to
nondestructively evaluate the degradation of adhesive in a composite-to-composite lap
shear joint using different NDT methods. Two different types of adherend (GFRP and
CFRP) were considered. To start with, preliminary investigations were carried out on
Glass Fiber Reinforced plastic (GFRP) – epoxy adhesive joint owing to its easy
availability and cost factors. Further, studies were extended to Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Plastic (CFRP)-epoxy bonded joint system. Degradation was induced in the adhesive layer
by using PVA as the diluting additive. Different NDE tools based on ultrasonics and X-ray
radiography were used to study the bonded joint characteristics.
It is well known that the strength of many engineering structures depends critically
on the joints in the structure. Performance of adhesively bonded composite structures
depends mainly on adopted bonding process, the interface properties and the control of
adhesive bondline thickness etc. Also, defects can creep in to the joint area during its
fabrication [159], which can often be detrimental to the structure. Thus, non-destructive
evaluation and condition monitoring of bonded structures play an important role in
maintaining the integrity and health of the bonded structural assemblies.
This chapter presents an overview of preliminary investigations carried out on
GFRP-epoxy adhesive joints with induced degradation adding different proportions of
polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) into the epoxy-hardener mix. The joints were subjected to
ultrasonic and digital x-ray radiography inspection to obtain NDE parameters that can
31
Chapter 3. NDE of GFRP-Epoxy adhesive joints 32
reflect the degradation induced. The adhesive joint samples were loaded mechanically to
determine their strength. Details of experimental results obtained are presented.
3.2 GFRP-Epoxy adhesive joint samples

GFRP to GFRP, epoxy adhesive joint specimens were prepared according ASTM D 5868
standard for lap shear adhesion for fiber reinforced plastic bonding [160]. Single lap shear
joint specimens, (Figure 3.1) were considered in the present work. Composite adherend
strips were prepared using 14 layers of dry unidirectional (UD) E-glass fabric as
reinforcement and thermoset epoxy resin LY556/HY 951 as the matrix. Hand layup and
vacuum bagging procedure was adopted and curing was accomplished at room
temperature for 24 hours under vacuum. Spacers were used in the mold plate to maintain a
uniform thickness of 2.5 mm.
As discussed before, surface preparation is an important aspect in obtaining a good
bond as the performance of a joint depends on the roughness and cleanliness of the
adherend surface. The roughened surface creates better mechanical interlocking between
adhesive and adherend. Surface preparation also removes many surface contaminants that
would degrade the adhesive bond. Surfaces were prepared according to ASTM D 2093
standard for surface preparation of plastics [161]. The adherend surfaces were abraded
using 100 grit size sandpaper, and subsequently cleaned with acetone.
Bonding was accomplished using a two part epoxy adhesive system - Araldite AV
138M/Hardener HV 998, commonly used in bonding plastics and composites. Adhesive to
hardener weight ratio was maintained as 100:40 as per the recommendation of the
manufacturer. An area of 25.4mm x 25.4mm was bonded and the bond line thickness was
maintained at 0.76mm using a specially designed mold to serve the purpose (Figure 3.2).
The mold also helps in maintaining a proper alignment of the GFRP adherend strips
during the process of curing.
Figure 3.1 GFRP-Epoxy lap shear joint

The quality of adhesive was degraded using different quantities of polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA) which affects the polymerization process in epoxy resin, leading to weak adhesion
and cohesion. PVA is a water soluble compound and a releasing agent which does not mix
with epoxy resin. Hence, in this experimental work PVA was first dissolved in water and
then mixed with the epoxy adhesive. When PVA is exposed to open atmosphere or the
adhesive is cured and left in open atmosphere for a couple of days, the water in liquid
PVA evaporates creating small pores both at the interface as well as in the bulk adhesive.
With increase in added percentage of PVA, more will be the amount of pores. This can be
considered analogous to the environmental degradation encountered by adhesive joints in
real situations due to water ingress in the bondline.
Five sets of specimens, six samples in each set were used for the experimental
study. The set without any PVA content was considered as healthy denoted by the symbol
‘H’. PVA content was varied from 10% to 40% by total weight of the resin system with an
increment of 10% in each set. Accordingly the remaining samples were denoted as P10,
P20, P30, and P40.
Figure 3.2 GFRP adherends in the mold

The adhesive in the joint was cured at room temperature for 24 hours at atmospheric
pressure. End tabs were bonded to the specimens to facilitate the mechanical tests
subsequent to non destructive testing and evaluation.
3.3 Ultrasonic inspection

Of the different non destructive testing (NDT) techniques, ultrasonic methods have
generally been regarded as potentially the most useful techniques for NDE of multilayered
composite structures and adhesive joints [162-165]. The GFRP-Epoxy adhesive joint
samples were tested using time domain ultrasonic testing methods like pulse echo and
through transmission to evaluate their bond quality.
3.3.1 Ultrasonic through transmission method

Inspection of the bonded region using a focused probe to produce a C-scan image is based
on the fact that, greater the polymerization of the adhesive more transparent it is to the
ultrasonic wave. The arrangement of through transmission scanning system is illustrated in
figure 3.3. As shown, the system has two coaxially aligned 5MHz focused probes of 13
mm diameter with a focal length of 76mm in water. After a few trial and error exercises,
350 volts amplitude rectangular pulses, 72ns wide with a pulse repetition frequency of
1000Hz were used to excite the transducer. The edges of the joints were completely sealed
to prevent the ingress of water into the joint area.
Figure 3.3 Ultrasonic through transmission arrangement
The amplitude variation of received ultrasonic signal from the bonded region was mapped
to obtain C-scan image of the bonded area. The average amplitude of the C-scan image
was computed using a simple MATLAB program. To accomplish this, raw data was
obtained in grey scale instead of conventional 256 colors as shown in figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4 Ultrasound image obtained in grey scale

Figure 3.5 shows the grey scale images for a healthy sample (a) and those with different
percentages of Poly Vinyl Alcohol (b-e), of these, signal amplitude for the healthy sample
is higher which decreases with increasing amounts of PVA.
a b c d e
Figure 3.5 Through transmission C-scans for different specimens (a) Healthy (b) 10 % PVA (c)
20% PVA (d) 30% PVA (e) 40% PVA.
During the curing process the adhesive passes from a semi solid to solid state by the
formation of intermolecular bonds with subsequent creation of the branched chains of
molecules which give the adhesive its strength. Thus, better developed the polymerization
process, the lesser is the attenuation of the ultrasonic wave passing through what is now a
more elastic medium with lower energy dispersion. In addition, the reflection and
transmission factors also influence the received signal. Accordingly, the amount of
ultrasonic energy passing through the healthy adhesive joint is much higher due to less
attenuation, reflection and high transmission. On the contrary, the joints with added PVA
suffer from hampered polymerization and leads to more attenuation of ultrasonic energy.
Figure 3.6 Variation of amplitude with different PVA percentages (ultrasonic through transmission
inspection)
An area of 12mm x 12mm of the bonded region excluding the edges was considered
during the calculation of average amplitude to eliminate the distortion effect at the edges
of adhesive joints. These normalized amplitude values were plotted against different PVA
percentages as shown in figure 3.6. The average amplitude over the bonded area in case of
a healthy sample was about 0.78 compared to 0.33 in case of sample with 40 percent PVA.
Through-transmission is a simple and robust test for evaluation of quality in adhesive
joints but has limited application since this approach requires access to both sides of the
joints which is seldom in a real life structure.
3.3.2 Ultrasonic pulse echo method

Unlike through transmission technique, the pulse echo method uses a single transducer to
transmit and receive the ultrasonic energy. The plane of adhesive joint is maintained
normal to the 5 MHz focused transducer and the incident energy gets reflected back to the
transducer from the top surface as well as from different interfaces as illustrated in figure
3.7.
Figure 3.7. Received pulse showing reflection from different interfaces.
The corresponding echoes at each interface were identified using the velocity of sound in
GFRP and the epoxy resin. Since the thickness of the substrate and the adhesive are
known, the time of travel for the sound wave can be calculated using the relation T=2S/V,
where, ‘T’ is the time of travel, ‘S’ denotes the thickness of the sample and ‘V’ is the
velocity of sound in the traveling medium. Separation of the reflections in the time domain
allows the signal reflected from the imperfect GFRP–adhesive interface to be isolated and
its reflection coefficient easily measured. Ultrasonic C scans were obtained for each
sample at different interfaces by setting the gate at the corresponding echo. For instance C-
scan images for the first interface were obtained by confining the gate settings to the
reflection from first interface and mapping the amplitude variation of the same. The C-
scan images for the first interface are shown in figure 3.8.
a b c d e
Figure 3.8 First interface C-Scans for different joints (a) Healthy (b) 10 % PVA (c) 20% PVA (d)
30% PVA (e) 40% PVA.
The images reveal that the amplitude of reflection from the first interface of degraded
specimens is higher compared to their healthier counterpart. The average amplitude of the
reflection from the first interface of a joint with 40 percent PVA was found to be 0.86,
while the average amplitude of reflection for the healthy joint was found to be 0.45. In a
two part epoxy resin system when a hardener (HV 998) is added to epoxy resin
(AV138M), polymerization of the epoxy monomers take place due to chain reaction, in the
absence of any contaminant this process will be complete and the cured adhesive system
will have the best cohesive and adhesive properties. Addition of PVA hampers the
polymerization process and creates a weak interface between the substrate and the
adhesive. The amplitude of reflection from an interface depends on the acoustic
impedance mismatch between the two mediums, as the amount of PVA is increased the
mismatch becomes more predominant; as such higher amplitude reflections are seen from
the first interface of PVA samples.
Figure 3.9. Bulk adhesive samples prepared to measure adhesive property variation
To find out the effect of addition of PVA to the resin system in terms of its acoustic
properties, sets of bulk polymer samples with varied PVA content were prepared. Five
different samples of size 25 x 25 x 10 mm were fabricated and are shown in figure 3.9.
One of the samples did not have any PVA content and was presumed as healthy whereas
the other samples had the PVA content analogous to that used in adhesive joints. The
density and velocity of ultrasonic longitudinal wave for each adhesive sample was
obtained, using which the corresponding impedances were calculated from the relation
Z=ρV, where, ‘ρ’ is the density and ‘V’ is the velocity of sound in the corresponding
medium. The values obtained are tabulated in Table 3.1
Table 3.1 Density, velocity and acoustic impedance values for the bulk adhesive samples
Acoustic impedance,
Sample Density (kg/m3) Velocity (m/s)
Z (kg/m2-sec)
GFRP adherend 1762 3200 5.6384 x 106
Epoxy +0% PVA 1548 2480 3.8390 x 106
Epoxy+10% PVA 1429 2342 3.3467 x 106
Epoxy+20% PVA 1322 2223 2.9388 x 106
Epoxy+30%PVA 1213 2065 2.5048 x 106
Epoxy+40%PVA 1107 1914 2.1187 x 106
Subsequently the reflection and transmission coefficients for the different cases are
calculated using the equations 3.1 and 3.2. The reflection and transmission coefficients
for different adhesive joints are shown in the Table 3.2.
Z 2 Z1
R
Z 2 Z1 (3.1)
2Z 2
T
Z 2 Z1 (3.2)
The addition of PVA increases the impedance mismatch between the GFRP substrate and
the epoxy adhesive; as such the reflection from the interface increases with an increase in
PVA percentage. The expression for acoustic impedance, Z, can be considered as a
characteristic property of the material being studied. The study of acoustic impedance
mismatch also gives some indication of material stiffness. The stiffness is often related to
a Young’s modulus, ‘E’, of the material; in general, the stiffer the material, the higher the
wave velocity. This is evident from the experimental results as a reduction in wave
velocity can be observed with addition of PVA.
Table 3.2 Reflection and transmission coefficients for different adhesive joints
Adhesive lap shear joint type Reflection coefficient (R) Transmission coefficient (T)
GFRP + pure epoxy 0.189 0.811

GFRP + epoxy + 10% PVA 0.255 0.745
GFRP + epoxy + 20% PVA 0.315 0.685
GFRP + epoxy + 30% PVA 0.385 0.615
GFRP + epoxy + 40% PVA 0.454 0.546
The variation of amplitude of reflection from the first interface between GFRP substrate
and epoxy adhesive is plotted as shown in the figure 3.10. The figure shows an increase in
the reflection amplitude with increase in PVA percentage. The figure also shows the
theoretically calculated reflection coefficient curve plotted using the values of Table 3.2.
Figure 3.10 Variation of amplitude of reflection from first interface with different PVA
percentages
Although the overall trend remains similar, the amplitudes of reflection obtained
experimentally is higher compared to calculated values. This implies that there is an
additional factor other than the impedance mismatch which governs the reflection
amplitudes from an interface of an adhesive joint. This is attributed to the variation in
interfacial stiffness of the joint; which is the stiffness of the interface between the
adherend and the adhesive. A detailed discussion on the influence of interfacial stiffness
on reflection coefficient and its determination is presented in a subsequent chapter 5. To
add on impedance mismatch between the adherend and the adhesive is severe in metallic
adhesive joints compared to composite-to-composite adhesive joint, hence, its influence
on amplitude variation is much less in the latter case.
a b c d e
Figure 3.11. Second interface C-Scans for different specimens (a) Healthy (b) 10 % PVA (c) 20%
PVA (d) 30% PVA (e) 40% PVA.
The impedance mismatch between the adherend and adhesive, coupled with high
attenuation in the adhesive layer results in smaller amplitude second interface reflections,
which can make them difficult to detect [165]. However, since the bondline used in the
present work was sufficiently thick (0.76 mm) the reflection from second interface was
obtained using appropriate time window on the received signal.
Figure 3.12 Variation of amplitude of reflection from second interface with different PVA
percentages.
The amount of energy passing through the bond line and reaching the second interface is
expected to be more in case of a healthy sample. On the other hand in samples with added
PVA; part of the incident energy gets reflected at the first interface and hence, second
interface reflections will have lower amplitude. Figure 3.11 shows the C-scan images for
second interface reflection. Variation of amplitude of this reflected signal with different
PVA percentages is as presented in figure 3.12.
a b c d e
Figure 3.13. Back wall echo C-Scans for different specimens (a) Healthy (b) 10 % PVA (c) 20%
PVA (d) 30% PVA (e) 40% PVA.
The ultrasonic energy gets reflected from the two interfaces and also gets attenuated in the
two adherends and in the adhesive bond line before reaching the back surface of the joint.
Hence, all these factors affect the amplitude of the back wall echo. The amount of
ultrasonic energy reaching the back surface in a healthy joint is certainly higher than that
of PVA samples due to better polymerization and weak interface reflections, hence the
corresponding amplitude of reflection from back wall is higher, the C-scan images for
different samples is shown in figure 3.13, while the plot of amplitude versus PVA content
is shown in figure 3.14.
Figure 3.14 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the bottom surface with different PVA
percentages
3.4 Digital X-Ray radiography

The digital x-ray radiography setup consisted of a portable x-ray source and silicon based
flat panel detector. The adhesive joint to be tested is placed between the source and the
detector. The inspection of an adhesively bonded joint using x-rays is affected by two
factors, ability to penetrate the joint and ability to distinguish different materials or zones
in the joint. Radiography is known to be insensitive to disbonds and, also higher
absorption in metallic adherends masks defects in metal to metal joints [81, 84]. Hence,
attempts have been made by some researchers to use neutron imaging for metal to metal
joints [108]. But, the absorption in case of a glass fiber reinforced composite substrate is
much lesser compared to metals.
The absorption of x-rays in a material depends on three factors, atomic number,
density and thickness. Since thickness is maintained constant, intensity of X-rays
emerging out of a bonded joint depends on density variation of adhesive in the bond line.
Density of adhesive in a healthy joint is higher compared to that with PVA, leading to
more absorption of X-rays. As such the images for healthy samples appear darker. Figure
3.15 shows the X-Ray images for different specimens.
a b c d e
Figure 3.15 X-ray radiography images of different specimens (a) Healthy (b) 10% PVA (c) 20%
PVA (d) 30% PVA (e) 40% PVA.
Density of adhesive in joints having different amounts of PVA is found to be less as

discussed earlier owing to hampered polymerization and accordingly the intensity of the
images for PVA samples is higher. According to Fassbender et al. [166], investigations
applying ultrasonic methods showed that C-scans do not record the full extent of bonded
area i.e. defects at the edges of overlap; however, X-ray radiography can cover the full
extent of the joint area. The variation of average intensity with the amount of PVA is
shown in Figure 3.16. The dotted line is the linear best fit, which shows that the average
intensity of the images increases with the increase in the amount of PVA, but the variation
is not high compared to ultrasonic examination; also the x-ray intensity data is less
scattered. The variation in the intensity of recorded radiograph is a cumulative effect of
conditions of two adherends and the adhesive layer and thus provides only a qualitative
picture of overall degradation in the adhesive but fails to give any information about the
interface, which dictates the strength of the bond.
Figure 3.16 Variation of average intensity of the digital X-Ray images with respect to different
PVA percentages.
3.5 Mechanical testing of adhesive joints

The adhesive joints were tested according to ASTM D 5868 standard [160] for bond
strength determination in composite adhesive joints (Figure 3.17).
Figure 3.17 Adhesive joints under load.
Care was taken to minimize the effect of out of plane bending [167] due to eccentricity in
the joint using appropriate spacers (Figure 3.18). The shear bond strength for each sample
was determined and plotted against the PVA percentage (Figure 3.19). It can be seen that
the shear strength of the adhesive joint decreases with increasing orders of PVA. The
healthy samples had an average strength of 6MPa while the 40 percent PVA samples had
average lap shear strength of 3.65MPa. There was a severe degradation of bond strength
for 40 percent PVA samples.
Figure 3.18. Loading configuration without and with spacers [167]
Visual inspection of the fractured surface was carried out to check the failure mode. The
adhesive joints, particularly those having higher percentage of PVA had mixed mode of
(adhesive and cohesive) failure, where a part of adhesive could be seen on both the
adherend surfaces (Figure 3.20). Mixed mode failure is attributed to peel stresses
developed during loading. The figure also reveals distributed pores and voids throughout
the fractured surface of a degraded joint. On the other hand healthy adhesive joints were
relatively free of these defects and consequently had a better adhesion with the substrate
surface leading to higher bond strength.
Figure 3.19 Variation of shear strength with different PVA Percentages

a b
Figure 3.20 Failure surface of adhesive joints a) Healthy sample and b) PVA sample (P40).
A linear correlation was approximated between the coefficient of reflection from the first
interface and the joint strength (Figure 3.21). It shows that as the coefficient of reflection
from the first interface decreases the shear strength of the adhesive joints increases.
Figure 3.21 Correlation between amplitude of reflection from first interface and average shear
strength of lap shear joints.
A correlation plot between different NDE parameters viz., Average X-Ray intensity,
ultrasonic first interface reflection amplitude and average shear strength with percentage
degradation is shown in figure 3.22. It is clear from the figure that the ultrasonic reflection
coefficient is more sensitive to degradation compared to X-ray intensity. Further, an
inverse relationship is found between NDE parameters and shear strength, i.e., higher the
NDE parameter lower the strength. Thus it can be inferred that a relatively higher value of
a NDE parameter indicates low bond strength.
Figure 3.22 Correlation between NDE parameters, average shear strength of lap shear joints and
degradation.
3.6 Summary
An attempt has been made through a series of experimental investigations to evaluate the
bond quality through NDE approach and to correlate the results to strength of glass fiber
reinforced composite adhesive lap joints. The bondline thickness was maintained constant
and the degradation in adhesive layer was achieved adding different amounts of PVA.
Ultrasonic and X-ray imaging have been utilized to study the effects of induced
degradation. Results show that these methods can be effectively used to evaluate the
quality of composite-epoxy adhesive joint.
The Ultrasonic through transmission technique gives an indication in terms of
condition of the bonded area which is the cumulative effect of the condition of two
adherend layers, an adhesive layer in between them and the cohesive properties of the
adhesive. This can be observed by the variation of amplitude of transmitted waves through
the joint with varied bond quality. While the healthy samples recorded higher intensity
transmitted signals owing to better properties, samples degraded due to addition of PVA
showed lower intensity.
The pulse echo technique provides us with additional information in terms of
condition of each of the layers and the different interfaces. This could be effectively used
to judge the quality of adhesive in terms of adhesion as the amplitude of reflection from
the first interface gives an indication in this regard. Higher amplitude reflections were seen
in the PVA samples owing to poor adhesion between the substrate and the adhesive. The
overall degradation in the bonded joint due to addition of PVA could be seen in the
scanned image obtained by gating the bottom surface of the joint.
X-Ray Radiography technique though revealed the density variation in the
adhesive due to addition of PVA, the results were not as distinct as obtained by
ultrasonics. However, the x-ray radiography technique had the advantage that the entire
bonded area could be inspected in one go.
Results from the standard destructive tests revealed that the addition of PVA
decreases the bond strength. A plot between coefficient of reflection as obtained using
ultrasonic testing from the first interface and bond strength showed that there is a
correlation between them, and an increase in the value of coefficient of reflection is
associated with a corresponding degradation in bond strength. However, the results
obtained had a lot of scatter due to higher attenuation in the GFRP adherend. This could be
due to limitations in the method used for fabrication of GFRP panels, as simple hand layup
and vacuum bagging would not ensure a best quality adherend compared to an autoclave
cured carbon prepreg laminate. Hence, with this reasonably encouraging outcome from the
preliminary experiments as a precursor, further work was carried out using unidirectional
CFRP (carbon fiber reinforced plastic) as adherends.
Chapter 4
Normal Incidence Ultrasonic Inspection of CFRP-

Epoxy-CFRP Adhesive Joints.
4.1 Introduction
Carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) though relatively expensive, are widely used in
modern aerospace structures owing to their superior specific strength and modulus; hence
the term advanced fiber composites. Comparatively cheaper GFRP composites are used in
lesser critical applications like in marine, automobile structures, sport equipment etc. A
detailed explanation on non destructive evaluation of bond line quality for GFRP-Epoxy
adhesive lap joints has been presented in the previous chapter. That part of the work was
of preliminary nature to get a feel of outcome of the adopted approach using different
NDE tools to address the challenging issues with regard to composite to composite
adhesively bonded joints. Further work was continued on autoclave cured aerospace grade
CFRP-Epoxy adhesive joints. To start with, conventional ultrasonic and X-Ray inspection
techniques were attempted. Details of normal incidence ultrasonic inspection carried out
on CFRP adhesive joints has been discussed in this chapter along with results obtained
from mechanical loading to determine the bond strength with on-line Acoustic Emission
(AE) monitoring. In a systematic approach, other forms of ultrasonic inspection viz.
Oblique incidence inspection, guided wave and nonlinear ultrasound also have been tried
out during the course of this thesis work details of which are reported in subsequent
chapters.
4.2 Sample Preparation

Unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced composite panels were fabricated using CP150ns
unidirectional carbon prepregs. 14 layers of prepreg, each having a thickness of 0.18mm
were stacked to arrive at required thickness. Care was taken during stacking to squeeze out
any air pocket inside the layers using debulking procedure. All the layers were stacked
along the same direction to obtain a unidirectional laminate, cured in an autoclave
according manufacturer’s recommendation (60° C for first 30 minutes, 125° C for 90
minutes with 7 bar external pressure under vacuum). The cured laminate was then
trimmed at the edges and scanned using a water immersion ultrasonic C-scan to check the
uniformity and quality. It was then cut to strips of size (102mm x 25mm). Thickness of
these substrate specimens was measured and found to be 2.5±0.05mm. Single lap adhesive
joints (Figure 4.1) were prepared according to ASTM D 5868 standard [160] using carbon
47
Chapter 4. Normal incidence ultrasonic inspection of CFRP-Epoxy adhesive joints 48
fiber reinforced plastic composite as substrates and a two part epoxy Araldite AV138M /
Hardener HV 998 as the adhesive layer.
Surface preparation was carried out according to ASTM D 2093 standard [161].
The surfaces to be bonded were initially cleaned with acetone and then buffed using a 100
grit size emery paper to increase the surface roughness. The emeried surfaces were
cleaned using acetone and dried at room temperature.
Figure 4.1 Single lap adhesive joints with CFRP substrates [160]
An area of 25.4mm x 25.4mm was bonded by taking 100 parts of adhesive (AV138M) and
40 parts of hardener (HV 998) by weight as recommended by the manufacturer. Joint was
executed using a specially designed mold which helps in keeping the alignment of the
substrates during the process of curing and also in maintaining a uniform bond line
thickness of 0.7±0.06. A total of 30 samples were prepared which were classified into five
different sets of six samples each with varied percentage of poly vinyl alcohol (PVA)
added to the epoxy resin as presented in Table 4.1 below. The samples which did not have
any PVA were treated as healthy samples (H), while others were denoted as P10, P20, P30,
and P40. The table 4.1 gives an overview of the adhesive joint samples prepared.
Table 4.1 Details of adhesive joint sample sets.
Adhesive Percentage of PVA by

Sample designation
joint set weight of epoxy.
1 H 0%
2 P10 10%
3 P20 20%
4 P30 30%
5 P40 40%
4.3 Normal Incidence Ultrasonic Inspection

Ultrasonic methods have been widely used in the evaluation and characterization of
adhesive joints [162-165]. As discussed in chapter 2 ultrasonic methods are most suitable
for NDE of multilayered composite structures and adhesive joints. The CFRP –Epoxy
adhesive lap joints were subjected to different normal incidence ultrasonic inspection
techniques viz., pulse echo and through transmission using both water immersion as well
as direct contact methods.
4.3.1 Ultrasonic through transmission method (immersion)

After a few trial experiments to arrive at optimum set of test parameters for the water
immersion type of ultrasonic inspection, through transmission inspection of the bonded
region was performed by using two coaxially aligned 5MHz focused probes having a
diameter of 13mm with a focal length of 76mm in water. A rectangular pulse, 72ns wide
with a pulse repetition frequency of 1000Hz and amplitude of 350 volts was used to excite
the pulser. The received signal was amplified with a gain of 8dB to obtain a clear
transmitted signal. The edges of the joints were sealed to prevent the ingress of water into
the joint area.
Figure 4.2. Ultrasonic through transmission images for a) Healthy b) 10 % PVA (c) 20% PVA (d)
30% PVA (e) 40% PVA samples.
The amplitude variation of received ultrasonic signal over the bonded area was mapped to
obtain C-scan images (Figure 4.2) which can give a measure of the adhesive quality in the
bond line. The average amplitude for each image was computed using an image
processing tool. A plot of average amplitude versus PVA percentage was plotted as shown
in the Figure 4.3. The data spread seen in the figure is for the six samples tested in each
case.
During the curing process, the adhesive passes from a semi solid to solid state by
the formation of intermolecular bonds. Subsequent creation of the branched chains of
molecules gives the adhesive its strength. The bonded joint without any added PVA
presumed to be healthy would have better polymerization process. In this case, the
attenuation of the ultrasonic waves passing through what is now a more elastic medium is
expected to be minimal with lower energy dispersion. Thus, the amount of ultrasonic
energy passing through the healthy adhesive joint is supposed to be higher owing to less
attenuation compared to the joints with added PVA which suffer from hampered
polymerization. This is well supported by the results obtained as shown in Figure 4.3. The
effect of added PVA apparently is quite dramatic beyond 20%.
Figure 4.3 Variation of ultrasonic through transmission amplitude with different PVA percentages
4.3.2 Ultrasonic pulse echo method (immersion)

Unlike through transmission technique, the pulse echo method uses a single transducer to
transmit and receive the ultrasonic energy. The adhesive joint is kept normal to axis of the
5 MHz focused transducer and the incident energy gets reflected from the top surface as
well as from different interfaces as illustrated in Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4 Ultrasonic pulse showing reflections from different interfaces
Ultrasonic C scan images were obtained for each sample at different interfaces by setting
the gate at the corresponding echo. For instance, C-scan images for the interface (figure
4.5) between the top adherend and the adhesive layer was obtained by setting the gate on
first interface echo. The amplitude of reflection at the first interface for a healthy joint is
lower due to better adhesion between the adhesive and the substrate than those joints
having added PVA.
Figure 4.5 C-scan images for the first interface of a) Healthy b) 10 % PVA (c) 20% PVA (d) 30%
PVA (e) 40% PVA samples.
The amplitude variation of the first interface reflection was recorded for different samples
and plotted as shown in Figure 4.6. The amplitude of reflected signal from an interface
depends on the acoustic impedance mismatch between the two surfaces. As the amount of
PVA is increased the mismatch becomes more predominant and hence higher amplitude
reflections are seen. On the other hand the impedance mismatch in case of a healthy
sample is lesser and accordingly more energy gets transmitted into the bond line.
Figure 4.6 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the first interface for different joints.
The cumulative effect of all the reflections and transmission can be realized by fixing the
gate on back wall echo in the received signal. It is evident that the amount of energy
reaching the back wall depends on the reflection from the first interface, reflection from
the second interface and the attenuation of energy by the two substrates and the adhesive
in the bond line. Ultrasonic energy reaching the bottom surface of a healthy sample is
expected to be more owing to weaker reflections and lower attenuation (figure 4.7). The
variation of amplitude of the back wall echo is plotted against the PVA percentage as
shown in Figure 4.8
Figure 4.7 C-scan images for the back surface of a) Healthy specimen b) 10 % PVA (c) 20% PVA
(d) 30%PVA (e) 40% PVA samples.
Figure 4.8 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the back surface for different joints.
4.3.3 Normal incidence ultrasonic inspection (contact)

The adhesive joints were subsequently tested using contact type ultrasonic transducers of
different frequencies ranging from 1MHz to 20MHz to also study the effect of test
frequency for the bonded joint inspection. A thin layer of glycerin was used between the
transducer and substrate as a coupling medium and a constant force spring clip was used to
ensure uniform contact pressure. The amplitude of reflection from the first interface was
recorded for all the samples and an average value of the reflection amplitude for each set
was obtained. The resulting average amplitude was normalized with respect to highest
amplitude recorded, which in this case was for a P40 sample. The normalized reflection
amplitudes were then plotted against percentage PVA. Figure 4.9 shows the variation of
amplitude of reflection from the first interface for different samples. A linear best fit curve
was plotted in each case. It can be seen that irrespective of the frequencies used the
amplitude of reflection increases with increase in PVA content. However, the observed
change in slope can be attributed to frequency dependent attenuation. Further, the effect of
adhesive-adherend interface on reflection of the ultrasound is more predominant at higher
frequencies [20]. As such the normalized amplitude of reflection at higher frequencies (15
MHz and 20MHz) is high compared to that at lower frequencies.
Figure 4.9 Variation of amplitude of reflection from the first interface (contact method)
Figure 4.10 Normalized amplitude of reflection from the back surface of adhesive joint (contact
method)
The acoustic energy reaching the bottom surface of a joint depends on the amount of
energy reflected at the two interfaces and the attenuation in the adhesive bond line. So,
joints without any degradation will allow maximum amount of energy to reach the bottom
surface. The reflection amplitude of the back wall echo of the joint was recorded, averaged
and normalized with respect to the amplitude of healthy samples (maximum amplitude)
and plotted against the percentage PVA (Figure 4.10). This gives an indication of loss of
ultrasonic wave energy with degradation compared to healthy joints, as represented by the
decreased amplitude of reflection with increasing amount of PVA. As against first
interface reflection amplitude, the back wall echo amplitude variation at different
frequencies showed a familiar expected trend of higher loss of amplitude at higher
frequencies.
Figure 4.11 Normalized amplitude of the received pulse (through transmission)
The through transmission inspection on the adhesive joints also resulted in a similar trend
of higher attenuation with degradation as well as at higher frequencies. Figure 4.11 shows
the variation in normalized amplitude of the received pulse with increasing amounts of
PVA.
4.4 Real time digital X-Ray radiography

A brief overview of application of X-ray radiography to evaluate adhesive joints has been
presented in chapter 2. Radiography can show the presence or absence materials in the
bonded area, but cannot claim to determine the bond integrity [81, 84]. Since the bonded
joint is made up of low density materials the overall through the thickness loss of radiation
energy is expected to be negligible. However, low X-ray energies can be used since the
structures being inspected are relatively thin. If the adhesive is partially X-ray opaque,
voids and porosity of the adhesive may get detected. In a metal-to-metal joint X-ray
absorption in metallic adherends is much higher than the adhesive layer, and any disbonds
will have negligible effect on the overall absorption. Whereas, in case of CFRP adhesive
joint since the absorption of X-rays in the substrates also is less, defects like disbonds and
voids can be detected.
Figure 4.12 X-Ray images (with pseudo colors) for a healthy CFRP joint and a joint with edge
disbond.
Figure 4.12 shows the x-ray images of a healthy CFRP joint without any defect and a joint
with edge disbond and voids. The images are represented using pseudo colors to ensure
better visualization.
Figure 4.13. X-Ray images for different adhesive joint samples a) Healthy b) 10 % PVA (c) 20%
PVA (d) 30% PVA (e) 40% PVA
The CFRP lap joint specimens were exposed to low kV X-ray (60kV) with the plane of
the bonded area maintained normal to the X-ray beam. The amorphous silicon flat panel
detector converts the transmitted X-rays to light in real time. The intensity of received X-
ray energy at the detector depends on three factors - atomic number, density and
thickness of the test object. Other two parameters being practically maintained constant,
density of adhesive in a healthy sample is higher compared to that in a PVA sample,
leading to more absorption of X-rays. Accordingly, the images for healthy samples
appear darker (Figure 4.13). The average intensity of X-rays was plotted for different
PVA samples (Figure 4.14); it can be observed that the average intensity of transmitted
X-ray radiation increases with increase in degradation.
Figure 4.14 Variation of average intensity of X-rays for different joints.
4.5 Acoustic emission monitoring

Acoustic emissions (AE) are the stress waves generated during dynamic processes like
fracture. Acoustic emission can relate to the process of joint failure that occurs when it is
loaded. Unlike other NDT methods; it is dynamic since it measures the growth of a defect.
Inspection with this method is therefore oriented more to the problem of bond strength
than detecting individual defects. Therefore, potentially, it could be correlated with bond
strength. Curtis and Hill [114,115] found that weak joints exhibit early acoustic activity
compared to strong joints when subjected to stress. A criterion to distinguish different
types of rupture of composite bonded lap shear joints using acoustic emission technique is
proposed by Magalhães et al [116] using a damage acoustic coefficient to characterize the
bonded joint rupture from acoustic emission signal.
The CFRP adhesive joint samples were loaded in a uniaxial testing machine as
shown in figure 4.15. A monotonic load at a rate of 2mm/min was applied till the joint
failed. The machine was programmed to stop at incremental intervals of 0.5kN during
which high resolution image was captured in order to carry out Digital image correlation
(DIC) to measure strain distribution in the joint area, the details of DIC technique and the
results obtained are explained in subsequent chapters. The figure also shows an acoustic
emission (AE) sensor attached to the sample. This sensor picks up the emissions
emanating from the joint area when it is stressed. The emissions from the sensors were
amplified by a preamplifier before being fed into the AE equipment. The recorded AE data
was plotted against applied stress. Figure 4.16 shows the acoustic emission hits versus
shear strength plot for different adhesive joint samples. It can be seen that the number of
hits decreases with increasing amount of PVA; it can also be observed that degraded
adhesive joint sample shows early emissions compared to a healthy joint.
Figure 4.15 Mechanical loading of CFRP adhesive joint samples
The AE results were tabulated along with the percentage of failure load at which the early
emissions were observed. Table 4.2 presents the details of the AE data collected. More
number of hits was recorded in case of healthy adhesive joints compared to the samples
with different percentages of PVA. Early emissions were observed at lower applied stress
for PVA samples giving an indication of early failure and low strength.
Table 4.2. Acoustic emission data for different adhesive joints
Percentage
failure load
Total Average
Cumulative at which
number shear
Sample energy emission
of Hits strength
(Average) was first
(Average) (MPa)
observed
(Average)
Healthy 1511 35983 46% 9.97
PVA 10% 268 17496 31% 7.46
PVA 20% 169 11359 29% 6.66
PVA 30% 149 5074 21% 6.47
PVA 40% 140 4332 05% 5.27
Healthy adhesive Joint P10 adhesive joint
P20 adhesive Joint P30 adhesive Joint
P40 adhesive Joint

Figure 4.16 Acoustic emission hits versus shear strength for different CFRP adhesive lap joints
Further, acoustic emission signals generated from healthy joints have high cumulative
energy and hits (figure 4.17) compared to degraded joints indicating significant AE
activity taking place before failure due to higher bond strength.
a.) Cumulative hits versus percentage PVA
b.) Cumulative energy versus percentage PVA

Figure 4.17 Acoustic emission cumulative hits and energy versus percentage PVA
It can also be observed from figure 4.18 that emissions were first observed at 46% of the
failure load for healthy adhesive joints compared to adhesive joints with 40% PVA for
which emissions were observed at as low as 5% of failure load. Thus, acoustic emission
test results were encouraging in the sense that an adhesive joint sample can be classified as
strong or weak by looking at the emission pattern and the occurrence of early emissions.
Though acoustic emission is a dynamic method and not purely a non destructive test since
the sample has to be loaded, it is always possible to load the adhesive joint sample within
the safety limits and study the emission pattern to classify the joint.
Figure 4.18 Percentage of failure load at which emission was first observed for different
adhesive joints
4.6 Mechanical test results
Figure 4.19 Load displacement curves for different adhesive joint samples
The adhesive joint samples were loaded till failure as described in the previous section.
The maximum load was recorded along with the displacement data. Figure 4.19 shows the
load-displacement curves for different CFRP adhesive joint samples. It is obvious that
healthy adhesive joint samples take higher load as compared to the samples with different
amounts of PVA, consequently resulting in higher energy absorption. The energy required
to break the sample decreases with the increase in the percentage of PVA.
Figure 4.20 presents the experimentally determined shear strength of the bonded
joints of different sets of samples. The healthy samples show an average shear strength of
9.97MPa (refer Table 4.2) while the joints having 40 percent PVA had an average strength
of 5.27MPa. There was a significant reduction in shear strength of 40 percent PVA
samples when compared to the healthy samples indicating severe degradation of adhesive
in the bondline. A correlation plot of NDE parameters with degradation and shear strength
is shown in figure 4.21. The trend looks similar to that observed in case of GFRP adhesive
joints.
In summary, the normal incidence ultrasonic inspection, digital X-ray radiography
and acoustic emission monitoring techniques showed interesting trend in the qualitative
assessment of bond line integrity. However, the interface degradation assessment in an
adhesive joint is still a difficult task. The normal incidence ultrasound is found to be
insensitive to interfacial degradation [124-126]. The degradation is found to initiate at the
interface due to the accumulation of moisture and then propagate towards the bulk
adhesive in the joint [142]. So, to find a better approach, Ultrasonic waves incident at an
oblique angle to make them travel through the bonded joint has been attempted, details of
which are presented in the next chapter.
Figure 4.20. Variation of shear strength of adhesive joints for different PVA percentages.
Figure 4.21 Correlation between NDE parameters, average shear strength of lap shear joints and
degradation.
4.7 Summary
Normal incidence ultrasonic inspection (contact and immersion type) was carried out on
different CFRP-epoxy-CFRP joints. It was found from through transmission inspection
that the amplitude of the received pulse decreased with increasing amount of degradation
(percentage PVA). Pulse echo inspection resulted in an increase of reflection amplitude
from the first interface due to increase in degradation. Contact type ultrasonic inspection
carried out using different frequency probes resulted in similar trend. However, the change
in slope was attributed to changes in attenuation with frequency. Further, the effect of
adhesive-adherend interface on reflection amplitude was more predominant at high
frequencies owing to their small wave length.
Digital x-ray radiography could reveal defects like edge disbond and voids, and
also exhibited changes in intensity of received x-rays due to induced degradation of
adhesive. Acoustic emission monitoring on-line during the bond strength tests showed
early emissions for degraded joints and also exhibited changes in AE parameters like
cumulative hits and energy with degree of degradation of bonded joints. The load
displacement curves plotted for different adhesive joint samples showed higher area under
the curve (energy) for healthy samples as compared to degraded samples, showing that
considerably less energy is sufficient to break the degraded adhesive joints.
However, the inspection of an adhesive joint using normal incidence ultrasound
involves the bulk longitudinal waves which may not be very sensitive to the degradation at
the adhesive-adherend interface [168]. It is reported that oblique incidence methods, which
results in generation of transverse waves that can traverse along the interface can be
sensitive to interfacial properties [169-170]. Hence, the oblique incidence ultrasonic
inspection was attempted to further investigate the effect of degradation of the bonded
joints on ultrasonic shear wave propagation characteristics which is explained in detail in
the next chapter.
Chapter 5
Evaluation of Degradation in Composite Adhesive

