Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

ISSN: 0169-4243 (Print) 1568-5616 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tast20

Effect of the aspect ratio of the pre-existing

rectangular adhesion failure on the structural
integrity of the adhesively bonded single lap joint

Ranjan K. Behera, S. K. Parida & R. R. Das

To cite this article: Ranjan K. Behera, S. K. Parida & R. R. Das (2019) Effect of the aspect
ratio of the pre-existing rectangular adhesion failure on the structural integrity of the adhesively
bonded single lap joint, Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 33:19, 2093-2111, DOI:
10.1080/01694243.2019.1629731

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1629731

Published online: 26 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tast20
JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
2019, VOL. 33, NO. 19, 2093–2111
https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1629731

Effect of the aspect ratio of the pre-existing rectangular

adhesion failure on the structural integrity of the
adhesively bonded single lap joint
Ranjan K. Beheraa , S. K. Paridab and R. R. Dasc
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, India; bM. E. Department, NIFFT,
Ranchi, India; cMining Machinery Engineering, IIT(ISM), Dhanbad, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Non-linear three dimensional (3-D) finite element analyses (FEA) of Received 14 March 2019
the single lap joints (SLJs) having pre-existing rectangular adhe- Revised 19 May 2019
sion failure in the interface of the strap adherend and the adhe- Accepted 31 May 2019
sive have been carried out. The effect of the size, the shape and
KEYWORDS
the aspect ratio of the pre-existing rectangular adhesion failure on Single lap joint; adhesion
(i) the strength, (ii) the interfacial stresses and (iii) the strain energy failure; virtual crack closure
release rates (SERRs) in the vicinity of the adhesion failure front technique (VCCT); interfacial
have been presented in this research work. The SLJ is subjected to stress; strain energy release
uniformly applied tensile load. The adherends are made with very rate (SERR)
high strength steels and the adhesive is a commercially available
AV119. The analyses of the adhesion failure propagation have
been carried out by sequentially releasing the constraints of the
nodes ahead of the pre-existing adhesion failure front in finite
element model. The SERR values in the vicinity of the adhesion
failure fronts are computed using the virtual crack closure tech-
nique (VCCT) for assessment of the structural integrity of the SLJ.
The strength of the SLJ, the interfacial stresses, and the three
modes of strain energy release rates (SERRs) have been found to
be significantly affected by the shape and size of adhesion failures.
The SERRs and interfacial stresses along the rectangular adhesion
failure front are compared with the corresponding values around
the circular adhesion failure front of same area, pre-existing in the
SLJ. It is observed that the circular and rectangular adhesion fail-
ures of the same area will have dissimilar growth rate and the
mode II is the dominant failure mode. The total strain energy
release rate and the failure strength, computed from the 3-D FEA
of the SLJ is in good agreement with the experimental fracture
toughness of the AV119 adhesive and the experimentally obtained
failure loads, respectively.

1. Introduction
Adhesive bonded SLJ has been used increasingly in the aerospace and chemical industries.
Defects in the form of adhesion failure may be pre-existing due to entrapment of air, dust,

CONTACT Ranjan K. Behera ranjan.beherafme@kiit.ac.in, ranjancet@gmail.com School of Mechanical

Engineering, KIIT University, 751024 Bhubaneswar, India
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2094 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