Joints using Oblique Incidence Ultrasonic Technique
5.1 Introduction
Evaluation of adhesive degradation in the bond line of a composite single lap shear joint
using normal incidence ultrasonic technique has been discussed in the previous two
chapters. Often the imperfections are confined to a very thin layer in the form of an
interface separating the joining surfaces which is difficult to characterize. The inspection
of an adhesive joint using normal incidence ultrasound involves the bulk longitudinal
waves which may not be very sensitive to the degradation at the adhesive-adherend
interface [168]. The interfacial degradation due to the diffusion of water (moisture) into
the interface renders the normal incidence ultrasonic inspection less effective. However, it
is found that oblique incidence methods, which results in generation of transverse waves
that can traverse along the interface can be sensitive to interfacial properties [169-170].
Failure of bonded joints in service can be adhesive and/or cohesive in nature.
Environmental conditions and stresses degrade the interface as well as bulk of the
adhesive in the bond line. The cohesive properties of an adhesive layer in the joint were
studied using ultrasonic spectroscopy by Cawley et al [136, 137]. Efforts to evaluate the
interface characteristics of an adhesive joint using normal and angle beam ultrasonic
methods are also reported [171-176]. The properties of the adhesive joints viz., the
interfacial stiffness, density, attenuation etc have been computed using different
algorithms by Rokhlin et al [177-178]. Most of the reported work on adhesively bonded
joints using ultrasonic techniques was carried out on metal to metal joints where the
impedance mismatch is quite significant between metals and adhesives used to join them.
Relatively lesser literature is available on the efforts made to inspect composite to
composite adhesive joints [163, 179].
This chapter illustrates the oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection of CFRP-Epoxy
adhesive joints. Degradation in adhesive joint whether cohesive or adhesive has been
explained using two different analytical models. Interfacial stiffness for different joints
was computed using inverse algorithms. This data was later used in finite element analysis
to compute the strength of the joint using the bondline strain data obtained from
experiments using digital image correlation technique (DIC).
64
Chapter 5. Oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection of CFRP-Epoxy adhesive joints 65
5.2 Experimental setup and inspection
Figure 5.1 Oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection

Oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection was performed using a pair of contact probes and
a Perspex wedge. Figure 5.1 shows a schematic diagram of the experimental set up used.
As shown, a pair of contact type ultrasonic transducers of same frequency (Ultran kc-
5MHz) was used; one to generate and the other to receive the ultrasonic waves. A Perspex
wedge was designed and fabricated to accomplish this objective. The first critical angle for
the CFRP substrate was computed using Snell’s law and was found to be 65°.The angle of
incidence (wedge angle) was set at 70° so that only the shear wave component be present
in the bond line. The wedge had a thickness of 15 mm, height of 35 mm and a base width
of 25.4 mm. Glycerin was used as a coupling agent between the Perspex wedge and the
CFRP substrate. Spring clips were used to hold the transducers and the wedge in position
at a constant contact pressure. Rectangular pulses of 350 volts having a width of 72ns
were applied at a pulse repetition rate (PRR) of 1000 Hz.
Figure 5.2 Ultrasonic waveforms from oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection

Lower frequency transducer below 5 MHz did not give satisfactory results as the echoes in
the received pulse could not be resolved satisfactorily in the time domain. Figure 5.2
shows the waveform obtained from ultrasonic oblique incidence inspection of the adhesive
joint samples using a pair of 5 MHz transducers; slight variation observed in the amplitude
of the reflections from Perspex-CFRP interface is due to the variation in contact pressure.
It is clear that the amplitude of reflection from the interface of a healthy joint is much less
compared to that of a degraded joint. The waveform for a healthy adhesive joint also
shows higher amplitude reflections from the second interface as compared to low
amplitude reflections from degraded samples. Multiple reflection echoes with increased
amplitude can also be seen in the wave form for a healthy joint. The increase in amplitude
of these echoes is attributed to constructive interference taking place in the adhesive bond
line [127]. The variation of amplitude of reflection of shear waves from the first interface
of an adhesive joint with different percentages of PVA has been plotted as shown in
Figure 5.3, which indicates that the amplitude of reflection increases with increase in PVA
percentage.
Figure 5.3 Variation of reflection amplitude of shear wave from the first interface of the joint
The waveforms obtained from different adhesive joint samples were digitized using a 200
MHz digital oscilloscope and then processed in the frequency domain using an FFT
program and deconvolved from a reference signal taken from the CFRP adherend. This
removes the frequency and beam effects of the transducers from the experimental spectra.
The reflection from adhesive layer can be easily gated out and analyzed in the frequency
domain. Figure 5.4 and figure 5.5 shows the reflection spectra obtained using 5MHz and
20MHz transducers respectively. The solid line is for healthy sample without any
degradation, while the dashed line is for the degraded sample with 40% PVA. The minima
observed in the spectra are due to interference of the ultrasonic signals within the adhesive
layer. An average shift of 0.7 MHz towards lower frequency was observed in the minima
for 40% PVA samples near the test frequency of 5MHz. This can be attributed to
distributed damage at the interface, which causes pulse widening and scattering [180].
Figure 5.4 Experimental spectra of reflected wave from the adhesive layer (5MHz)
Figure 5.5 Spectra of the reflected signal from oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection (20MHz)
The adhesive joint samples were subsequently loaded till failure in an Instron testing
machine to determine bond strength and the fractured surfaces were inspected. While the
healthy samples had an interfacial failure area of less than 50%, the degraded adhesive
joints had higher percentage of interfacial failure area. Figure 5.6 shows the failure surface
of three different samples a healthy sample, sample with 20% PVA and 40% PVA. The
images were taken with 10X magnification using a high resolution camera. A closer
observation of fractured surface of a healthy sample reveals, traces of fibers seen on the
adhesive indicating a stronger bond which resulted in fibers being pulled out of one of the
substrates when loaded till failure. The failure is more cohesive in nature and areas of
interfacial failure can also be seen. The interfacial failure area increased with increasing
percentages of PVA, a complete interfacial failure was observed in a couple of highly

degraded samples i.e., P40 samples in which study of fractured surface revealed small
distributed pores and voids throughout. These defects contribute significantly to the
variation in spectra of reflected wave from the adhesive bond line as shown in the table
5.1. It can also be seen that the shear strength of the adhesive joint samples decreased with
an increase of interfacial failure area.
Figure 5.6 Failure surface of a.) Healthy sample b.) P20 sample and c.) P40 sample
The variation of frequency shift of reflection minimum with interfacial failure area and the
shear strength is as shown in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 respectively. It can be observed
that the shift of reflection minimum increases with the percentage of interfacial failure
area. It is necessary to stress here that the spectrum characteristics of the signal reflected
from the adhesive joint bondline is very sensitive and depends on several joint parameters,
including adhesive layer thickness, surface roughness, bulk adhesive properties and
interfacial bond quality. However, a similar surface preparation procedure was adopted for
all the samples and the thickness of the adhesive layer was maintained fairly constant and
their effect on the frequency minimum shift was considered negligible.
Table 5.1. Summary of experimental results
Average shift in
Average shear Percentage interfacial
Sample reflection
strength (MPa) failure area (average)
minima (MHz)
H 9.97 42% 0
P10 7.46 48% -0.1
P20 6.66 59% -0.3
P30 6.47 73% -0.6
P40 5.27 82% -0.7
Theoretical modeling [168, 180] has shown that the experimentally observed negative
frequency shift of spectrum minimum can be explained by the degradation of the interface.
Nguyen et al., [181] studied the diffusion of water through an epoxy layer to the interface
with a transparent crystal substrate using infrared spectroscopy and found that water forms
a thin interfacial layer of thickness less than 40nm. Angel and Achenbach [182] developed
an elasto dynamic theory to explain the interaction of normally incident ultrasonic waves
from a planar array of cracks. Thompson and Fiedler [183] replaced an array of cracks by
an equivalent layer of springs. Baik and Thompson [184] developed a quasi static model
for ultrasonic transmission and reflection at imperfect interfaces. Achenbach and Li [185]
studied stiffness deterioration in single-lap adhesive joint due to distributed damage where
disbonds were modeled by normal and equivalent shear springs with masses.
Figure 5.7 Frequency shift of reflection minimum with average percentage interfacial failure area
Figure 5.8 Frequency shift of reflection minimum with average shear strength of adhesive joint
Interface was also modeled as a weak boundary layer by Rokhlin et al., [125, 168] where
defects like microporosity and microcracks were explained to be formed at the interface
due to diffusion of water molecules to the primer layer through bulk of the adhesive. As
the amount of degradation increases the fraction of the interfacial region damaged
increases by either enlargement of the defects or by increase of their number leading to its
failure. Though this model explains the frequency shift of the reflection minimum, the
frequency shift is described as a function of primer layer thickness and not the interfacial
degradation alone. In the current work two different models were considered to explain the
phenomenon of interfacial degradation and the associated frequency shift in the reflection
minimum. The first one is known as transfer matrix model where degradation in bulk
adhesive properties and its effect on the reflection and transmission coefficients was
considered. The second model describes the interfacial degradation as an array of liquid
filled disbonds having very small thickness. Spring boundary conditions were used and
interfacial degradation was taken into account by decreasing the interfacial spring stiffness
value.
5.3 The transfer matrix method
Figure 5.9 Adhesive joint modeled as a three layered plate [186].
Analytical investigations were carried out using transfer matrix model to verify
experimental results. A transfer matrix relates the displacements and stresses at the bottom
of a layer to that at the top of the layer. These transfer matrices for any number of layers
can be coupled to yield a single matrix for a complete system. The reflection and
transmission characteristics of a multilayered plate can then be found by application of the
appropriate boundary conditions [186].
The adhesive joint in the present case was modeled as a structure having three
layers (Figure 5.9), the two CFRP adherends were treated as semi infinite half spaces and
the adhesive layer was modeled as a viscoelastic material with complex bulk modulus
k k ' ik '' and shear modulus '
i '' . The adhesive was assumed to be a Maxwell
material with a single relaxation time ‘ ’. The Maxwell model is represented by a series
connection of viscosity and stiffness elements [187]. In this case the bulk and shear moduli
are expressed as shown below
2 2
k ko ( k ko ) 2 2
i 2 2
1 1 (5.1)
2 2
2 2
i 2 2
1 1 (5.2)
Where k ’ are the bulk and shear modulus respectively for a fully cured adhesive, ko is
the bulk modulus of an adhesive in a degraded state, is the circular frequency, /
is the relaxation time and is the static viscosity of an adhesive. is the time for stress
relaxation towards equilibrium to 1/e of its value after a sudden unit deformation. The
parameters required in Equation 5. 1 and 5.2 were obtained from manufacturers data for
AV138M epoxy adhesive, where k = 5.5GPa, = 3GPa, k o = 2.8GPa. Changing the
value of transforms the material properties of an adhesive, which is convenient for
numerical simulation of the ultrasonic wave interaction with an interface layer having
variable properties. A higher value of 10 , implies a fully cured adhesive while the
degradation in its properties are represented by a decrease in its value.
The ultrasonic reflection coefficients can be computed using the transfer matrix
model. The incoming shear and longitudinal waves are designated as ‘S+’ and ‘L+’
respectively while the outgoing waves are designated as ‘S-’ and ‘L-’. Although the
orientation of the plate in space is arbitrary, it is convenient to refer the layers and
interfaces in terms of their vertical positions in a stack and to the top and bottom surfaces,
as in Figure 5.9. Accordingly the X2 direction is defined as downwards, from the top to the
bottom of the plate. Each layer has its own X2 origin, defined as the location of its top
interface, except for the first layer which has its origin at its interface with the second layer
in order to avoid having an origin at -∞. When the two semi-infinite half spaces are solids
as in the present case, the transfer matrix formulation can be expressed as shown in
Equation 5.3 Where A(L+) , A(L-) etc, are the wave amplitudes, [D] matrix is known as field
matrix (The elements of [D] matrix can be found in Appendix A), which describes the
relationship between the wave amplitudes, the displacements and stresses at any location
in a layer. Its coefficients depend on the position of the layer in the plate, the material
properties (density ‘ρ’, longitudinal wave speed ‘CL’, transverse wave speed ‘Cs’), the
frequency used (ω), and the plate wave number (K1).
A(L+) A(L+)
A(L-) A(L-)
= [D]-1
l 3,top [S][D]l 1,(x2=0)
A(S+) A(S+)
(5.3)
A(S-) l3 A(S-) l1
[S] is known as the system matrix consisting of the product of the layer matrices.
S = L l2
L l3
.... L l(n-1) (5.4)
Where ‘n’ is the number of layers, The [L] matrix for a layer can be obtained by
multiplying the field matrix at bottom and top for that layer. i.e.,
-1
L l2
= D l 2,bottom
D l 2,top
(5.5)
The reflection coefficients can be obtained if any four of the eight amplitude values in
Equation 5.3 are known. It is a practice to assume the input wave amplitude A(S+) =1,
while amplitudes A(L+) for layer 1 and , A(L-) , A(S-) for layer 3 are treated as zero. So the
Equation 5.3 becomes
Tl 0
0 Rl
[ D]l-13,top [ S ][ D]l1,( x 2 0)
Ts 1
(5.6)
0 l3
Rs l1
Where Ti and Ri are the transmission and reflection coefficients respectively. A detailed
illustration of transfer matrix method, the elements associated with different matrices etc.,
has been given by Lowe [186]. Some modifications had to be done to account for the
attenuation present in layers. In the current work the attenuation in CFRP adherend semi
space is neglected and it is taken into account for the adhesive layer by treating it as a
visco-elastic material. This makes the wave number complex, the real part of which
describes the propagation of the wave and imaginary part describes attenuation.
Figure 5.10 Amplitude of reflection coefficient for transverse waves (transfer matrix model)
The reflection coefficients for a healthy adhesive joint was obtained using Equation 5.6 by
assuming 10 which is the relaxation parameter for a completely cured solid adhesive
[187], while the degradation for a P40 sample was represented using a lower value of
relaxation parameter 5 . A very low value of relaxation parameter ( 1 ) implies
the adhesive is a liquid. The adhesive used in the present work is a thixotropic paste, hence
a value of greater than ‘1’ was assigned to the relaxation parameter and the corresponding
shift in the reflection coefficient was observed in each case. It was found on a trial and
error basis that the value of ‘5’ gave closer correlation to the experimental results. The
angle of refraction for the shear wave transmitted from CFRP adherend to the adhesive
layer was computed using Snell’s law and found to be 50°. The thickness of the adhesive
layer was assumed constant at 0.76mm and the amplitude of reflection coefficient obtained
for different frequencies were plotted as shown in Figure 5.10. It can be seen that there is
shift of reflection minimum towards lower frequencies due to degradation in the adhesive,
a similar trend as observed in experimental investigations.
5.4 Interface as an array of liquid filled disbonds

Different mechanisms of joint degradation have been explained in the literature [181-185].
This model describes the interface as an array of very thin interfacial disbonds filled with
water. The water in PVA diffuses through bulk of the adhesive to the interface region
during the curing process. The degradation becomes severe either by widening of existing
disbonds or by appearance of new disbond regions or both [176]. The degree of interface
degradation increases with the fraction of the disbonded area. This can be observed from
fractured surface of a P40 sample (Figure 5.11), which shows small pores and voids
distributed throughout the surface.
Figure 5.11 Magnified (10x) image of fractured surface of an adhesive joint with 40% PVA
A solid-solid interface can have either rigid or slip boundary condition, these boundary
conditions are mathematically described as
y ' y , uy u ' y , yz ' yz , uz u ' z (5.7)

y ' y , uy u'y, yz ' yz 0 (5.8)
Where ‘σy’ is the stress normal to the interface, ‘τyz’ is the shear stress, ‘uz’ and ‘uy’ are the
displacements. Primed and non primed variables correspond to the two sides of the
interface. It can be seen from Equation 5.7 and 5.8 that the normal stresses and
displacements at the interface are continuous. Further, the effect of a thin water film at the
interface on the reflected ultrasonic wave in the area of disbond can be modeled by slip
boundary conditions (5.8) which results in zero resistivity to the motion of adjacent phases
transverse to each other while ensuring the continuity of stresses and displacements [124,
125]. The damaged interface is represented by an array of circular disbonds with thickness
approaching zero (Figure 5.12).
Figure 5.12 Interface as an array of circular disbond.

Each disbond can be characterized by slip boundary conditions ( Kn , Kt 0 ), while
the non-damaged area corresponds to welded boundary conditions. The properties of the
interface as a whole can be modeled by spring boundary conditions (5.9) with complex
transverse spring constant ‘Kt’, satisfying 0 Kt
' yz Kt (uz u ' z ) , yz ' yz , uy u ' y , y 'y (5.9)
This model describes an interface using a homogenized distribution of springs over the
entire adhesive-adherend contact region [168]. When the geometry of the disbond area is
specified, the spring stiffness constants can be obtained by calculating the deformation of
the bonded structure under static loading. For a simple disbond pattern as shown in Figure
5.12 between two solid semi-spaces, the stiffness constant ‘Kt’ is given by [168].
2- E" 1 3/2 2
Kt 2
( 1.299723A1/2
d -0.9952365Ad +0.6672023Ad -0.42308925Ad 0.1406982 Ad
5/ 2
2 8 (1- )a
1/ 2
3 0.149058 Ad 1/ 2 1/ 2 -1
0.0295401Ad 1/ 2
1.86868 ln(1 Ad ) 0.419904 ln(1 Ad ) ) (5.10)
1 A d
Where ‘Ad’ is the fraction of disbond area, and ‘a’ the distance between centers of
disbonds, E " is the effective young’s modulus obtained using following Equation.
2 E1 E2
E" 2 2
(5.11)
E2 1 1
E1 1 2
Where El, E2 and υ1, υ2 are Young’s moduli and Poisson’s ratios for the two materials in
contact, (i.e. adherend and adhesive), poisson’s ratio, υ is taken as an average of υ1 and υ2.
Table 5.2 shows the material properties considered in this work.
Table 5.2 Material properties used in computation of transverse stiffness.
Modulus of Elasticity Poisson’s Ratio
Material
(GPa) (υ)
Adherend (UD CFRP
12.0 (E3) 0.31
+Epoxy)
Adhesive (AV 138M+HV
4.70 0.38
998)
Figure 5.13 shows the variation of transverse stiffness ‘Kt’ with the percentage interfacial
failure area ‘Ad’ plotted by taking the value of ‘a’ as unity. The interfacial stiffness ‘
Kt ’ as interfacial failure area A d 0 indicating a healthy bond, on the other hand ‘
Kt 0 ’ for a complete interfacial failure.
Figure 5.13 Reduction of transverse interfacial stiffness (Kt) with interfacial failure area.
Figure 5.14 Adhesive joint model with interfaces [186]

Figure 5.14 shows the adhesive joint model with a distinct interface having a thickness ‘h’.
Different boundary conditions can be applied to this interface. Slip boundaries between
layers may be modeled by uncoupling the shear stresses between the layer matrices [188].
One approach is to include a boundary condition matrix in the assembly of the layers
[187]. The particle displacements (ui ) and stresses (σik) on the upper and lower interfaces
can be related to each other for arbitrary layer thickness by a transfer matrix
uz u z'
uy u 'y
B '
yy yy (5.12)
'
yz yz
The elements of transfer matrix [B] depend on the layer properties and are illustrated in
detail by Rokhlin and Wang [187]. Equation 5.12 may be regarded as the boundary
condition which relates the stress and particle displacements across a layered interface. If
the wavelength ‘λ’ in the interface layer is much greater than its thickness (h), the matrix
B may be asymptotically expanded and can be further reduced making some assumptions
[187]. It finally takes the form.
1 0 0 i / kt
0 1 i / kn 0
[B] = 0 0 1 0 (5.13)
0 0 0 1
The associated boundary condition is given by Equation 5.14. The limiting case of the
welded boundary condition between two solids, which consists of continuity of the
stresses and displacements on the interfaces, follows from Equation 5.14 when kn and
kt . The B matrix in this case is a unit matrix.
'
yy K n (u y u 'y ), yz
'
Kt (u z u z' ), yy
'
yy , yz
'
yz (5.14)
Similarly one can obtain slip boundary condition when kn and kt 0, the shear stress
yz will be equal to zero and the transverse component (uz) of the displacement is
discontinuous on the interface. In some calculations of the wave reflection coefficient
from an imperfect interface only the transverse spring stiffness Kt in the boundary
conditions is taken into account assuming normal stiffness as infinity. Numerical
calculations show that this approach may give significant error even for thin layers;
however this approximation can be used when the interfacial layer has properties close to
that of the viscous liquid. When both the normal and transverse stiffness are considered
satisfactory results for reflection coefficients can be obtained [187].
Figure 5.15 Shift in the reflection minima due to variation of interfacial transverse stiffness (Kt)
Reflection coefficients from the interface between the CFRP adherend and the adhesive
were computed using the model described above. Bulk adhesive properties were kept
constant and only the transverse interfacial spring stiffness (Kt) was varied depending on
the interfacial failure area according to Equation 5.10. The normal spring stiffness ‘Kn’
was assumed to be twice that of transverse stiffness ‘Kt’ as suggested by Baltazar et al
[178]. Figure 5.15 shows the variation of the reflection coefficient with frequency. A shift
in the reflection minima towards lower frequencies can be observed for a degraded
adhesive joint sample. However, the shift is less compared to that observed experimentally
and this difference can be attributed to change in the bulk adhesive properties. The
experimentally observed shift of -0.7MHz was found to match when incremental failure
area Ad was at around 55%. In the models described above the bond line thickness was
kept constant, it was assumed that the surface was free of contaminants and the variation
in temperature and moisture was not considered. Hence, the frequency spectrum obtained
from both the models though does not match exactly with the experimental spectrum, a
similar trend could be observed.
It is reported by Rokhlin et al [180] that the influence of interfacial degradation
towards the spectrum shift is more significant when compared to that from bulk adhesive
degradation. They have also shown that minor degradation in bulk adhesive properties
tend to shift the spectrum minimum slightly towards higher frequency. This trend gets
reversed when the adhesive is severely degraded. A similar trend was observed for a
couple of samples with 10% and 20% PVA, where the degradation was relatively less.
This phenomenon can be explained using Equation 5.10, it can be seen that for the same
fraction of interfacial damage area ‘Ad’ the transverse interfacial stiffness Kt is inversely
proportional to the average distance between centers of circular disbonds ‘a’. It is found
that the stiffness Kt increases as the value of ‘a’ decreases which implies that the stiffness
reduction is more when larger disbonds are created rather than a number of small micro
disbonds. For P10 and P20 samples the degradation is relatively less; as such small pores
and micro disbonds are created at the interface (Figure 5.6b). As the amount of PVA is
increased (P30 and P40 samples) these pores and micro disbonds increase in their size
(Figure 5.6c) and decrease the value of Kt. Hence, the spectrum shift can be related to the
value of interfacial stiffness Kt which in turn is influenced by the extent of interfacial
degradation. The more the decrease in the value of Kt the more is the spectrum shift
towards lower frequency. It can thus be concluded that though both bulk adhesive
degradation and interfacial degradation influences the spectrum shift the latter apparently
has significant contribution towards it.
5.5 Determination of bulk and interfacial properties of an

adhesive joint
The frequency shift in the reflection minimum for oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection
was explained using two different models in the previous section. However, the main
objective was to characterize interfacial imperfections using ultrasonic signatures obtained
from the experiment. The reflection from perfect interface is independent of frequency
while that with spring boundary conditions (Equation 5.9) depends on frequency. The
interfacial spring stiffness can be determined using this frequency response [177]. Models
have been developed and inversion procedures have been followed to determine the
interfacial spring constants and bulk adhesive properties using ultrasonic signatures [176-
178]. Interfacial normal and transverse stiffness constants can be obtained experimentally
using normal and oblique incidence methods and these interfacial stiffness values describe
the imperfect interface uniquely. The ratio of normal and transverse interfacial stiffness
has been predicted successfully by Baltazar et al [178].
In the previous section the interface was modeled as an array of water filled
disbonds. In doing so the properties of the adhesive and the substrates were measured
independently and the interfacial spring stiffness value Kt was estimated using Equation
5.10 and varied according to the interfacial damage area Ad. The shift in the frequency
minima was estimated using the transfer matrix model and was found to be in accordance
with the experimental observation. The present section involves the determination of
interfacial stiffness Kt, using experimentally measured values of reflection minima using
an inverse algorithm. The frequency response from an adhesive joint depends on both
adhesive bulk and interfacial properties and often it is difficult to decouple the effects of
these two [178]. The amplitude of reflection coefficient also depends on the impedance
mismatch between the adhesive and the adherend. Hence, it is not purely an interface
phenomenon. It is also influenced by other factors like the attenuation in the adhesive
layer, the wave scattering at the interface etc. Therefore these factors have to be
considered while determining the interfacial and bulk layer properties using the inversion
procedure. To determine the interfacial and adhesive layer properties, bulk adhesive
samples with different percentages of PVA were prepared and subjected to ultrasonic
inspection after 24 hours of cure. Properties like density, longitudinal and shear wave
velocities, elastic and shear modulus, longitudinal and shear wave attenuations etc were
determined. A similar procedure was followed to determine the above said parameters for
the unidirectional CFRP substrates. Table 5.3 summarizes the property values obtained.
Table 5.3 Material property values determined using ultrasonic inspection

Transverse Longitudinal Shear
Modulus of Shear
Density Longitudinal wave Wave Wave
Elasticity modulus
Sample ‘ρ’ velocity ‘Vl’ velocity Attenuation Attenuation
‘E’ ‘G’
(kg/m3) (m/s) ‘Vt’ ‘αl’ ‘αt’
(GPa) (GPa)
(m/s) (Nepers/m) (Nepers/m)
Substrate
(CFRP) 1700 3100 1800 12 (E3) 5.4 15 45
P0 1548 2380 1400 4.7 3.0 20 53
P10 1429 2342 1370 4.2 2.7 26 63
P20 1322 2223 1300 3.5 2.3 34 75
P30 1213 2065 1210 2.8 1.8 39 89
P40 1107 1914 1150 2.2 1.5 48 104
Reflection coefficients due to impedance mismatch were determined and their effect on
the total reflection coefficient was eliminated. The energy loss at the interface due to
scattering is accounted for by imaginary parts in the interfacial stiffness constants. Literary
evidences have shown that the imaginary parts in the complex springs produce the same
effect on the reflection spectra as attenuation (αl and αt) in the thin embedded layer and
therefore cannot be separated easily [177,178]. This can be accomplished by performing
measurements in a broad frequency range which results in decoupling the effect of the
interfacial stiffness from the layer bulk properties. Due to lack of such an inspection
facility it was assumed that attenuations in the adhesive layer are known a priori and used
for reconstruction of interfacial spring constants.
5.5.1 Inversion algorithm

In determining the joint properties using the inversion algorithm a procedure similar to
that given by Rokhlin et al [177] was followed. The acoustic response from a layer
depends on elastic modulus ‘E’, shear modulus ‘G’, thickness ‘h’, density ‘ρ’, shear and
longitudinal wave attenuations. The properties of the interfacial contacts are described by
normal (KN) and transverse (KT) complex interfacial spring constants. Baltazar et al [178]
have suggested non dimensional parameters to describe all unknown variables which can
be reconstructed from measured normal and angular reflection ultrasonic spectra. Four
parameters can be determined from the measured normal reflection spectrum.
zl h ωo KN
Zn = , Hl = , KN= , l (5.15)
zs Vl ωo zl
Where Zl and Zs denotes the acoustic impedance in a layer and the substrate, ‘h’ is the
thickness of the layer, ωo is the angular frequency taken as 1 MHz for convenience as a
normalization factor, Vl is the longitudinal wave velocity in the layer, K N is the non
dimensional complex normal interfacial spring constant, and l is the longitudinal wave
attenuation. An additional set of four parameters can be determined using oblique
incidence inspection.
Vl Vt KT
Cl = , Ct = , KT = , t (5.16)
Vl s Vt s ωo z t
Where Vl s and Vt s are the longitudinal and shear wave velocities in the substrate
respectively, K T is the complex transverse interfacial spring constant, zt is the impedance
of the transverse wave in the layer and t is the transverse wave attenuation in the
adhesive. Once these non dimensional parameters are determined, dimensional parameters
can be obtained using the following equations [177].
Zn ρ s H l Cl Vl s
ρ= ,h , λ 2μ ρ Cl2Vl2s , μ ρ Ct2Vt2s (5.17)
Cl o
Figure 5.16 shows the flow chart of the reconstruction procedure to compute the
parameters in Equation 5.15 and 5.16. The parameters defined in Equation 5.15 were first
obtained by the normal reflection spectrum using a least-squares optimization procedure.
They were then used to find other parameters from the oblique reflection spectrum. The
non dimensional parameters were treated as independent variables in a multidimensional
space and an error function for the same can be estimated.
f2
2
e( X ) m i n Rt ( X ) Re ( X o ) (5.18)
f1
Where Re ( X o ) and Rt ( X ) are spectra for experimental and theoretical signals, ‘X’ is an
iterated set of non dimensional parameters where as ‘Xo’ is the actual set of material
properties. f1 and f2 are the bounds of the frequency range in which minimization is
performed. The frequency bounds are selected based on the transducer bandwidth and the
resonance frequency of the adhesive layer. The least-square algorithm may converge to
one of the minima of the error function. The initial guesses and accuracy of the
measurement will affect the convergence of the algorithm.
Figure 5.16 Reconstruction procedure [178]

Experimental data obtained using a 20MHz transducer has been used in reconstruction
procedure. When the thin adhesive layer and the substrates have the same properties the
position and amplitude of the reflection minima will depend only on the interface stiffness
which is zero at complete disbond and infinity for a perfect interface condition. The
experimental spectra obtained from normal incidence ultrasonic inspection did not show
significant shift from a healthy to degraded joint, however the shift was observed in the
oblique reflection spectra (Figure 5.5). Therefore, the sensitivity of the obliquely incident
waves to the degradation at the interface is considered much stronger. A similar
observation can be found in the model proposed by Lavrentyev and Rokhlin [168] to
characterize adhesive bond degradation due to moisture accumulation at the interface,
where it was shown that formation of very thin water-filled interfacial micro disbonds
produced very little effect on longitudinal wave reflection at normal incidence. This was
supported by the infrared measurements performed by Nguyen et al [181].
5.5.2 Reconstruction of interfacial stiffness

Interfacial stiffness and bulk properties of the adhesive layer were reconstructed from the
experimental normal and oblique reflection spectra. Since the normal reflectivity spectra
was not sensitive to interfacial degradation the normal stiffness KN was assumed to be
infinite and the transverse spring stiffness constant was obtained for simulating the poor
contact between substrates and an adhesive layer. The imaginary part of the complex
interfacial spring stiffness corresponds to energy loss due to ultrasonic scattering at the
interface; however its effect is not so significant to be considered, hence only the real part
of spring constant Kt was considered. Figure 5.17 shows the variation of interfacial
stiffness for adhesive joint samples with different amounts of PVA. The interfacial
transverse stiffness Kt shows a significant decrease with increase in degradation. A similar
trend can be observed in the empirical curve shown in figure 5.13. Depending on the value
of ‘Kt’ a qualitative assessment can be made as to whether a bond is good or bad.
However, literary evidence [18,176] show that there is threshold limit for the value of Kt
(Kt=3x1015N/m3) above which the ultrasonic reflection signature does not depend on the
spring stiffness value, hence it becomes difficult to reconstruct the interfacial property
values in the frequency range below 15MHz. At a value below this threshold; frequency
minimum shift can be detected.
Figure 5.17 Variation of interfacial transverse stiffness Kt with different percentage of PVA
5.6 Summary
Experimental and analytical investigations were carried out on adhesive joints made of
unidirectional CFRP substrates and epoxy adhesive using Oblique incidence ultrasonic
inspection. This was performed using a pitch catch mode experimental setup where the
angle of incidence was chosen to be beyond the first critical angle so that only the shear
wave component is incident on the interface. The amplitude of reflected shear waves from
the adhesive layer increased with an increase in degradation. A shift in the frequency
minimum towards lower frequencies was observed in degraded samples, this shift is
attributed to the changes in the pulse due to the defects at the interface and in the bulk
adhesive. The bond strength was found to be related to the percentage of interfacial failure
which in turn was proportional to the shift in reflection minimum observed.
This phenomenon was cross verified using a transfer matrix model where the
adhesive layer was treated as a viscoelastic material and degradation was taken into
account by decreasing the value of relaxation parameter. The model showed a similar
trend to that observed in the experiments. Another model where the interface was treated
as an array of liquid filled disbonds was used to examine the influence of interfacial
degradation on the frequency minimum shift. The mismatch between the experimentally
observed spectra and the theoretical spectra can be attributed to sensitivity of the
experimentally observed reflection minima to various factors like variation in bondline
thickness, surface roughness, environmental conditions like moisture and temperature etc.
An inversion algorithm was used to determine the interfacial transverse stiffness
(Kt) using the experimental spectra obtained from oblique incidence inspection performed
with a 20MHz transducer. The spectrum shift can be attributed to the interfacial stiffness
Kt; the more the decrease in the value of Kt the more is the spectrum shift towards lower
frequency. Both bulk adhesive degradation and interfacial degradation influence the
spectrum minimum shift but the contribution of latter was found to be more. A significant
decrease in the value of Kt was observed with an increase in degradation, using which a
qualitative assessment can be made as to whether the bond is good or bad.
The normal incidence and oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection methods can be
effectively utilized to evaluate the degradation in adhesive joints provided the bond line
area is accessible for inspection. However, in a real structure this may not be always
possible. In such a situation guided wave techniques using Lamb waves can be convenient
for in-situ inspection as they can be transmitted and received on the same side of the
structure across the adhesive joint. These techniques have the advantage of increased
speed of inspection of large regions of material as each measurement inspects along a line
rather than a single point. Further, when ultrasonic waves are made to propagate through a
degraded material a strong non linear effect may be generated. Thus, it could be expected
that the degree of material degradation can be evaluated by measuring the ultrasonic wave
parameters that are affected by this non-linearity. These factors emphasize the need for
using these advanced ultrasonic techniques to evaluate the integrity of CFRP adhesive
joints. The next chapter gives details of investigations carried out in this regard using
guided wave techniques and non-linear ultrasonic technique.
Chapter 6
Study of Degradation in Composite Lap Joints using

Advanced Ultrasonic Techniques
6.1 Introduction
A detailed discussion on conventional normal and oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection
of composite adhesive lap shear joints has been presented in the previous chapters.
Though these methods are effective they need access to the bonded region and inspection
has to be performed point by point. Hence, they are more useful when evaluating defects
or degradation locally. However, real life structures are quite large and direct access to the
joint region may not be always possible. Hence, advanced ultrasonic techniques like
guided wave inspection are more useful for non destructive evaluation of large structures.
Further, conventional ultrasonic methods are less sensitive to evenly distributed micro-
cracks and pores. If ultrasonic waves are made to propagate through a degraded material, a
strong non linear effect may be generated due to the non linear properties of that material.
Thus, it could be expected that the degree of material degradation can be evaluated by
measuring the ultrasonic wave parameters that are affected by this non-linearity. An
attempt has been made to utilize guided wave and non linear ultrasonic inspection to study
the degradation in CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints. The details of the work carried out in this
regard have been discussed in this chapter.
Guided waves/Lamb waves are plane strain waves that occur in a free plate guided
by the lower and upper surface of the plate. For a given plate thickness and frequency,
there are many propagation modes which are grouped into symmetrical and anti-
symmetrical fundamental modes. These characteristics distinguish Lamb waves from bulk
waves. Ultrasonic guided waves form an attractive tool for non-destructive testing of
adhesive joints due to their mode and frequency tuning capabilities. Guided wave behavior
in a structure is governed by the dispersion phenomenon which in turn depends on
waveguide dimensions which in this case include bond line thickness, overlap length and
also on material parameters like adhesive and cohesive properties. The presence and
location of defects like delamination and kissing bonds also influence the guided wave
propagation in the joint. The transmission of ultrasonic guided wave energy can be used as
a guideline to select optimal conditions for joint inspection.
The investigation of wave propagation in an elastic plate dates back to the initial
work by Lamb [189]. The dispersion relations obtained for the symmetric and anti-
symmetric modes are referred as the Rayleigh-Lamb dispersion equations (Appendix B).
The propagation of Lamb waves in plate structures and their behavior has been studied
and widely reported [190-194]. Studies have been carried out on Lamb wave propagation
84
Chapter 6. Advanced ultrasonic inspection of composite adhesive joints 85
in complicated plate systems like composite [195-202] and bonded structures [203-210].
Puthillath et al [211] have carried out a numerical parametric study on the influence of
different joint parameters like bond line thickness, overlap length, cohesive, adhesive
weakness and defects on ultrasonic guided wave behavior in bonded joints. The composite
to composite bonded lap joint with an adhesive layer can be better candidate for plate
wave based investigations. Details of experimental and numerical studies carried out on
propagation of Lamb waves across composite to composite adhesive Lap joints have been
discussed in this chapter. The objective was to investigate the effect of variation in
adhesive layer properties on the transmission of fundamental Lamb wave modes (a o and
so) across the joint. The experimental results were compared with finite element analysis
performed using the commercial software ANSYS in which simulation of wave
propagation and their interactions at the boundaries of the overlap region were carried out
in time domain.
6.2 Dispersion curve considerations
Figure 6.1 Phase velocity dispersion curves for a unidirectional CFRP laminate (2.5 mm thick, 14
layers) along the fiber direction
The wave propagation in composites is complex due to its nature of being anisotropic,
inhomogeneous and the multi-layered construction. Further, velocity of wave modes is
macroscopically dependent on the laminate lay-up sequence, the direction of wave
propagation, frequency and interface conditions. One of the important and critical tasks to
be performed initially for any inspection method using Lamb waves is to choose the
appropriate regimes in the dispersion curves to excite the required mode. The received
signal becomes complex if more than one mode is excited, making it difficult to decipher
the required information. The wave should be relatively non dispersive at the chosen
frequency to ensure that the signal shapes are retained as the wave propagates through the
structure.
Figure 6.1 shows the phase velocity dispersion curves for a unidirectional CFRP
laminate having a thickness of 2.5 mm (14 layers, each having a thickness of 0.18 mm)
plotted using a MATLAB code based on three dimensional elasticity theory [190, 196].
Note that small letters (a, s) are used to indicate the modes in the CFRP substrate and
capital letters (A, S) has been used to indicate the modes in the bonded region (figure 6.3).
The material property values that were considered in plotting the dispersion curves are
shown in table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Material properties considered in plotting the dispersion curves for CFRP laminate
Transverse Shear Shear Poisson’s

Longitudinal Poisson’s Density
modulus modulus modulus ratio
modulus ratio ρ
E2=E3 G12=G13 G23 ν12= ν13
E1 (GPa) ν23 (kg/m3)
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
130 12 5.4 4.5 0.31 0.38 1700
It can be observed from the dispersion curves (Figure 6.1) that while ao mode is dispersive
below 200 kHz-mm, so mode is non dispersive below 650 kHz-mm, operating above this
value results in the excitation of higher order modes. Many practical problems are
encountered due to reverberations and interference if a very low excitation frequency is
used [212]. Hence, an excitation frequency of 230 kHz was used in the present work.
6.2.1 Dispersion behavior in the bonded region
Figure 6.2 Schematic of Lamb wave propagation across a single lap joint
A schematic illustration of guided wave propagation across the single lap shear joint is
shown in figure 6.2. The wave in the transmitter plate may convert to one or more modes
at the location where it first meets the adhesive layer. Mode conversion is a consequence
of different dispersive behavior of a single adherend plate compared to a multilayered
bonded region. The modes generated will then travel along the bonded region. Reverse
mode conversion takes place when the wave reaches the edge of the overlap region.
Transmitted Lamb waves then travel in the receiver plate. The waves which travel in the
bonded region are referred to as carrier modes because of their role in transmission of
energy across the joint [212]. The mode conversion and number of modes propagating in
the joint region can be better understood by plotting the dispersion curves. To accomplish
this, the Global Matrix Method (GMM) has been used. Lowe [186] has given an excellent
review on the matrix methods for modeling ultrasonic waves in multilayered media.
Similarly, Hosten and Castaings [213] have used matrix methods to simulate the ultrasonic
wave propagation in composite materials.
The overlap region can be modeled as a five layered structure where the top and
the bottom layers are assumed to be vacuum and treated as semi infinite half space.
Second and fourth layers are the two unidirectional CFRP adherends. The third or the
middle layer is the adhesive. The Lamb waves propagating in each layer are considered to
be a result of superimposition of two pairs of partial longitudinal and transverse waves
traveling with positive and negative wave numbers in through the thickness direction. A
field matrix [D] of order 4 x 4 relates the amplitude of the partial waves to the
displacement and stress fields in a layer. It is assumed that the displacements and stresses
are continuous at the interfaces between two layers. A global matrix (Equation 6.1) can be
assembled using individual field matrices. The elements of the field matrix [D] for a layer
and associated steps to generate the global matrix for the adhesive lap joint system are
briefed in Appendix B.
D1b D2t A1
A2
D2b D3t
A3 0
D3b D4t
A4
D4b D5t A5 (6.1)
The global matrix contains the field matrices relative to the top (t) and the bottom (b)
interfaces for each of the five layers. Only one interface is considered for the two semi-
infinite half spaces. The column matrix consists of partial wave amplitudes in all the layers
where two pairs of amplitudes for a layer are condensed into a column vector [Ai], for, i
=1…..5. Equation (6.1) represents a homogeneous system of 16 equations in 16 unknown
amplitudes; once the top and bottom layers are assumed to be vacuum. The dispersive
modal solution for a multilayer structure can be obtained by solving the resulting
characteristic equation. The amplitudes can be calculated by assuming the wave amplitude
in one of the layers as known. In the present study the amplitude of the incoming
longitudinal partial wave at the top adherend was assumed to be of unit amplitude and the
system of equations were solved.
Figure 6.3 shows the phase velocity dispersion curves for the bonded region where
each of the two CFRP adherends was treated as a single transversely isotropic layer of 2.5
mm thickness. The adhesive layer was treated as a viscoelastic material of 0.76 mm
thickness. It can be observed that the modes have shifted towards lower frequencies (as
compared to the modes in a single CFRP adherend plate) and at 230 kHz (575 kHz-mm)
there are five possible modes Ao, So, A1, S1 and S2. Although these are waves in a
multilayered adhesive joint rather than a single plate, the conventional Lamb wave labels
were used for convenience. In general, a fundamental mode incident may be converted in
some proportion to each of these five modes.
Figure 6.3 Phase velocity dispersion curves for the bonded region
6.2.2 Dispersion behavior due to degradation in the adhesive

Two different cases of adhesive quality were examined, one a healthy sample (H) without
any PVA and second, the most degraded sample P40 with 40% PVA. The properties
considered for the two cases are given in Table 6.2. These properties were determined
experimentally using unidirectional CFRP adherend and bulk adhesive samples. The
attenuation values shown in the table were taken from reference [212]. These are typical
values for a hard epoxy used in adhesive bonding.
Table 6.2 Properties of the CFRP substrate and the epoxy adhesive considered in GMM.
Transverse Modulus Longitudinal
Longitudinal Shear Shear wave
Density wave of wave
Layer velocity modulus attenuation
(kg/m3) velocity elasticity attenuation
(m/s) (GPa) (dB/Wavelength)
(m/s) (GPa) (dB/Wavelength)
Substrate
(Unidirectional
-CFRP) 1700 3100 1800 130 (E1) 5.4 - -
(Transversely
Isotropic)
Epoxy Resin
(H) 1548 2380 1400 4.7 3.0 1.3 2.4
(visco-elastic)
Epoxy Resin 1107 1914 1150 2.2 1.5 1.7 3.1

(P40)
(visco-elastic)
The phase velocity dispersion curves for the two cases considered are shown in figure 6.4.
It is observed that the highly dispersive branches shift towards lower frequencies and the
non dispersive branches shift towards lower phase velocities for the degraded sample. The
symmetric modes (Si) are known to have higher normal stresses at the interface layer,
resulting in better sensitivity to the interface longitudinal stiffness. Whereas, the anti
symmetric modes (Ai) are sensitive to transverse stiffness. Thus, both the modes are found
to be sensitive to the degradation in adhesive layer. It can also be seen that the shift of the
dispersion curves in frequency is more significant compared to the shift of the dispersion
curves in the phase velocity.
Figure 6.4. Phase velocity dispersion curves in bonded region for a healthy sample (H) and
degraded sample (P40).
Study of cross-sectional mode shapes can be helpful in understanding some aspects of

mode conversion phenomenon in the bonded region. Previous research experiences have
shown that an excitation mode will naturally convert to those modes that have similar
cross-sectional fields [214]. Lowe et al [212] have shown that when ‘so’ mode is incident
on to the bonded region the first order modes, ‘A1’ and ‘S1’ will carry more energy as their
cross-sectional shapes are identical to those of incident mode. Francesco et al [215] have
shown that when ‘ao’ mode is incident the fundamental modes ‘Ao’ and ‘So’ in the bonded
region will carry more energy. Phase velocity dispersion curves (figure 6.4) for the bonded
region show that there is no change in either the velocity or frequency in the fundamental
modes at the test frequency (575 kHz-mm) for the two cases considered. However,
traceable changes can be observed in the first order modes ‘A1’ and ‘S1’ at 575 kHz-mm,
hence, a more natural choice for the experimental investigations would be the ‘so’ mode.
6.3 Experimental Investigations

When access to the surface of individual substrates is possible such as in a single lap shear
joint, bond inspection can be carried out by exciting a Lamb wave mode in one of the
adherend and receiving it in the other adherend across the bondline. The concept exploits
the leakage of the Lamb waves from one adherend to the other through the bonded overlap
region. The change in various features of the transmitted wave such as group velocity and
amplitude can be used as indicators of bond quality [216].
Figure 6.5 CFRP adhesive joints with PZT disk sensors bonded on either edge
Experimental investigations were carried out on unidirectional CFRP-Epoxy adhesive
joint samples by exciting both ‘ao’ and ‘so’ modes at one end of the CFRP substrate using
PZT disks and receiving the transmitted modes at the other end (Figure 6.5). The
experiments were performed using a National Instrument card (NI PXI 1031) and
LABVIEW software. The PZT disks had a thickness of 0.5 mm, diameter of 10 mm, and a
central frequency of 230 kHz. Both the disks were bonded firmly on the CFRP adherend
using phenyl salicylate. The actuator was excited using a single frequency tone burst
sinusoidal pulse with 5 cycles, 100 μs duration and 10 Volts input amplitude. The signal
received was then processed to remove noise using LABVIEW and plotted using a
MATLAB code.
Figure 6.6 Experimental amplitude versus time plots for the CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints with
different bond quality.
Results showed no significant changes for different samples when ‘ao’ mode was excited
in the CFRP adherend. This was as expected from the dispersion curve studies, where the
excitation of ‘ao’ mode in the adherend results in the fundamental modes Ao and So to
carry more energy in the multilayered bonded region [215]. A closer observation of
dispersion curves (Figure 6.4) reveals that there is no change in the Ao and So mode at the
test frequency-thickness of 575 kHz-mm. However, when so mode was excited, changes in
both amplitude and frequency of the received signals were observed. Figure 6.6 presents
the received time signal for healthy, P20 and P40 samples. It is evident that the amplitude of
the received pulse decreases with an increase in PVA percentage indicating degradation in
the bond quality. However, no significant changes in the group velocity could be
observed. The results for P10 and P30 samples also followed similar trend, however, they
are not shown in the figure to ensure better visibility.
The decrease in amplitude of the received signal with an increasing percentage of
PVA can be attributed to either attenuation in the adhesive joint or due to its reduced
stiffness. Since the adhesive layer is treated as viscoelastic material of thickness 0.76 mm,
complex wave numbers and wave velocities need to be used. The real part of the wave
number represents the propagation direction and the imaginary part describes the wave
attenuation. Complex wave numbers and bulk velocities are represented as [190].
i L i T
KL KT (6.2)
CL 2 CT 2
CL CT (6.3)
KL KT
Where KL and KT represent the longitudinal and shear wave numbers, CL and CT denote
longitudinal and transverse wave velocities; ηL and ηT are the longitudinal and shear
damping parameters respectively. This leads to complex Rayleigh-Lamb dispersion
equation using which the variation in attenuation for individual modes can be plotted. If
‘K = α+iβ’ is a root of the Rayleigh-Lamb equation. The components of the displacement
field can be written as
U= A ei(αx-ωt) e-βx (6.4)
Where ‘x’ is the wave propagation distance. The amplitude of guided wave will decay as
e-βx after propagating a distance x. Figure 6.7 shows the variation of attenuation
(imaginary part of wave number) for the fundamental so and ao modes with frequency. It
can be observed that the attenuation becomes a significant factor at higher frequencies. At
the testing frequency of 230 kHz, the change in attenuation of the so mode is very small
and hence, its effect on the reduction in wave amplitude is minimal.
Figure 6.7 Variation of attenuation (imaginary part of wave number) for fundamental modes
A similar observation has been reported by Lowe et al [212] where moderate losses were
observed for the modes at the testing frequency of 625 kHz for a propagation distance of
100mm. They have also reported that introduction of attenuation properties in the adhesive
had a negligible effect on the wave numbers and velocities of the modes. Damping has the
greatest influence when the joints have long bond lengths. Its effect is to reduce the overall
transmission of all the modes across the bond line. However, in the current experimental
investigations the overlap length was 25.4 mm and the frequency used was also low.
Hence, it can be concluded that the reduction in amplitude observed in the experimental
signals was due to reduced stiffness as a result of degradation in the joint area.
6.3.1 Time-frequency analysis

A time-frequency analysis of the received signals was carried out based on the wavelet
transform using AGU-Vallen wavelet software to extract energies of the dispersive modes.
Lowe et al [212] have used 2D-Fourier transform (FFT) to extract transmission
coefficients using multiple signals propagating across the bonded joint. However, a
wavelet transform requires a single excitation point and a single detection point. The
wavelet transform has multi resolution capability from a flexible window that is broader in
time for observing low frequencies. The wavelet transform does not generate spurious
cross terms that can be detrimental in the presence of multiple echoes [215]. The Gabor
wavelet transform (GWT) is attractive as it provides the best balance between time and
frequency resolution since it uses the smallest possible Heisenberg uncertainty box. The
GWT modulates the analyzing wavelet with a Gaussian window g (t) expressed as
2 2
1 / Gs t
g (t ) 4
exp (6.5)
Gs 2
Where ‘t’ is the time, η is the wavelet center frequency, Gs is the Gabor shaping factor.
The values considered for these parameters affect the time-frequency resolution of the
analysis. The default values (η = 2π and Gs = 5.336) in the software were used. Different
values for these parameters can alter the absolute magnitude of the GWT scalogram peaks.
However, once an acceptable resolution is achieved, the relative magnitude of the peaks
taken at the same frequency remains largely unaffected by the particular choice of η and
Gs.
(a) (b)
Figure 6.8 Gabor wavelet transform scalogram of experimental signals for a.) Healthy sample and
b.) P40 sample.
Figure 6.8 shows the frequency time plots for a healthy sample and a degraded sample
(P40). It can be observed that the maximum value of the wavelet coefficient has decreased
and there is a shift in frequency with increasing percentage of PVA. Figure 6.9 shows the
variation of wavelet coefficient with time and frequency. It can be observed that there is a
significant reduction in the value of wavelet coefficient in P40 sample due to degradation.
Further, there is a negative shift in the frequency at which this maximum value is attained
for degraded samples compared to healthy sample. Decrease in the value of wavelet
coefficient can be attributed to loss of energy during transmission across the bonded
region due to reduced stiffness caused by the degradation.
The transmission loss can be obtained by taking the ratio of the wavelet
coefficients for healthy sample and degraded sample (P40). Figure 6.10 shows a plot of
transmission loss in P40 sample as compared to a healthy sample plotted against frequency.
It is clear that the transmission of energy is dependent on frequency, which in turn is a
function of bond quality and attenuation losses of the guided wave modes. The greatest
loss is observed at around 750 kHz indicating that this frequency is most sensitive to
degradation. However, the transmission losses are less for frequencies below 550 kHz.
Any frequency value between 650 kHz to 800 kHz is expected give better results from
inspection. Similar results have been observed by Scalea et al [215] for metallic adhesive
joints.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6.9 variation of wavelet coefficients with a.) Time and b.) Frequency
Figure 6.10 Transmission loss in P40 sample as compared to a healthy sample

6.4 Finite element simulation

The experimental results obtained were verified using a 2D finite element model using
which the transmission of the so mode across the adhesively bonded composite joint was
studied.
Figure 6.11 finite element model of a single lap shear joint
Analytical models can only be applied to solve problems with simple boundary conditions
[210]. This limitation can be overcome using numerical methods like finite element
method which has been used to study the propagation of different modes like so, ao and a1
across aluminium-epoxy adhesive joint by Lowe et al [212]. The effect of weak interfaces
on the propagation of lower order modes has been numerically studied using different
modes by Hosten and Castaings [216]. The objective of finite element model in the current
work was to investigate the physics of Lamb wave propagation across the joint and to
study the effects of variation in bond-line properties. This task was accomplished using a
FEM code which can be run using a commercial software ANSYS. The code simulates the
propagation of the waves and their interactions at boundaries in the overlap region.
Table 6.3. Material properties of the CFRP adherend and the epoxy adhesive considered in finite
element modeling.
Longitudinal Transverse Shear
Shear Poisson’s Poisson’s Density
elastic elastic modulus
Material modulus ratio ratio ρ
modulus modulus G12, G13
properties G23(GPa) υ 12 , υ 13 υ 23 (kg/m3)
E1 (GPa) E2, E3 (GPa) (GPa)
Uni-directional 130 12 5.4 4.5 0.31 0.38 1700

CFRP Adherend
Epoxy adhesive
4.7 (E) - - - 0.38 (υ) - 1548
(healthy)
Epoxy adhesive
with 20 percent
3.5 (E) - - - 0.38 (υ) - 1322
PVA
(P20)
Epoxy adhesive
with 40 percent
2.2 (E) - - - 0.38 (υ) - 1107
PVA
(P40)
Figure 6.11 shows a schematic of the 2D finite element model for an adhesive lap shear
joint. A four node bi-linear Lagrangian element PLANE 42 was used to represent the two
dimensional section in plane-strain. A fine mesh (element size 0.5 mm) was used such that
the threshold of eight elements per wavelength which has been suggested by Hosten and
Castaings [216] to be a good limit for accurate modeling is met. The mesh for the adhesive
layer was chosen to be of similar refinement to the meshes in the adherends i.e., 2
elements for a bond line thickness of 0.76 mm. The input signal was the only boundary
condition applied to the model. Perfect bonding was assumed between the CFRP adherend
and the epoxy layer. The two CFRP adherends were modeled as orthotropic material and
the epoxy resin was modeled as an elastic material with properties shown in table 6.3.
The damping properties for the adherend and adhesive layer were neglected as the
objective was to study the effect of change in material properties like modulus and density
in the adhesive layer on the propagation of the ‘so’ mode. This was also in line with the
experimental observations on attenuation where it was found that at low frequencies the
attenuation of the fundamental modes was very less.
The excitation of the ‘so’ mode was achieved by prescribing the displacements at
the nodes across the thickness of the remote end of the transmitter plate, over the time
period of the signal. The displacement signal used consisted of five cycles of the target
frequency 230 kHz which was made to propagate through the bond region and received at
the edge (top node) of the receiver plate, similar to the experimental procedure. Three
different cases were considered, a healthy sample, P20 sample and P40 sample with
properties as shown in table 6.3. The displacements at the receiving node i.e., the farthest,
topmost node of the receiver plate were recorded and plotted against time as shown in
Figure 6.12.
Figure 6.12 Simulated amplitude versus time plots for the CFRP-Epoxy adhesive joints with
different bond quality
Both finite element and experimental signals showed a similar trend as shown in Figure
6.13; where the normalized wave amplitude (normalized with respect to wave amplitude of
a healthy joint) decreases with increasing percentage of PVA. It can be seen from the
figure that the amplitude of the received pulse decreases with degraded material properties
of the adhesive. However, the difference in their relative decay can be attributed to the
assumptions made in finite element simulation, where parameters like bondline thickness,
attenuation, overlap length etc., were held constant. It can therefore be concluded that a
major contribution towards the reduction in received amplitude comes from degradation in
material properties and reduced bond stiffness.
Figure 6.13 Decay in normalized wave amplitude with percentage PVA as seen in experiment
and finite element simulation.
Figure 6.14 Different stages of wave propagation in the joint

The numerical simulation studies were also an attempt to study the nature of wave
propagation in the adhesive joints. Figure 6.14 shows different stages of wave propagation
in a joint (different colors indicate in-plane nodal displacements). The first stage is when
the wave enters the bonded region; a part of energy gets leaked into the joint area while
the remaining part gets reflected. The second stage is when the modes propagate in the
bonded region and again gets reflected and converted at the second edge of the joint. In the
third stage; modes get transmitted into the receiver plate and propagate in it,
reverberations in the joint area and reflected modes in the transmitter plate can also be
seen.
6.5 Non-linear ultrasonic inspection

Conventional ultrasonic wave based methods can be very effective in detecting, sizing and
locating planar damages with clear interfaces. However, general degradation in strength
may be found in apparently flawless joints which are difficult to evaluate. Therefore a
NDE method that can reflect material degradation in an adhesively bonded joint at any
stage of service becomes more important. Ultrasonic wave based techniques with a non-
conventional approach can be a powerful tool for non destructive inspection where the
characteristics of its propagation are directly related to the properties of material. It is
known that material failure is usually preceded by some kind of nonlinear mechanical
behavior before significant material damage occurs [221, 222]. If ultrasonic waves are
made to propagate through the material at this stage a strong non linear effect may be
generated due to the non linear properties of that material. Thus material degradation can
be evaluated by measuring the ultrasonic wave parameters that are affected by this non-
linearity.
The classical theory of nonlinear wave propagation in solids has been discussed
and presented by Truell et al and Hikata et al [223, 224]. Most of the research on
nonlinear phenomenon has followed along these lines. The nonlinearity of ultrasonic wave
means that the second or higher order frequency component exists besides the
fundamental component when the wave propagates through a degraded non-linear zone in
a medium. The magnitude of these higher order components is related to condition of
material as well as the magnitude of wave amplitude and propagation distance. Therefore,
the magnitude of the higher order component will appear differently in normal and
degraded material when the same amplitude of wave and the same propagation distance is
used. This tendency is known from previous research carried out on metals for fatigue
damage evaluation [225, 226].
In the last few years the NDE community has turned its attention to investigating
the possibility of using non linear acoustic techniques to measure properties of adhesive
joints [155-158, 227-229]. A detailed theoretical description on non linear propagation of
waves in layered media has been given by Hirsekorn and Brekhovskikh [230, 231]. The
basic parameter that has to be evaluated in this context is the nonlinearity parameter (β).
There are two approaches to obtain this parameter. First is from studying the second
harmonic generation and the other from acousto-elastic effect [155]. The latter approach
requires application of stress and measurement of very small change in sound velocity in a
thin adhesive layer and therefore does not seem to be very practical. Thus, the method of
second harmonic generation is preferred by most of the researchers.
The objective of this study was to utilize the second harmonic method to
characterize CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints with varied bond quality and to show the
correlation between nonlinearity and adhesive degradation with the help of experimental
results. The mechanism of second harmonic generation during propagation of ultrasonic
wave through the degraded joint is firstly shown on the basis of nonlinear elasticity.
RITEC high power nonlinear ultrasonic system was used to generate and measure the
second harmonic frequency component. Series of experiments were carried out on CFRP-
Epoxy adhesive joints with varied bond quality in order to obtain a correlation between the
amplitude of the second harmonic frequency and the adhesive degradation. Experimental
results showed that nonlinear acoustic effect has the potential to be used as an effective
tool for the evaluation of degradation of adhesive joints.
6.6 Nonlinear acoustic effect in materials

The nonlinear behavior of materials can be explained using the nonlinear version of
Hooke’s law as shown in Equation (6.6) [225, 226]
E (1 ...) (6.6)
Where ‘E’ is Young’s modulus and ‘β’ is a higher order elastic coefficient commonly
known as nonlinear parameter. This relationship has been approved experimentally for
metallic materials by some researchers [224]. The contribution of material degradation
towards higher order harmonics is very small and hence, all higher order terms except the
second, can be neglected. In order to explain the generation of higher order harmonic
waves, consider the case where a single frequency ultrasonic longitudinal wave is incident
on one side of a structure with degradation and received on the other side after passing
through its thickness. If ‘A1’ is the amplitude of the initial sound pressure and ‘ω’ is the
angular frequency and ‘k’ is the wave number, the incident longitudinal wave can be
expressed mathematically as [232].
uo A1 c o s (k x t) (6.7)
where ‘uo’ is the initial displacement of the excited wave. If the effect of attenuation is
neglected, then the equation of motion for longitudinal planar wave in a material can be
represented as
2
u
(6.8)
t2 x
Where ‘ρ’ is the density of the medium, ‘u’ is the displacement, ‘x’ is the propagation
distance of the sound waves in the medium, ‘σ’ is the stress and ‘t’ is the time. Using
equations (6.6) and (6.8) and the relationship between strains and displacements, one can
obtain the nonlinear wave equation for displacement ‘u’ as
2 2
u u u
E 1 2
t2 x2 x (6.9)
In order to obtain a solution, let us assume the displacement ‘u’ to be
u uo u1 (6.10)
Where ‘uo’ is the initial displacement of excited wave and ‘u1’ is the first order solution. If
‘uo’ is the initial displacement for a single frequency sinusoidal waveform then the
solution to the second order will be [233]
u uo u ' A1 c o s (k x t) A12k 2 x s i n 2(k x t)

8 (6.11)
The second term in Equation (6.11) represents the second harmonic frequency component.
Using this we can explain how second order harmonic component can occur through the
propagation process [234, 235]. The magnitude of the second order harmonic component
(A2) depends on ‘β’ which represents the nonlinear elastic characteristics of the material
and is closely related to the degradation of the material. Therefore, a measure of the
magnitude of ‘β’ can be utilized to evaluate the change of the material properties or
degradation.
6.7 Experimental details
Figure 6.15 Experimental setup for nonlinear ultrasonic inspection of adhesive joints
A schematic diagram of an experimental setup to measure the magnitude of second

harmonic component in the received ultrasonic waves is shown in figure 6.15.
Experiments were carried out using an ultrasonic pulser-reciever RITEC RPR-4000
instrument which adopts the heterodyne signal detection technique in order to reduce
additive electrical noise effectively. Through transmission technique was employed to
accomplish the task where a 1 MHz contact PZT transducer was used as a pulser and a 2
MHz contact transducer was used as a receiver to pick up the second harmonic. Both
transducers were coupled to the CFRP adherend surface using glycerin as couplant and a
spring clip was used to hold the transducers in position at a constant contact pressure. An
input signal with varying amplitudes was given to the pulser. In order to avoid overlap of
the echoes within the adherends, the wave was restricted to 6 cycles. On the other hand,
the burst was long enough to ensure interference effects in the adhesive layer. The
resulting signal from the 2 MHz receiver was amplified using a preamplifier (60dB) with
an internal band pass filter in the range 800 kHz to 2.5 MHz to ensure that the noise is
minimized. Figure 6.16 shows the received signal which was then fed into the digital
oscilloscope where the signal was digitized for further signal processing.
Figure 6.16 Received time domain signals for a healthy sample and degraded P40 sample
The amplitudes of the first (A1) and second harmonic components (A2) were recorded at
different excitation voltages ranging from 100 to 400 volts using Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT). Though in such a set up the nonlinear effects may have contributions from factors
such as delay line of the transmitting and receiving transducers, couplant film, adherend,
and adhesive layer itself, in the present work, considering all the other parameters un
altered, and only the material properties of the adhesive being degraded using PVA, any
change in the nonlinear parameter can be attributed to adhesive layer degradation. An
analytical description in first order can be achieved by using a volume model approach
that takes the interference in the adhesive layer partially into account [155], since A1 >>
A2, only interference of the fundamental wave is considered this implies
2
2 A1
A2 x (6.12)
8
Where, ‘λ’ denotes the wavelength and ‘x’ a distance equal to thickness of the adhesive
layer. It is clear from the above equation that ‘β α [A2 / (A1)2]’, hence, a higher magnitude
of A1 contributes significantly towards the magnitude of second harmonic. However, a
high magnitude fundamental harmonic can be obtained in the condition of resonance
which occurs if Equation (6.13) is satisfied for n = 0, 1, 2…
n
t (6.13)
2
It needs to be noted that in case of a resonance the magnitude of A1 is increased by a factor
of 3.5, since A2 is squarely proportional to A1, the magnitude of the second harmonic can
also be quite high. Therefore, it appears to be promising to observe the nonlinear
properties of an adhesive layer by studying the second harmonic. The appearance of
wavelength ‘λ’ in Equation (6.12) implies that the second harmonic also depends on the
sound velocity. However, since the influence of wavelength is seen even in numerator i.e.,
on A1, a simple prediction of its influence on second harmonic is not possible.
Figure 6.17 shows the variation of the magnitude of the second harmonic (A2) with
fundamental harmonic (A1)2 at different input voltages. As shown, the amplitude of A2
increases with an increase in the magnitude of input, since at higher voltages A1 becomes
high and contributes significantly towards A2. It can also be seen that the slope of the
variation also increases with increased PVA percentage, indicating the influence of
degradation on the higher harmonics of propagated ultrasonic wave. The slopes of these
curves give a measure of nonlinearity parameter (β) which was computed and plotted
against PVA percentage as shown in figure 6.18. It can be observed that the nonlinearity
parameter (β) increases with increase in PVA percentage reflecting the influence of
degradation. It should also be noted that the nonlinearity parameter for severely degraded
(P40) sample increases by a factor of 7 as compared to a healthy sample. Figure 6.19 shows
the variation of ‘β’ with the average shear strength of the CFRP adhesive joint samples. It
can be observed that the nonlinearity parameter decreases with increasing bond strength. It
is reported that [155] the influence of the nonlinearity at the interface of the joint due to
strong intermolecular forces of attraction is negligibly small towards changes in β. Hence,
any significant changes in β can be attributed to loss of stiffness in the bond line due to
adhesive degradation.
Figure 6.17 Variation of the second harmonic amplitude (A2) with fundamental harmonic (A1)2 at
different levels of input voltage
Figure 6.18 Variation of the nonlinearity parameter (β) with PVA percentage
Thus, the experimental results obtained clearly shows the influence of degradation on
nonlinear modulation of the input ultrasonic waves. The nonlinearity parameter (β)
increases with increase in degradation. Higher nonlinear parameter implies lower
strength. It should however be remembered that there are a number of factors influencing
the nonlinearity parameter (β) including joint properties like bond-line thickness, adhesive
used and its properties, attenuation in the adherends etc., ‘β’ is also influenced by type of
transducer used, electronic noise, couplant, pressure applied and so forth. The results
obtained in these studies though are for CFRP adhesive lap shear joints, it can be expected
to be applicable to other types of polymer composite adherends as well. Despite an
internal band pass filter used in the RITEC RPR-4000 pulser- receiver, the received signal
appeared to be quite noisy. However, since all the other parameters remained fairly
constant except for the adhesive property, changes in ‘β’ could be measured and attributed
to the degradation of the adhesive joint.
Figure 6.19 Variation of the nonlinearity parameter (β) with average shear strength of the CFRP
joints.
6.8 Summary
Advanced ultrasonic inspection of CFRP-epoxy-CFRP adhesive joints with varied
degradation was carried out using Lamb wave and non linear ultrasonic inspection
methods. The adhesive joint samples were subjected to experimental investigations using
fundamental Lamb wave modes. While ‘so’ mode showed a decrease in amplitude of the
received pulse due to an increased degradation, ‘ao’ mode did not show measurable
changes at the test frequency of 230 kHz. This was in line with the predictions of
theoretical dispersion curves that showed a negligible drift in the fundamental modes
while an appreciable amount of drift could be seen in higher order modes. Frequency
domain studies using Gabor wavelet transform showed a decrease in the magnitude of
wavelet coefficients and a negative shift in frequency with increased amounts of
degradation. It was also observed that maximum transmission loss for the most degraded
sample (P40) occurs in the range of 650 – 800 kHz indicating the sensitivity of this
frequency range to degradation. Numerical studies performed using finite element
simulations showed a similar trend to the experimental results indicating that the
maximum energy loss in the Lamb wave modes was due to reduction in stiffness of the
joint caused by the degradation.
The results obtained from non linear ultrasonic inspection of composite adhesive
joints show very interesting and encouraging correlation between nonlinear parameter and
the degradation in the adhesive joint. The acoustic pulse gets nonlinearly modulated due to
degradation in the adhesive leading to an increase in the nonlinearity parameter (β) with
increased degradation. These results can give a quantitative assessment of the health of a
bonded joint. Though the results obtained are for the CFRP-epoxy-CFRP adhesive lap
joint specimen, the approach can be applicable to other types of bonded joints as well.
However, since nonlinearity parameter ‘β’ in a realistic situation may also depend upon a
number of other parameters like adhesive properties, geometry, transducers used, noise
etc., these factors can influence ‘β’ in a real structure and the contribution of each of these
parameters on nonlinear modulation of a propagating ultrasonic wave needs to be
understood. It can be inferred from these experimental investigations and from the
previous literature [155] on non linear ultrasound that the influence of interfacial
molecular forces on non linear modulation of the propagating ultrasound is negligibly
small and major contribution comes from degradation in the bulk of adhesive.
The problem of detection and characterization of dry contact kissing bond has been
a hot topic of research in the field of nonlinear ultrasound [228, 229]; but the results
obtained are largely confined to laboratory samples. It takes a considerable amount of time
till the non linear ultrasound method can be implemented to on field inspections. This
motivates the need for any other feasible alternative techniques to detect and characterize
dry contact kissing bonds. An effort has been made during the course of this work to
evaluate these defects using digital image correlation (DIC) technique, the details of which
are provided in the next chapter.
Chapter 7
Evaluation of Kissing Bond in Composite Adhesive

Lap Joints using Digital Image Correlation
7.1 Introduction
The evaluation of adhesive degradation using conventional and advanced ultrasonic
techniques has been discussed in previous chapters. However, poor adhesion between the
adhesive and the substrate is often difficult to detect using conventional ultrasonic
techniques as this thin interfacial layer could be orders of magnitude less than the
wavelength used [236]. These defects are often termed kissing bonds or zero volume
bonds, where the two surfaces are held together by a compressive stress with no molecular
forces acting between them [122]. Jiao and Rose [237] have defined a kissing bond as a
perfect contact between two surfaces which transmits no shear stress. Considerable
amount of literature is available on kissing bonds [76, 122, 144, 238]. The combination of
severity and detection difficulty of this type of defects in an adhesively bonded structure
makes it of significant practical importance.
Attempts by some researchers using advanced ultrasonic techniques like non linear
acoustics for detecting and characterizing kissing bonds have met with some success [155-
158]. In case of contacting surfaces the imperfect interface can introduce a greater degree
of non linearity into the system. This non linearity can be due to clapped surfaces with non
linear stress-strain behavior inherent in the contact or due to defects and degradation in the
adhesive bond line leading to generation of harmonics of the interrogating ultrasonic
frequency. These techniques are largely confined to laboratory owing to difficulties
involved in generating and propagating such waves in complex structures. Pulsed
thermography also has been tried by some researchers to detect kissing bond defects [239-
240]. Waugh et al [239] have shown that phase pulsed thermography can be a potential
tool to detect kissing bond defects in adhesively bonded joints. However, owing to the
limited success of conventional NDT methods in detection of kissing bonds, search for
alternative methods is on. Digital Image Correlation (DIC) apparently has good potential
in this regard. The aim of this work was to explore the ability of DIC technique to detect
and evaluate kissing bonds in adhesive joints. A set of glass fiber reinforced composite
adhesive lap joints were prepared with planted kissing bonds of different sizes. Non
destructive inspection tools such as conventional ultrasonics and X-Ray imaging were also
utilized as supplementary techniques. The joints were then loaded in a testing machine till
failure to find the correlation between the size of kissing bond and the resulting bond
strength. Digital images were recorded at different stages of loading and analyzed using
the DIC software. Kissing bonds could be detected at loads lesser than 50% of failure load,
106
Chapter 7. Evaluation of kissing bond in composite adhesive lap joints using DIC 107
details of the experiments conducted and results obtained are presented. Numerical finite
element analysis was used to verify the experimental results.
7.2 Materials and Samples

Glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) composite laminates were fabricated with
unidirectional (UD) E-glass fabric as reinforcement and thermoset epoxy resin LY556/HY
951 as the matrix with a volume fraction of 65:35 respectively. The laminate was cured at
room temperature with 14 layers of UD glass fabric all laid up in the same direction.
Spacers were used to maintain a uniform plate thickness of 2.5 mm. The substrates were
cut to the required size of 150mm x 50mm, the surfaces to be joined were prepared
according to ASTM D 2093 standard for surface preparation of plastics.
Figure 7.1 GFRP adhesive single lap joint sample
Single lap shear joint specimens (Figure 7.1) were prepared from strips cut out of GFRP
laminates and a two part epoxy adhesive system (Araldite AV 138M and hardener HV
998) for the adhesive layer. Adhesive and the hardener were mixed in the ratio of 100:40
as per manufacturer’s recommendation. The substrates were then bonded and cured at
room temperature for 24 hrs in a specially designed mold which helps in maintaining a
uniform bond line thickness of 0.2mm while ensuring proper alignment of substrates under
pressure (7bar).
Figure 7.2. Bonded region with planted kissing bond a.) K25 b.) K48 and c.) K70 samples
An area of 50mm x 50mm was bonded with kissing bonds introduced within this area in
the form of ETFE (Ethylene tetra fluoro ethylene) based, fluoro polymer release films
having a thickness of less than 20microns (Figure 7.2). A total of 4 samples were
prepared. One of the joints without any planted kissing bond was taken as a reference
healthy sample. The details of the samples prepared are provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 Details of the adhesive joint samples prepared

Total bond
Area of kissing
area
Specimen bond (mm2 ) Area of kissing bond as
(mm2 )
percentage of total area
Healthy 2500 0 0%
K25 2500 625 25%
K48 2500 1200 48%
K70 2500 1750 70%
7.3 Ultrasonic Inspection

The samples were subjected to normal incidence water immersion ultrasonic scanning in
both pulse echo and through transmission mode using a 5MHz focused transducer. Figure
7.3 shows the C-scan images obtained from ultrasonic pulse echo and through
transmission methods. Though there was a decrease in received amplitude in through
transmission inspection scans which gave an indication of degradation qualitatively, this
information was insufficient to prove the presence of kissing bonds or to quantify them.
The pulse echo technique approach also failed to provide a measure of the size of the
kissing bond as it was difficult to identify the echo from the interface in the noisy signal.
Figure 7.3 Ultrasonic C-scans for different adhesive joint samples a.) Pulse echo method and b.)
Through transmission method
The procedure adopted in this work did not yield satisfactory results from ultrasonic Lamb
wave and non linear acoustic methods with regard to different sizes of induced kissing
bonds. Also, these methods are known to be highly sensitive to any changes in the
substrate or in the bulk adhesive layer properties, often masking the effect due to
interfacial region. Efforts are underway to overcome these limitations [228, 229]. Yan et
al [228] have measured the degree of nonlinearity in disbonded adhesive joints over a
range of compressive loads and have reported a good agreement between experimental
results and nonlinear spring model that they developed. They have also developed a one-
dimensional time domain model to predict the interaction of ultrasonic pulses with the
kissing bond [229]. However, these methods are still largely confined to laboratory and it
is a long way to go before they can be successfully implemented to field inspection of
adhesive joints in structures. Thus, this attempt is to try out digital image correlation
(DIC) which appears to have the potential to address these needs. Some literature is
available reporting application of this technique to composite structures and adhesive
joints to measure strains at different regions [241-244].
7.4 Digital Image Correlation