dirts, and due to a pre-placed sensors in the interface of the adhesive and the adherend
during the manufacturing. The presence of such flaws reduces the load transfer area and
increases the stress concentration effect. So, there is a need to predict the strength and the
structural integrity of the SLJ having pre-existing defect quantitatively to decide whether
the defects can cause catastrophic failure or not. In other words, important aspects such
as (i) How does the strength of the SLJ deteriorate with the increase in the adhesion fail-
ure size upon loading? (ii) How does the strength of the SLJ being effected when the shape
of the adhesion failure changes from circle to rectangle having the same area? and (iii) the
effect of the aspect ratio (i.e. ratio of length to width) of the pre-existing rectangular adhe-
sion on the interfacial stresses, SERR and the strength of the SLJ needed to be known.
Exhaustive experimental works describing the effect of the strength of the steel
adherends (i.e. low, medium and high) on the load carrying capacity of the adhesively
bonded SLJ having pre-existing artificial defects have been presented by Karachalius
et al. [1,2]. They have also investigated the variation of the strength of the adhesively
bonded SLJ when the material properties of the adhesive change from ductile to brittle.
The influence of the shape and size of the pre-embedded rectangular and circular adhe-
sion failures on the structural integrity of the SLJ have been studied.
Some of the most cited closed form solutions in the field of adhesively bonded lap
joints, chronologically developed by several authors available in the literature, are by
Volkersen [3], Goland and Reissner [4], Hart-Smith [5], Adams and Peppiatt [6], da
Silva et al. [7], etc. These solutions are either two dimensional in nature or based on
simplified assumptions. Further, when non-linear geometries like circular adhesion
failure are pre-embedded into the SLJ, the closed form solution does not exist as the
problem become highly complex. Experimental determination of the strength of SLJs is
destructive in nature and need a lot of sophistication. Experimental failure happens
almost abruptly and does not show the location of the initiation of the failure. Though
sophisticated image acquisition device can exactly locate the point of the failure inita-
tion, but it can not capture the failure nucleating site of a subsiding crack front.
However, the 3-D FEA can give an accurate variation of the stress field around the
pre-embedded circular and rectangular adhesion failure, if done carefully. Some of the
3-D FEA of adhesively bonded joints having pre-existing defects have been presented
by authors such as Panigrahi and Pradhan [8], Das and Pradhan [9] and Parida and
Pradhan [10] and [11]. But, the present attempt is a computational way of predicting
the strength and the structural integrity of the adhesively bonded SLJ under tensile
loading having pre-existing rectangular and circular adhesion failures in the interface
of the strap adherend and the adhesive (Figure 1). This method of modeling and ana-
lysis will establish the accuracy of this prediction technique by comparing the FEA
results with the corresponding experimentaly obtained failure strengths. This FEA will
assess the feasibility of placing a rectangular sensor in the overlap region to study the
interfacial physics.
Therefore, the objective of this research has been set to find out:

1. the effect of sizes of through-the-width rectangular adhesion failure on the peel

and interfacial shear stresses responsible for opening, shearing and transverse
shearing mode of failure,
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2095

Figure 1. Schematic of the Single Lap Joint (SLJ) subjected to uniformly applied extension.

2. the effect of sizes of the rectangular adhesion failure (through-the-width) on the

three modes of SERRs around the failure front and also on the strength of the
SLJ. The purpose is to get an indication of the rate of adhesion failure propaga-
tion vis-a-vis establishment of the structural integrity of the SLJ,
3. comparison of the magnitudes of the SERRs and interfacial out of plane peel and
in-plane shear stresses in the vicinity of the pre-existing circular and rectangular
adhesion failure of the same area,
4. to study the effect of the aspect ratio (i.e. length to width) of the pre-existing
rectangular adhesion failure (completely embedded) in the bonded region on
interfacial stresses, SERRs and the strength of the SLJ.

Based on this, suitable size of the sensor, its orientation scheme could be proposed
so that the adhesion failure is still not initiated from the periphery of the pre-placed
sensors, when the SLJ is subjected to tensile loading. This simulation is based on the
previous experimental work of Karachalios et al. [1] and [2].

2. The schematic representation of the SLJ

The schematic of the SLJ showing dimensions of the adherends, loading, and fixing
condition is given in Figure 1. The dimensions of the SLJ are kept the same as that of
the samples of the experiments carried out by Karachalios [1] and [2].
One end of the lap adherend is clamped so, that the three rotational and three trans-
lational degrees of freedom is ceased and the strap adherend is subjected to uniformly
applied extension in steps till the joint fails completely. The adhesion failures (both
rectangular and circular) are pre-embedded centrally in the overlap region i.e. at the
interface of the adhesive and the strap adherend as shown in Figure 2(a). The rectangu-
lar adhesion failure front is (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) in the present analysis as shown in Figure 2(b).
The adhesion failure area of the rectangle is xz mm2 (where x ¼ length (a0 b0 ) and z ¼
width (b0 c0 ) of the rectangular defect). The area of the circular adhesion failure is pr2
(where r ¼ radius of the circular defect) (Figure 2(c)). The material properties of the
AV119 adhesive and the adherend are input to the FE program. These stress-strain
data are obtained by the digitization of the images (as shown in Figure 3(a–c),
2096 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

Figure 2. Schematic of the SLJs having (a) rectangular adhesion failures pre-embedded in the
interface of the strap adherend and the adhesive, (b) zoomed view of a typical rectangular adhe-
sion failure and (c) zoomed view of a typical circular adhesion failure.

Figure 3. (a) True stress vs. true strain curve for adhesive (AV119), (b) shear stress vs. shear strain
curve for adhesive (AV119) and (c) true stress vs. true strain curve for adherend (hard steel) [2].

(Karachalios et al. [1,2])). The Poisson’s ratios are 0.34 and 0.29 for the adhesive and
the adherends, respectively.

3. Finite element modeling of the SLJ having pre-existing

adhesion failures
The FE model dimensions are taken as per the ASTM D1002 specifications and are
given in Figure 1. The isoparametric volume element (C3D8R) having 8 nodes available
with the FE program ABAQUS 6.13 is used to mesh the adhesive and both the
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2097

Figure 4. FE mesh of the SLJ near the overlap region having (a) rectangular adhesion failure
through-the-width and (b) circular adhesion failure.

adherends of the SLJ. The continuity between the elements of the adherends and the
adhesive are maintained by merging the co-existing nodes at the interfaces. The FE
mesh of the SLJ near the overlap region having the rectangular adhesion failure and
the circular adhesion failure is shown in Figure 4(a,b), respectively.
The adhesion failures in the interface of the strap adherend and the adhesives are
introduced in the models by unmerging the co-existing nodes in this region. The
propagation of the adhesion failures is simulated by sequentially removing the con-
straints of the nodes ahead of the pre-existing adhesion failure front in the interfacial
plane. The meshing scheme is an important factor which decides on the accuracy and
computational time of the 3-D FE analysis. The FE mesh near the overlap region of the
SLJ is graded as shown in (Figure 4(a,b)). The grading of the mesh is done as suggested
by Raju et al. [12] and Tay [13]. Mesh convergence studies have been conducted to
ensure the mesh independent results. They have also recommended that the use of
extremely dense mesh near the crack front may create oscillatory stress fields, and sub-
sequently may lead to the non-convergent solution.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Validation of the FE model
The 3-D FE analyses of the SLJs containing pre-embedded through-the-width rect-
angular adhesion failures of sizes (6  25) mm2, (12  25) mm2, (16  25) mm2 and a
failure-free SLJ, under tensile loading have been carried out. The detail procedures are
described in Section 3. The geometry, boundary conditions, loading, material proper-
ties of the adherends and the adhesive, the sizes, and shapes of the adhesion failures
are taken from the experimental work conducted by Karachalios et al. [2]. This is done
to check if the FE predicted load carrying capacity is close to the experimental values
and thereby establishing this method of FE computation. The load-displacement
behaviors of the SLJ having through-the-width rectangular defects computed from the
FE analyses are shown in Figure 5(a). The comparison of the computed failure strength
of the SLJs having pre-existing rectangular adhesion failures of different sizes with the
corresponding experimental values are presented in Figure 5(b) and Table 1. The pre-
dicted failure loads are lower than the experimentally obtained values but are close to
them for all the adhesion failure sizes in the SLJ. The joint strength is found to be
decreasing almost linearly with the increase in pre-embedded adhesion failure area.
2098 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

Figure 5. (a) Load vs. displacement of the SLJs computed from FE analyses (for various rectangular
adhesion failure sizes) and (b) comparision of failure loads of SLJ having rectangular adhesion fail-
ure of varing sizes.