Digital Image Correlation (DIC) is a non-contacting, optical method that involves the
capture of digital images of the surface of an object and performs image analysis to obtain
full-field deformation and/or motion measurements [245]. This can be accomplished using
different types of patterns including lines, grids, dots and random arrays marked on the
surface of the test object. One of the most commonly used approaches employ random
patterns and compares sub-regions throughout the image to obtain a full-field
displacement measurement. DIC involves image matching algorithms that take the physics
of the underlying deformation processes into account. The resolution requirements are
quite high due to infinitesimal deformations. To accurately obtain the stress-strain curve
for many engineering materials dimensional changes on the order of 10-5 m have to be
resolved. These requirements have led to the development of many algorithms with an
objective of providing high resolution with minimum errors.
Figure 7.4. Principle of digital image correlation [245]
Images are recorded using a high resolution digital camera during the deformation process
to evaluate the changes in surface characteristics and understand the behavior of the
specimen while it is subjected to incremental loads. A reference image is recorded at
undeformed, no load condition and then a series of images are taken at different load
levels. All the deformed images show a different random dot pattern relative to the initial
reference image. These differences between patterns can be calculated by correlating the
pixels of the reference image and any deformed image, and a full field strain distribution
map can be obtained. This is illustrated in Figure 7.4.
In order to achieve the objectives of DIC the object surface should exhibit certain
properties. An ideal surface texture should be isotropic. Repeating textures can lead to
misinterpretation problems and hence, the preferred surface texture should be non-
periodic. These requirements naturally led to the use of random textures, such as the
speckle patterns (Figure 7.5b). The pattern used in DIC adheres to the surface and deform
with it and therefore no loss of correlation occurs even under large deformations. One of
the key features of good speckle patterns is their high information content. Since the entire
surface is textured, information for pattern matching is available everywhere on the
surface. This permits the use of a relatively small aperture for pattern matching, referred to
as a subset.
Measurement of complex displacement fields is often an interest to engineering
community. The specimen might experience elongation, compression, shear or rotation.
An initially square reference subset might assume a distorted shape in a later image after
deformation. This reduces the similarity between two subsets. This phenomenon is often
referred to as decorrelation. One of the advantages of DIC algorithm is that it is not only
limited to determining pure translations but also can be easily extended to account for
complex deformations. This is accomplished by introducing a subset shape function ξ
(x,p) that transforms pixel coordinates in the reference subset into coordinates in the image
after deformation. The cost function [245] can be written as shown below
χ2( p ) = w ( x ) ( G ( ξ ( x , p ) ) - F ( x ) )2
(7.1)
Where ‘F’ denotes intensity of reference image and ‘G’ is for the image after
displacement, Equation 7.1 minimizes the deviation in the gray values, known as sum of
squares deviation over a neighborhood and optimize the parameter vector ‘p’. The
selection of a shape function ξ (x, p) depends on the type of deformation encountered by a
body under load. Complex subset deformations are often handled using polynomial shape
functions in the subset coordinates, for instance pure displacements are treated using zero-
order polynomial and affine transformations are dealt with first-order polynomial and can
be extended to handle higher-order polynomial functions.
Digital image correlation algorithm does not directly fit a displacement field to a
measured data, but accomplishes this goal through minimizing an error function defined
on the intensity distribution. DIC computes the average displacement of the subset, thus
the subset shape functions act as a box filter for the underlying displacement field. These
box filters often show significant anisotropy and oscillations. This problem can be handled
by the introduction of a weighing function w(x) in the cost function (Equation 7.1). The
weighing function is a Gaussian distribution and provides the best compromise between
spatial and displacement resolution.
7.5 Shear Tests on Adhesive Joints with DIC

The adhesive joint samples were loaded till failure in a testing machine of 25kN capacity
and two dimensional deformation measurements were carried out using DIC technique.
Three basic assumptions are commonly employed when using digital image correlation.
First, the specimen is assumed to be nominally planar. Second, the object plane is parallel
to the sensor plane in the camera and third, the specimen is loaded such that it is deformed
within the original object plane.
Hydraulic fixtures were used to grip the adhesive joint samples with end tabs
bonded on either side of the joints such that bending effect due to eccentricity in loading is
minimized. All the samples were tested using displacement control with the crosshead
moving at a constant rate of 2mm/min throughout the experiment. The testing machine is
controlled by a software, which has an option of setting a start load and a target load and
the loading rate at which this has to be attained. The testing machine was set to stop at
load increments of 0.5kN, so that the digital images could be captured. Random speckle
pattern was created on one of the joint surfaces (bonded region) as shown in Figure 7.5b.
All images were acquired using a digital camera having a resolution of 14 megapixels and
10x optical zoom. Continuous illumination was provided using CFL lamps ensuring a
reasonably uniform illumination without any heating of test specimen.
Figure 7.5a shows the experimental setup used. Camera was placed at a distance of
half a meter from the specimen and images were recorded after every 0.5kN increment in
load till failure. The images were later analysed using a commercial digital image
correlation software, VIC-2D to obtain strain fields. An important advantage of the
method is the full-field nature of the measurement data, providing quantitative evidence of
important features such as strain localization during the loading process.
a b
Figure 7.5 a.) Experimental setup used for DIC b.) Speckle pattern created on surface of bonded
joint.
7.6 Results and Discussions
Figure 7.6 DIC strain field (εyy) images for a healthy adhesive joint
a.) No load b.) 50% of failure load, c.) 75% of failure load d.) Just before failure.
The strain fields obtained using DIC were studied to identify key features indicating the
presence of kissing bonds in the form of strain localization at the interface of the joint.
Fields pertaining to εxx and εxy did not reveal any distinguishing features. However, normal
strain field ‘εyy’ which is the strain component along the length of the specimen, gave a
clear indication of presence of a kissing bond at loads as low as 50% of the failure load.
This is obvious since larger displacements happen in the loading direction (Y-axis), while
the displacements in other directions are relatively small. Figure 7.6 shows the DIC strain
field images for a healthy sample. Stress concentration is higher at the edges of an
adhesive joint due to geometrical discontinuity leading to strain localization in the region
(Figure 7.6d).
Figure 7.7 presents the strain field (εyy) obtained for a K25 adhesive joint sample
with 25% kissing bond area. Figure 7.7a shows the DIC result at no load condition while
the results for deformed images are shown in Figure 7.7 b, c and d. Figure 7.7b indicates
the localization of strains (marked as an ellipse) due to presence of kissing bond at 50% of
failure load. The negative strain field becomes clear and predominant at 75% of failure
load. These features in the DIC strain fields were later used to compute the area of kissing
bond using a simple MATLAB program with following algorithm.
Read the image
Display the image
Convert the image to gray scale
Display the gray image
Estimate the total area of the objects in binary image
Specify a polygonal region of interest (ROI) within the image
Displays the joint area in terms of number of pixels
Estimate the area of kissing bond (ROI)
Display the kissing bond area (number of pixels)
In this, the number of pixels in the region of interest (ROI) alone is obtained to compare
different sizes of kissing bond defects. Number of pixels in the entire bonded region is
taken as the reference to quantify the defect size. The algorithm allows the selection of the
complete joint area (50mm x 50mm) which is known, it computes the number of pixels
present in this known area. Then the area depicting the kissing bond defect appearing as a
distinct color patch in the DIC image is selected to compute the corresponding number of
pixels. The area of the kissing bond defect is then computed by comparing the number of
pixels between a known area and the unknown kissing bond area.
Figure 7.7. DIC strain field (εyy) images for a K25 adhesive joint (25 % kissing bond area)
a.) No load b.) 50% of failure load, c.) 75% of failure load d.) Just before failure.
Figure 7.8 DIC strain field (εyy) images for a K48 adhesive joint (48 % kissing bond area)
a.) No load b.) 50% of failure load, c.) 75% of failure load d.) just before failure
Figure 7.9. DIC strain field (εyy) images for a K70 adhesive joint (70 % kissing bond area)
a.) No load b.) 50% of failure load, c.) 75% of failure load d.) just before failure.
The DIC strain field images for K48 and K70 sample has been shown in figure 7.8 and
figure 7.9 respectively. Figure 7.8 (b-d) (DIC strain field images for K48 sample) shows
two distinct strain fields separating the kissing bond area from the healthy area. While the
kissing bond area has a negative strain field, the healthy region has a positive strain field
indicating that the bond is still intact, while the kissing bond region has failed. Figure 7.7
to figure 7.9 show that there are small regions showing negative strains. These can be
attributed to localized disbonds that take place due to application of load. It can also be
observed from these DIC images that there has been an increase in the strain value of
kissing bond region with an increase in the applied load. This is evident from Figure 7.9,
where the ‘εyy’ lies in the range of -387 to -1018 microstrains at 50% of failure load
(figure 7.9b). However, its value is largely in the range of -1018 to -1650 microstrains at
failure load (figure 7.9d). This indicates an increase in displacement component ‘v’ at or
near failure load. Thus at 50% of failure load, the joint has higher resistance to the applied
load due to its bond strengh, which gradually reduces with increase in applied load.
The results obtained for all the 4 samples are tabulated in Table 7.2. Healthy joint
failed at a higher load of 47kN. The failure load decreased with an increase of kissing
bond area and a drastic reduction of 65% in failure load was observed for K70 adhesive
joint sample as compared to a healthy joint. The table also shows the kissing bond area
determined using DIC strain field images at 50% of failure load for each sample. It can be
observed that there is a good agreement between actual kissing bond area and that
computed using DIC. However, the area of kissing bond computed from DIC images using
the algorithm can vary a bit, mainly due to variation in selecting the regions defining
kissing bond.
Table 7.2 Experimental and digital image correlation results
Area of
Total bond Area of kissing bond
Area of kissing Failure Failure
area kissing bond as calculated
Specimen bond as a Load Strength
(mm2 ) (mm2 ) using DIC
percentage of (kN) (MPa)
(mm2 )
total area
Healthy 2500 0 0% 0 47 18.8
K25 2500 625 25% 656 34 13.6
K48 2500 1200 48% 1256 24 9.60
K70 2500 1750 70% 1824 16 6.40
7.7 Finite Element Analysis

Finite element analysis (FEA) was carried out on adhesive joint models using ABAQUS.
Earlier work on finite element analysis of adhesively bonded joints has been reported by
Adams et al [246]. Considerable amount of work has been carried out on FEA of adhesive
joints over the years. Xiaocong He [247] has given an extensive review of finite element
analysis of adhesively bonded joints. Damage modeling in adhesive joints has been
classified into either local or continuum approaches. In the continuum approach the
damage is modeled over a finite region where as, in local approach, the damage is
confined to zero volume lines and surfaces and is often referred to as cohesive zone
approach [247]. A review on accuracy of finite element descretizations used to simulate a
joint has been provided by Diaz et al [248].
Table 7.3 Material properties used in finite element analysis of adhesive joints
EL ET GLT GTT ρ
Material υLT υTT
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (Kg/m3)
GFRP 45 10 0.25 0.42 4.7 3.2 2100
(Unidirectional)
Adhesive 4.7(E) - 0.38(υ) - 3.0(G) - 1548
The presented work involves cohesive zone approach where kissing bond defects were
modeled using zero volume surfaces having an area equal to the area of release films used
in experimental specimen. The two GFRP substrates were modeled as orthotropic
materials with properties shown in Table 7.3.
a.) Mesh pattern
b.) Boundary conditions

Figure 7.10 a.) Mesh pattern in the FE model b.) Applied boundary conditions
The adhesive was modeled as an isotropic material. The substrate properties were
measured in-house using standard test specimen, while the adhesive properties were
obtained from manufacturer’s catalogue. The dimension of the FEA model was similar to
the experimental specimen dimensions (Figure 7.1). The thickness of the adhesive bond
line was assumed to be uniform at 0.2mm. Continuum shell elements (SC8R- first order,
8-node quadrilateral in-plane general-purpose continuum shell, reduced integration with
hourglass control, finite membrane strains.) were used to discretize the GFRP substrates.
The continuum shell elements are general-purpose shells that allow finite membrane
deformation and large rotations and, thus, are suitable for nonlinear geometric analysis;
they also include the effects of transverse shear deformation and thickness change.
The adhesive bond line region was discretized using cohesive elements (COH3D8:
An 8-node three-dimensional cohesive element). A finer mesh was used in the adhesive
bondline region as such the element length was confined to 1mm. Figure 7.10a shows the
mesh pattern used. Kissing bond defects were modeled as independent zero volume
surfaces. Going by the definition of a kissing bond; these surfaces were not bonded to the
substrate, while the healthy region was bonded using tie constraints. Boundary conditions
applied were similar to that found in experimental situation. As shown in figure 7.10b one
end of the joint was completely constrained in all the degrees of freedom; whereas the
other edge was allowed to move only in Y-direction. Each adhesive joint model was
applied with different amounts of load and the strain pattern over the joint surface was
studied.
Figure 7.11 shows the finite element results obtained for the three different
adhesive joint samples at 50% of failure load. Strain (E22) distribution results for K25
sample with 25% kissing bond area, is shown in figure 7.11a. Figure 7.11b shows the
strain field (E22) at 50% of failure load for K48 sample and Figure 7.11c show the strain
(E22) distribution at 50% of failure load for K70 sample. FE results showed a negative
strain field at the extremities of the kissing bond identical to the experimental DIC results.
A comparison of the strain values obtained using experimental DIC technique and
numerical finite element method at the extremities of kissing bond has been made in table
7.4, a close correlation can be observed between the two.
Table 7.4 Comparison of experimental and finite element results
Kissing bond Sample DIC results (Strain E22 FE results (Strain E22
microstrains) microstrains)
K25 -1018 to -2200 -998 to -1912
K48 -318 to -975 -484 to -922
K70 -387 to -1018 -285 to -946
a.) Adhesive joint with 25 % kissing bond area b.) Adhesive joint with 48% kissing bond
area
c.) Adhesive joint with 70 % kissing bond area
Figure 7.11 Finite element results at 50 % of failure load for

a.) K25 b.) K48 and c.) K70 samples (Regions with blue color are kissing bond areas)
7.8 Summary
Experimental investigations on evaluation of kissing bonds in composite adhesive lap
joints were carried out on four different samples where one was healthy and the other three
were defective samples with different areas of planted defects. Digital image correlation
(DIC) was used to detect and evaluate kissing bonds. Digital image correlation technique
could detect the kissing bonds even at 50% of the failure load. The failure load decreased
with increasing percentage of kissing bond area, and there was a degradation of 65% in
ultimate strength for the K70 (70% area of kissing bond) sample as compared to a healthy
joint. Finite Element analysis on adhesive joint models with simulated kissing bond
defects showed a similar trend. A negative strain field was observed at the extremities of
the kissing bond defect. DIC can be effective when applied in case of partial kissing bond
or localized kissing bond. However, the results presented are for a limited number of
adhesive joint samples and is preliminary in nature. Similar studies carried out on a large
set of samples can be useful to deal with issues of statistical variations. Any work on
evaluation of bond quality would be incomplete without a detailed analysis of the bonded
joint. Many analytical and numerical models are available to determine the displacements
and stresses in a joint under different loading configurations. Analytical, experimental and
numerical analysis was carried out on composite adhesive joint to evaluate the stresses and
strains developed in the bond line area under uniaxial tensile load, the details of which are
given in the next chapter.
Chapter 8
Analytical and Experimental Analysis of Composite

Single Lap Joints
8.1 Introduction
A composite to composite bonded joint can have many parameters that influence its
failure mode and strength. Many researchers have investigated the influence of various
parameters on failure behavior of bonded joints [54-62]. In these studies the typical
bonding parameters were the surface condition, edge fillet, bond line thickness, surface ply
angle, stacking sequence, environmental conditions etc. Many researchers have also
reported their work on failure prediction of bonded joints [63-67]. However, failure
prediction of a composite bonded joint is still a tough challenge because the failure
strength and mode are different according to various bonding methods (co-curing or
secondary bonding) and parameters. In general two kinds of failure prediction approaches
have been pursued in bonded joints. One is a stress or strain based continuum mechanics
approach and the other is fracture mechanics based approach. The stress or strain based
continuum mechanics approach utilizes failure criterion equations which include
maximum stresses or strains in the bonded joints. While in the fracture mechanics
approach an initial crack is assumed and the crack growth is assessed by comparing the
computed strain energy release rate with fracture toughness determined by experiments.
The fracture toughness is influenced by the mode mix ratios and failure modes. Further,
the fracture mechanics method is not suitable for the bonded joints which may fail without
an initial crack.
This chapter presents a detailed explanation of the analytical and experimental
studies conducted on composite-epoxy single lap joint. First an overview of different
analytical models available to study the stress behavior of an adhesive joint has been
briefed. Then, study on the peel and shear stress distribution of CFRP-epoxy adhesive
joints carried out using a linear (based on Euler beam theory) and a non linear adhesive
beam model (based on the Timoshenko beam theory) is discussed. The adhesive joint
samples were subjected to uniaxial tensile load till failure. Digital images were recorded at
different levels of applied load and the strains developed in the bond line region were
obtained using digital image correlation technique (DIC). These strains were then used to
compute stresses assuming a plane strain condition. The analytical and experimental
stresses were compared. The failure load was predicted using analytical models based on
maximum peel stress failure criterion and then compared with actual failure load obtained
from mechanical tests.
120
Chapter 8. Analytical and experimental analysis of composite single lap joints 121
8.2 Analytical models for adhesively bonded joints.

Though significant amount of research has been reported with regard to the study of
adhesively bonded joints, an exact solution for the stress field of adhesively bonded joints
is difficult to obtain due to the geometric complexity and material non-linearity of the
adhesive. This has resulted in a wide range of solutions developed, each with different
assumptions and simplifications. Some of the important and widely used analytical models
available for the analysis of adhesively bonded lap joints have been briefed in this section.
8.2.1 Average shear stress model

The basic analysis of an adhesive joint includes a linear elastic solution derived from
mechanics of materials. This simple analysis considers the adherends to be rigid, while the
adhesive is assumed to deform only in shear. The adhesive shear stress (τ) is assumed
constant over the overlap length as shown in figure 8.1. It is defined as
p
 (8.1)
bl
where ‘p’ is the applied load, ‘b’ is the joint width and ‘l’ is the overlap length. The
tensile stress in the upper adherend will decrease linearly from a maximum value to zero
from point A to B. The converse is true for the lower adherend. This analysis is not
realistic due to many simplifications, but it is still the basis for quoting adhesive shear
strength in many test situations such as in ASTM standards.
Figure 8.1 Deformation in single lap joints with rigid adherends [21]
8.2.2 Volkersen’s shear lag analysis

If the adherends are allowed to deform elastically, the adhesive shear stress distribution
will be different as shown in figure 8.2. The tensile stress and strains are maximum at A
and decreases to zero at B in a nonlinear fashion. This distortion results in a non uniform
shear stress distribution along the adhesive adherend interface with peak stresses at the
ends of the bonded region. This phenomenon of differential shear was studied by
Volkersen [249] in his shear lag analysis. In this analysis he assumed that the adhesive
deforms only in shear and the adherends deform only in tension and both the adhesive and
adherends are linearly elastic.
Figure 8.2 Deformation in single lap joints with elastic adherends [21]
The adhesive shear stress distribution (τ) is given by
p w cosh(wX )   1  w sinh(wX )
   (8.2)
bl 2 sinh(w / 2)    1  2 cosh( w / 2)
Where ‘P’ is the applied load, ‘b’ is the joint width and ‘l’ is the overlap length.
Gal 2
w  1    X  x, 1 1
2
,   tt / tb , ,  X
Ett ta l 2 2
where ‘tt’ is the top adherend thickness, ‘tb’ is the bottom adherend thickness, ‘E’ is the
adherend elastic modulus, ‘Ga’ the adhesive shear modulus, and ‘ta’ the adhesive
thickness. The origin of the longitudinal co-ordinate x is the middle of the overlap.
8.2.3 Goland and Reissner
Figure 8.3 Deformation in single lap joints (Goland and Reissner) [21]
Goland and Reissner [250] extended the work of Volkersen by taking into account the
effects of substrate bending. They assumed a plane strain condition and neglected the
variation of normal stresses through the bondline thickness. The eccentric load path of a
single lap joint causes a bending moment (M) and a transverse force (V) to be applied to
the joint ends in addition to the applied tensile load per unit width ( P ) as shown in figure
8.3. As the adherends bend, the joint tends to rotate due to which the joint displacements
are no longer proportional to the applied load. If the angle of rotation is large, the problem
becomes geometrically nonlinear. Goland and Reissner considered these effects by using a
bending moment factor (k) and a transverse force factor ( k' ) described as in following
equation
Pt Pt
M k V k' (8.3)
2 c
Where, ‘t’ is the adherend thickness and ‘c’ is half the overlap length. If the joint does not
rotate, i.e., for low applied loads the value of k and k' is approximately equal to 1. As the
joint rotates due to higher loads both k and k' will decrease, this leads to a decrease of
both bending moment and transverse loads. The expression for bending moment factor is.
cosh(u2 c)
k (8.4)
cosh(u2 c)  2 2 sinh(u2 c)
Where
3(1   2 ) 1 P
u2 
2 t tE
‘E’ is the modulus of elasticity of the adherend and ‘ν’ is the poisson’s ratio. The shear
and peel stresses in the adhesive layer were calculated using the following equations.
1 p  c cosh(( c t )( x c)) 
   1  3k   3(1  k )  (8.5)
8c t sinh( c t ) 
 2 k   x    x 
 R2   k 'cosh    cos     cosh   cos   
 2    c   c 
1 Pt 2
 (8.6)
c   2 k   x   x 
   R1   k 'sinh    sin     sinh   sin   
  2   c   c  
Where
2 8
Ga t
  c and  4  6 Ea t
E ta t E ta
Ea is the adhesive young’s modulus. The transverse force factor ( k' ) is given by
k' 3 1   2 
kc p
(8.7)
t tE
R  cosh    sin     sinh    cos   

1
R  sinh    cos     cosh    sin   

2

1
2
sin  2   sinh  2 
8.2.4 Limitations of classical analysis

The work done by volkersen, Goland and Reissner considered as the classical analysis had
certain limitations. They did not account for variations of the adhesive stresses through the
thickness direction, especially the interface stresses which are important when failure
occurs close to the interface. The maximum peel stress occurs at the ends of the overlap,
which violates the stress free condition. Analyses that ignore the stress free condition
overestimate the stress at the ends of the overlap and tend to give conservative failure load
predictions. The adherends were considered as thin beams, ignoring the through thickness
shear and normal deformations. Adherend shear is particularly important in adherends like
composites.
8.2.5 Elastic-Plastic analysis of single lap joint (Hart-Smith)

In the elastic analysis of adhesive joint the stresses in the adhesive are assumed to remain
in the elastic region. However, a majority of modern adhesives with high ductility have a
large strain to failure. Once the yield stress is reached, the adhesive material properties
become non linear. This nonlinear behavior affects the actual stress distribution, raising
the need for an elastic-plastic analysis. Hart-Smith [251] used an elastic-plastic shear
stress model that took adhesive plasticity into account. The maximum lap-joint strength
was calculated by using the maximum shear strain as the failure criterion. The adhesive
shear stress is given by [251].
  A2 cosh(2 ' x)  C2 (8.8)
Where,
1  3 1   2   2G Ga  6 1   2  M  1
 '
   a A2  P 
 4  ta Et ta Et  t  2 sinh  2 'c 
'
,  
C2 
1 

2c  2

P  2 2 ' sinh  2 'c  
A
M  P  t 2ta  1  c 1 c
,
2 2
  6
Et 3
2  P D
D, 12 1   2 
The adhesive peel stress is given by
  A cosh   x  cos   x   B sinh   x  sin   x  (8.9)
Where,
Ea M sin   c   cos   c  Ea M sin   c   cos   c  

 4  Ea A B
2 Dta , ta D  2 e (  c ) ,
ta D  2 e (  c )
8.2.6 Contributions towards analysis of composite adhesive joints

Many researchers have contributed towards analysis of adhesive joints with composite
adherends. Renton and Vinson [252] and Srinivas [253] have accounted for low transverse
stiffness effects using first-order shear deformation theory in their analysis. Dattaguru et al
[254] and Pickett and Hollaway [255] studied the performance of adhesive joints
considering non-linear material behavior in the form of elastic-perfectly plastic adhesive
modeling. Renton and Vinson [256] have also developed a higher order analytical model
that takes into account the effects of adherend transverse shear and normal strains in the
analysis of bonded structures. Delale et al [257] extended the classical analysis for bonded
joints to include coupling effect between bending and extension. Allman [258] expressed
the stresses in adhesive joints as a set of stress functions and developed solutions that
satisfied the stress free boundary condition by minimizing the strain energy in the joint.
Adams and Mallick [259] used Allman’s approach to develop a one dimensional finite
element solution that included the non linear adhesive behavior. Wah [260] was the first to
consider laminated composite adherends. Yang and Pang [261] developed analytical
models by using classical laminated plate theory with first order shear deformation to
analyze symmetric and asymmetric single lap joints subjected to tensile and bending
loading.
Wu et al [262] proposed a set of differential equations for the analysis of joint edge
loads in dissimilar adherends with different thicknesses and lengths. Tong [263] used a
simplified one dimensional model to predict the strength of adhesively bonded double lap
composite joints. Frostig et al [264, 265] developed a closed form higher order theory for
the analysis of sandwich panels with a transversely flexible or stiff core. Neves et al [266,
267] extended the model of Frostig to include two adhesives along the overlap. The use of
a flexible and ductile adhesive at the ends of the overlap decreases the peel stress which is
of paramount importance when working with composites. Mortensen and Thomsen [268]
developed a unified approach for composite adhesive joints. Coupling effects induced by
the asymmetric and unbalanced adherends were taken into account allowing specification
of any combination of boundary conditions and external loading. Yang et al [269]
developed an analytical model using laminated plate theory to determine adhesive stress
distributions in single lap composite joints. Zou et al [270] modeled CFRP balanced and
symmetric adhesive lap joints using classical laminate plate theory (CLPT). Zhang et al
[271] worked on multi-axial stress analysis of composite adhesive joints.
8.3 Adhesive beam models

This section gives a brief description of analytical models developed based on two
dimensional elasticity theory. Two widely used models viz. linear adhesive beam model
(based on Euler beam theory) and nonlinear adhesive beam model (based on Timoshenko
beam theory) have been explained.
8.3.1 Linear adhesive beam model
Figure 8.4. A single lap joint (a) geometric and applied load details (b) deformation, forces and
moments at cross sections I and II (c) forces at the overlap edges [272]
Figure 8.5. Free body diagram of a single lap joint based on linear Euler beam theory [272]
Luo and Tong [272, 273] have proposed an extension of Goland and Reissner theory [250]
to composite adhesive joints with configuration as shown in figure 8.4 by considering
large deflections and shear deformation in the adherends. The free body diagram of a
linear single lap joint model is shown in figure 8.5, the equilibrium equation for the two
adherends are.
dN1 dQ1 t dM 1
   0;    0;
 1   Q1  0
dx dx dx 2
(8.10)
dN 2 dQ dM 2 t 2
   0; 2    0;    Q2  0
dx dx dx 2
Where t1 and t2 are the thicknesses of the two adherends. A joint is said to be balanced
when the thickness of the two adherends are equal and have the same material properties.
The shear and peel stress in the adhesive layer is defined by [272]
Ga   t1 dw1 t2 dw2  
  u  u     
ta   2 dx 2 dx  
2 1
Ea (8.11)
  w2  w1 
ta
Where, ‘Ea’ is the elastic modulus of the adhesive. The subscripts 1 and 2 indicate the two
adherends; u and w are the displacements; N, M, Q and V are the axial, bending, transverse
and shear forces respectively. Using Euler beam theory and the equations 8.10 and 8.11
the governing equations for the adhesive stresses can be derived as
d 3 d
3
 c2 0
dx dx (8.12)
d 4
4
 44  0
dx
Where,
Ad1t12
  a 
2
c
2
,
  8Ga  
2
4
2 Ea
a 1
 1   k  k 
Ad1ta , 2 D1ta
,
4 , 4D1
Where, ‘D1’ and ‘Ad1’ are the bending stiffness and extensional stiffness of adherend
respectively, ‘Ga’ is the shear modulus of the adhesive, ‘ta’ is the thickness of the adhesive,
‘αa’ and ‘αk’ reflect the influence of composite layups. Solving equation 8.12 with
boundary conditions shown in figure 8.4 b and 8.4 c, the shear and peel stress can be
obtained as
  c 1 k k
 Ft  2 M cosh c x  k  Ft1  2M k 

8 at1 sinh c c 8 at1c
  B 1 sinh  x sin  x  B 4 cosh  x cos  x (8.13)

Where, ‘F’ is the applied force per unit width and ‘Mk’ is the bending moment, further,
2  M k   sinh  c cos  c  cosh  c sin  c   Vk sinh  c sin  c 

B 1 
sinh 2 c  sin 2 c
2  M k   sinh  c cos  c  cosh  c sin  c   Vk cosh  c cos  c 

B 4 
sinh 2 c  sin 2 c
Since sinh  c  1 and sinh  c c  1 in most cases, the maximum shear and peel
stresses occur at the overlap edges and can be simplified as
 max  Ft1  cc  k 8  2tck M k  cc 1

a1
 max  2  M k  Vk  (8.14)

  
The linear adhesive beam model may not be effective when an adhesive layer is relatively
thick, since it assumes constant shear and peel strains across its thickness. The axial strain
should not be ignored even if the adhesive layer is very thin (ta<0.2mm) [274-275], more
over the constant adhesive stress model does not satisfy the boundary condition of free
shear stress at overlap end. Allman [258] and then Chen and Cheng [276] assumed linear
variation of peel stresses and constant shear stress across the adhesive thickness. Ojalvo
and Eidinoff [274] adopted linear variation of shear stress and constant peel stress through
the thickness. Luo and Tong [275] chose linear and higher order variations of shear, peel
and axial normal stresses across the adhesive thickness.
Effect of eccentric loading.
Due to eccentricity of applied load in a single lap joint, large deflections must be
considered. This means that bending moment ‘Mk’ and the shear force ‘Vk’ at the overlap
ends needs to be updated. This geometric nonlinearity can be characterized by the bending
moment factor or the edge moment factor k defined as [272]
Mk  k
t1  ta  F (8.15)
2
Deflections of the left outer adherend and the overlap of the single lap joint are given by
w3  A sinh  k x3 
t1  ta  x3 wo  B sinh o xo 
t1  ta  xo
2 l  c  2 l  c 
, (8.16)
Where,
F F
k  & o 
D1 D0
Do is the bending stiffness of the entire overlap; A and B are the integration constants to be
determined by the continuity conditions at intersection I. The joint edge forces Mk and Vk
can be found using M k   D1w3''  l  and Vk   D1w3'''  l  . The moment factor is given by
1
k
1   k o  tanh oc coth  k l
or
1
k when coth  k l  1 (8.17)
1   k o  tanh oc
The use of spacers can reduce the effect of eccentric loading, Guo et al [167] have
reported that for a single lap joint subjected to tensile forces, spacers are helpful only if
clamping position is close to the overlap edge or external load is small. If the grips are
located far from the overlap (L/c>10) or the load is very high (Tc2/D1 >>1), the spacers
provide little benefit.
8.3.2 Nonlinear adhesive beam model.

When geometric nonlinearity is considered, the associated free body diagrams are
illustrated in figure 8.6. Timoshenko or higher order beam theory needs to be used to
model the adherends when transverse stiffness becomes important [252-254, 261, 273].
The following variables were introduced by Luo and Tong [273] in their analytical
formulations.
2us  u2  u1 ; 2ws  w2  w1 ; 2s  2  1

2ua  u2  u1 ; 2wa  w2  w1 ; 2a  2  1
2Ns  N2  N1 ; 2Qs  Q2  Q1 ; 2M s  M 2  M1 ; 2Vs  V2 V1
2Na  N2  N1 ; 2Qa  Q2  Q1 ; 2M a  M 2  M1 ; 2Va  V2  V1 (8.18)
Where the subscripts 1 and 2 indicate the two adherends, ‘s’ and ‘a’ denote the symmetric
and antisymmetric deformations. u and w are the displacements,  is the angle of
deflection of the cross section of the beam with respect to the vertical direction. N, M, Q
and V are the axial, bending, transverse and shear force respectively.
Figure 8.6. Free body diagram of a single lap joint with nonlinear overlap [273]
The equilibrium equations derived by considering the geometric nonlinearity are
dN1 dQ1 dM 1 t1
  0 ;   1  0 ;    Q1   N11
dx dx dx 2
dN2 dQ2 dM 2 t1
  0 ;   2  0 ;    Q2   N 22 (8.19)
dx dx dx 2
The adhesive shear and peel stresses can be expressed as:
2Ga  t1  2 Ea
  ua  a  ;  w (8.20)
ta  2  ta s
Equations 8.18-8.20 and the constitutive equations of the Timoshenko beam can be used to
derive the governing equations of the composite single lap joint taking into account the
geometric nonlinearity and the transverse shear stiffness of the adherends. They are given
by
d 3ua 2  dua t1 d 2 wa 

   0
dx3 4  dx 2 dx 2 
d 4 wa   k 2  dua  t1 d 2 wa   k2 d 2 wa  0

  (8.21)
dx4 2t1  dx 2 dx 2  2 dx 2
d 2us  0 ; d 4 ws  4 2 d 2 ws  4 2 w  0 (8.22)
ng n s
dx2 dx 4 dx 2
Where,
 k2    k2  g2  1 2 Ea
ng
2
   g2  ;  n4   4  ; g 
 8   2  2 Gk1ta
  
‘Gk1’ is the shear stiffness of adherends. When boundary conditions are prescribed
analytical solutions for antisymmetric deformation in the above governing differential
equations can be obtained and are given by [273].
ua  Aa 2 cosh a1x  Aa 4 cosh a 2 x  Aa7
(8.23)
wa  Ba1 sinh a1x  Ba3 sinh a 2 x  Ba6 x
Where,
1  k2  1  2 2  k4 
 a21    c2    c4  1   c k  
2

2  2 a  4 
1  k2  1  2 2  k4 
 a22    c2    c4  1   c k  
2

2  2 a  4 

Similarly for symmetric deformation the general solution yields.
us  F x
2 Ad 1
ws  Bs1 sinh s1x sin s2 x  Bs4 cosh s1x cos s2 x if Δ<0
ws  Bs2 cosh s1x  Bs4 cosh s2 x if Δ>0 (8.24)
Where,
  ng
4
 n4
 s1  n2  ng2 & s2  n2  ng2 if Δ<0
 s1  2 ng2  ng4  n4 &  s2  2  ng2   ng4   n4 if Δ>0
The condition Δ>0 is considered when the adherend is thick, the adhesive layer is thin and
for low transverse shear stiffness of the adherends [273]. For the joints having composite
substrates Δ>0, where as for metals Δ<0. Using equations 8.20, 8.23 and 8.24 the adhesive
stresses can be directly obtained. In most cases, a21  c2  a22 ,  g2   k2 , 2   k2 .
When these approximations are used, the analytical solutions can be simplified and
stresses at the overlap edges can be obtained as follows.
 2 k M k  Ft1 1  rk   a1c coth  a1c  k  Ft1  2M k  a 2c coth a 2c

 max    
8 at1c 8 at1c
     
 2  M   s1 V  if   0
  k  2  k 
 max    
(8.25)
 2   s1   s2  

   M 
k  2 2  k 
V  if   0
     
When  k  0 , the maximum adhesive stresses in nonlinear analysis degenerate to those

in linear analysis. Different strategies can be used to obtain analytical solutions of
adhesively bonded composite joints with and without considering geometrical
nonlinearity. When linear overlap is assumed, it is convenient to express the governing
equations in terms of the adhesive stresses. When geometrical nonlinearity is considered it
is better to write the governing equations in terms of the adherend displacements.
8.4 Failure criterion based on continuum mechanics

Failure of adhesively bonded structures can occur in adherends, adhesive and at the
interface. The failure criterion based on continuum mechanics can be summarized as [277]
Maximum stress criterion:  max    and  max   

Maximum strain criterion: e  t and   p
Von Mises criterion:  von max   
2 2
 max   max 
Tsai –Wu criterion:     1
        (8.26)
Where [σ] and [τ] are allowable peel and shear stresses respectively and  von is the Von
Mises stress.  e is the equivalent strain,  t is the tensile failure strain,  is the shear strain
and p is the plastic shear failure strain. To determine the strength of the joints using
continuum mechanics based failure criterion, maximum stresses and strains needs to be
measured in the adhesive layer. This measured stress or strain is then compared with the
maximum allowable value for the material. Failure occurs when the peak strain/ stress in
the adhesive reaches the failure strain/stress of the material.
8.5 Measurement of adhesive strains using DIC.

An overview of the experimental work carried out to measure adhesive strains has been
given in this section. Many researchers have carried out experimental investigation on the
measurement of stresses and strains in the adhesive layer. Strain distribution within
adhesively bonded double lap shear joints subjected to tensile load were investigated
experimentally by Ruiz et al [278], using the complementary experimental techniques of
neutron diffraction and moiré interferometry. In a similar topic Jumbo et al [279]
investigated the residual and mechanical strains in aluminium/aluminium and
aluminium/carbon fiber reinforced polymer (Al/CFRP) adhesively bonded double lap
joints using neutron diffraction. Wang et al [280] carried out a combined experimental and
numerical (FE) investigation on the strain/stress distributions around the overlap ends of
co-cured laminated composite single lap joints. They also carried out a parametric study to
understand the influence of different parameters like spew fillet, overlap length, bondline
thickness etc on strain fields.
8.5.1 Experimental procedure.

The principle of digital image correlation (DIC) has been explained in detail in section 7.4
of the previous chapter. DIC was used to obtain the strain distribution in the bond line of
CFRP epoxy adhesive joints. DIC requires a good speckle pattern to obtain accurate
results. The dots need to be dense and randomly distributed. The quality of speckle pattern
can be verified in the software such that at least 3 dots need to be present within the subset
window chosen. Further, the surface to be inspected should be non-reflecting in order to
ensure that the strain maps are free of noise. This was accomplished using an airbrush
having nozzle size of 12 microns to coat a fine spray of randomly distributed dots on the
surface of the joint coated with a white non-reflective paint as shown in figure 8.7. The
adhesive joint samples were loaded in a testing machine till failure at a cross head speed of
2mm/min. The machine was programmed to stop at every 0.5kN load and digital images
were recorded using a camera with a high resolution of 16 megapixel and 10x optical
zoom. The recorded images were then processed in a DIC software to obtain strain
distribution results.
Figure 8.7 Speckle pattern created over the lateral surface of the joint
A reference image was recorded at no load condition and then a series of images were
recorded at different load levels. The deformed images show a different random dot
pattern relative to the initial reference image. These differences between patterns can be
calculated by correlating the pixels of the reference image and any deformed image and a
full field displacement measurement can be obtained. The strain distribution can further be
obtained by interpolating the displacement field and applying the derivatives. The
performance of a DIC algorithm depends strongly on various correlation settings. Of
crucial importance is the size of the correlation window also called as subset which affects
both accuracy and resolution. Bigger correlation window improves the accuracy but
reduce the spatial resolution, while smaller correlation windows increase the spatial
resolution at the expense of lower accuracy. Therefore, it is important to set an optimal
correlation subset window size as a trade-off between the accuracy and the resolution. A
subset size of 19 and a step size of 3 were used in the DIC analysis. The step size controls
the spacing of the points that are analyzed during correlation. This implies that the
correlation would be performed at every three pixels. This resulted in a correlation factor
of 38 pixels per mm enabling to take 19 measurements within the thickness of the
adhesive. A high strain resolution of 50 microstrains could be obtained with an accuracy
of 96%.
8.6 Results and discussion.