Table 1. Comparison of the failure loads of the SLJ from the experiment [2] with the failure loads
computed from 3 D FEA and from strength of material approach.
Failure Load (kN) of the SLJ
2
Sl No Rectangular defective area (mm ) Experiment [2] Present (FEA) % Error Strength of material approach
1 0 30.76 29.71 3.25 33.37
2 150 (¼ 06  25) 25.00 24.17 3.32 25.87
3 300 (¼ 12  25) 17.54 16.93 3.47 18.37
4 400 (¼ 16  25) 12.28 12.88 4.88 13.37

The bonded area without defect is 667.5 (¼ [overlap area (25  25) þ fillet area
(1.7  25)]) mm2. The bonded areas of the SLJ corresponding to three adhesion failures
considered here in this research are 517.5, 367.5 and 267.5 mm2, respectively. Hence,
the load carrying capacity of this adhesive joint according to the strength of the mater-
ial approach is the product of shear yield strength (ðss Þy ¼ 50MPa; Figure 3(b)) with
the bonded area. Therefore, the load carrying capacity of the SLJ having adhesion fail-
ure of sizes 0 mm2, (6  25) mm2, (12  25) mm2 and (16  25) mm2 would have been
33.37 kN, 25.87 kN, 18.37 kN, and 13.37 kN, respectively. The predicted load carrying
capacity of the SLJs from 3-D FEA is very close to these values and is shown in
Table 1. The difference may be due to non-uniform stress field in the overlap region.

4.2. Variation of the peel stress (ryy ), longitudinal shear stress (syx ) and
transverse shear stress (syz ) in the vicinity of the through-the-width rectangular
adhesion failure front
The interfacial stresses and the three modes of SERR are considered to be an important
parameter for the assessment of the damage propagation in adhesively bonded joints
(Das and Pradhan [9]). So, the interfacial stresses responsible for opening, sliding and
cross sliding modes of failure are the out of plane peel stress (ryy ), in-plane
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2099

Figure 6. Variation of peel stress (yy ) around the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 )
for defect areas (a) (6  25) mm2, (b) (12  25) mm2, and (c) (16  25) mm2.

longitudinal shear stresses (syx ) and in-plane transverse shear stresses (syz ), respect-
ively. The magnitude of these stresses (ryy ;syx and syz ) around the rectangular adhesion
failure front (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) (or, 1-2-3-4-1) in Figure 2(b) computed from FE analysis are
presented in the subsequent section. This will indicate the maximu sixe of the through-
the-width adhesion failure closer to fillet area can be placed in the bonded area of the
SLJ (Figure 1) so that the adhesion failure will not nucleate from the boundary of the
embedded adhesion failure.

4.2.1. Variation of peel stress (yy )

The variation of the peel stress (ryy ) along the failure front (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) of the through-
the-width rectangular adhesion areas (150 mm2, 300 mm2, and 400 mm2) have been
shown in Figure 6(a–c), respectively. The peel stress (ryy ) is compressive along the per-
iphery of all the rectangular pre-embedded adhesion failures and becomes more com-
pressive with the increase in adhesion failure size. The magnitude peel stress (ryy ) is
different in the adhesion failure front b0 c0 and d0 a0 . It is higher at corners. As the peel
stresses are compressive in nature, the opening mode of failure will not initiate from
the pre-existing periphery. The fronts a0 b0 and c0 d0 are nearly peel stress-free.

4.2.2. Variation of longitudinal shear stresses (yx )

The longitudinal shear stress (syx ) along the pre-embedded rectangular adhesion failure
front has been shown in Figure 7. Figures 7(a–c), correspond to the longitudinal shear
stress distributions along the perimeter of the adhesion failure areas 150 mm2,
300 mm2, and 400 mm2, respectively. The magnitude of longitudinal shear stresses (syx )
along the b0 c0 and d0 a0 fronts are more than the other fronts a0 b0 and c0 d0 . The shear
stress (syx ) increases with the increase in adhesion failure size. The maximum shear
strength of the adhesive is about 40 MPa (Figure 7(b)).
Therefore, when the through-the-width rectangular adhesion failure area increases
beyond (16  25 ¼ 400) mm2 the failure may propagate from the periphery of the pre-
embedded adhesion failure. Otherwise, the adhesion failure sizes are subcritical and
shearing mode adhesion failure may initiate and propagate from other locations. The
magnitudes of transverse shear stresses (syz ) are very less as compared to the magni-
tudes of ryy and syx :
2100 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

Figure 7. Variation of longitudinal shear stress (yx ) around the rectangular adhesion failure fronts
(a0 b0 c0 d0 a 0 ) of defective areas (a) (6  25) mm2, (b) (12  25) mm2, and (c) (16  25) mm2.

Figure 8. Variation of failure indices (F.I.) around the periphery of bonded region (abcda) of defect-
ive areas (a) (6  25) mm2, (b) (12  25) mm2, and (c) (16  25) mm2.

The failure strength predicted from FEA of the SLJ corresponds to the load step
where the failure index (F.I.) becomes more than one. According to Panigrahi and
Pradhan [14], the failure index plots are given below. The failure indices in the inter-
facial region are computed using the Equation (1).

2 !2 !2 !2 312
ryy syx syz F:I:  1; failure
Failure index ðF:I:Þ ¼ 4 þ þ 5; ;
ðrt Þy ðss Þy ðss Þy F:I:<1; no failure

(1)

where, ry ¼ out of plane interfacial peel stress responsible for the opening mode of
failure, syx ¼ in-plane longitudinal shear stress responsible for the shearing mode of
failure, and syz ¼ in-plane transverse shear stress responsible for transverse shear mode
of failure. ðrt Þy ¼ tensile strength of the adhesive material, ðss Þy ¼ shear strength of the
adhesive. Figure 8(a–c) represent the failure indices along the perimeter (abcda) of the
pre-embedded through-the-width rectangular adhesion failures of sizes (6  25) mm2,
(12  25) mm2, (16  25) mm2, respectively. All the cases the failure indices are about
one along ‘bc0 closer to the loading side as shown in Figure 8. At the same time the fail-
ure indices decreases with increases the adhesion failure sizes along ‘da’ closer to the
fixed side. Therefore, the failure front ‘bc0 is more critical region than ‘da’.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2101

Figure 9. 3-D VCCT for eight-noded solid elements at the interface between the strap adherend
and adhesive layer.

4.3. Variation of strain energy release rate (SERR) along the through-the-width
rectangular adhesion failure fronts
Strain energy release rate is an established parameter to characterize the driving poten-
tial of the adhesion failure growth studies in fracture mechanics (Das and Pradhan
[15]). The detail procedures of calculation the SERR have been discussed in Rybicki
and Kanninen [15]. The three modes of SERR (GI ;GII , and GIII ) and the total SERR
(GT ) in the vicinity of the adhesion failure fronts for different sizes pre-embedded in
the SLJ have been computed from the 3-D FEA of the SLJ (Figure 2(a)). The calcula-
tion of SERRs (Krueger [16]) at rectangular crack front is simulated with eight-noded
3-D solid element (C3D8R) by VCCT method is illustrated in Figure 9. The mode wise
computation of the SERRs (GI, GII, and GIII) will enable one to understand the individ-
ual mode of failure propagation and are calculated as follows.

1
GI ¼ Yf ðvT vB Þ
2DA
1
GII ¼II Xf ðuT uB Þ (2)
2DA
1
GIII ¼ Zf ðwT wB Þ
2DA

where DA ¼ Da  Da is the area virtually closed, and Da is the length of the elements
at the crack front, Yf, Xf, and Zf, the opening, sliding, and cross sliding mode forces at
the crack front (at node f) , respectively. The corresponding displacements behind the
crack front at the top face of the adhesive layer (T) nodes are denoted vT, uT, and wT,
and at the bottom face of the strap adherend (B) nodes are denoted vB, uB, and wB. All
forces and displacements are calculated from the FEA with respect to the global system.