In this section a detailed discussion on the experimental and theoretical results has been
made. A plane strain condition was assumed to compute the stresses using the results of
digital image correlation. The experimental results were then compared with theoretical
results.
8.6.1 Experimental strains from digital image correlation
Figure 8.8 Shear strain εxy distribution in the bond line region of a healthy joint
a.) no load b.) 50% failure load (3.5kN) c.) Just before failure (7kN)
Figure 8.9 Peel strain εxx distribution in the bond line region of a healthy joint
a.) no load b.) 50% failure load (3.5kN) c.) Just before failure (7kN)
a b
Figure 8.10 Bonded region of a healthy adhesive joint a.) at 50 percent failure load and b.) just
before failure (7 kN), also observe the rotation of the joint due to eccentric load path.
Figure 8.8 and figure 8.9 show the shear and peel strains distribution respectively for a
healthy adhesive joint at different levels of load. It can be observed that the strains
increase as the load increases and reach a maximum at failure load. A closer observation
of the images also reveals the rotation of the overlap region due to eccentric load path.
This increases the peel stress component and leads to premature failure of the joints due to
the initiation and propagation of interfacial cracks at the edges. These cracks initiate at
diagonally opposite interfaces near the joint edges and propagate with increasing load and
finally shear off at the center causing a peel dominated failure or mode I (opening mode)
failure.
a b
Figure 8.11 a.) Adhesive joint failure mechanism b.) fractured surfaces
Images of a healthy adhesive joint at 50 percent failure load (figure 8.10a) and just before
failure (figure 8.10b) reveal the presence of cracks before failure. Further, the failure
mechanism (Figure 8.11a) and the fractured surfaces (figure 8.11b) reveal a failure pattern
that is predominantly mixed. Fraction of adhesive can be seen on both the surfaces with
intermediate islands of complete interfacial failure. This type of failure was observed in 70
% of samples while remaining 30% samples had a complete interfacial failure. Attempts
have been made to develop failure criteria based on the damage zone model and fracture
mechanics to predict joint failure [281-292].
The shear strain distribution for a degraded sample (P40) with 40% PVA is shown
in figure 8.12. It is obvious that the degraded sample fails at much lower shear strains.
While the healthy joint fails at a shear strain of 1.68% the degraded sample fails at 0.73%.
On the other hand the peel strain distribution (figure 8.13) indicates that a high peel strain
region is generated at the edge of the bond line which makes the joint to tear apart and
ultimately fail. The maximum peel strain required to cause failure is 0.8 % which is much
less than that for a healthy sample (3.8%). It may thus be concluded that peel stress
component plays a very important role in the failure of adhesive joint.
Figure 8.14 shows the variation of adhesive peel strain (εxx) near the joint edge
with applied load. A small region near the extreme edge of the bond line was selected and
strain variation in this region was computed using DIC and plotted with respect to applied
load. The figure reveals that the peel strain increases with applied load for both the
samples but degraded sample fails at a lower strain. A rapid increase in the peel strain can
be observed once the failure initiates. It can also be seen that a healthy joint can survive
for a longer duration once the failure has initiated. In a healthy joint the failure initiates at
5.2kN which is 75% of the failure load but in a degraded sample failure initiates at 3.2kN
which is 89% of failure load.
Figure 8.12 Shear strain εxy distribution in the bond line region of a degraded P40 joint
a.) no load b.) 50% failure load (2 kN) c.) Just before failure (3.5kN)
Figure 8.13 Peel strain εxx distribution in the bond line region of a P40 joint
a.) no load b.) 50% failure load (2 kN) c.) Just before failure (3.5kN)
Figure 8.14 Variation of adhesive peel strain (εxx) at the joint edge with applied load
Figure 8.15 Variation of adhesive peel strain (εxx) in the bond line region (DIC)
The variation of adhesive peel strain (εxx) along the bond line region of a healthy joint (H),
severely degraded joint (P40) and a joint with 20 percent PVA (P20) is as shown in figure
8.15. The peel strain is plotted against the ratio ‘y/c’, where ‘y’ is a coordinate value
which is zero at the center of bondline and attains a maximum value of 12.7 and -12.7 on
the right and left hand sides respectively, ‘c’ is half the total bond line length i.e.,
c=12.7mm. The peel strain values seen in the figure correspond to the strain at failure (i.e.,
at maximum load) for all the samples. A total of hundred equally spaced points were
identified along a horizontal line drawn at the mid thickness of the joint. Peel and shear
strain values were obtained at these points and were plotted against the ratio y/c. The plot
indicates that peel strain is maximum at the bond line edge and minimum (close to zero) at
the center of the bond line. Also the maximum value of peel strain does not occur at the
extreme edge of the joint but at a certain offset from the edge.
The variation of adhesive shear strain (εxy) in the bond line region (figure 8.16)
shows that the shear strain is maximum at the joint edge and reaches a minimum at the
center of bond line for all the samples. Both peel and shear strains show fluctuations; but
are more predominant in the latter case. These fluctuations or waviness can be attributed to
the variation in adhesive deformation along the bond line. Further, the displacement
measurement using DIC is associated with a noise. A decay filter (90% center weighted
Gaussian filter) of size 33 was applied to smoothen the calculated strains but despite that
the displacement data obtained were scattered and this further resulted in the waviness of
shear strain.
Figure 8.16 Variation of adhesive shear strain (εxy) in the bond line region (DIC)
8.6.2 Comparison between experimental and analytical stresses.

Peel and shear stresses in the bondline region were computed using theoretical models for
both healthy and degraded joints and then compared with experimental stresses obtained
from DIC. First the stresses were computed using linear adhesive beam model (equation
8.13). This model requires geometrical dimensions and material properties of the joint
constituents as an input. Material properties of the adhesive were measured using
ultrasonic inspection as described in chapter 5. Table 5.3 (chapter 5) shows the adhesive
properties for healthy as well as degraded joints with different PVA percentages. The
linear adhesive beam model also requires properties like the extensional stiffness (A) and
bending stiffness (D) of the composite substrate. These adherend properties and the
bending stiffness of the overlap region (D0) were determined using classical laminated
plate theory (CLPT). The computed values of these parameters are: extensional stiffness
A=325.12MPa, bending stiffness D=166.67Pa and bending stiffness for the overlap region
D0=333.53Pa (for a healthy sample). The contribution of the adhesive layer towards the
bending stiffness of the joint (D0) was found to be negligibly small. For a degraded sample
with 40 percentage PVA D0=333.42Pa i.e., a decrease of 0.03 percent. The geometrical
dimensions of the joint were measured and given as input to the model. These include, the
bond line thickness ‘ta=0.76mm’, thickness of the adherend ‘t1=t2=2.54mm’, bond line
width ‘2c=25.4mm’ and unsupported length of the adherend ‘l=50.8mm’. The force per
unit width ‘F’ for each sample corresponds to the average failure load obtained using
tensile tests. The effect of eccentric load path was taken into account by computing the
edge moment factor ‘k’ using equation 8.17.
Figure 8.17 Variation of adhesive peel stress along the bond line region (theoretical result)
The model was programmed in MATLAB and the stresses were computed and plotted
against ‘y/c’. Figure 8.17 and figure 8.18 shows the variation of adhesive peel stress and
shear stress along the bondline respectively. It brings out the fact that irrespective of the
type of joint the stresses are maximum at the edges and minimum at the center of
bondline. The plots also show the stresses obtained using nonlinear adhesive beam model
which takes into account of the geometric nonlinearity and transverse shear stiffness. The
plots indicate that the nonlinear adhesive beam model results in higher stresses for the
same load when compared to the linear model especially at the edges of the overlap
region. However, the difference between the two models is not significant as the effect of
eccentric load path has been taken into account in the linear model using equation
8.17.The trend remains similar for both healthy as well as degraded joints.
Figure 8.18 Variation of adhesive shear stress along the bond line region (theoretical result)
The experimental strains obtained from DIC were used to compute the adhesive peel and
shear stresses assuming a plane strain condition as shown in equation 8.27. The material
non linearity in the adhesive was neglected and a linear elastic approach was used.
 
  1    a 0   
 xx  Ea  a
  xx 
 yy    a 1  a  0    yy  (8.27)
  1   1  2    
  xy   1  2a   2 xy 
a a
 0  

0  
 2  
Where ‘Ea’ is the elastic modulus of the adhesive and ‘νa’ is its poisons ratio. While Ea for
adhesive with different percentage of PVA was chosen from table 5.3 (chapter 5), the
adhesive poisson’s ratio was assumed to be constant (νa=0.38). The coordinate directions
used are identical to that shown in figure 8.8 and figure 8.9 where ‘x’ is across and ‘y’ is
along the bondline.
The experimental stresses obtained were compared with theoretical stresses as
shown in figure 8.19, figure 8.20 and figure 8.21 for a healthy joint (H), a joint with 20
percent PVA (P20) and a severely degraded joint (P40) respectively. As shown the
experimental peel stresses are quite high compared to theoretical peel stresses, however,
the stress variation trend remains the same. The stresses are significantly high near the
joint edges owing to geometrical discontinuity and are minimum at the center. The
experimental stresses attain a peak value at a certain distance inward from the joint edge
unlike the theoretical stresses which peak exactly at the edge. Some of researchers have
studied this phenomenon and have developed models which take this into account [256].
However, it is not important to impose a stress-free boundary condition at the edge of the
adhesive bond line, since it is well known that the peak stresses occur at the singularity of
the interface of the adherend and adhesive at the extreme edge of the joint.
Figure 8.19 Comparison of experimental and theoretical stresses for a healthy joint
Figure 8.20 Comparison of experimental and analytical models for a degraded sample with 20
percent PVA (P20).
The plots also reveal that the peak stress on the left of the diagram (y/c < 0) is higher than
the peak stress at the right. This is due to the fact that the left portion of the diagram (y/c <
0) corresponds to loading side or the actuator side in the testing machine, whereas the right
portion (y/c > 0) corresponds to the fixture side where the adhesive joint sample was held.
This can be attributed to the differences in adhesive displacements which in turn results in
asymmetrical strain distribution. The magnitude of the shear stress is less compared to
peel stress and non-zero at the center of the overlap region.
Figure 8.21 Comparison of experimental and analytical models for a degraded sample with 40
percent PVA (P40)
The failure stress i.e., the peak peel stress measured experimentally was used as a
reference in a maximum peel stress failure criterion shown in equation 8.28 to predict the
failure load from both linear and non nonlinear adhesive beam models. Since the failure
was dominated by the peel component (i.e., opening mode or mode I type of failure), the
peak peel stress was considered in the failure criterion.
     (8.28)
 peel  theoretical model  peel  experimental maximum
These models were programmed to compute stress in a loop till the computed peel stress
equaled the maximum experimental peel stress and the corresponding load was recorded.
A comparison of experimental and predicted failure load (figure 8.22) reveals that both
theoretical models predict a higher value. While the average failure load for a healthy joint
is 6.6kN (test), the linear adhesive beam model predicted a failure load of 8.2kN which is
24 percent high; and the non linear model predicted a strength of 7.4kN which is 12.12
percent high. This difference can be attributed to the presence of defects in the bond line
region. The theoretical models do not take these defects into account and hence, over
predict the strength. A similar observation has been made by Adams [287] who has
reported a 50 percent over prediction of strength by the theoretical models. Further, the
analytical models do not account for interfacial condition and interfacial stress transfer
which contributes significantly towards the strength of a joint.
Figure 8.22 Failure load comparison between analytical models and experimental work.
8.6.3 Failure mechanism

The crack propagation in an adhesive joint across the bond thickness would consist of a
mixed failure mode of shear and peel due to the combined out of plane and in-plane
stresses. If the critical load is known the stress and strain distribution along the adhesive
layer can be determined. The maximum stress and strain can then be used to calculate the
critical J-integral value for crack initiation based on fracture mechanics concept. A number
of researchers [283, 293, 294] have employed the J-integral formulation and compliance
method to describe the mixed-mode fracture mechanism of cracked single lap joint due to
peel and shear stresses. Since the J-integral is path independent, the crack analysis may be
performed at the joint edges where the maximum peel and shear stresses in the adhesive
layer occur. According to Hu [293], the J-integral can be represented as a product of
maximum strain energy density and the adhesive thickness. The crack initiation in the
adhesive layer can be characterized by [293]

  x max  max 
2 2
J c  ta   (8.29)

2Ea 2Ga 

Where, ta, Ea, and Ga are the thickness, young’s modulus and shear modulus of the
adhesive respectively.  x max and  max are the maximum peel and shear stresses in
the adhesive layer. The above expression for ‘J’ is equivalent to the critical strain energy
release rate ‘Gc’ for the mixed mode crack initiation within the adhesive layer. Since the
longitudinal stresses do not play significant role in failure of a joint, equation 8.29 would
be an adequate method for approximating the critical strain energy release rate for crack
initiation.
Figure 8.23 J-integral for adhesive joints with different amounts of PVA
The J-integral for joints with different amounts of PVA was computed using the maximum
stresses obtained from DIC, the linear and nonlinear adhesive beam models and plotted as
shown in figure 8.23. As shown the J-integral decreases with increasing percentage of
PVA. Also the J-integral obtained using experimental stresses are quite high when
compared to that from linear and nonlinear adhesive beam models. Further, the J-integral
for a healthy joint is two times higher compared to a degraded joint with 40% PVA. This
indicates that the crack initiation in a healthy joint occurs at a much higher load as
compared to a degraded adhesive joint.
8.7 Summary
Two different analytical models viz., linear adhesive beam model based on Euler beam
theory and nonlinear adhesive beam model based on Timoshenko beam theory have been
utilized to compute the adhesive peel and shear stress in a joint. The computed peel and
shear stresses showed a similar trend for all the samples. Both models predicted higher
stresses at the edge of the bond line and minimum stresses at the center. However, the
nonlinear adhesive beam model predicted a higher value.
Digital image correlation (DIC) was used to obtain peel and shear strain in the
overlap region. It was found that the peel strain at the edge increased rapidly once the
crack initiated and started propagating. The experimental strains obtained using DIC were
used to compute the corresponding stresses assuming a plane strain condition. A
comparison was made between the experimental and theoretical stresses. It was found that
the experimental stresses were higher compared to those computed by the two analytical
models. A maximum peel stress failure criterion was used to predict failure loads for both
healthy and degraded joints. The predicted failure loads were high compared to actual
failure loads observed in tests. This can be attributed to the drawback of analytical models
to take defects and interfacial condition into account. A failure mechanism was proposed
based on the observations made and the maximum peel and shear stresses computed for
each type of joint. The J-integral for different joints was computed and it was shown that
the critical strain energy release rate for crack initiation of a healthy joint is much higher
compared to a degraded joint.
The analytical models become cumbersome if all the factors have to be taken into
account. Numerical methods like finite element analysis are found to be promising in
overcoming these hurdles. It is easy to change a parameter in a finite element code and get
the results as compared to experiments where a number of samples for each case have to
be prepared and tested. This is time consuming and a financial burden. Hence, FEM has
been used to study the behavior of a joint and to analyze the stresses developed in the bond
line area. A parametric analysis based on monte-carlo simulation has been used to study
the effect of variation of different parameters on the stresses developed in the overlap
region. Details of the study are given in the next chapter.
Chapter 9
Finite Element Analysis of Composite Single Lap

Joint
9.1 Introduction
The mechanical behavior of an adhesively bonded joint can be studied either by using
closed-form equations or by experiments. A brief discussion on different analytical models
has been presented in the previous chapter. The behavior of bonded joints is not only
influenced by their geometry but also by different boundary conditions. It becomes
difficult to obtain an overall system of governing equations to predict joint behavior due to
complexity in the joint geometry and its three dimensional nature. In addition, it is also
difficult to incorporate material non-linearity due to plastic behavior of the adhesive as the
analysis becomes very complex. The experiments are often time consuming and
expensive. Thus finite element analysis (FEA) approach has been tried in recent years to
overcome these limitations. The FEA has the advantage that the stresses in a body of any
geometrical shape under load can be approximated. Linear and non linear finite element
analyses have been carried out on different types of adhesive joints and the adhesive
stresses and strains have been evaluated [295-300]. A full finite element analysis of an
adhesively bonded joint should include the effects of bending, adherend shear, edge
effects and nonlinear behavior of adhesive and adherend. Numerous studies on the
analysis of bonded joints with composite adherends have been published [301-305], but
most of them are concerned with the definition of appropriate failure criteria for improved
joint strength predictions. Accurate strength prediction of adhesively bonded joints is
essential to decrease the amount of expensive testing at the design stage. Currently used
approaches for predicting the strength of adhesively bonded joints are the continuum
mechanics approach, fracture mechanics and damage mechanics approach.
The continuum mechanics approach has been used by many researchers to predict
the joint strength [295-298]. The adhesive and adherends are modeled using continuum
elements, assuming that the adhesive is perfectly bonded to the adherends. The assumption
of a perfect bond means that the finite element analysis takes no account of the adhesion
properties at the interface. In the fracture mechanics approach, an energy parameter is used
as a failure criterion. Further, the concepts of mixed mode fracture mechanics can be used
to predict the appropriate crack path and to predict the strength of the joints under different
loading conditions [306-309]. The damage mechanics approach enables the study of
complete response of bonded structures up to the point of failure to be modeled in a single
analysis without the need for additional post-processing [310-318]. The techniques for
modeling damage can be divided into local or continuum approaches. In the continuum
147
Chapter 9. Finite element analysis of composite single lap joint 148
approach the damage is modeled over a finite region. In the local approach the damage is
confined to zero volume lines and surfaces in two and three dimensions respectively. This
approach is often referred to as cohesive zone approach.
Most of the work on finite element analysis of adhesively bonded joints reported so
far does not take into account the adhesion properties of the interface and its degradation.
A different approach has been adopted in the present work where a non linear finite
element analysis was carried out to verify the experimental results. The adhesive-adherend
interface region was modeled using connector elements. The interfacial normal and
transverse shear stiffnesses determined using oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection were
used to assign the stiffness values for the connector elements. Failure loads were predicted
using the maximum peel stress in the bond line region which in turn was obtained
experimentally through DIC. A comparison of experimental and numerical results has
been made. Since the stresses and strains developed in the bondline region depend on
several factors, a parametric study of the same has been carried out using Monte-Carlo
based finite element method. A detailed illustration of the methodology adopted and the
results obtained have been given in this chapter.
9.2 Contributions towards finite element analysis of adhesive joints

There are a number of published research articles on the analysis of adhesively bonded
joints using finite element method (FEM). The work carried out by Adams et al [246, 295,
296, 298, 319-321] is regarded as seminal in the field. In addition, to the analysis of
different types of joints they also introduced elasto-plastic and non-linear FEA [295, 321].
Mackerle [322-323] and Baldan [324-325] have given comprehensive reviews on the
analysis of bonded joints made of different materials using FEM. Banea and da Silva [326]
have given a detailed illustration on the contributions towards analysis of adhesively
bonded joints with composite adherends. Zhao and Lu [327] developed a general two
dimensional approach capable of providing an explicit solution for adhesively bonded
joints. Haghani et al [328] carried out a parametric study to investigate the effect of
tapering length and the material properties of joint constituents on stress distribution in
adhesive joints. Fessel et al [329] compared the stress distribution of the reverse-bent and
the wavy lap joint with the stresses in a traditional lap shear joint. Experimental and
numerical analysis of single lap joints were also carried out by Grant et al [330] who
investigated the effects of various parameters such as the overlap length, the bond line
thickness and the spew fillet. Diaz et al [248] carried out a benchmark investigation of 3D
finite element models of CFRP single lap joints. The influence of the height and angle of
inner chamfer near the edges of the adherends and the elastic modulus of different
adhesives on the stress distribution in single lap joints was investigated by You et al [331]
using both the elasto-plastic FEA and experimental methods. Pereira et al [332] studied
the effect of geometrical and manufacturing parameters on the strength of adhesively
bonded single lap joints with the aim of optimizing shear strength. Rudawska [333]
compared experimental results with FEA results for both metallic adhesive joints and
aramid epoxy composite joints using a number of different assemblies. Kumar and Pandey
[334] presented the 2D and 3D nonlinear FEA of adhesively bonded single lap joints
having modulus-graded bondline under monotonic loading conditions.
Attempts have been made by various researchers to evaluate the effect of moisture
and temperature on integrity of adhesive joints using FEA. Mubashar et al [335]
developed a finite element based methodology for adhesive joints to predict the cyclic
moisture concentration incorporating moisture history. A series of experiments and finite
element analysis were carried out by Grant et al [336] to assess the effects of temperature
on an adhesive joint in automotive structure during service. Tests were carried out at
different temperature ranges and it was shown that the failure criterion proposed at room
temperature was still valid at low and high temperature. A quasi static tensile behavior of
adhesively bonded double lap joints, composed of pultruded GFRP laminates and an
epoxy adhesive was investigated by Zhang et al [337] at different temperatures. They
found that the failure mechanism changed with increasing temperature from fiber tear to
adhesive failure. Apalak and Gunes [338] investigated thermal residual stresses in an
adhesively bonded functionally graded single lap joint subjected to a uniform cooling. da
Silva and Adams [339-341] systematically investigated the mechanical properties of the
mixed adhesive joints, which are joints with a combination of a low temperature adhesive
and a high temperature adhesive. Malvade et al [342] focused on simulation of nonlinear
mechanical behavior of adhesively bonded double lap shear joints for variable extension
rates and temperatures.
9.3 Finite element modeling of composite single lap shear joints.

Though there are a number of research publications on finite element analysis of
adhesively bonded joints in the past three decades, most of the previous work were
focused on degradation of bulk adhesive and on parametric studies to assess the influence
of different parameters on the performance of adhesive joints. In a real situation the
degradation can be either adhesive (interfacial) or cohesive (bulk adhesive) or both. In this
work the adhesive and cohesive degradation have been taken into account while studying
the performance of adhesive joints using a nonlinear 3D finite element analysis performed
using a commercial software ABAQUS 6.10. The geometrical dimensions of the CAE
model were the same as the CFRP adhesive joints used in experimental investigation. The
interface was modeled using an array of connector elements whose stiffness was assigned
from the data obtained using oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection.
The cohesive degradation was modeled using degradation in the properties of
adhesive. The unidirectional CFRP adherend was treated as an orthotropic material having
properties as shown in table 9.1. An eight node linear brick element (C3D8R) was used to
model the adherend with reduced integration and hourglass control. A coarse mesh was
used for the adherend where as a fine mesh was used for the adhesive bond line. Six
elements were used across the thickness of the adherend; each element had a thickness of
0.42mm and the width and length of 1.27mm.
Table 9.1 Properties of CFRP adherend

Longitudinal Transverse Shear Shear
Poisson’s Poisson’s Density
modulus modulus modulus modulus
ratio ratio ρ
E1 E2=E3 G12=G13 G23
ν12= ν13 ν23 (Kg/m3)
(GPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
130 12 0.31 0.38 5.4 4.5 1700
On the other hand adhesive was treated as an isotropic material. The properties of adhesive
were varied according to table 5.3 (chapter 5) for different types of joints tested. An eight
node linear brick element (C3D8R) of thickness 0.12mm was used to model the adhesive.
The bond line thickness in an adhesive joint is less compared to other dimensions and
failure is most likely to occur within this region. Therefore, finite element mesh size
should be several orders of magnitude less than that needed in other regions (figure 9.1).
The number of degrees of freedom is rather high in an adhesively bonded joint. However,
it is important to build a finite element model with an optimum number of elements and
nodes to save computer time. The limit on the degrees of freedom is mainly due to limits
in computer memory and on the need to keep the solution time reasonable.
Figure 9.1 Mesh pattern used for adhesively bonded single lap shear joints
The elements used for modeling the interface are the projection Cartesian-Cardan
connectors CONN3D2 that stands for 3-dimensional 2-node connector elements (figure
9.1). A projection Cartesian connector provides a connection between two nodes (say ‘a’
and ‘b’) where the response in three local connection directions (i.e., the axes of the local
Cartesian coordinate system) is measured. It does not impose kinematic constraints and
define three local directions {e1, e2, e3} at both the nodes. The projection Cartesian
connection measures the change in position of node ‘b’ relative to node ‘a’ along the
coordinate directions {e1, e2, e3}. On the other hand a Cardan connector provides a
rotational connection between two nodes; wherein the relative rotation between the nodes
is parameterized by Cardan angles. This parameterization is called a yaw-pitch-roll
parameterization. It is a finite rotation connection where the local directions at node ‘b’ are
parameterized in terms of Cardan angles relative to the local directions of node ‘a’. These
connectors can have three-dimensional action (both translational and rotational degrees of
freedom) and act along all the three major axes directions and have respective properties
(stiffness) in each direction. The connector elements were assigned the stiffness ‘D11’ and
‘D22’, i.e., the normal and transverse interfacial stiffness respectively. It was assumed that
the magnitude of normal interfacial stiffness (Kn) was twice that of transverse interfacial
stiffness (Kt) based on the work reported by Baltazar et al [178] i.e., D11= 2D22. A total of
840 connector elements were used to model the interface. Table 9.2 gives details of the
properties of adhesive used to model the lap joints along with the applied load.
Table 9.2 Properties of the epoxy adhesive used in CAE.
Transverse
Young’s Modulus Density Applied Load
Joint type interfacial stiffness
E (GPa) (Kg/m3) (kN)
Kt (N/m3)
H 4.7 1548 2.4e14 6.5
P10 4.2 1429 2.2e14 4.9
P20 3.5 1322 1.4e14 4.4
P30 2.8 1213 1.0e14 4.3
P40 2.2 1107 0.7e14 3.4
The local coordinate system (orientation) defined for the reference node in FEA (figure
9.1) for the connector elements was aligned with the coordinate system used in mechanical
test and DIC (refer figure 8.8). Spacers can reduce the stresses due to eccentric loading.
However, according to Guo et al [167] for a single lap joint subjected to tensile forces,
spacers are helpful only if clamping position is close to the overlap edge or when external
load is small. Hence, considering the dimensions of the joint being tested and higher load
applied, the spacers were ignored in the FEA model.
Figure 9.2 Boundary conditions and constraints for the single lap shear joints.
Figure 9.2 shows the constraints and boundary conditions used in the finite element
analysis. As shown one of the edge was completely constrained in all degrees of freedom
while the other was free to translate in the x-direction (u). A uniformly distributed load
equivalent to the failure load was applied on one of the edges. For instance the average
failure load of healthy joints is 6.5kN. This was divided by the cross sectional area
(25.4mm x 2.54mm) which resulted in an equivalent pressure of 100.7 MPa. A
geometrically nonlinear, static, general load step was created and solved. The results
obtained are explained in detail in the results and discussion section.
9.4 Parametric studies on adhesive joints using Monte-Carlo

method.
Variation in the parameters influencing the performance of an adhesive joint is bound to
happen during the assembly of structures. Adhesive may get degraded in-service over time
and the stresses developed in the bond line region can vary to a greater extent during the
life time of a joint. In this context it is important to conduct a parametric study on the
adhesive joint. This will be helpful in understanding the effect of variation of these factors
on the stresses developed in a joint and to further design the joint so that the structure
remains safe and perform its intended function during its service. Effect of parametric
variation on performance of a joint can be studied by experimental approach. But this
approach demands a lot of samples to be prepared and tested. Moreover experimental
uncertainties like testing environmental conditions, loading method, machine noise etc
also contribute to the variation in results. Given the number of parameters associated with
the performance of an adhesive joint, it is very expensive in terms of cost and time to
consider an experimental approach. On the other hand numerical approaches using FEA
proves to be cost effective and time saving, since it is much easier to change a parameter
and to study its effect in a FEA domain. FEA based Monte Carlo methods are very useful
in this context since the variation in parameters can be given as an input and the results
can be obtained for each case.
Monte Carlo methods are a class of computational algorithms based on random
sampling to compute numerical results. They are most suitable in situations where it is not
possible to obtain a closed form solution or infeasible to apply a deterministic algorithm
like for systems with many coupled degrees of freedom, disordered materials, fluids,
coupled solids etc. They are used to model phenomenon with significant uncertainty in
inputs, to evaluate multidimensional definite integrals with complicated boundary
conditions, design optimization and generation of samples from a probability distribution.
In brief, a Monte Carlo method is a statistical approach to solve deterministic multi-body
problems.
A Monte Carlo simulation uses repeated random sampling to determine the
properties of some phenomenon. Monte Carlo simulations sample probability distribution
for each variable to produce hundreds of possible outcomes by defining a domain of
possible inputs, generating inputs randomly from a probability distribution over the
domain, performing a deterministic computation on the inputs and aggregating the results.
Mechanical problems pertaining to composite structures and adhesive joints can be solved
using Monte-Carlo simulation approach [343-345]. Zureick et al [346] have proposed a
technique to statistically reduce the material property test data for load and resistance
factor in the design of composite structures. Dickstein et al [347] have used statistical
pattern recognition techniques to develop a method for selecting the optimal probe
frequency for carrying out the ultrasonic inspection of adhesive joints. Attempts have been
made to use finite element based Monte Carlo simulation to carry out parametric studies in
layered structures [348-352]. Onkar et al [350] have carried out a stochastic buckling
analysis of laminated composite plates, with and without cutouts having random material
properties subjected to uniaxial compressive loading. Frangopol and Recek [351] have
employed Monte Carlo simulation to investigate the reliability of composite structures.
Chen and Soares [352] have developed a spectral stochastic finite element formulation
with consideration of multi-layer effect and spatial variability of material properties for
probabilistic analysis of laminated composite plates. The numerical accuracy and the
computational efficiency of the method were demonstrated by comparison with Monte-
Carlo simulation.
In the present work Monte Carlo simulation has been carried out to evaluate the
influence of variation in bond line parameters on the maximum peel and shear stresses
developed in the CFRP-epoxy adhesive joint. This was accomplished using commercial
FE software ANSYS 10, which has an integrated Monte-Carlo simulation capability. The
dimensions of the adhesive joint, material properties, constraints and boundary conditions
remained the same as explained in the previous section. SOLID 45 a three dimensional
solid element defined by eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node was
used to model the epoxy adhesive, where as the CFRP adherend was modeled using
SOLID 46 which is a three dimensional layered structural solid element. A fine mesh size
was used near the bond line area to take into account of the increased stress concentration
due to geometrical discontinuity. Interface was modeled by tying the nodes between the
adhesive and the adherend. Latin Hypercube sampling method, a statistical method for
generating a sample of plausible collections of parameter values from a multidimensional
distribution was used in the analysis. This sampling method is often applied in uncertainty
analysis as it ensures that the ensemble of random numbers is representative of the real
variability. The input parameters like adhesive modulus, bond line thickness etc were
given as a Gaussian distribution with a mean and a standard deviation and 30 sample
points were considered in each case. The resulting variation in the peel and shear stresses
has been explained in the section 9.5.2.
9.5 Results and discussion

This section illustrates the results obtained from finite element analysis of composite
adhesive lap joints and the Monte Carlo simulation.
9.5.1 Finite element analysis results
Figure 9.3 Deformed CFRP-epoxy adhesive joint

Figure 9.4 a.) Distribution of peel stress and b.) Distribution of shear stress along the bondline.
The eccentric load path induces a couple to be applied at the edges of adhesive bondline
which tends to rotate the joint (figure 9.3). This leads to a higher peel stress at the edges of
the bondline. Figure 9.4a and 9.4b shows the distribution of peel and shear stresses along
the bond line of a healthy joint. It is clear from the figure that the magnitude of stress is
higher at the edges of the bond line compared to its center. The magnitude of peel stress
component is much higher compared to shear stress component thus leading to peel
dominated failure.
The variation of peel and shear stresses in the bond line region of a healthy joint as
obtained from DIC and FEA is presented in Figure 9.5a and 9.5b respectively. The peel
stresses obtained through both approaches exhibit a similar trend. The figure reveals that
the maximum peel stress occurs slightly inwards from the edge of the bond line in both the
cases. Further, it can also be seen that the peel stresses are high on the left side (for y/c <
0) i.e. the side of the actuator or the side where the load is applied as compared to right
side (for y/c > 0) where the load is transferred as the joint is held in the grip. Though
theoretical models [249-251] describe the stresses to be symmetrical with respect to the
center of bond line, the stress variation obtained using FEA and experimental approach
showed a difference. This can be attributed to the differences in adhesive displacements
which in turn results in asymmetrical strain distribution. A similar observation has been
reported by Li et al [305] and Chuan Her [353]. The finite element analysis predicts a
maximum peel stress of 142 MPa which is less than that measured using DIC. However,
the peel stresses predicted by FEA are higher than experimental peel stresses at the center
of the bond line (-0.4< y/c < 0.4). The maximum shear stress predicted by FEA (46 MPa)
is considerably higher than that obtained by experiment (DIC). The maximum shear stress
measured using DIC is 26% less than that predicted by FEA. The FEA predicts zero shear
stress at the center of the bond line (i.e. at y/c=0) unlike the experimental shear stress
which is greater than zero.
a.) Variation of peel stress along the bond line for a healthy joint
b.) Variation of shear stress along the bond line for a healthy joint
Figure 9.5 Variation of stress along the bond line of a healthy joint a.) peel stress b.) shear stress
The variation of peel and shear stress for a degraded joint with 20 percent PVA (figure
9.6) follow a similar trend to that of a healthy joint but with a lesser magnitude. FEA
predicted a maximum peel stress of 108 MPa which is 14% less than the maximum
experimental peel stress of 126 MPa. The finite element peel stress at the center of the
bond line (-0.4 < y/c < 0.4) was found to be slightly higher than the experimental peel
stress which in turn was close to zero. On the other hand the maximum shear stress
predicted by FEA is much higher than that obtained using DIC, albeit with a lesser
magnitude at the center of bond line. Similar observations can be made for adhesive joints
with 40 percent PVA (figure 9.7).
a.) Variation of peel stress along the bond line for a degraded joint with 20 percent PVA (P20)
b.) Variation of shear stress along the bond line for a degraded joint with 20 percent PVA (P20)
Figure 9.6 Variation of stress along the bond line for a degraded joint with 20 percent PVA (P20)
a.) peel stress and b.) shear stress.
The 3D finite element analysis also provides information about the stress variation across
the adhesive joint width unlike the theoretical models which assume a uniform stress along
the width. Figure 9.8a presents the distribution of peel stress across the width of a healthy
joint. It can be observed that the peel stress is maximum at the center and minimum at the
edges. It may also be noted that this maximum peel stress value for a healthy joint (507.3
MPa) across the joint width is 3.57 times higher than the maximum value of peel stress
found along the bond line (142MPa). Also, the peel stresses are not uniform through the
thickness of the adhesive, but maximum at the location where the adherend first meets the
adhesive. Thus, the maximum peel stresses are located at diagonally opposite edges of the
joint region (in the width direction) thus leading to a peel dominated failure (mode I or
opening mode failure) which starts at the center of joint width and gradually progress
inwards.
a.) Variation of peel stress along the bond line for a degraded joint with 40 percent PVA (P40)
b.) Variation of shear stress along the bond line for a degraded joint with 40 percent PVA (P40)
Figure 9.7 Variation of stress along the bond line of a degraded sample with 40 percent PVA (P40)
a.) peel stress and b.) shear stress
The variation of peel stress across the joint width (figure 9.8b) for a healthy joint and
degraded joints (P20 and P40) was plotted against ‘z/c’, where the coordinate value ‘z’ is
zero at the center of the joint width and varies from -12.7 to +12.7 on either side in the
width direction. It can be seen that the peel stress is maximum at the center of joint width
(i.e. at z/c =0) for all the joint types irrespective of the amount of degradation. However,
the peel stress for a healthy joint is much higher as compared to degraded joints owing to
its better quality. The maximum peel stress for a healthy joint (507 MPa) is 2.5 times
higher than the joint with 40 percent PVA (202 MPa).
a.) Distribution of peel stress across the joint width (healthy joint)
b.) Variation of peel stress across the joint width for a healthy joint and degraded joints
Figure 9.8 a.) Distribution of peel stress across the joint width for a healthy sample and b.)
Variation of peel stress across the joint width for a healthy joint and degraded joints.
The analytical models assume that the stresses are uniform through the thickness of
adhesive layer but literary evidences suggest that the stresses do vary across the bond line
thickness [305]. Figure 9.9 shows the variation of adhesive peel stress across the bond line
thickness for a healthy joint and degraded joints at y/c = -0.85. The value of ‘x’ in the
abscissa is zero at mid thickness and varies from -0.38 to +0.38 on either side. It can be
seen that the peel stress attains a maximum value at a distance of 0.25ta to 0.38ta above the
midline of the adhesively bonded region.
Figure 9.9 Variation of adhesive peel stress across the adhesive thickness (at y/c = -0.85)
Figure 9.10 Failure load predicted by FEA for adhesive joints with different percentage of PVA as
compared to test average.
A maximum peel stress failure criterion as shown in equation 9.1 was used to predict the
joint strength using FEA. The load corresponding to the maximum experimental peel
stress was recorded as the failure load and plotted against the percentage PVA.
Maximum peel stress failure criterion:      (9.1)

 peel  FEA  peel  experimental maximum
A plot of failure load versus percentage PVA (figure 9.10) shows that the failure load
predicted by FEA is lower than that predicted by both linear and nonlinear adhesive beam
models but higher than the average experimental failure load. The difference in failure
load between experimental average and FEA can be attributed to possible inherent defects
in the adhesive bond line not accounted for in the FEA. The variation of the magnitude of
the J-integral for adhesive joints with different amounts of PVA is presented in figure
9.11. As shown the FEA predicts a higher J-integral value as compared to analytical
models, however, it is much less than the experimental average.
Figure 9.11 J-integral for adhesive joints with different percentage of PVA.
9.5.2 Monte Carlo simulation results.