4.3.1. Mode I SERR (GI) variations along through-the-width rectangular adhesion

failure front pre-existing in the interface of the strap adherend and the adhesive
The variation of the mode I SERR (GI ) along the rectangular adhesion failure front
(a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) of sizes 150 mm2, 300 mm2 and 400 mm2 have been shown in
2102 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

Figure 10. Mode I SERR (GI) distribution along the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) of
defective area (a) (6  25) mm2, (b) (12  25) mm2, and (c) (16  25) mm2.

Figure 11. Mode II SERR (GII) distribution along the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 )
of defective area (a) (6  25) mm2, (b) (12  25) mm2, and (c) (16  25) mm2.

Figure 10(a–c), respectively. The magnitude (GI ) corresponding to the failure point of
the SLJ is very small (along the adhesion failure front d0 a0 and does not exist in the
other front a0 b0 , b0 c0 and c0 d0 of the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (Figure 10). This
indicates that the opening mode failure will have a little chance to propagate from the
rectangular adhesion failure front pre-existing in the interface of the strap adherend
and the adhesive of the SLJ under the described geometry, loading, boundary condition
and material properties.

4.3.2. Mode II SERR (GII) variations along the through-the-width rectangular adhesion
failure front pre-existing in the interface of the strap adherend and the adhesive
The variation of the mode II SERR (GII ) along the rectangular adhesion failure front
(a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) for different adhesion failure sizes 150, 300, 400 mm2 have been shown in
Figure 11(a–c), respectively. The magnitude ‘GII 0 increases with the increase in adhe-
sion failure sizes and is approaching the fracture toughness value of the adhesive
AV119 for the adhesion failure area 400 mm2. The mode II SERR values are different
in failure from b0 c0 and d0 a0 (Figure 11(a–c)). The magnitude of (GII ) is higher in the
front d0 a0 . However, does not exists in the front a0 b0 and c0 d0 . The value of mode II
SERR is higher at the corners of the rectangular adhesion failure.
Mode III SERR (GIII ) variations along the pre-existing rectangular adhesion failure
fronts are very small compared to the magnitude of GI ; GII :
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2103

Figure 12. Total SERR (GT) distribution along the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) of
size (a) (6  25) mm2, (b) (12  25) mm2, and (c) (16  25) mm2.

Figure 13. Schematic representation of rectangular adhesion failures of aspect ratio 0.6, 1, 1.6 hav-
ing same area as that of the circular adhesion failure.

It is concluded that in the case of the SLJ made from high strength steel and AV119
structural adhesive, when the size of the through-the-width adhesion failure is less than
(16  25 ¼ 400) mm2 the failure will never initiate from the pre-existing rectangular
adhesion failure front rather it may initiate from the overlap ends when the joint is
loaded till failure. The variation of total SERR GT ¼ GI þ GII þ GIII is presented in
Figure 12(a–c). The total SERR value is increasing almost linearly as the defect area
increases however, these values are lower than the critical SERR value of the
AV1119 adhesive.

5. Effect of the aspect ratio of pre-embedded rectangular defects on the

structural integrity of the SLJ
This section focuses on the investigation of the influence of the aspect ratio
0 0
(Ra ¼ xz ¼ ab0bc0 as shown in Figure 13) of the pre-embedded rectangular adhesion failures
on the SERR and the strength of the SLJ. The pre-embedded rectangular adhesion fail-
ure is kept to be completely enveloped within the overlapped/bonded region. It is sym-
metrically (central to the bonded area) placed in the interface of the strap adherend
and the adhesive. The area of these rectangular adhesion failures is kept same as that of
the area of circular adhesion failure (Figure 2(c)) of diameter 21.6 mm (area of the cir-
cle ¼p4  ð21:6Þ2 ¼ 366:43mm2 (same as taken by Karachilios et al. [2] in their experi-
ments). Hence, six different 3-D FE analyses of the SLJ with pre-existing rectangular
adhesion failure of aspect ratios (Ra ¼ 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6) have been carried
out. The following observations are made from the FE analyses:
2104 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

Figure 14. Variation of the load carrying capacity of the SLJ having rectagular adhesion failure of
area 366.43 mm2 with varying aspect ratio.