The ANSYS probabilistic design system includes the following steps.
 The deterministic model i.e. the ANSYS model that computes the results and
output parameters for a given set of input parameters
 The random input variables (adhesive elastic modulus and thickness, adherend
elastic and shear modulus, adherend thickness etc) and their specifications.
 Solution sets containing the results of each probabilistic analysis.
The input parameters like geometrical dimensions, material properties and boundary
conditions are defined as random variables and are characterized by their distribution type
(Gaussian, lognormal etc) and by their distribution parameters (mean values, standard
deviation etc). The results are defined as random output parameters. During a probabilistic
analysis, ANSYS executes multiple analysis loops to compute the random output
parameters as a function of the set of random input variables. The values for the input
variables are generated either randomly using Monte Carlo simulation or as prescribed
samples. The statistics of the random output parameters (peel and shear stress) were
computed using the ANSYS results and illustrated using histogram plots and cumulative
distribution curves. A brief illustration of the Monte-Carlo results obtained by giving
adhesive and adherend properties as an input variable is given in this section.
9.5.2.1 Adhesive properties as random input variables

a.) Adhesive elastic modulus as input variable.
Figure 9.12 Probability density function and cumulative distribution function of the input variable
(adhesive elastic modulus)
The ANSYS deterministic model had one parameter (adhesive elastic modulus) as random
input variable which was given as a Gaussian distribution with a mean value of 4.7GPa
and a standard deviation of 2.35GPa. The probability density function and the cumulative
distribution function of the input variable are shown in Figure 9.12. Monte Carlo
simulation was executed using a Latin Hypercube sampling method with 30 sampling
points. A summary of results obtained is presented in table 9.3.
Table 9.3 Resulting peel and shear stress – statistics of the random output parameters.
Standard
Output Mean Minimum Maximum
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
variable (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
Peel stress 519.77 64.667 -0.8418 -0.1873 388.69 612.10
Shear stress 62.00 0.9802 1.665 3.317 61.99 62.00
The ANSYS probabilistic design system computes an appropriate number of classes based
on the number of samples. The number of classes is equal to the number of bars shown in
the histogram (figure 9.13). The range between the smallest and largest sample value has
been divided into classes of equal width. A histogram is derived by counting the number
of hits in the individual classes and dividing this number by the total number of samples.
Hence, a histogram represents the relative frequencies of the random quantity it is plotted
for. A cumulative distribution curve (figure 9.14) is plotted with either a total number of
100 points or using the sample size as the number of points, whichever is lower. For
Monte Carlo simulation method, a confidence level of 95% is used to plot confidence
bounds around the cumulative distribution function.
a.) Relative frequency histogram for peel stress b.) Relative frequency histogram for shear
stress
Figure 9.13 a.) Relative frequency histogram of peel stress and b.) Relative frequency histogram of
shear stress (due to variation in adhesive modulus).
a.) Cumulative distribution function for peel stress b.) Cumulative distribution function for shear
stress
Figure 9.14 a.) Cumulative distribution function of peel stress and b.) Cumulative distribution
function of shear stress.
The Monte Carlo simulation results show that the peel stress is highly sensitive to
variation in adhesive elastic modulus. The peel stress exhibit a negative skew and bulk of
the values lie to the right of the mean, i.e. the mass of the distribution is concentrated on
the right of the probability distribution function. This indicates that as the elastic modulus
of the adhesive is increased the magnitude of peel stress gradually increases and attains a
maximum value and a bulk of samples attain higher peel stress. On the other hand the
shear stress is least sensitive to variation in adhesive modulus and has a positive skew;
which implies that the shear stress increases initially and thereafter becomes constant. The
shear stress has a positive kurtosis which is an indication of peakedness of a probability

distribution function. This further implies that the probability of the shear stress attaining
the mean value is high. The slope of the cumulative distribution curve is a measure of
dispersion in the probability density function (PDF). If the slope of cumulative distribution
curve is less the PDF is more dispersed; on the other hand if the slope is high the PDF is
narrow. The cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots indicate that the dispersion in
peel stress is more as compared to shear stress.
b.)Bond line thickness as input variable.
The bond line thickness is one of the parameters which significantly influence the stress
distribution. The probability density function and cumulative distribution function for the
variation in bond line thickness is shown in figure 9.15. The bond line thickness was given
as a Gaussian distribution with a mean value of 0.76mm and a standard deviation of
0.1mm. Table 9.4 shows the resulting peel and shear stress variation due to variation in
adhesive bond line thickness.
Figure 9.15 Probability density function and cumulative distribution function of the input variable
(Bond line thickness)
Figure 9.16a and 9.16b shows the relative frequency histogram for peel and shear stress
respectively. The interpretation of these histograms reveal that as the thickness of the
adhesive bond line increases the magnitude of peel and shear stress increases.This increase
can be attributed to increased eccentricity in load path due to increased bondline thickness.
Further, a higher value of kurtosis indicate that the probability of peel and shear stress
attaining the mean value is high. The data in the table also shows that the variation in peel
stress is much less compared to variation in shear stress. The probability of shear stress
attaining the mean value is very high due to its higher kurtosis value. This means that peel
stress in more sensitive to variation in bondline thickness as compared to shear stress.
Table 9.4 Resulting peel and shear stress variation due to variation in bond line thickness.
Standard
Output Mean Minimum Maximum
variable (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
Peel stress 535.04 5.6582 -1.475 4.067 515.17 544.13
Shear stress 53.725 31.474 -3.660 12.21 -62.065 62.088
9.5.2.2 Substrate properties as random input variables

Numerical investigations were also carried out to evaluate the effect of variation in
substrate geometrical and material properties on the stresses developed in the adhesive
bond line. The input parameters like adherend thickness (2.54 mm ± 1mm), adherend
elastic modulus (140 GPa ± 28 GPa) and shear modulus (5.4GPa ± 1GPa) were varied
and the variation in adhesive peel and shear stresses were obtained as random output
variables.
a.) Relative frequency histogram for peel stress b.) Relative frequency histogram for shear
stress
Figure 9.16 a.) Relative frequency histogram of peel stress and b.) Relative frequency histogram of
shear stress. (Due to variation in bond line thickness)
Table 9.5 summarizes the Monte Carlo simulation results obtained by varying the
substrate properties. The data in the table reveals that the variation in adherend material
properties (E1 and G12) has little effect on the adhesive stresses. However, it can be seen
that the adherend thickness has significant influence on the adhesive peel stress. The
relative frequency histogram and cumulative distribution function (figure 9.17) for peel
stress reveals that the distribution is positively skewed and the probability of the peel
stress attaining the mean value or a value lesser than that is very high. The mass of the
distribution is concentrated towards the left of the mean and a bulk of the samples will
attain a value lesser than the mean peel stress. The variance of peel stress distribution is
also significantly higher when adherend thickness is given as random input variable. On
the other hand the adhesive shear stress is found to be least affected due to variation in
adherend geometric and material properties.
Table 9.5 Resulting peel and shear stress variation due to variation in adherend properties.
Standard
Input Output Mean Minimum Maximum
variable variable (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)
Peel stress 607.45 299.78 4.413 21.69 407.63 2083.5

Adherend
thickness
(2.54mm ± 1 mm)
Shear stress 58.00 9.802 1.665 3.317 51.99 62.00
Peel stress 538.07 13.52 1.688 4.811 518.45 587.03

Adherend elastic
modulus (E1)
(140GPa ± 28 GPa)
Shear stress 62.231 6.93 -0.7883 0.3332 53.489 72.341
Peel stress 535.42 1.97 -1.553 3.561 528.66 538.06

Adherend Shear
modulus (G12)
(5.4GPa ± 1 GPa)
Shear stress 63.33 0.76 -0.4207 -0.1189 61.55 64.75
a.) Relative frequency histogram of peel stress b.) Cumulative distribution function for peel
stress
Figure 9.17 Variation in peel stress when adherend thickness is given as random input variable
a.) Relative frequency histogram of peel stress and b.) Cumulative distribution function for peel
stress
9.6 Summary
Numerical investigation using 3D finite element analysis has been carried out on CFRP-
epoxy adhesive joints. The adherend – adhesive interface was modeled using connector
elements whose stiffness properties as well as adhesive properties for joints with different
percentage of PVA were determined using ultrasonic inspection method. The peel stress
and shear stress variation along the adhesive bond line showed a similar trend to that
obtained using DIC, but with a lesser magnitude. The peel adhesive stresses computed
using FEA was higher than that predicted by both linear and nonlinear adhesive beam
model, but lesser than experimental peel stress. Higher stresses were found towards the
loading side (for y/c < 0) as was found in experimental stress distribution. The theoretical
models assume that the stresses are uniform across the width of a joint and through the
thickness of the adhesive layer. However, FEA investigations have shown that the peel
stress varies along the width and found to be maximum at the center. The peel stress was
found to be maximum at a distance of 0.25ta to 0.38ta measured upwards from the middle
of the adhesive bond line. The FEA predicted higher failure load than that obtained from
tests.
Monte-Carlo simulation studies were carried out to study the effect of variation in
various joint parameters like adhesive modulus, bond line thickness, adherend geometrical
and material properties on peel and shear stresses in the joint. It was found that the
adhesive modulus and bond line thickness had significant influence on the magnitude of
stresses developed in the bond line. On the other hand except for the adherend thickness
the effect of adherend properties on adhesive stresses was found to be little.
Chapter 10
Conclusions and Future Work
10.1 Summary of conclusions
In recent times, adhesives find a common place in the assembly of contemporary
aerospace and automotive structures due to their advantages like ability to join dissimilar
materials, uniform stress distribution, reduced stress concentration, better fatigue
resistance etc, over conventional joining methods like welding and riveting. However,
they do have some limitations like for example, environmental degradation over a period
of time. Further, defects like pores, voids may creep into adhesive bond line during the
execution of a bond. The net effect of existence of these defects and degradation is
reduction in load carrying capacity of adhesive joints which may make it the weakest link
in the assembly to bring about eventual failure. Also, adhesive joints cannot be dismantled
and repaired easily. This emphasizes the need for periodic inspection and maintenance
throughout the service life of a bonded structure. One of the major concerns in using
adhesive joints is the unavailability of a comprehensive non destructive evaluation tool
that can detect, evaluate and characterize all type of defects present in the bond line.
Existing conventional NDT methods are confined to detection of some defects like
delaminations, voids and pores. But, they fail in predicting the effect of these defects on
joint strength and durability. Though non destructive testing techniques cannot directly
measure the strength of an adhesive joint, they can be used to determine certain parameters
which can in turn be used to evaluate the strength and durability of the bonded joints.
The work presented in this thesis was carried out with the objective to adopt
different NDE approaches to obtain a correlation between NDE measurements and the
bond strength of a composite single lap joint. Numerical and analytical models were
utilized to validate the experimental results obtained. Series of experimental and numerical
investigations were carried out to accomplish this objective. A brief summary of the work
carried out and the outcome there of have been presented here.
To start with different joint parameters influencing the strength of a joint viz., bond
line thickness, types of adherend and adhesives, their properties, thickness of the
adherend, joint geometry etc were identified. It is a known fact that unsupported lap joints
in a structure are one of the weakest configurations under peel load. However, they are the
most common types of joints used due to their simplicity and ease of manufacture. Hence,
the investigations were mainly focused on composite to composite single lap joint
configuration of uniform bondline thickness. The problem becomes very complex if all the
parameters are considered simultaneously. Hence, only the adhesive layer properties (both
adhesive and cohesive) were varied and other parameters were maintained constant. Most
of the previous work on evaluation of adhesive joints focused on metal to metal adhesive
joints in general and aluminum adherends in particular. However, aerospace and
167
Chapter 10. Conclusions and Future work 168
automotive structures in recent times use fiber reinforced plastic composites extensively
due to their high strength to weight ratio and better fatigue properties. This prompted the
presented work to focus on FRP-epoxy single lap joints. Through extensive literature
survey, a review of different non destructive testing techniques used to detect and
characterize defects in adhesive joints was carried out. It is a well known fact that
ultrasonic techniques are most promising and are widely used in inspection of adhesive
joints.
Preliminary set of experimental investigations using ultrasonic and X-ray imaging
techniques was carried out to evaluate the bond quality and strength of unidirectional
GFRP epoxy adhesive lap joints. Degradation of adhesive and cohesive properties was
achieved by mixing known quantities of PVA with the epoxy adhesive. The ultrasonic
through transmission technique showed a variation of amplitude of transmitted waves
through the joint. While the healthy samples showed higher intensity owing to better
properties, the degraded samples showed a lower intensity. The pulse echo technique
could be used to judge the quality adhesion as the amplitude of reflection from the first
interface varied with different types of joints. Higher amplitude reflections were seen in
degraded samples as compared to healthy adhesive joints. Acoustic impedance
measurements carried out on bulk adhesive samples showed that the impedance mismatch
between the adhesive and the adherend increased with increase in the amount of
degradation. However, the computed reflection coefficients were much lower than the
experimental reflection coefficients, this difference was attributed to the variation in
interfacial stiffness.
X-Ray radiography technique revealed the density variation in the adhesive due to
addition of PVA. Though the results were not as distinct as ultrasonics, the x-ray
radiography technique had the advantage that the entire bonded area can be inspected at a
time. Lap shear tests of joints revealed that the addition of PVA decreased the bond
strength. A correlation plot between coefficient of reflection from the first interface and
bond strength showed that there is a linear correlation between them, and an increase in
the value of coefficient of reflection is associated with a corresponding degradation in
bond strength. However, the results obtained had a lot of scatter due to higher attenuation
in the GFRP adherend which in turn could be attributed to limitations on the method of
fabrication. Though the hand layup and vacuum bagging technique could not ensure a best
quality adherend, however, the preliminary investigations carried out on GFRP-epoxy
adhesive joints gave some interesting results that acted as a precursor to further work.
Hence, further work was carried out using autoclave cured unidirectional CFRP (carbon
fiber reinforced plastic) as adherends so as to minimise the experimental errors and scatter
in the measurements due to property variations in the adherend itself due to manual
fabrication methods.
Similar results in terms of variation in the ultrasonic parameters were obtained for
CFRP-Epoxy adhesive lap joints when subjected normal incidence ultrasonic inspection
(both immersion and contact type). Contact type ultrasonic inspection carried out using
different frequency probes resulted in similar trend as in immersion type focused
ultrasound scanning. The change in slope was attributed to changes in attenuation with
frequency. Further, the effect of adhesive-adherend interface on reflection of the
ultrasound was found to be more predominant at higher frequencies.
The acoustic emission (AE) monitoring performed during the bond strength tests
showed early emissions for degraded joints and also exhibited changes in AE parameters
like cumulative hits and energy. The load displacement curves plotted for different
adhesive joint samples showed higher area under the curve (energy) for healthy samples as
compared to degraded samples. It was thus concluded that considerably less amount of
energy was required to break the degraded adhesive joint sample when compared to a
healthy joint. Normal incidence ultrasound was found to be less sensitive to interfacial
degradation. Hence, further experimental work was carried on using oblique incidence
ultrasonic inspection which uses shear waves to interrogate the interface of an adhesive
joint.
Oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection was performed on CFRP-epoxy single lap
joints using a pitch catch mode experimental setup where the angle of incidence was
chosen to be beyond the first critical angle so that only the shear wave component is
incident on the interface. The amplitude of reflection of shear waves from the adhesive
layer increased with an increase in degradation. A shift in the frequency minimum towards
lower frequencies was observed in degraded samples. This shift is attributed to the
changes in the pulse due to the defects at the interface. The bond strength was found to be
related to the percentage of interfacial failure which in turn was proportional to the shift in
reflection minimum. This phenomenon was cross verified using a transfer matrix model
where the adhesive layer was treated as a viscoelastic material and degradation was taken
into account by decreasing the value of a relaxation parameter. The model showed a
similar trend to that observed in the experiments. Another model where the interface was
treated as an array of liquid filled disbonds was used to examine the influence of
interfacial degradation on the frequency minimum shift. Both the models showed a similar
trend. However, literary evidences showed that the contribution of interfacial degradation
on the frequency shift was significantly higher than the cohesive degradation. The
mismatch between the experimentally observed spectra and the theoretical spectra can be
attributed to the sensitivity of experimentally observed reflection minima to various
factors like variation in bondline thickness, surface roughness, environmental conditions
like moisture and temperature etc.
An inversion algorithm was used to determine the interfacial transverse stiffness
(Kt) using the experimental spectra obtained from oblique incidence inspection performed
with a 20MHz transducer. The spectrum shift was attributed to variation in the interfacial
stiffness Kt. The more the decrease in the value of Kt the more was the spectrum shift
towards lower frequency. A significant decrease in the value of Kt was observed with an
increase in degradation.
The normal and oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection methods cannot be used
effectively when the bondline region in a structure is not accessible. In such a situation
guided wave techniques using Lamb waves can be convenient for in-situ inspection as
they can be transmitted and received on the same side of the structure across the adhesive
joint. These techniques have the advantage of increased speed of inspection of large
regions of material as each measurement inspects along a line rather than a single point.
Hence, experimental and numerical work was carried out using Lamb wave inspection
technique to evaluate the integrity of CFRP adhesive joints. While ‘so’ mode showed a
decrease in amplitude of the received pulse due to an increased degradation, ‘ao’ mode did
not show measurable changes at the test frequency of 230 kHz. This was in line with the
predictions made using theoretical dispersion curves that showed a negligible drift in
fundamental anti symmetric mode. An appreciable amount of drift could be seen in higher
order modes. Frequency domain studies of these signals using Gabor wavelet transform
showed a decrease in the magnitude of wavelet coefficients and a negative shift in
frequency with increased amounts of degradation. It was also observed that maximum
transmission loss for the most degraded sample (P40) occurs in the range of 650 – 800 kHz
indicating the sensitivity of this frequency range to degradation. Numerical studies
performed using finite element simulations showed a similar trend to the experimental
results. This further proved that the maximum energy loss in the lamb wave modes was
due to reduction in stiffness of the joint caused by the degradation rather than due to
attenuation.
When ultrasonic waves are made to propagate through a degraded joint a strong
non linear effect can be observed. Thus, the degree of material degradation can be
evaluated by measuring the ultrasonic wave parameters that are affected by this non-
linearity. The acoustic pulse gets nonlinearly modulated due to degradation in the adhesive
leading to an increase in the nonlinearity parameter (β) with increased degradation. These
results gave a quantitative assessment of the health of a bonded joint. It was found that the
average shear strength of CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints decreased with an increase in the
value of nonlinearity parameter (β). The problem of detection and characterization of dry
contact kissing bond has been a hot topic of research in the field of nonlinear ultrasound.
Though attempts have been made to evaluate the kissing bonds, the results were largely
confined to laboratory samples. This motivated the need to explore alternative techniques
to detect and characterize dry contact kissing bonds.
An effort was made to evaluate the kissing bond defects using digital image
correlation (DIC) technique. DIC could detect the kissing bonds even at 50% of failure
load. A negative strain field was observed at the extremities of the kissing bond defect.
The failure load decreased with increasing percentage of kissing bond area and there was a
degradation of 65% in ultimate strength for the K70 (70% area of kissing bond) sample as
compared to a healthy joint. Finite Element analysis on adhesive joint models with
simulated kissing bond defects showed a similar trend. Though non destructive test
methods were used to evaluate the degradation in adhesive joints the work would be
incomplete without a detailed analysis to understand the effect of degradation on the
stresses developed and eventually on the failure strength of the joint.
Analytical, experimental and numerical analysis were carried out on composite
adhesive joints to evaluate the stresses and strains developed in the bond line area under
uniaxial tensile loading. Different analytical models to measure stresses in an adhesive

joints were explored and two analytical models viz., linear adhesive beam model based on
Euler beam theory and nonlinear adhesive beam model based on Temoshenko beam
theory were utilized to determine the adhesive peel and shear stress in the joint. Digital
image correlation (DIC) was used to experimentally measure the strains in the bondline
region while the joints were subjected to tensile load. It was found that the strains
increased rapidly once the failure initiated and started propagating. Higher strains were
observed in healthy joints compared to degraded joints. Healthy joints also took more load
once the failure initiated till failure. Higher strains were recorded towards the side where
the load was applied as compared to the side to which the load was transferred. The peel
and shear stresses computed using the two analytical models showed a similar trend for all
the samples. Both models predicted higher stresses at the edge of the bondline and
minimum stresses at the center. However, the nonlinear model predicted higher stresses
than a linear model.
The experimental strains recorded using DIC were used to compute the
corresponding stresses assuming a plane strain condition. A comparison was made
between the experimental and theoretical stresses. It was found that the experimental
stresses were considerably higher as compared to those computed by the two analytical
models. A stress based failure criterion was used to predict failure loads for both healthy
and degraded joints. The predicted failure loads were considerably higher compared to
actual failure loads observed in tests. This was attributed to the drawback of analytical
models to take defects and interfacial condition into account. A failure mechanism was
proposed based on the observations made during the experimental work. The J-integral for
different joints was computed and it was shown that the critical strain energy release rate
for crack initiation for a healthy joint is much higher compared to a degraded joint.
The analytical models become very complex if all the factors have to be taken into
account. Numerical methods like finite element analysis are found to be promising in
overcoming these hurdles. It is easy to change a parameter in finite element code and get
the results as compared to experiments where a number of samples for each case have to
be prepared and tested. Hence, numerical investigation using 3D finite element analysis
was carried out on CFRP-epoxy adhesive joints. The adherend – adhesive interface was
modeled using connector elements whose stiffness properties as well as adhesive
properties for joints with different amounts of PVA were determined using ultrasonic
inspection method. The peel stress and shear stress variation along the adhesive bond line
showed a similar trend with the experimental stress distribution (DIC) but with a lesser
magnitude. The peak adhesive stresses computed using FEA was higher than that
predicted by both linear and nonlinear adhesive beam model, but lesser than experimental
peak stress. Higher stresses were found towards the loading side as was found in
experimental stress measurement. FEA investigations showed that the peel stress varied
along the width of the joint and was maximum at the center. Peel stress was also found to
be maximum at a distance of 0.25ta to 0.38ta from the center of the adhesive bond line. The
FEA predicted higher failure load than that obtained from tests. Monte-Carlo simulation
studies were carried out to study the effect of variation in various joint parameters like
adhesive modulus, bondline thickness, adherend geometrical and material properties on
peel and shear stress in the joint. It was found that the adhesive modulus and bond line
thickness had significant influence on the magnitude of stresses developed in the bond
line. On the other hand except for the substrate thickness the effect of adherend properties
on the adhesive stresses was found to be little.
Thus, an evaluation of degradation in composite single lap joints was carried out
using different ultrasonic techniques. The interfacial stiffness and bulk adhesive properties
were computed using oblique and normal incidence inspections. These properties were
later used in finite element model to predict the joint failure loads which were cross
verified using experimental tests and analytical models.
10.2 Contributions
The thesis presents the outcome of series of investigations carried out to find a viable
solution for evaluating the integrity of composite adhesive lap joint through NDE
approach. The main contributions of this work are summarized in this section. A linear
correlation was established between the amplitude of reflection from the first interface and
the shear strength of an adhesive lap joint using normal incidence ultrasound. Acoustic
emission technique was used to classify adhesive joints based on the pattern of emissions
obtained. Advanced ultrasonic inspection techniques like oblique incidence ultrasound,
Lamb wave inspection and Non linear ultrasound were used to overcome the inadequacies
of conventional ultrasound in evaluating the overall integrity of adhesive joints
Oblique incidence ultrasound was used effectively to evaluate the interfacial
degradation which was shown to be related to the amplitude of transmitted shear wave. A
correlation was established between shift in the reflection minima and joint strength. The
net contribution from the oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection is; it was shown that
parameters like the amplitude, frequency shift and interfacial stiffness can be used to make
an assessment on the quality and integrity of the joint.
In non linear ultrasound (NLU), the measured nonlinearity parameter was
correlated to the severity of degradation and the joint strength. This enables a quantitative
assessment on the integrity of a bonded joint. Ultrasonic guided wave inspection has been
extended to study the degradation of composite epoxy adhesive joints. It was established
that the fundamental symmetric mode (So) was more sensitive to the degradation. The
frequency range of 650 kHz to 800 kHz was shown to be most sensitive to the degradation
in CFRP-epoxy adhesive lap joints. This frequency range can be utilized to obtain better
results in evaluating the adhesive degradation.
Another significant contribution from the thesis is the use of digital image
correlation (DIC) to characterize the kissing bond defects in composite adhesive joints.
DIC which is a non contact strain measuring technique was effectively utilized to detect
and size the kissing bonds. It was shown that the pattern of strain distribution obtained
even with the application of small loads within the safe operating limit of the joint can be
utilized to identify and quantify localized defects.
A novel approach to study the effect of degradation on the stress distribution in
composite bonded joints using DIC has been established. A failure mechanism was
proposed based on the observations made and the failure load for bonded joints was
predicted using a maximum peel stress failure criterion. Another novel contribution from
the thesis is the development of a three dimensional non linear finite element model in
which the interface was modeled using connector elements. The major parameters
influencing the stress distribution in composite adhesive lap joints were identified using
Monte-Carlo based finite element analysis. Thus a bonded joint designed taking into
account of these findings will be expected to perform its intended function over a longer
period of time.
In a nutshell the unconventional and newer approaches utilizing advanced NDE
techniques such as Oblique incidence ultrasonic inspection, Lamb wave inspection, non
linear ultrasound and DIC have been proposed. This has provided a hope of extracting
additional information which can lead to novel NDE parameters being used to evaluate the
composite to composite bonded joints.
10.3 Future work.

While the research work carried out and presented in this thesis has yielded encouraging
positive outcome, it has also provided directions for continuing the work effectively to
achieve further success in evaluating composite bonded joints. The individual influence of
interfacial and bulk adhesive degradation on the ultrasonic spectrum needs to be
understood and further work needs to be carried out by creating different amounts of
interfacial degradation while maintaining constant bulk adhesive properties, so that the
influence of interface degradation on spectrum minimum shift can be better understood
and separated from the overall effect. Environmental factors like moisture and temperature
produce similar effects on ultrasonic wave spectrum and hence, further work needs to be
carried out to correlate the results with environmental degradation.
The nonlinearity parameter ‘β’ in a realistic situation may also depend upon a lot
of other factors like adhesive properties, geometry, transducers used, noise etc. The
contribution of each of these parameters on nonlinear modulation of a propagating
ultrasonic wave needs to be addressed. Though DIC could be used to characterize the
kissing bond defect, the work was carried on a limited number of samples; hence,
preliminary in nature. Similar studies carried out on a large set of samples can be useful to
deal with issues of statistical variations.
A better correlation between FEA and Test results can be obtained by refining the
FE model to incorporate the effect of defects on stresses and strength. Further, a
comprehensive failure criterion needs to be developed to understand and predict strength
taking into account different parameters like geometry, material properties, defects etc.
Study of fatigue behavior of adhesively bonded joints needs very significant amount of
research work which may require enormous experimental effort. The influence of different
geometrical and material parameters on failure mechanisms has to be studied.
Experimental validation of monte-carlo simulation study results needs to be performed by
testing a large set of samples. The adherends used in this study are made of unidirectional
CFRP; similar study can be performed on composite adherends with different lay-up
sequence.
References
[1] G. M. Savage, Composite materials in Formula 1 racing, Metals and materials,

7(10), (1991), 617-624.
[2] G.M. Savage, Failure prevention in bonded joints on primary load bearing
structures, Engineering Failure Analysis, 14, (2007), 321-348.
[3] A. J. Kinloch, Adhesion and Adhesives: Science and Technology, Chapman &
Hall, London 1987.
[4] D.A.Dillard, Fundamentals of stress transfer in bonded systems, in: D.A. Dillard &
A.V.Pocius (Eds.), Adhesion Science and Engineering-The Mechanics of
Adhesion, volume 1, First edition, Elsevier. Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 1-44.
[5] K.L. DeVries, D.O. Adams, Mechanical testing of adhesive joints , in: D.A. Dillard
& A.V.Pocius (Eds.), Adhesion Science and Engineering-The Mechanics of
Adhesion, volume 1, First edition, Elsevier., Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 193-234.
[6] R.J.Moulds, Design and Stress Calculations for Bonded Joints, in: E Cognard
(Ed.), Handbook of Adhesives and Sealants, volume 2, First edition, Elsevier Ltd.,
London, 2006, pp. 197-231.
[7] L.C. Hollaway, Advances in adhesive joining of dissimilar materials with special
reference to steels and FRP composites, in: Chen and Teng (Eds), Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Bond Behavior of FRP in Structures (BBFS),
2005, pp. 11-21.
[8] L.J. Hart-Smith, The design of adhesively bonded joints, in: D.A. Dillard &
A.V.Pocius (Eds.), Adhesion Science and Engineering-The Mechanics of
Adhesion, volume 1, First edition, Elsevier. Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 725-777.
[9] M. E. Fourney, R. Muki, S. F. Stone, R. A. Westmann, Role of Bond Thickness on
Adhesive Failure. Polymer Engineering and Science, 19(2), (1979), 114-117.
[10] N.Tankut, The effect of adhesive type and bond line thickness on the strength of
mortise and tenon joints, International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 27
(2007) 493-498.
[11] Deok-Bo Lee, Toru Ikeda, Noriyuki Miyazaki, Nak-Sam Choi. Effect of Bond
Thickness on the Fracture Toughness of Adhesive Joints, Transactions of the
ASME, 126, (2004), 14-18.
[12] A.Baldan, Adhesively-bonded joints and repairs in metallic alloys, polymers and
composite materials: adhesives, adhesion theories and surface pretreatment.
Journal of Material Science, 39(1), (2004) 1-49.
[13] M.J.Davis, D. Bond, Principles and practice of adhesive bonded structural joints
and repairs. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 19(3), (1999) 91-105.
175
References 176
[14] A.Higgins, Adhesive bonding of aircraft structures, International Journal of

Adhesion & Adhesives, 20, (2000) 367-376.
[15] P. Molitor, V. Barron, T.Young, Surface treatment of titanium for adhesive
bonding to polymer composites: a review. International Journal of Adhesion &
Adhesives 21(2), (2001) 129-136.
[16] P.A.Meyer, J.L.Rose, Modeling concepts for studying ultrasonic wave interaction
with adhesive bonds, Journal of Adhesion, 8 (1976) 107-120.
[17] P.A. Dickstein, J.K.Spelt, A.N.Sinclair, Application of a higher order crossing
feature to non-destructive evaluation: a sample demonstration of sensitivity to the
condition of adhesive joints, Ultrasonics, 29, (1991) 355-365.
[18] P.A. Dickstein, S. Girshovich, Y.Sternberg, A.N.Sinclair, H.Leibovitch, Ultrasonic
feature-based classification of the interfacial condition in composite adhesive
joints, Research techniques in Non destructive Evaluation, 2, (1990) 207-224.
[19] S.Yang, L.G.Ronald, F.Gibson, Nondestructive detection of weak joints in
adhesively bonded composite structures, Composite Structures, 51 (2001) 63-71.
[20] R. S. Dwyer-Joyce, B. W. Drinkwater, A. M. Quinn, The use of ultrasound in the
investigation of rough surface interfaces, Journal of Tribology, 123(1) (2000) 8-16.
[21] A.D. Crocombe, I. A. Ashcroft, Simple Lap Joint Geometry, in: L.F.Martins da
Silva & A. Öchsner (Eds.), Modeling of Adhesively Bonded Joints, First edition,
Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 3-23.
[22] R.D. Adams, W.C.Wake, Structural adhesive joints in Engineering, Vol 15,
Elsevier, New York, 1984.
[23] J.S. Kim, C.G. Kim, C.S. Hong, Practical design of tapered composite structures
using the manufacturing cost concept. Composite Structures, 51(3), (2001), 285-
299.
[24] L.F.M. da Silva, R.D.Adams, Techniques to reduce the peel stresses in adhesive
joints with composites. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 27(3),
(2007), 227-235.
[25] R.H. Kaye, M. Heller, Through-thickness shape optimization of bonded repairs and
lap-joints. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 22(1), (2002) 7-21.
[26] S.K. Mazumdar, K. Mallick, Static and fatigue behavior of adhesive joints in
SMC-SMC composites. Polymer Composites, 19(2), (1998), 139-146.
[27] T. Lang, K. Mallick, The effect of recessing on the stresses in adhesively bonded
single-lap joints. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 19(4), (1999)
257-271.
[28] T. Lang, K. Mallick, Effect of spew geometry on stresses in single lap adhesive
joints. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 18(3), (1998) 167-177.
[29] C.H. Wang, M. Heller, J.L.Rose Substrate stress concentrations in bonded lap
joints. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, 33(5), (1998) 331-346.
References 177
[30] A.R. Rispler, L.Tong, G.P.Steven, M.R.Wisnom, Shape optimization of adhesive

fillets. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 20(3), (2000) 221-231.
[31] G. Belingardi, L.Goglio, A.Tarditi, Investigating the effect of spew and chamfer
size on the stresses in metal/plastics adhesive joints. International Journal of
Adhesion & Adhesives, 22(4), (2002) 273-282.
[32] Q. Zeng, C.T. Sun, Novel design of bonded lap joint. Journal of American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 39, (2001) 1991-1996.
[33] R.Vodicka, Accelerated Environmental testing of composite materials. Report
Defence Science and Technology Organization –Technical Report (DSTO-TR-
0657), 1997.
[34] N.Rastogi, S.R.Soni, A.Nagar, Thermal stresses in aluminium-to-composite
double-lap bonded joints. Advance in Engineering Software, 29(3), (1998) 273-
281.
[35] J.F.P.Owens, P.Sullivan, Stiffness behavior due to fracture in adhesively bonded
composite to aluminium joints II. Experiments. International Journal of Adhesion
and Adhesives, 20(1), (2000) 47-58.
[36] P. K. Sinha, M. N. Reddy, Thermal Analysis of Composite Bonded Joints, Fibre
Science and Technology 9 (1976) 153-159.
[37] M.K.Apalak, Non-Linear Thermal Stresses in Adhesive Joints, in: L.F.Martins da
Silva & A. Öchsner (Eds.), Modeling of Adhesively Bonded Joints, First edition,
Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 243-278.
[38] C.C.Chamis, P.L.N.Murthy, Simplified procedures for designing adhesively
bonded composite joints, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 10(1),
(1991) 29-41.
[39] A.J. Kinloch, The durability of adhesive joints, in: D.A. Dillard & A.V.Pocius
(Eds.), Adhesion Science and Engineering-The Mechanics of Adhesion, volume 1,
First edition, Elsevier. Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 661-698.
[40] A.D.Crocombe, I.A.Ashcroft, M.M.A.wahab, Environmental Degradation, in:
L.F.Martins da Silva & A. Öchsner (Eds.), Modeling of Adhesively Bonded Joints,
First edition, Springer, Berlin, 2008, pp. 225-242.
[41] A.J.Kinloch, Durability of structural adhesives, vol 1, Applied Science publishers,
London, 1983.
[42] I.A.Ashcroft, A.Wahab, S.J.Shaw, The effect of environment on the fatigue of
composite joints: part 1, testing and fractography, Composites part A, 32, (2001),
45-58.
[43] B.M.Parker, The effect of composite pre-bond moisture on adhesive-bonded
CFRP-CFRP joints. Composites, 14(3), (1983) 226-232.
[44] B.M.Parker, The strength of bonded carbon fiber composite joints exposed to high
humidity. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 10(3), (1990) 187-191.
References 178
[45] B.M.Parker, Some effects of moisture on adhesive bonded CFRP-CFRP joints.

Composite Structures, 6, (1986) 123-139.
[46] A.D.Crocombe, Durability modeling concepts and tools for the cohesive
environmental degradation of bonded structures. International Journal of Adhesion
and Adhesives, 17(3), (1997) 229-238.
[47] W.K.Loh, A.D.Crocombe, M.M.A.Wahab, I.A. Ashcroft, Environmental
degradation of the interfacial fracture energy in an adhesively bonded joint.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 69(18), (2002) 2113-2128.
[48] W.K.Loh, A.D.Crocombe, M.M.A.Wahab, I.A. Ashcroft, Modeling interfacial
degradation using interfacial rupture elements. Journal of Adhesion, 79(12), (2003)
1135-1160.
[49] Y.X.Hua, W.K.Loh, A.D.Crocombe, M.M.A.Wahab, I.A. Ashcroft, Predicting the
residual strength for environmentally degraded adhesive lap joints, International
Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 26(5), (2006), 325-336.
[50] C.D.M.Liljedahl, A.D.Crocombe, M.M.A.Wahab, I.A. Ashcroft, Modelling the
environmental degradation of the interface in adhesively bonded joints using a
cohesive zone approach. Journal of Adhesion. 82(11), (2006) 1061-1089.
[51] Y.X.Hua, W.K.Loh, A.D.Crocombe, M.M.A.Wahab, I.A. Ashcroft, Modelling
environmental degradation in EA9321- bonded joints using a progressive damage
failure model. Journal of Adhesion, 82(2), (2006) 135-160.
[52] M.R. Maheri, R.D. Adams, Determination of dynamic shear modulus of structural
adhesives in thick adherend shear test specimens. International Journal of
Adhesion & Adhesives, 22(2), (2002), 119-127.
[53] ASTM D 5573-99, Standard practice for classifying failure modes in fiber-
reinforced plastic (FRP) joints. In: Annual Book of American Society for Testing
Materials. 1999, 15.06. p. 476-78.
[54] K.S.Kim, J.S.Yoo, Y.M.Yi, C.G.Kim, Failure mode and strength of uni-directional
composite single lap bonded joints with different bonding methods. Composite
Structures, 72, (2006) 477-485.
[55] J.K.Kim, H.S.Kim, D.G.Lee, Investigation of optimal surface treatments for
carbon/epoxy composite adhesive joints. Journal of Adhesion Science Technology,
17(3), (2003) 329-352.
[56] M.Y.Tsai, J.Morton, The effect of a spew fillet on adhesive stress distributions in
laminated composite single-lap joints. Composite Structures, 32, (1995) 123-131.
[57] K.C.Kairouz, F.L.Matthews, Strength and failure modes of bonded single lap joints
between cross-ply adherends. Composites, 24(6), (1993) 475-484.
[58] T.Cheuk, L.Tong, Failure of adhesive bonded composite lap shear joints with
embedded precrack, Composite Science & Technology, 62, (2002) 1079-1095.
[59] K.D.Potter, F.J.Guild, H.J.Harvey, M.R.Wisonm, R.D.Adams, Understanding and
control of adhesive crack propagation in bonded joints between carbon fibre
References 179
composite adherends, I. Experimental. International Journal of Adhesion &

Adhesives, 21, (2001) 435-443.
[60] L. Tong, Failure of adhesive-bonded composite single lap joints with embedded
cracks. Journal of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 36(3),
(1998) 448-456.
[61] M.H.Qin, Y.A.Dzenis, Analysis of single lap adhesive composite joints with
delaminated adherends. Composites part B, Science & Engineering, 34(2), (2003)
167-173.
[62] M.Kayupov, Y.A.Dzenis, Stress concentrations caused by bond cracks in single-
lap adhesive composite joints. Composite Structures, 54(2), (2001) 215-220.
[63] S.B.Kumar, S.Sivashanker, A. Bag, I.Sridhar, Failure of aerospace composite
scarf-joints subjected to uniaxial compression, Material Science & Engineering.A,
412(1), (2005) 117-122.
[64] S.B.Kumar, S.Sivashanker, I.Sridhar, S.O.Osimyemi, A.Bag, Tensile failure of
adhesively bonded CFRP composite scarf joints. Material Science & Engineering
B, 132(1-2), (2006) 113-120.
[65] K.S.Kim, J.S.Yoo, Y.M.Yi, C.G.Kim, Failure prediction and strength improvement
of unidirectional composite single lap bonded joints. Composite Structures, 82(4),
(2008) 513-520.
[66] F.J.Guild, K.D.Potter, J.Heinrich, R.D.Adams, M.R. Wisonm. Understanding and
control of adhesive crack propagation in bonded joints between carbon fibre
composite adherends, II. Finite element analysis. International Journal of
[67] H.Kim, The influence of adhesive bondline thickness imperfections on stresses in
composite joints. Journal of Adhesion, 79(7), (2003) 621-642.
[68] P.N.B. Reis, F.J.V. Antunes, J.A.M. Ferreira, Influence of superposition length on
mechanical resistance of single-lap adhesive joints, Composite Structures 67
(2005) 125-133.
[69] C.C.H.Guyott, P.Cawley, R.D.Adams, The non-destructive testing of adhesively
bonded structure: a review. Journal of Adhesion, 20 (1986) 129-159.
[70] R.D.Adams, P.Cawley, A review of defect types and non destructive testing
techniques for composites and bonded joints, NDT International, 21(44), (1988)
208-221.
[71] R.D.Adams, P.Cawley, Defect types and non-destructive testing techniques for
composites and bonded joints, Construction & Building Materials 3(4) (1989) 170-
183.
[72] R.D.Adams, The Nondestructive evaluation of bonded structures, Construction &
Building Materials, 4(1) (1990) 3-8.
References 180
[73] A.O.K. Nieminen, J.L. Koenig, Macroscopic and modern microscopic NDE
methods for adhesive-bonded structures, International Journal of Adhesion and
Adhesives, 11(1) (1991) 5-10.
[74] R.D.Adams, B.W.Drinkwater, Nondestructive testing of adhesively-bonded joints.
NDT&E International, 30 (2) (1997) 93-98.
[75] P.B.Nagy, Ultrasonic detection of kissing bonds at adhesive interfaces, Journal of
Adhesion Science Technology, 5(88), 619-630.
[76] C.J. Brotherhood, B.W. Drinkwater, F.J. Guild, The effect of compressive loading
on the ultrasonic detectability of kissing bonds in adhesive joints, Journal of
Nondestructive Evaluation, 21 (3) (2003) 95-104.
[77] U.K.Vaidya, A.R.S. Gautam, M.Hosur, P.Dutta, Experimental–numerical studies
of transverse impact response of adhesively bonded lap joints in composite
structures, International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 26 (2006) 184-198.
[78] The composites materials handbook – Mil 17. Materials usage, design and
analysis, vol. 3. Techonic Publishing Co., Lancaster (PA), 1999, pp.1-28.
[79] G.Li, S.S.Pang, E.Woldesenbet, M.A.Stubblefield, P.F.Mensah, S.I. Iberkwe,
Investigation of prepreg bonded composite single lap joint. Composites: Part B 32
(2001) 651-658.
[80] A. F. Avila, P.D.O. Bueno, An experimental and numerical study on adhesive
joints for composites, Composite Structures 64 (2004) 531-537.
[81] I.J.Munns, G.A.Georgiou, Non-destructive testing methods for adhesively bonded
joint inspection-a review, Insight, 37(1212), (1995) 941-952.
[82] C.C.H.Guyott, The non-destructive testing of adhesively bonded structures, PhD
thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial college, London, 1986.
[83] Y.B.Cohen, A.K.Mal, C.C.Yin, Ultrasonic evaluation of adhesive bonding,
Journal of Adhesion, 29, (1989) 237-274.
[84] E.Segal, J.L.Rose, Non-destructive testing techniques for adhesive bonded joints,
in:R.J.Sharpe (Ed), Research techniques in NDT, vol.4, Academic press, London,
1980, pp. 275-316.
[85] G.J.Curtis, Non-destructive testing of adhesively bonded structures with acoustic
methods, in: J.Szilard (Ed), Ultrasonic Testing, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New
York, pp. 495-554.
[86] P.Cawley, Low frequency NDT techniques for the detection of disbonds and
delaminations, British Journal of Nondestructive testing, 32 (99), (1990), 454-461.
[87] P.Cawley, R.Adams, The mechanics of the coin-tap method of non-destructive
testing, Journal of sound and vibration, 122(22), (1988), 299-316.
[88] P.Cawley, The sensitivity of the mechanical impedance method of non-destructive
testing, NDT International, 20(44), (1987), 209-215.
[89] P.Cawley, The detection of delaminations using flexural waves, NDT
International, 23, (1990) 207-213.
References 181
[90] P.Cawley, C.Theodorakopoulos, The membrane resonance method of non-

destructive testing, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 130(2), (1989) 299-311.
[91] A.P.M. Hurden, An instrument for vibration mode analysis using electronic
speckle pattern interferometry, NDT International, 6, (1982) 143-148.
[92] P.Cawley, The rapid non-destructive inspection of large composite structures,
composites, 25, (1994) 351-357.
[93] Y.Y.Hung, Shearography: a new optical method for strain measurement and non-
destructive testing, Optical Engineering, 21(3), (1982) 319-395.
[94] J.W.Newman, Shearographic inspection of aircraft structure, Materials Evaluation,
49, (1991) 1106-1109.
[95] T.Wilhelm, M.Hinnen, W.Schmidt, J.Montnacher, A.Verl, Nondestructive testing
of adhesive joint: Digital Shearography, Adhesives & Sealants, 4 (2010) 20-24.
[96] D.Rosenthal, J.Trolinger, Holographic nondestructive testing, Materials
Evaluation, 12 (1995) 1353-1355.
[97] E.Udd, W.L.Schulz, J.M.Seim, E.Haugse, A.Makino, Multidimensional strain field
measuremens using fiber optic grating sensors, Proceedings of SPIE, 3986, (2000),
254-263.
[98] W.L.Schulz, J.M.Seim, E.Udd, A.Trego, I.M.Perez, Progress on monitoring of
adhesive joints using multi-axis fiber grating sensors, Proceedings of SPIE, 3991,
(2000), 52-61.
[99] W.N.Reynolds, G.M.Wells, Video-compatible thermography. British Journal of
Nondestructive testing, 26, (1984) 40-45.
[100] S.M.Shepard, Introduction to active thermography for non-destructive evaluation,
Anti-corrosion Methods and Materials, 44(44), (1997), 236-239.
[101] D.L.Balgeas, A.A.Deom, D.M.Bosher, Characterization and nondestructive testing
of carbon–epoxy composites by a pulsed photo thermal method. Materials
Evaluation, 45(4) (1987) 461-465.
[102] S.R.Baughman, Applications for thermal NDT on advanced composites in
aerospace structures. Proceedings of SPIE 3361 (1998) 311-319.
[103] J.A. Schroeder, T. Ahmed, B. Chaudhry, S. Shepard, Non-destructive testing of
structural composites and adhesively bonded composite joints: pulsed
thermography, Composites: Part A 33 (2002) 1511-1517.
[104] J.Prati, Detecting hidden exfoliation corrosion in aircraft wing skins using
thermography, proceedings of SPIE 4020 (2000) 200-209.
[105] J.R.Lhota, S.M.Shepard, B.A.Rubadeux, T.Ahmed, Enhanced spatial and depth
resolution of pulsed thermographic images. In: Thompson DO, Cheminiti DE,
editors. Review of progress in QNDE, vol. 20. Plenum Press ,New York, 2000.
[106] E.W.Thrall, R.W.Shannon. Adhesive bonding of aluminium alloys. Marcel Dekker
Inc, New York & Basel, 1985.
References 182
[107] R.A.Smith, Non-destructive evaluation for corrosion in ageing aircraft, Insight,

37(11), (1995) 884-891.
[108] M. Michaloudaki, E. Lehmann, D. Kosteas, Neutron imaging as a tool for the non-
destructive evaluation of adhesive joints in aluminium, International Journal of
[109] L.F. Gladden, P.Alexander, Applications of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in
process engineering, Measurement Science Technology, 7, (1996) 423-435.
[110] W.M.Banks, D.Hayward, High frequency dielectric investigations of adhesive
bonded structures, Insight, 37 (1212), (1995) 964-968.
[111] D.Hayward, S.Affrossman, R.A.Pethrick, The application of dielectric relaxation
measurements to the non-destructive examination of adhesively bonded joint
structures, Non-destructive testing Evaluation, 6, (1991) 45-63.
[112] S.B.Joshi, D.Hayward, P.Wilford, A method for the non-destructive investigation
of adhesively bonded structures, European Journal of NDT, 1(44), (1992) 190-199.
[113] F.I.Mopsik, S.S.Chang, D.L.Hunston, Dielectric measurements for cure
monitoring, Materials Evaluation, 47, (1989), 448-453.
[114] G.J.Curtis, Acoustic emission energy relates to bond strength, Non-Destructive
Testing, 10, (1975), 249-257.
[115] R.Hill, The use of acoustic emission for characterizing adhesive joint failure, NDT
International, 4, (1977), 63-72.
[116] A.G. Magalhães, M.F.S.F. de Moura, Application of acoustic emission to study
creep behavior of composite bonded lap shear joints, NDT&E International, 38
(2005) 45-52.
[117] J.Krautkramer, H.Krautkramer, Ultrasonic Testing of Materials, Springer, Verlag,
Berlin, 1983.
[118] L.M.Brekhovskikh, waves in layered media, Academic press, New York, 1980.
[119] R.J.Freemantle, R.E.Challis, Ultrasonic compression wave NDT of adhered metal
lap joints of uncertain dimensions, Insight, 37(1212), (1995) 954-963
[120] R.J.Freemantle, Ultrasonic compression wave evaluation of adhered metal sheets
and thin sheet materials, PhD Thesis, Department of Physics, Keele University,
Keele, 1995.
[121] R.J.Freemantle, R.E.Challis, Ultrasonic compression wave NDT of adhesively
bonded automotive structures, UT online application workshop, 2(55),
www.ndt.net/article/wsho0597/freem/freem.htm.
[122] P.B.Nagy, Ultrasonic classification of imperfect interfaces, Journal of Non-
destructive Evaluation, 11, (1992) 127-139
[123] K.Vine, P.Cawley, A.J.Kinloch, Degradation mechanisms in adhesive joints and
the implications for NDE, in: D.O.Thompson, D.E.Chimenti (Eds), Review of
progress in Quantitative NDE, Plenum Press, New York, 1999, pp 1301-1308.
References 183
[124] S.I.Rokhlin, D.Marom, Study of adhesive bonds using low-frequency obliquely

incident ultrasonic waves, journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80 (22),
(1986) 585-590.
[125] W.Wang, S.I.Rokhlin, Evaluation of interfacial properties in adhesive joints of
aluminium using angle-beam ultrasonic spectroscopy, Journal of Adhesion Science
Technology, 5 (88), (1991) 647-666.
[126] S.I.Rokhlin, W.Wang, Y.J.Wang, Ultrasonic evaluation of interfacial properties in
adhesive joints in: D.O.Thompson, D.E.Chimenti (Eds), Review of Progress in
Quantitative NDE, Plenum Press, New York, 1990, pp 1231-1238.
[127] A.Pilarski, J.L.Rose, Ultrasonic oblique incidence for improved sensitivity in
interface weakness determination, NDT International, 21, (1988) 241-246.
[128] J.L.Rose, J.Dale, T.D.K.Ngoc, Ultrasonic oblique incidence experiments for
interface weakness, British Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 32 (99), (1990) 449-
452.
[129] P.Cawley, Ultrasonic measurements of the quantitative NDE of adhesive joints-
potential and challenges, IEEE ultrasonic Symposium, (1992) 767-772.
[130] T.P.Pialucha, The reflection coefficient from interface layers in NDT of adhesive
joints, PhD Thesis, Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College,
London, 1992.
[131] D.A.Hutchins, L.F.Bresse, D.F.Billson, Resonance studies of bonded aluminium
joints, Non-destructive testing and Evaluation, 10, (1992) 149-165.
[132] V.L.Weise, Ultrasonic techniques for adhesive bond examination on production
automotive structures, PhD Thesis, Department of physics, Keele University,
Keele, 1998.
[133] G.A.Alers, P.L.Flynn, M.J.Buckley, Ultrasonic techniques for measuring the
strength of adhesive bonds, Materials Evaluation, 35(44), (1977) 77-84.
[134] P.L.Flynn, Cohesive bond strength prediction for adhesive joints, Journal of
Testing and Evaluation, 7(33), (1979) 168-171.
[135] M.J.Hodson, P.Cawley, The NDT of adhesive joints using ultrasonic spectroscopy,
Review of Scientific Instruments, In: D.O.Thompson, D.E.Chimenti (Eds), Plenum
Press, New York, pp 1377-1384.
[136] C.C.H.Guyott, P.Cawley, Evaluation of the cohesive properties of adhesive joints
using ultrasonic spectroscopy, NDT International, 21 (1988) 233-240.
[137] P.N.Dewen, P.Cawley, The practical application of ultrasonic spectroscopy for the
measurement of the cohesive properties of adhesive joints, NDT&E International,
25 (1992) 65-75.
[138] A.I.Lavrentyev, S.I.Rokhlin, Determination of elastic moduli, density, attenuation
and thickness of a layer using ultrasonic spectroscopy at two angles, Journal of the
Acoustical society of America, 102(66), (1997) 3467-3477.
References 184
[139] V.K.Kinra, V.R.Iyer, Ultrasonic measurement of the thickness, phase velocity,

density or attenuation of a thin viscoelastic plate part 1 the forward problem,
Ultrasonics, 33(22), (1995) 95-109.
[140] V.K.Kinra, V.R.Iyer, Ultrasonic measurement of the thickness, phase velocity,
density or attenuation of a thin viscoelastic plate part 2 the inverse problem,
Ultrasonics, 33(22), (1995) 111-122.
[141] R.Thompson, D.Thompson, Past experiences in the development of tests for
adhesive bond strength, Journal of Adhesion Science Technology, 5(88), (1991)
583-599.
[142] A.I.Lavrentyev, S.I.Rokhlin, Ultrasonic evaluation of environmental degradation
of adhesive joints, in: D.O.Thompson, D.E.Chimenti (Eds), Review of progress in
Quantitative NDE, Plenum Press, New York, 1994, pp.1539-1546.
[143] A.I.Lavrentyev, S.I.Rokhlin, Models for ultrasonic characterization of
environmental interfacial degradation in adhesive joints, in: D.O.Thompson,
D.E.Chimenti (Eds) Review of progress in Quantitative NDE, Plenum Press, New
York, 1994, pp.1531-1538.
[144] A.I.Lavrentyev, S.I.Rokhlin, Ultrasonic spectroscopy of imperfect contact
interfaces between a layer and two solids, Journal of Acoustical Society of
America, 103(22), (1998) 657-664.
[145] R.J.Schliekelmann, Non destructive testing of bonded metal-to-metal joints 2, Non-
destructive Testing, 5 (1972) 144-153.
[146] D.Smith, C.V.Cagle, Ultrasonic testing of adhesive bonds using the Fokker Bond
Tester, Materials Evaluation, 24 (1966), 362-370
[147] R.J. Schliekelmann, Non-Destructive Testing of Adhesive Bonded Joints, Bonded
Joints and preparation for Bonding, AGARD Lecture Series, 102, 1979.
[148] C.C.H.Guyott, P.Cawley, R.D.Adams, Use of the Fokker Bond tester on joints
with varying adhesive thickness, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical
Engineers, 201, (1987), 41-49.
[149] C.Guyott, P.Cawley, R.Adams, Vibration characteristics of the MK 2 Fokker Bond
tester probe, Ultrasonics, 24 (1986) 318-324.
[150] C.C.H.Guyott, P.Cawley, The ultrasonic vibration characteristics of adhesive
joints, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, (1988), 632-640.
[151] M.J.S.Lowe, R.E.Challis, C.W.Chan, The transmission of Lamb waves across
adhesively bonded lap joints, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107
(33), (2000) 1333-1345.
[152] R.Dalton, The propagation of Lamb waves through metallic aircraft fuselage
structure, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College,
London, 2000.
References 185
[153] P.N.Dewen, The non-destructive evaluation of the cohesive properties of

adhesively bonded joints, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College, London, 1992.
[154] R.E.Challis, U.Bork, P.C.D.Todd, Ultrasonic NDE of adherend T-joints using
Lamb waves and intelligent signal processing, Ultrasonics, 34 (1996) 455-459.
[155] M Rothenfusser, M Mayr, J Boumann. Acoustic nonlinearities in adhesive joints.
Ultrasonics, 38 (2000) 322-326.
[156] S I Rokhlin , L Wang, B Xie, V A Yakovlev , L Adler. Modulated angle beam
ultrasonic spectroscopy for evaluation of imperfect interfaces and adhesive bonds.
Ultrasonics, 42 (2004) 1037-1047.
[157] D. Donskoy, A. Sutin, A. Ekimov, Nonlinear acoustic interaction on contact
interfaces and its use for nondestructive testing, NDT&E International, 34 (2001)
231-238.
[158] S.U. Fassbender, M. Kroning, W. Arnold, Measurement of adhesion strength using
nonlinear acoustics, Material Science Forum (1996) 783-790.
[159] S. Tanary, Y.M. Haddad, A. Fahr, S.Lee, Nondestructive evaluation of adhesively
bonded joints in graphite/epoxy composites using acousto-ultrasonics.
Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 114, (1992), 344-
352.
[160] American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D 5868-01. Standard test
method for Lap Shear Adhesion for Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Bonding.
Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 15.06. (2004) 1-2.
[161] American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D 2093-03. Standard test
method for Preparation of Surfaces of Plastics Prior to Adhesive Bonding. Annual
book of ASTM standards, vol. 15.06. (2004) 1-3.
[162] G.Biggiero, G.Canella, A.Mochini, Ultrasonic scanning and spectrum analysis for
inspection of bond efficiency of metal to metal structural adhesive joints. NDT
international, April (1983), 67-74.
[163] Oh-yang Kwon, Seung-Hwan Lee, Acousto-ultrasonic evaluation of adhesively
bonded CFRP-Aluminium joints. NDT&E international, 32, (1999), 153-160.
[164] L.Goglio, M.Rossetto, Ultrasonic testing of anaerobic bonded joints. Ultrasonics,
40, (2002), 205-210.
[165] L.Goglio, M.Rossetto. Ultrasonic testing of adhesive bonds of thin metal sheets.
NDT& E International, 32, (1999) 323-331.
[166] R.H.Fassbender, D.J.Hagemaier, R.L.Radecky. Non destructive evaluation of
manufacturing defects in adhesive joints. International Journal of Adhesion and
Adhesives, 1(2), (1980), 75-79.
[167] Shu Guo, A.Davi, Dillard, H.Raymond, Plaut. Effect of boundary conditions and
spacers on single-lap joints loaded in tension or compression. International
Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives, 26, (2006) 629-638.
References 186
[168] A.I.Lavrentyev, S.I.Rokhlin. Models for ultrasonic characterization of

environmental degradation of interfaces in adhesive joints. Journal of Applied
Physics, 76 (8), October (1994) 4643-4650.
[169] A. Pilarski, J. L. Rose, K. Balasubramaniam, The angular and frequency
characteristics of reflectivity from a solid layer embedded between two solids with
imperfect boundary conditions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
87, (1990) 532-542.
[170] S. I. Rokhlin, W. Wang, Y. J. Wang, J. L. Hammill, Evaluation of weak interfaces
in adhesive joints. Proceedings of the 1989 ASNT Fall Conference, 41-50.
[171] N.Y.Chung, S.I.Park, M.D. Lee, C.H. Park. Ultrasonic detection of interface crack
in adhesively bonded DCB joints, International Journal of Automotive technology,
3(4),(2002) 157-163.
[172] A.K. Moidu, A.N. Sinclair, J.K.Spelt. A new ultrasonic technique for the
interfacial characterization of adhesive joints. IEEE ultrasonics symposium, (1996)
757-760.
[173] C.J. Brotherhood, B.W.Drinkwater, S.Dixon. The detectability of kissing bonds in
adhesive joints using ultrasonic techniques. Ultrasonics, 41, (2003) 521-529.
[174] S.I Rokhlin. Evaluation of the curing of structural adhesives by ultrasonic interface
waves, correlation with strength. Journal of composite materials. 17, (1983) 15-25.
[175] S.I.Rokhlin, M.Hefets, M.Rosen. An Ultrasonic interface wave method for
predicting the strength of adhesive bonds. Journal of Applied Physics, 52(4), April
(1981) 2847-2851.
[176] S.I.Rokhlin, M.Rosen. An ultrasonic method for the evaluation of interface elastic
properties. Thin solid films, 89, (1982) 143-148.
[177] L.Wang, B.Xie, S.I.Rokhlin. Determination of embedded layer properties using
adaptive time-frequency domain analysis. Journal of Acoustical Society of
America, 111(6) June (2002) 2644-2653.
[178] A.Baltazar, L.wang, B.Xie , S.I.Rokhlin. Inverse ultrasonic determination of
imperfect interfaces and bulk properties of a layer between two solids. The Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), September (2003) 1424-1434.
[179] I.L.Baciu, I.Crivelli, Viscanti, A.Langella, V.Luprano, R.Teti. Quality evaluation
of thermoplastic composite material single lap joints. Intelligent production
machines and systems, Pub. Elselvier Ltd, UK, (2006) 258-263.
[180] S. I. Rokhlin, A. I. Lavrentyev, B. Li. Res. Ultrasonic evaluation of environmental
durability of adhesive joints. Nondestructive Evaluation. 5 (1993) 90-109.
[181] T. Nguyen, E. Byrd, C. Lin, Dale Bentz, A Novel Technique for Measurement of
Water at the Interface between a Metal and an Opaque Polymeric Film, Advanced
Composite Materials 19, (1991) 1051-1056.
[182] Y. C. Angel, J. D. Achenbach. Reflection and transmission of elastic waves by a
periodic array of cracks. Journal of Applied Mechanics 52 (1985) 33-41.
References 187
[183] R. B. Thompson, C. J. Fiedler, The effect of crack closure on ultrasonic scattering

measurements. in Review of Progress in QNDE, edited by D. 0. Thompson and D.
E. Chimenti, Plenum, New York, Vol.3A (1984), 207-215.
[184] J.M. Baik, R. B. Thompson, Ultrasonic scattering from imperfect interfaces: A
quasi-static model, Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 4, (1984) 177-196.
[185] J. D. Achenbach, Z. L. Li, Analysis of Bond-Stiffness Deterioration Due to
Distributed Disbonds. in Review of Progress in QNDE, edited by D. 0. Thompson
and D. E. Chimenti (Plenum, New York,) Vol.12B, (1993) 1445-1452.
[186] M. J. S. Lowe, Matrix Techniques for Modeling Ultrasonic Waves in Multilayered
Media. IEEE transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency control,
42 (4) July (1995) 525-542.
[187] S. I. Rokhlin, Y. J. Wang, Analysis of boundary conditions for elastic wave
interaction with an interface between two solids. Journal of Acoustical Society of
America, 89, (1991) 503-515.
[188] A. Pilarski. Ultrasonic evaluation of the adhesion degree in layered joints,
Materials Evaluation, 43, (1985) 765-770.
[189] H.Lamb, On waves in an elastic plate. Proceedings of the Royal Society A93,
(1917), 114-128.
[190] J.L. Rose, Ultrasonic Waves in Solid Media, Cambridge University Press, London,
1999.
[191] I. A. Viktorov, Rayleigh and Lamb waves: Physical theory and applications,
Plenum press, New York, 1967.
[192] B. A. Auld, Acoustic waves and fields in solids, John Wiley and sons, New York,
1973.
[193] K. F. Graff, Wave motion in Elastic solids, Dover publications, New York, 1975.
[194] J. D. Acenbach, Wave propagation in Elastic solids, North-Holland press, New
York, 1984.
[195] L. P. Solie, B. A. Auld, Elastic waves in free anisotropic plates, Journal of
Acoustical society of America, 54(1), (1973) 50-65.
[196] A. H. Nayfeh, D. E. Chimenti, Free wave propagation in plates of general
anisotropic media, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 56(4), (1989) 881-886.
[197] A. H. Nayfeh, Wave propagation in Layered Anisotropic media: with application
to composites, North-Holland, Newyork , 1995.
[198] N.Guo, P.Cawley, Lamb wave reflection for the quick NDE of large composite
laminates, Materials Evaluation, 52, (1994) 404-411.
[199] G.R. Liu, Z.C. Xi, Elastic waves in anisotropic laminates, CRC Press, Boca Raton
(FL), 2002.
[200] W. J. N. Lima, A. M. B. Braga, Dispersive waves in composites, a comparison
between various laminated plate theories, Composite Structures, 25, (1993), 449-
457.
References 188
[201] A. H. Nayfeh, The general problem of elastic wave propagation in multilayered

anisotropic media, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 89(4), (1991) 1521-
1531.
[202] K. Balasubramaniam, C. V. Krishnamurthy, Ultrasonic guided wave energy
behavior in laminated anisotropic plates, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 296,
(2006) 968-978.
[203] S.I. Rokhlin, T.K. Bolland, L. Adler, Reflection and refraction of elastic waves on
a plane interface between two generally anisotropic media, Journal of Acoustical
Society of America, 79(4), (1986) 906-918.
[204] S.I.Rokhlin, Interface properties characterization by interface and Lamb waves in:
D.O. Thompson, D.E. Chimenti (Eds), Review of progress in Quantitative NDE,
vol5. Plenum press, New York, 1986, pp. 1301-1308.
[205] Y. Bar-Cohen, A. K. Mal, C.C. Yin, Ultrasonic evaluation of adhesive bonding,
Journal of Adhesion, 29, (1989) 257-274.
[206] P. B. Nagy, L. Adler, Adhesive joint characterization by leaky guided interface
waves, in: D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti (Eds) Review of Progress in
Quantitative NDE, vol. 8 Plenum press, New York, 1989, pp. 1417-1424.
[207] P. B. Nagy, D. V. Rypien, L. Adler, Dispersive properties of leaky interface waves
in adhesive layers, in: D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti (Eds), Review of
Progress in Quantitative NDE, vol. 9, Plenum press, New York, 1990, pp. 1247-
1254.
[208] C. Teller, K. Diercks, Y. Bar-Cohen, A. Mal, Recent advances in the application of
leaky Lamb waves to the nondestructive evaluation of adhesive bonds, Journal of
Adhesion, 30, (1989) 243-261.
[209] M. J. S. Lowe, P. Cawley, The applicability of plate wave techniques for the
inspection of adhesive and diffusion bonded joints, Journal of Nondestructive
Evaluation, 13, (1994) 185-199.
[210] S. I. Rokhlin, Lamb wave interaction with lap-shear adhesive joints: Theory and
experiment, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 89, (1991) 2758-2765.
[211] P. K. Puthillath, H.Kannajosyula, C. J. Lissenden, J. L. Rose, Ultrasonic Guided
Wave Inspection of Adhesive Joints: A parametric study for a steplap joint, in:
D.O. Thompson, D.E. Chimenti (Eds), Review of progress in Quantitative NDE,
vol 1096, 2009, pp. 1127-1133.
[212] M. J. S. Lowe, R. E. Challis, C. W. Chan, The transmission of Lamb waves across
adhesively bonded lap joints, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 107 (3),
(2000) 1333-1345.
[213] B. Hosten, M. Castaings, Transfer matrix of multilayered absorbing and
anisotropic media. Measurements and simulations of ultrasonic wave propagation
through composite materials, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 94(3),
(1993) 1488-1495.
References 189
[214] J. J. Ditri, Some results on the scattering of guided elastic SH waves from material
and geometric waveguide discontinuities. Journal of Acoustical Society of
America, 100, (1996) 3078-3087.
[215] Francesco Lanza di Scalea, Piervincenzo Rizzo, Alessandro Marzani. Propagation
of ultrasonic guided waves in lap-shear adhesive joints: Case of incident ao Lamb
wave. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 115 (1), (2004) 146-156.
[216] B.Hosten, M.Castaings, Finite Elements methods for modeling the guided waves
propagation in structures with weak interfaces. Journal of Acoustical Society of
America, 117(3), (2005) 1108-1113.
[217] L.Knopoff, A matrix method for elastic wave problems. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 54, (1964) 431-438.
[218] M.J.Randall, Fast programs for layered half-space problems. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 57, (1967) 1299-1316.
[219] A.K.Mal, Wave propagation in layered composite laminates under periodic surface
loads, Wave motion, 9 (1988) 231-238.
[220] Y.Wang, R.K.N.D.Rajapakse, An exact stiffness method for elastodynamics of a
layered orthodtropic half-plane. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 61 (1994) 339-
347.
[221] A. Sutin, Nonlinear acoustic nondestructive testing of cracks, 14th International
Symposium on Novel Aromatic Compounds (ISNA), (1996), 328-334.
[222] J.K. Na, J.H. Cantrell, W.T. Yost, Linear and nonlinear ultrasonic properties of
fatigued 410Cb stainless steel, in: D.O. Thompson, D.E. Chimenti (Eds), Review
of progress in QNDE, 15, 1996, pp.1347-1356.
[223] R. Truell, C. Elbaum, B.B. Chick, Ultrasonic Methods in Solid State Physics,
Academic Press, New York, (1969), pp. 38-63
[224] A. Hikata, B.B. Chick, C. Elbaum, Dislocation contribution to the second
harmonic generation of ultrasonic waves, Journal of Applied physics, 36 (1) (1965)
229-338.
[225] K.Y.Jhang, K.C.Kim, Evaluation of material degradation using nonlinear acoustic
effect, Ultrasonics, 37 (1999) 39-44.
[226] R.K.Oruganti, R.Sivaramanivas, T.N.Karthik. Quantification of fatigue damage
accumulation using non-linear ultrasound measurements. International Journal of
Fatigue, 29 (2007) 2032-2039.
[227] P.P.Delsanto, S.Hirsekorn, V.Agostini, R.Loparco, A.Koka. Modeling the
propagation of ultrasonic waves in the interface region between two bonded
elements, Ultrasonics, 40 (2002) 605-610.
[228] D.Yan, B.W. Drinkwater, S.A. Neild. Measurement of the ultrasonic nonlinearity
of kissing bonds in adhesive joints. NDT & E International, 42 (5) (2009) 459-466.
References 190
[229] D.Yan, B.W. Drinkwater, S.A. Neild. Modelling and measurement of the nonlinear
behaviour of kissing bonds in adhesive joints. NDT & E International, 47 (2012)
18-25.
[230] S. Hirsekorn. Nonlinear transfer of ultrasound by adhesive joints - a theoretical
description, Ultrasonics 39 (2001) 57-68.
[231] L.M. Brekhovskikh, in: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich (Eds.), Waves in Layered
Media, 2nd edition, Academic Press, 1980.
[232] J.A. TenCate, K.E. Van Den Abble, Laboratory study of linear and nonlinear
elastic pulse propagation in sandstone, Journal of Acoustical Society of America,
100 (1996) 1383-1391.
[233] I.E. Shkolnik, T.M. Cameron, Nonlinear acoustic methods for strength testing of
materials, International Symposium on Novel Aromatic Compounds (ISNA),
(1996) 316-327.
[234] A. Hikata, B.B. Chick, C. Elbaum, Effect of dislocations on finite amplitude
ultrasonic waves in aluminum, Applied Physics, l3 (11) (1963) 195-203.
[235] W.T. Yost, J.H. Cantrell Jr., M.A. Breazeale, Ultrasonic nonlinearity parameters
and third-order elastic constants of copper between 300 and 3 K, Journal of
Applied Physics, 52 (1) (1981) 126-132.
[236] K. Vine, P. Cawley, A.J. Kinloch, The correlation of nondestructive measurements
and toughness changes in adhesive joints during environmental attack, Journal of
Adhesion Science and Technology, 77 (2001) 125-161.
[237] D. Jiao, J.L. Rose, An ultrasonic interface layer model for bond evaluation,
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 5 (1991) 631-646.
[238] T. Kundu, A. Maji, T. Ghosh, K. Maslov, Detection of kissing bonds by Lamb
waves, Ultrasonics 35 (1998) 573-580.
[239] R.C.Waugh, J.M.D.Barton, S.Quinn. Pulse phase thermography and its application
to kissing defects in adhesively bonded joints. Applied Mechanics and Materials,
70 (2011) 369-374.
[240 ] J.A.Schoroeder, T.Ahmed, B.Chaudhry, S.Shepard. Non-destructive testing of
structural composites and adhesively bonded composite joints: pulsed
thermography. Composite part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 33 (11)
(2002) 1511-1517.
[241] R. Fedele, S. Sessa, N. Valoroso. Image Correlation-Based Identification of
Fracture Parameters for Structural Adhesives. Technische Mechanik, 32(2-5)
(2012) 195-204.
[242] K.W. Colavito, J. Gorman, and E. Madenci. Refinements in Digital Image
Correlation Technique to extract Adhesive Strains in Lap joints. 50th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference 4-7 May 2009, Palm Springs, California.
References 191
[243] J.Y. Cognard , P. Davies and L. Sohier. Design and Evaluation of bonded
composite assemblies, European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied
Sciences and Engineering ECCOMAS 2004 24-28 July 2004.
[244] Paolo Feraboli, Tyler Cleveland , Patrick Stickler , John Halpin. Stochastic
laminate analogy for simulating the variability in modulus of discontinuous
composite materials. Composites: Part A 41 (2010) 557-570.
[245] Micheal A Sutton,Jean Jose Orteu, Hubert W Schreier, Image correlation for shape
motion and deformation measurements, basic concepts, theory and applications,
first ed., Springer publications, New York, 2009.
[246] R.D.Adams, N.A.Peppiatt. Stress Analysis of Adhesively-bonded lap joints,
Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, 9(3) (1974) 185-196.
[247] X.He, A review of finite element analysis of adhesively bonded joints.
International journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 31 (2011) 248-264.
[248] J.Diaz, L.Romera, S.Hernandez, A.Baldomir, Benchmarking of three-dimensional
finite element models of CFRP single-lap bonded joints. International journal of
Adhesion & Adhesives, 30 (2010) 178-189.
[249] O. Volkersen. The rivet load distribution in lap-joints with members of constant
thickness subjected to tension. Luftfahrtforschung 15 (1938) 41-47.
[250] M. Goland, E. Reissner. The stresses in cemented joints. Journal of Applied
Mechanics. 66 (1944) A17-A27.
[251] L.J. Hart-Smith. Analysis and Design of Advanced Composite Bonded Joints.
NASA contract report NASA TR-11234. McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
California: Aug. 1974.
[252] W.J.Renton and J.R.Vinson. The efficient design of adhesive bonded joints.
Journal of Adhesion 7 (1975) 175-193.
[253] S.Srinivas. Analysis of bonded joints. NASA Technical Note 1975 NASA TN D-
7855.
[254] B. Dattaguru, R.A. Everett, J.D. Whitcomb, W.S.Johnson. Geometrically nonlinear
analysis of adhesively bonded joints. ASME Journal of Engineering Material
Technology 106(1) (1984) 59-65.
[255] A.K.Pickett, L. Hollaway, The analysis of elastic-plastic adhesive stress in bonded
lap joints in FRP structures. Composite Structures 4 (1985) 135-160.
[256] W.J. Renton, J.R. Vinson. Analysis of adhesively bonded joints between panels of
composite materials. Journal of Applied Mechanics 44 (1977) 101-106.
[257] F. Delale, F.Erdogan, M.N.Aydinoglu. Stresses in adhesively bonded joints – a
closed form solution. Journal of Composite Materials, 15 (1981) 249-271.
[258] D.J.Allman. A theory for the elastic stresses in adhesive bonded lap joints.
Quarterly Journal of Mechanics & Applied Mathematics, 30 (1977) 415-436.
[259] R.D.Adams, V.Mallick. A method for the stress analysis of lap joints. Journal of
Adhesion, 38 (1992) 199-217.
References 192
[260] T.Wah. Stress distribution in a bonded anisotropic lap joint. Journal of

Engineering Materials and Technology, 95(3) (1973) 174-181.
[261] C.Yang, S.S.Pang. Stress strain analysis of single lap composite joints under
cylindrical bending, Composites part B. Engineering, 3 (1993) 1051-1063.
[262] Z.J.Wu, A.Romeijn, J.Wardenier. Stress expressions of single lap adhesive joints
of dissimilar adherends. Composite Structures 38 (1997) 273-280.
[263] L.Tong. An assessment of failure criterion to predict the strength of adhesively
bonded composite double lap joints. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
Composites, 16(8) (1997) 698-713.
[264] Y.Frostig, M.Baruch, O.Vilnai, I.Sheinman. High order theory for sandwich beam
behavior with transversely flexible core. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 118(5)
1992 1026-1043.
[265] Y.Frostig, O.T.Thomsen, F.Mortensen. Analysis of adhesive bonded joints, square
end and spew fillet high order theory approach. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
125(11) (1999) 1298-1307.
[266] P.J.C. Das Neves, L.F.M. Da Silva, R.D.Adams Analysis of mixed adhesive
bonded joints part 1: theoretical formulation. Journal of Adhesion Science and
Technology, 23 (2009) 1-34.
[267] P.J.C. Das Neves, L.F.M. Da Silva, R.D.Adams Analysis of mixed adhesive
bonded joints part II: parametric study. Journal of Adhesion Science and
Technology 23 (2009) 35-61.
[268] F.Mortensen, O.T.Thomsen. Analysis of adhesive bonded joints: a unified
approach. Composite science and Technology 62 (2002) 1011-1031.
[269] C.Yang, H.Huang, J.S.Tomblin, W.Sun. Elastic plastic model of adhesive bonded
single lap composite joints. Journal of Composite material, 38(4) (2004) 293-309.
[270] G.P.Zou, K.Shahin, F.Taheri. An analytical solution for the analysis of symmetric
composite adhesively bonded joints. Composite Structures 65(3) (2004) 499-510.
[271] J.Zhang, B.A.Bednarcyk, C.Collier, P.Yarrington, Y.Bansal, M.J.Pindera. Analysis
tools for adhesively bonded composite joints, part 2: unified analytical theory.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Journal, 44(8) (2006)
1709-1719.
[272] Q.Luo, L.Tong, Analytical solutions for adhesive composite joints considering
large deflection and transverse shear deformation in adherends. International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 45(22-23) (2008) 5914-5935.
[273] L.Tong, Q.Luo, Fully coupled nonlinear analysis of single lap adhesive joints.
International Journal of Solids and Structures, 44(7-8) (2007) 2349-2370.
[274] I.U.Ojalvo, H.L.Eidinoff, Bond thickness effects upon stresses in single lap
adhesive joints. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Journal, 16(3) (1978) 204-211.
References 193
[275] Q.Luo, L.Tong, Linear and higher order displacement theories for adhesive bonded
lap joints. International Journal of Solids and Structures 41(22-23) (2004) 6351-
6381.
[276] D.Chen, S.Cheng, An analysis of adhesive bonded single lap joints, Journal of
Applied Mechanics 50(1) (1983) 109-115.
[277] H.Huang, C.D.Yang, J.S.Tomblin, P.Harter. Stress and failure analyses of adhesive
bonded composite joints using ASTM D3165 specimens. Journal of Composites
Technology and Research, 24(2) (2002) 93-104.
[278] P.D.Ruiz, F.Jumbo, A.Seaton, J.M. Huntley, I.A.Ashcroft, G.M.Swallowe.
Numerical and experimental investigation of three-dimensional strains in
adhesively bonded joints. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design 41(8)
(2006) 583-596.
[279] F.Jumbo, P.D.Ruiz, Y.Yu, G.M.Swallowe, I.A.Ashcroft, J.M. Huntley,
Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Mechanical and Thermal Residual
Strains in Adhesively Bonded Joints. Strain 43(4) (2007) 319-331.
[280] Z.Y.Wang, L.Wang, W.Guo, H.Deng, J.W.Tong, F.Aymerich. An investigation of
strain/stress distribution around the overlap end of laminated composite single lap
joints. Composite Structures 89 (2009) 589-595.
[281] D.M.Gleich, M.J.L. Van Tooren, A.Beukers, Analysis and evaluation of bondline
thickness effects on failure load in adhesively bonded structures. Journal of
Adhesion Science and Technology 15(9) (2001) 1091-1101.
[282] G.Fernlund, J.K.Spelt, Failure load prediction of structural adhesive joints, part 1:
analytical method. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 11(4) (1991)
213-220.
[283] J.W.Hutchinson, Z.Suo, Mixed mode cracking in layered materials. Advances in
Applied Mechanics 29 (1992) 63-191.
[284] J.G.Williams On the calculation of energy release rates for cracked laminates.
International Journal of Fracture 36(2) (1988) 101-119.
[285] G.Fernlund, M.Papini, D. McCammond, J.K.Spelt Fracture load predictions for
adhesive joint. Composite Science and Technology 51(4) (1994) 587-600.
[286] L.Tong, Q.Luo, Analysis of cracked lap shear (CLS) joints, chapter 2. In: da Silva
LFM, A. Oechsner (eds) Modelling of adhesively bonded joints. Springer,
Heidelberg, 2008, pp 25-41.
[287] R.D.Adams, Strength predictions for lap joints, especially with composite
adherends: a review. Journal of Adhesion 30(1-4) (1989) 219-242.
[288] L. Tong, Bond strength for adhesive bonded single lap joints. Acta Mechanica
117(1-4) (1996) 101-113.
[289] M.L.J. Van Tooren. Experimental verification of a stress singularity model to
predict the effect of bondline thickness on joint strength. Journal of Adhesion
Science and Technology 18(4) (2004) 395-412.
References 194
[290] A. Sheppard, D.Kelly, L.Y.Tong. A damage zone model for the failure analysis of
adhesively bonded joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 18(6)
(1998) 385-400.
[291] B.R.K.Blackman, H.Hadavinia, A.J.Kinloch, J.G.Williams. The use of a cohesive
zone model to study the fracture of fiber composites and adhesively bonded joints.
International journal of Fracture 119(1) 25-46.
[292] C.D.M.Liljedahl, A.D.Crocombe, M.A.Wahab, I.A.Ashcroft. Damage modeling of
adhesively bonded joints. International Journal of Fracture 141(1-2) (2006) 147-
161.
[293] G.Hu. Mixed mode fracture analysis of adhesive lap joints. Composites
Engineering 5(8) (1995) 1043-1050.
[294] S.Kerenk. Energy release rate of symmetric adhesive joints. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 43(4) (1992) 549-559.
[295] J.A.Harris, R.D.Adams. Strength prediction of bonded single lap joints by
nonlinear finite element methods. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives
4(2) (1984) 65-78.
[296] R.D.Adams, R.W.Atkins, J.A.Harris, A.J.Kinloch. Stress analysis and failure
properties of carbon fiber reinforced plastic/steel double lap-joint. Journal of
Adhesion 20 (1986) 29-33.
[297] A.D.Crocombe, D.A.Bigwood, G. Richardson Analysing structural adhesive joints
for failure. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 10(3) (1990) 167-178.
[298] R.D.Adams, J.A.Harris. The influence of local geometry on the strength of
adhesive joints. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 7(2) (1987) 69-
80.
[299] D.B.Bogy Edge bonded dissimilar orthogonal elastic wedges under normal and
shear loading. Journal of Applied Mechanics 35 (1968) 460-466.
[300] A.Towse, K.D.Potter, M.R.Wisnom, R.D.Adams. The sensitivity of a weibull
failure criterion to singularity strength and local geometry variations. International
Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 19 (1999) 71-82.
[301] A.K.Pickett, L.Hollaway. Analysis of elastic adhesive stresses in bonded lap joints
in frp structures. Composite Structures 3(1) (1985) 55-79.
[302] A.K.Pickett, L.Hollaway. The analysis of elastic-plastic adhesive stress in bonded
lap joints in frp structures. Composite Structures 4(2) (1985) 135-160.
[303] R.A.Odi, C.M.Friend. An improved 2D model for bonded composite joints.
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 24(5) (2004) 389-405.
[304] M.Y.Tsai, J.Morton, J.Matthews. Experimental and numerical studies of a
laminated composite single lap adhesive joint. Journal of Composite Materials 29
(1995) 1154-1275.
References 195
[305] G.Li, P. Lee Sullivan, R.W.Thring. Nonlinear finite element analysis of stress and
strain distributions across the adhesive thickness in composite single-lap joints.
Composite Structures 46(4) (1999) 395-403.
[306] J.W.Hutchinson, Z.Suo. Mixed mode cracking in layered materials. Advances in
Applied Mechanics 29 (1992) 63-191.
[307] J.Xu, Q.Liu, H.Yi, X.G.Wang. Numerical methods for the determination of
multiple stress singularities and related stress intensity coefficients. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 63(6) (1999) 775-790.
[308] H.L.Groth. Stress singularities and fracture at interface corners in bonded joints.
[309] D.M.Gleich, M.J.L.Van Tooren, A.Beukers. Analysis and evaluation of bondline
thickness effects on failure load in adhesively bonded structures. Journal of
Adhesion Science and Technology. 15(9) (2001) 1091-1101.
[310] A.Needleman. A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding.
Journal of Applied Mechanics 54 (1987) 525-531.
[311] T.Ungsuwarungsri, W.G.Knauss. Role of damage softened material behavior in the
fracture of composites and adhesives. International Journal of Fracture 35 (1987)
221-241.
[312] V.Tvergaard, J.W.Hutchinson. The relation between crack growth resistance and
fracture parameters in elastic-plastic solids. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics
of Solids 40 (1992) 1377-1397.
[313] B.F.Sorensen, T.K.Jacobsen. Determination of cohesive laws by the J-integral
approach. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70 (2003) 1841-1858.
[314] S.Li, M.D.Thouless, A.M.Waas, J.A.Schroeder, P.D.Zavattieri. Use of mode-I
cohesive-zone models to describe the fracture of an adhesively-bonded polymer-
matrix composite. Composite Science and Technology 65(2) (2005) 281-293.
[315] S.Li, M.D.Thouless, A.M.Waas, J.A.Schroeder, P.D.Zavattieri. Use of cohesive-
zone model to analyze the fracture of a fiber-reinforced polymer-matrix
composites. Composite Science and Technology 65(3-4) (2005) 537-549.
[316] S.Li, M.D.Thouless, A.M.Waas, J.A.Schroeder, P.D.Zavattieri. Mixed-mode
cohesive-zone models for fracture of an adhesively bonded polymer-matrix
composite. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 73(1) (2006) 64-78.
[317] C.D.M.Liljedahl, A.D.Crocombe, M.A.Wahab, I.A.Ashcroft. Damage modeling of
adhesively bonded joints. International Journal of Fracture 141(1-2) (2006) 147-
161.
[318] B.R.K.Blackman, H.Hadavinia, A.J.Kinloch, J.G.Williams. The use of a cohesive
zone model to study the fracture of fiber composites and adhesively bonded joints.
International Journal of Fracture 119(1) (2003) 25-46.
[319] R.D.Adams, N.A.Peppiatt. Stress analysis of adhesive bonded tubular lap joints.
Journal of Adhesion 9 (1977) 1-18.
References 196
[320] R.D.Adams, J.Coppendale, N.A.Peppiatt. Stress analysis of axisymmetric butt

joints loaded in torsion and tension. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering
Design 13(1) (1978) 1-7.
[321] A.D.Crocombe, R.D.Adams. An elasto-plastic investigation of the peel test
Journal of Adhesion 13(3-4) (1982) 241-267.
[322] J.Mackerle. Finite element analysis of adhesive bonding, soldering and brazing. A
bibliography (1976-1996) Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and
Engineering 5(2) (1997) 159-185.
[323] J.Mackerle Finite element analysis of adhesive bonding, soldering and brazing. An
addendum: A bibliography (1996-2002) Modelling and Simulation in Materials
Science and Engineering 10(6) (2002) 637-671.
[324] A.Baldan. Review: Adhesively bonded joints and repairs in metallic alloys,
polymers and composite materials – adhesives, adhesion theory and surface pre
treatement. Journal of Material Science 39(1) (2004) 1-49
[325] A.Baldan. Adhesively-bonded joints in metallic alloys, polymers and composite
materials: Mechanical and environmental durability performance. Journal of
Material Science 39(15) (2004) 4729-4797.
[326] M.D.Banea, L.F.M.da Silva. Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: an
overview. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal
of Materials Design and Applications 223(1) (2009) 1-18.
[327] B. Zhao, Z.H. Lu. A Two-Dimensional Approach of single-Lap Adhesive Bonded
Joints. Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures 16(2) (2009) 130-159.
[328] R.Haghani, M.Al-Emrani, R.Kliger. Stress Distribution in Adhesive Joints with
Tapered Laminates — Effect of Tapering Length and Material Properties. Journal
of Composite Materials 44 (3) (2010) 287-302.
[329] G.Fessel, J.G.Broughton, N.A.Fellows, J.F.Durodola, A.R.Hutchinson. Evaluation
of different lap-shear joint geometries for automotive applications. International
Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 27(7) (2007) 574-583.
[330] L.D.R. Grant, R.D. Adams, Lucas F.M. da Silva. Experimental and numerical
analysis of single-lap joints for the automotive industry. International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives 29(4) (2009) 405-413.
[331] M.You, Z.M.Yan, X. L. Zheng, H.Z.Yu, Z.Li. A numerical and experimental study
of adhesively bonded aluminium single lap joints with an inner chamfer on the
adherends. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 28(1-2) (2008) 71-76.
[332] A.M. Pereira, J.M. Ferreira, F.V. Antunes, P.J. Bártolo. Analysis of manufacturing
parameters on the shear strength of aluminium adhesive single-lap joints. Journal
of Materials Processing Technology 210(4) (2010) 610-617.
[333] A. Rudawska. Adhesive joint strength of hybrid assemblies: Titanium sheet-
composites and aluminium sheet-composites—Experimental and numerical
References 197
verification. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 30 (7) (2010) 574-

582.
[334] S. Kumar, P.C.Pandey. Behaviour of bi-adhesive joints. Journal of Adhesion
Science and Technology 24(7) (2010) 1251-1281.
[335] A Mubashar, I.A.Ashcroft, G.W.Critchlow, A.D.Crocombe. Modelling cyclic
moisture uptake in an epoxy adhesive. Journal of Adhesion 85(10) (2009) 711-735.
[336] L.D.R. Grant, R.D. Adams, L.F.M. da Silva. Effect of the temperature on the
strength of adhesively bonded single lap and T joints for the automotive industry.
[337] Y.Zhang, A.P.Vassilopoulos, T.Keller. Effects of low and high temperatures on
tensile behavior of adhesively-bonded GFRP joints, in Composite Structures.
Composite Structures 92(7) (2010) 1631-1639.
[338] M.K.Apalak, R.Gunes. Thermal residual stresses in an adhesively-bonded
functionally graded single-lap joint. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology
20(12) (2006) 1295-1320.
[339] L.F.M.da Silva, R.D.Adams. Stress free temperature in a mixed adhesive joint.
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 20(15) (2006) 1705-1726
[340] L.F.M.da Silva, R.D.Adams. Adhesive joints at high and low temperatures using
similar and dissimilar adherends and dual adhesives. International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives 27(3) (2007) 216-226.
[341] LFM da Silva, RD Adams. Joint strength predictions for adhesive joints to be used
over a wide temperature range. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives
27(5) (2007) 362-379.
[342] I. Malvade, A. Deb, P. Biswas, A. Kumar. Numerical prediction of load-
displacement behaviors of adhesively bonded joints at different extension rates and
temperatures. Computational Materials Science 44(4) (2009) 1208-1217.
[343] M.E.Cruz, A.T.Patera. A paralles Monte Carlo Finite Element procedure for the
analysis of multi component media. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering 38 (1995) 1087-1121.
[344] J.E.Hurtado, A.H.Barbat. Monte Carlo techniques in computational stochastic
mechanics. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 5(1) (1998) 3-30.
[345] H.K. Jeong, R.A. Shenoi. Probabilistic strength analysis of rectangular FRP plates
using Monte Carlo simulation. Computers & Structures 76 (2000) 219-235.
[346] A.H.Zureick, R.M.Bennett, B.R.Ellingwood. Statistical characterization of fiber-
reinforced polymer composite material properties for structural design. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 132(8) (2006) 1320-1327.
[347] P.Dickstein, Y.Segal, E.Segal, A.N.Sinclair. Statistical pattern recognition
techniques: A sample problem of ultrasonic determination of interfacial weakness
in adhesive joints. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 8(1) (1989) 27-35.
References 198
[348] R.G. Ghanem. Hybrid stochastic finite elements and generalized Monte Carlo
simulation, Journal of Applied Mechanics ASCE 65 (4) (1998) 1004-1009.
[349] G. Stefanou, M. Papadrakakis, Stochastic finite element analysis of shells with
combined random material and geometric properties. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 193 (1–2) (2004) 139-160.
[350] A.K.Onkar, C.S.Upadhyay, D.Yadav. Stochastic finite element buckling analysis
of laminated plates with circular cutout under uniaxial compression. Transactions
of the ASME 74 (2007) 798-809.
[351] D.M. Frangopol, S. Recek. Reliability of fiber-reinforced composite laminate
plates. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 18 (2003) 119-137.
[352] N.Z.Chen, C.G.Soares. Spectral stochastic finite element analysis for laminated
composite plates. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 197
(2008) 4830-4839.
[353] S.Chuan Her. Stress analysis of adhesively-bonded lap joints. Composite
Structures 47 (1999) 673-678.
Appendix A
Computation of Transmission and Reflection coefficient
using Transfer Matrix Formulation
The transmission and reflection coefficients from an interface can be analytically
computed using transfer matrix method.
Figure A1. A three layered adhesive joint with interfaces
Consider a three layered adhesive joint model with two interfaces separating the adherend
and the adhesive as shown in the figure A1. When an ultrasonic longitudinal pulse is
impinged at some angle into the layered system, each layer contains 2 incoming wave
components (S+ and L+) and 2 outgoing wave components (S- and L-). The displacements
and stresses at any location in a layer can be found by adding the contributions due to the
four wave components in the layer. For a multilayered system, the field quantities of
interest are those which must be continuous at the interfaces. These are the two
displacement components ‘u1’ and ‘u2’ and the normal stress ‘σ22’ and the shear stress
‘σ12’. These field quantities in a layer can be expressed by the matrix equation [186].
 k1 C 
 k1 g
g
C g 
g 
 
u1   C k1  A 
u     L 
C g k1 g 
 2   g g   AL  
    (A1)
    i B g i B 2i  k1 C   AS  
2
2 2
 2i  k1 C g 
2
 1 2   
g g   AS  
 
  2i  k1 2C i B 
 2i  k1 C g i B g
2
g g 
 
Where α and β are bulk longitudinal and shear wave velocities in the medium. K1 is the
component of wave number vector in the x1 direction (projection of the wave number of
the bulk wave onto the interface), ρ is the density of the medium, ω is the angular
frequency. Whereas other components are defined as follows.
199
Appendix A 200
1 1 1
  2
 2  2  i
2
 2 2

 k12  x2
C   2  k11  g  e 
2
C   2  k11  
   
1
  2
i
2
2  k1
2 x2

B   2  2 2k12
 
g  e  
Equation (A1) shows the field matrix describing the relationship between the wave
amplitudes and the displacements and stresses at any location in a layer. Its coefficients
depend on the through thickness position in the plate (x2), the material properties of the
layer at this position (ρ, α and β), the frequency (ω) and the invariant plate wave number
(k1). Phase differences between layers can be accounted for by the phase of the complex
wave amplitudes. Equation (A1) can be written in a concise form as [ui]=[Dij][Ai], where
the matrix [Dij] is known as the field matrix and it describes the relationship between the
wave amplitudes and the displacements and stresses at any location in a layer.
Assume that the displacements and stresses are known at the first interface, the
amplitudes of the four waves at the top of adhesive layer can now be found by inverting
the field matrix [Dij].
 AL   u1 
   
 AL   1 u2 
    D l 2,t o p  
A
 S   2 2 
A   
 S  l 2  1 2 l 2,t o p (A2)
The displacements and stresses at the second interface can be found from the wave
amplitudes in the adhesive layer.
u1  u1 
    (A3)
u2  1 u2 
    D l 2,b o t t o m .  D l 2,t o p  
 2 2   2 2 
   
 1 2 l 2,b o t t o m  1 2 l 2,t o p
The matrix product in equation (A3) i.e., [D]l2,bottom.[D]-1l2,top relates the displacements and
stresses between the top and the bottom surfaces of the adhesive layer and is referred to as
a layer matrix [L].
Appendix A 201
 Ll2 =  Dl2,bottom  Dl2,top

-1
(A4)
The displacements and stresses must be continuous across a perfect interface between two
layers, hence.
u1  u1  u1 

     
u2  u2  u2 
      L l 2  
 2 2   2 2   2 2  (A5)
     
 1 2 l 3,t o p 1 2 l 2,b o t t o m  1 2 l 2,t o p
This process can be continued for all subsequent layers, resulting in the equation
u1  u1 
   
u2  u2 
   S   
 2 2   2 2 
   
 1 2 l n ,t o p  1 2 l 2,t o p (A6)
Where ‘n’ is the last layer and [S] is the system matrix consisting of the matrix product of
the layer matrices.
 S    L l 2  L l 3 .... L l ( n-1)
(A7)
If the semi-infinite half space is not vacuum, it is convenient to describe the boundary
conditions of the system in terms of the waves in the half space. Hence in this case where
both the half-spaces are solids, the system equation becomes.
 A( L  )   A( L  ) 
 A( L -)   A( L -) 
   
  [ D]l n,top [ S ][ D]l1,( x 2 0) 
-1
  (A8)
 A( S  )   A( S  ) 
 A( S -)   A( S -) 
ln l1
For an infinite plane wave response solution for a layer embedded between two solids,
four of the eight wave amplitudes of equation (A8) must be known, enabling the
remaining four to be found by direct manipulation of the equation. Typically, one of the
Appendix A 202
four incoming waves is assumed to have unit amplitude and the others to be zero. The
plane wave reflection and transmission coefficients are then given by the amplitudes of the
four outgoing waves.
The modal solution for true modes can be obtained if both of the half spaces are
vacuum. This requires the stresses at the extreme interfaces to be zero, thus equation (A6)
becomes
u  u 
 1  1
u2  u 
    S   2 
0  0  (A9)
   
0 l n ,t o p 0 l 2,t o p
Expanding this equation for the two stress terms on the left-hand side,
0 S S32  u1 

    31
S   (A10)
0  41
S42  u2 l ,top
2
Where the two-by-two matrix is the bottom left sub-matrix of [S] (rows 3 and 4 and
columns 1 and 2). For this equation to be satisfied, the sub matrix must be singular. Thus,
defining the determinant as the characteristic function (f) for the system
f = S31 * S42 – S41 * S32 = 0 (A11)
True modes may also travel in plate systems in which one or both of the half-spaces are
not vacuum, but only under the condition that no energy leaks from the plate into the half
spaces. For this condition to be satisfied, any wave components in the half-spaces must be
inhomogeneous so that they may carry energy along the plate but are unable to carry
energy away from the extreme interfaces. Consider a plate system in which neither half
spaces is vacuum for which the characteristic function may be found from (A8), the
condition for true mode propagation is that the wave should exist without forcing;
therefore that there should be no energy coming into the system. Thus denoting the
product of the three matrices in (A8) as  S '  , the characteristic function f 
'
for this
system is
f '  S22
' '
* S44  S42
' '
* S24 0 (A12)
For given material properties and layer thickness, the characteristic function is dependent
on frequency and wave number which may also be expressed using phase velocity. The
Appendix A 203
obvious method of finding the roots is to fix one of the variables and then vary the other,
looking for a change of sign of the function; this can be accomplished using numerical
iteration techniques which may be employed to perform this search. The loci of roots of
the characteristic function are the dispersion curves for the multilayer plate system. They
are usually displayed as phase velocity against frequency but may also be plotted using the
wave number.
Appendix B
B1. Theory of Lamb waves
Lamb waves are plain strain waves that propagate in a plate guided by its surfaces. Given
a plate thickness and frequency, there are many propagation modes which are grouped into
symmetrical and anti-symmetrical fundamental modes. A brief overview of the theoretical
aspects of Lamb wave propagation in isotropic and composite plates has been provided in
this part of the appendix while the second part briefly explains Global Matrix Method
(GMM).
The governing differential equations for a homogeneous, isotropic elastic solid
may be summarized using the cartesian tensor notation as follows,
Equilibrium equations
ζij,j + ρfi = ρűi (B1.1)
Strain displacement equations
εij = ½ (ui,j + uj,i) (B1.2)
Constitutive equations
ζij = λεkkδij + 2μεij (B1.3)
where ζij and εij are the stress and strain tensors, and ui is the displacement vector. ρ is the
mass density, fi is the body force per unit mass, λ and μ are Lame constants and δij is the
Kronecker delta. The displacement equations of motion are obtained by substituting the
strain-displacement equations into Hooke’s law and subsequently substituting the
equilibrium equations resulting in
(λ + μ) uj,ji + μui,jj + ρfi = ρű (B1.4)
which are also known as Navier’s equations. The displacement vector field can be
expressed
using Helmholtz decomposition as the gradient of the scalar and curl of the zero
divergence vector given by
u = φ + × ψ, · ψ = 0, (B1.5)
where φ and ψ are the scalar and vector potentials, respectively.
By substituting Equation. B1.5 into Equation B1.4, two uncoupled wave equations for
plane strain are obtained
204
Appendix B. 205
2 2 2
1
(B1.6)
x12 x32 cL2 t2
2
ψ 2
ψ 1 2
ψ
(B1.7)
x12 x32 cT2 t2
Where cL and cT are the longitudinal and shear wave velocities respectively
2
cL , cT (B1.8)
Consider a plane harmonic wave propagating in a homogeneous isotropic elastic plate of

thickness ‘2h’ and of infinite in-plane dimensions (Figure B1.1)
Figure B1.1 Propagation of a plane wave in a free plate
Under plane strain assumption the displacements and stresses can be written in terms of
the potentials as
ψ ψ
u1 , u 0, u3 (B1.9)
x1 x3 2 x3 x1
2 2
ψ 2
ψ (B1.10)
31 x1 x3 x12 x32
2 2 2 2
ψ
33 2 2
2 2
(B1.11)
x 1 x 3 x 3
x1 x3
The general solutions for φ and ψ are expressed as
( x3 )exp[i(kx1 t )] (B1.12)
Appendix B. 206
ψ ( x3 )exp[i(kx1 t )] (B1.13)
where (x3) and (x3) represents standing wave in the x3 direction and the right hand
term exp[i (kx1 t )] represents the propagating wave in the x1 direction. The term k and
ω represent the wave number and angular frequency respectively. Substitution of these
assumed solutions into Equations B1.6 and B1.7 yields two ordinary differential equations
such that the solutions to them are given by
( x3 ) A1 sin( x3 ) A2 cos( x3 ) (B1.14)
( x3 ) B1 sin( x3 ) B2 cos( x3 ) (B1.15)
Where
2 2
2
k2 , 2
k2 (B1.16)
cL2 cT2
With these results, the displacement and stresses can be obtained from Equations. B1.9,
B1.10 and B1.11 respectively as, [190]
d
u1 ik exp[i(kx1 t )] (B1.17)
dx3
d
u3 ik exp[i(kx1 t )] (B1.18)
dx3
2ik
d k2 d 2 exp[i(kx t )] (B1.19)
31 1
dx3 dx32
k2
d2
2
d 2 ik d exp[i(kx1 t )] (B1.20)
33 dx32 dx32 dx3
From the Equations B1.17 and B1.19 one can observe motion in the x1 direction is
symmetric (anti-symmetric) with regard to x3 = 0 if u1 contains cosines (sines); the
displacement in the x3 direction is symmetric (anti-symmetric) if u3 contains sines
Appendix B. 207
(cosines). Thus, the modes of wave propagation can be grouped into symmetric and anti-
symmetric modes. For symmetric modes the resulting displacements and stresses are [190]
u1 ikA2 cos( x3 ) B1 cos(qx3 ) (B1.21)
u3 A2 sin( x3 ) ikB1 sin( x3 ) (B1.22)
31 2ik A2 sin( x3 ) (k 2 2
) B1 sin( x3 ) (B1.23)
2
33 (k 2 2
) A2 cos( x3 ) 2 A2 cos( x3 ) ik B1 cos( x3 ) (B1.24)
For anti-symmetric modes the resulting displacements and stresses are
u1 ikA1 sin ( x3 ) B2 sin ( x3 ) (B1.25)
u3 A1 cos ( x3 ) ikB2 cos ( x3 ) (B1.26)
31 2ik A1 cos ( x3 ) (k 2 2
) B1 cos ( x3 ) (B1.27)
33 (k 2 2
) A1 sin ( x3 ) 2 2
A1 sin ( x3 ) ik B2 sin ( x3 ) (B1.28)
The expression relating the frequency ‘ω’ to the wave number ‘k’ and the constants
A1,A2,B1,B2 are now obtained by applying the traction-free boundary condition, which is
given by,
31 33 0 at x3 = ±h (B1.29)
For the symmetric modes, application of these boundary conditions yields a system of two
homogeneous equations for the constants A2 and B1. Similarly for the anti symmetric
modes, one obtains two homogeneous equations for the constants A1 and B2. Since the
systems are homogeneous, the determinant of each system was taken to obtain the
simplified expressions which relate ω and k. These expressions are shown as
tan( h) 4k 2
0 Symmetric modes (B1.30)
tan( h) ( 2 k 2 )2
tan( h) ( 2 k 2 )2
0 Anti-symmetric modes (B1.31)
tan( h) 4k 2
Appendix B. 208
These equations are known as Rayleigh-Lamb frequency equations [190]. The above
equations are transcendental and have to be solved in an iterative way to obtain the
relationship between the frequency ω and the wave number k, or between the phase
velocity (cp) or group velocity (cg) and the frequency ω, resulting in the dispersion curves.
The group velocity cg can be found from the phase velocity cp by using the equation
1 1
d d dc p
cg d d d (B1.32)
dk cp cp c 2p
After simplification,
1
dc p
cg c2p c p (B1.33)
d
Substituting ω = 2πf in the above Equation B1.33 results in
1
dc p
cg c2p c p f (B1.34)
df
where f is the frequency.
Figure B1.2 Phase Velocity dispersion curves for aluminium plate (dotted curves indicate anti-
symmetric modes, while solid curves indicate symmetric modes)
Appendix B. 209
For a given frequency there are infinite number of wave numbers satisfying the frequency
relations, but only a finite number of these wave numbers are purely real or imaginary,
while the others are complex. In many cases, only the real solutions of the frequency
equations are displayed in the dispersion curves since they represent the propagating
modes. The symmetric modes are also called longitudinal modes because the average
displacement over the thickness of the plate or layer is in the longitudinal direction. The
anti-symmetric modes are observed to exhibit average displacement in the transverse
direction and these modes are also called flexural modes.
Figure B1.2 shows the phase velocity dispersion curves for an aluminium plate, it
can be observed that for a given mode, the phase velocity changes with the frequency-
thickness product. For a frequency-thickness product, there exit atleast two modes, i.e.,
they are multi-modal. It is therefore important to take into account both the influence of
dispersion and multi-modality in analyzing Lamb waves.
B2. Lamb wave propagation in Composites

The wave propagation in composites is a complex phenomenon due to the nature of being
anisotropic, inhomogeneous, and multi-layered construction. This makes the velocity of
wave mode to dependent on the laminate lay-up, the direction of wave propagation,
frequency and interface conditions. If the wavelengths of the propagating modes are
significantly longer than the fiber diameter, each lamina can be treated as an equivalent
homogeneous orthotropic or transversely isotropic material with the symmetry axis
parallel to the fibers. In general, there are two theoretical approaches to investigate Lamb
waves in composites: one is exact solution by 3-D elasticity theory, and the other is
approximate solutions by plate theories. Nayfeh and Chimenti [196] gave dispersion
relations for Lamb waves in a composite lamina using 3-D elasticity theory. Later, Nayfeh
[197] developed a transfer matrix technique to obtain the dispersion curves in laminates.
Although the exact solutions provide accurate results, the computation for dispersion
characteristics of multi-layered composites is intensive because of the transcendental
equations and the transient wave response of composites. To make the solutions easier,
many researchers have strived to approximate solutions by laminated plate theories [199,
200]. The use of laminated plate theories is not valid for describing the dispersive
solutions of guided wave modes at frequencies for which the wavelengths are comparable
to the plate thickness. A brief description of the derivation of dispersion relation for
composite lamina using 3D elasticity theory is given below.
Assuming a harmonic wave incident at the x1- x3 plane the displacement field is
expressed as,
u j U j eik ( x1 x3 ct )
(B1.35)
Appendix B. 210
where Uj is the amplitude corresponding to different displacement components; i 1, k

is the wave number corresponding to the x1 direction, α is the ratio of wave number along
the x3 direction over that of the x1 direction and c is the phase velocity. Substituting the
displacement component uj into the governing equation of motion (B1.4) results in
(C11 + 2αC15 + C55α2 − ρc2) U1 + (C16 + α (C14 + C56) + C45α2) U2 +(C15 + α (C13 + C55) +
C35α2) U3 = 0
(C16 + α (C14 + C56) + C45α2) U1 + (C66 + 2αC46 + C44α2 − ρc2) U2 +(C56 + α (C36 + C45) +
C34α2) U3 = 0
(C15 + α (C13 + C55) + C35α2) U1 + (C56 + α (C36 + C45) + C34 α2) U2 +(C55 + 2αC35 + C33
α2- ρc2) U3 = 0
(B1.36)
where Cij(i, j = 1…6) is the stiffness matrix of the composite. Since U1, U2, U3 cannot be
all zero; the coefficient matrix should be singular and solving it leads to a sixth order
polynomial equation in α. By solving the polynomial equation, corresponding values of αi
(i = 1…6) can be obtained. Therefore at each material point, a complete wave is the sum
of six components of the wave and thus the total displacement is sum of them. Stresses can
be calculated from the displacement components and applying the traction free boundary
conditions on the boundary, the governing equations for symmetric and anti-symmetric
Lamb waves can be obtained.
D11G1 cot (γα1) − D13G3 cot (γα3) + D15G5 cot (γα5) = 0 Symmetric modes (B1.37)
D11G1 tan (γα1) − D13G3 tan (γα3) + D15G5 tan (γα5) = 0 Anti-symmetric modes (B1.38)
Where γ = πfd/c, f is the frequency of wave (MHz), d is the thickness of the plate.
G1 = D23D35 − D33D25,
G3 = D21D35 − D31D25, (B1.39)
G5 = D21D33 − D31D23.
D1q = C13 + C36Vq + C33αqWq,

D2q = C55 (αq +Wq) + C45αqVq, (B1.40)
D3q = C45 (αq +Wq) + C44αqVq.
Where Vq, Wq are the ratio’s of displacement components, defined as
K11( q ) K23 ( q) K13 ( q ) K12 ( q )

Vq (B1.41)
K13 ( q ) K22 ( q ) K12 ( q ) K 23 ( q )
Appendix B. 211
K11( q ) K 23 ( q )K13 ( q ) K12 ( q )

Wq (B1.42)
K12 ( q ) K33 ( q ) K 23 ( q ) K13 ( q )
K11 = C11 − ρc2 + 2C15α + C55α2,

K12 = C16 + (C14 + C56) α + C45α2,
K13 = C15 + (C13 + C55) α + C35α2,
K22 = C66 − ρc2 + 2C46α + C44α2,
K23 = C56 + (C36 + C45) α + C34α2,
K33 = C55 − ρc2 + 2C35α + C33α2. (B1.43)
The propagation of Lamb wave was considered along x1 direction in x1- x 3 plane. To
calculate the velocity of these modes at different angles to the x1 direction, the original
elastic moduli of the plate are transformed φ degrees counter clockwise about x3 direction,
and the transformed elastic moduli are used in calculating minima of Equations. B1.37 and
B1.38. The above procedure is applicable only to composite lamina. The procedure to
determine the dispersion relationship for different composite lay-ups is more complicated
as interface continuity conditions must be enforced among the different layers.
There are two different methods to address this problem, namely Transfer Matrix
Method (Appendix A) and Global Matrix Method (GMM) to obtain the dispersion
relations of waves in multilayered media [186]. Rokhlin et al. [203], Nayfeh [197], Hosten
et al. [213] and Balasubramaniam et al. [202] have discussed the application of the
transfer matrix technique to laminated composites, and correlated theoretical results with
experiments.
B3. Global Matrix method

Global matrix method (GMM) was proposed as an alternative to the transfer matrix
technique to solve large f *d problem by knopoff [217]. It was first implemented by
Randall [218] and subsequently has been employed by a number of other researchers. Mal
[219], Wang et al. [220] applied global matrix technique to layered anisotropic media.
Although the procedure of these two methods looks different, they are identical in
principle by both satisfying traction free boundary conditions on the top and bottom
surfaces of the composite laminate and continuity of interface conditions between two
adjacent layers in different manner. Global matrix method has the advantages that it is
robust and that the same matrix may be used for all categories of solution, whether
response or modal, vacuum or solid half-spaces, real or complex plate wave number.
However since the global matrix may be large, the solution may be relatively slow.
The approach with the global matrix method is to directly assemble a large single
matrix which represents the complete system. The system matrix consists of 4(n-1)
equations, where ‘n’ is the total number of layers. The solution is carried out on the full
matrix, addressing all of the equations concurrently. This does not mean that the interfaces
are completely independent, because the equations at an interface are influenced by the
Appendix B. 212
arrival of waves from the neighboring interfaces. However, as the frequency-thickness

product is increased, the influence of an inhomogeneous wave travelling along one
interface on the displacements and stresses at the next interface simply reduces. The extent
of the influence is determined by the exponential terms in the global matrix. These terms
are always decaying functions for inhomogeneous waves, thus in the limit they vanish and
an inhomogeneous wave travelling along one interface has no influence on the waves at
the next interface (i.e., the layer behaves as a semi-infinite half space). The method
therefore remains perfectly stable for any frequency-thickness product because it does not
rely on the coupling of the inhomogeneous waves from one interface to another.
AL AL
AL AL (B1.44)
D l ,b D
2 AS l3 ,t AS
AS AS
l2 l3
Consider for example the second interface of a joint, the displacements and stresses at the
interface can be expressed as a function of the amplitudes of the waves at the top of the
third layer; they may also be expressed as a function of the amplitudes of the waves at the
bottom of the second layer. For continuity of displacements and stresses at the interface,
both expressions should give equal results (Equation B1.44); which can be expressed in a
single matrix as
A( L )2
A( L )2
A(S )2
A(S )2
D 2b
D3t 0 (B1.45)
A( L )3
A( L )3
A(S )3
A(S )3
where the subscripts 2 and 3 refer to second and third layers respectively and ‘t’ and ‘b’ to
the top and bottom of each layer. This equation describes the interaction at the second
interface because of the waves in the second and third layers. Defining the origin of all the
waves in a layer to be their entry to the layer, one can conclude that the downward
Appendix B. 213
travelling waves (L+ & S+) have their origin at the top of the layer and upward travelling
waves (L- & S-) have their origin at the bottom of the layer. The [D] matrix for the top and
bottom of a layer can be expressed as [186]
k1g k1 C g C
C g C k1g k1
Db 2
i Bg i B 2i k1 C g 2i k1 2C
2 2
2i k1 C g 2i k1 C i Bg i B
k1 k1g C C g
C C g k1 k1g
Dt 2 2
i B i Bg 2i k1 C 2i k1 C g
2 2
2i k1 C 2i k1 C g i B i Bg
(B1.46)
Similar equations can be written for the different interfaces and added to the global matrix
resulting in a matrix of 4(n-1) equations and 4n unknowns. For instance for a 3 layered
structure with two semi infinite half spaces the global matrix can be written as.
D1b D2t A1
A2
D2b D3t (B1.47)
A3 0
D3b D4t
A4
D4b D5t A5
Where the wave amplitudes in each layer, have been abbreviated simply to a layer vector
{A}. Four of the wave amplitudes in equation (B1.47) must now be identified as known
and their coefficient in the equation moved to the right hand side. For ultrasonic
application it is convenient to choose the incoming waves in the two half-spaces resulting
in
Appendix B. 214
D1b D2t A1 A1
A2 0
D2b D3t D1b
A3 0
D3b D4t D5t
A4 0
D4b D5t A5 A5
(B1.48)
where the superscripts + and - denote those parts of the matrices or vectors corresponding
to incoming and outgoing waves, respectively. This partitioning results in
A( L ) A( L )
A A
A( S ) A( S )
D11 D13 D12 D14

D21 D23 D22 D24
D D (B1.49)
D31 D33 D32 D34
D41 D43 D42 D44
If the wave amplitudes for the incoming waves are known then the right hand side of
equation (B1.48) may be evaluated immediately, resulting in a vector of known
coefficients. The modal solution for the systems in which the half-spaces are not vacuum
is straight forward because the system is already described in terms of the wave
amplitudes in the half-spaces, in (B1.48). The incoming waves are zero and so the right
hand side of the equation must be zero. Thus the system matrix [S] must be singular so
that its determinant be zero. This yields the characteristic function
f S 0 (B1.50)
If the top and bottom half-spaces are vacuum then the D and D matrices cannot be
evaluated. Modification is therefore required to the system matrix to account for the
absence of waves in vacuum and for zero stresses on the free surfaces. This can be done
by reformulating the problem, resulting in a smaller system matrix. The sub-matrices and
wave amplitudes associated with the half spaces are removed from equation (B1.48). The
remaining top and bottom sub-matrices are partitioned into their stress and displacement
rows. The stress partitions are then taken onto the right hand side as knowns, leaving a
square system matrix again, and the solution is then possible. However a much simpler
alternative which leaves the solution completely general, is to retain the full system matrix
Appendix B. 215
and to modify the layer constants for the vacuum half-spaces in such a way that the D
and D matrices can be evaluated, hence solution is possible and the resulting surface
stresses are zero. This is achieved by setting the bulk velocities α and β of the vacuum to
arbitrary non zero value and the density to zero. This results in a matrix assembly for
which the solution is identical to that for the system with non vacuum half-spaces. It is
important to have a good algorithm for the calculation of the determinant for the modal
solution. Since the aim is to find zeros of the determinant, the matrix is frequently close to
being singular. Furthermore, search algorithms must rely on accurate complex evaluations
of the function close to the singularity in order to converge. For the calculation of
dispersion curves, the whole process must be repeated many times without failure, this can
be accomplished satisfactorily using the reduction part of the Gaussian elimination
scheme.

G26587 Vijay Kumar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G26587 Vijay Kumar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Some Experimental and Numerical Studies on

Evaluation of Adhesive Bond Integrity of

Department of Aerospace Engineering

I am grateful to my thesis advisors Prof. C R L Murthy and Dr. M R Bhat, I owe my

2 Non destructive testing and evaluation of adhesive joints

2.3.1 Low frequency NDT techniques 18

2.4.4 Guided waves 28

3 Non destructive evaluation of degradation in GFRP-

4 Normal incidence ultrasonic inspection of CFRP-

5 Evaluation of degradation in composite adhesive joints

6 Study of degradation in composite lap joints using

6.4 Finite element simulation 95

6.6 Nonlinear acoustic effect in materials 99

7 Evaluation of kissing bond in composite adhesive

8 Analytical and experimental analysis of composite

8.3 Adhesive beam models 125

8.4 Failure criterion based on continuum mechanics 132

8.6.3 Failure mechanism 144

9 Finite element analysis of composite single lap joint

10 Conclusions and future work

1.1 Chemical structure of a typical epoxy 4

3.17 Adhesive joints under load. 42

5.9 Adhesive joint modeled as a three layered plate 70

9.12 Probability density function and cumulative distribution function of the

1.1 Surface preparation techniques commonly employed in adhesive bonding 7

GFRP Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic

E Young’s modulus of a material

3. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Some studies on evaluation of

8. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat. Probabilistic stress variation studies on composite

2. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy. Non Destructive Evaluation of

3. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy, Non Destructive Evaluation of

4. R.L.Vijaya kumar, M.R.Bhat, C.R.L.Murthy, NDE OF Adhesively bonded

1.1 Adhesive joints

1.2 Advantages and limitations of adhesive joints

Reduced weight and part count.

The ability to join dissimilar materials.

New production and quality procedures must be developed and implemented.

1.3 Defining the adhesive bond.

a.) Mechanical interlocking: Mechanical interlocking occurs when cured adhesive

Structural bonding: Structural bonding is a term used to define a bond where it

bonded joint, majority of the data is qualitative at best, necessitating extensive

1.4 Factors governing the strength of a joint.

Figure1.1 Chemical structure of a typical epoxy [2]

Anaerobic adhesives: Anaerobic adhesives are single-component materials which

Cyanoacrylate adhesives: Cyanoacrylate adhesives, known colloquially as

1.4.3 Bond line thickness

1.4.4 Surface condition

Table 1.1. Surface preparation techniques commonly employed in adhesive bonding

Mechanical surface Chemical surface Energetic surface

1.4.5 Joint design and geometry

Figure1.3 Stress distribution in a single lap shear joint [21].

Figure1.4 Different joint geometries [22]

1.4.6 Service temperature and moisture

1.5 Testing of adhesive joints

1.6 Failure modes of adhesive joints

1.6.1 Cohesive failure

1.6.2 Interfacial failure

1.6.3 Miscellaneous failure modes

Figure1.6 Different failure modes in bonded joints [53]

Many researchers have experimentally investigated the influence of various parameters on

1.8 Organization of the thesis

Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation of Adhesive

2.2 Defects in bonded joints