5.1. Influence of aspect ratios of the pre-embedded rectangular defects on the

failure strength of the SLJ)
The load carrying capacity of the SLJs computed from the 3-D FE analyses for varying
aspect ratio of the rectangular adhesion failure have been presented in Figure 13. The
strength of the SLJ decreases as the aspect ratio increases in even though the area of
the adhesion failure is the same (Figure 14). This may be due to the adhesion failure
fronts b0 c0 and d0 a0 becoming closer to the stress concentration region (i.e. close to the
overlapping end). The corners of the rectangular adhesion failure where a sharp
increase of stress and SERR values are observed, approches close to the overlapping
ends. It is also observed that the load carrying capacity of the SLJ having pre-existing
circular adhesion failure is more than the rectangular adhesion failure of the same area.
This may be due to the existence of four sharp corners which are the sources of stress
concentrations in case of rectangular adhesion failure as opposed to the smooth bound-
ary of the circular adhesion failure. The load carrying capacity of the SLJ having a cir-
cular adhesion failure of diameter 21.6 mm computed from the 3-D FE is 14.16 kN as
against the experimentally obtained value of 14.86 kN [2]. Whereas, it is below 14 kN
in case of the SLJ containing pre-embedded rectangular adhesion failures having the
same area but with different aspect ratios (Figure 14).

5.2. Influence of aspect ratio of the pre-existing rectangular adhesion failure

and circular adhesion failure on the interfacial peel stress (ryy ) and longitudinal
shear stress (syx ) of the SLJ
Figures 15 represent the distribution of peel stress (ryy ) and longitudinal shear stress
(syx ) around the pre-embedded rectangular adhesion failure fronts of different aspect
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2105

Figure 15. Variation of peel stress (yy ) around the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 )
in different aspect ratios (a) Ra ¼ 0.6, (b) Ra ¼ 0.8, (c) Ra ¼ 1.0, (d) Ra ¼ 1.2, (e) Ra ¼ 1.4, and (f)
Ra ¼ 1.6.

ratios, respectively. The nature of the peel stress (ryy ) is compressive and small around
the rectangular adhesion failure fronts in most cases (Figure 15(a–e)). However, the
peel stress is higher and close to the limiting value of the adhesive tensile strength
when the aspect ratio is 1.6 (Figure 15(f)). The peel stress (ryy ) is higher in adhesion
front b0 c0 and d0 a0 than the other two fronts. Again, the distribution of peel stress (ryy )
and longitudinal shear stress (syx ) around the pre-embedded circular adhesion failure
fronts of area 366.5 mm2 is shown in Figure 17(a,b), respectively. The peel stress is
compressive in all around the circular failure fronts and its magnitude is maximum at
0 and 180 (Figure 17(a)).
The distribution of longitudinal shear stress (syx ) around the rectangular adhesion
failure of varying aspect ratios is shown in Figure 16. Its values are comparatively
higher at corners. The variation of shear stress is similar for aspect ration 0.6 to 1.4
(Figure 16(a–e)) except for aspect ratio 1.6 (Figure 16(f)), where the magnitude of lon-
gitudinal shear stress (syx ) is comparatively lower. But, the magnitude of this shear
stress (syx ) in SLJ having circular adhesion failure is almost constant around the circu-
lar failure front (Figure 17(b)). This type of non- uniform variation of the interfacial
peel and shear stresses observed may be due to the combined effect of non-co-linear
loading, bending, differential straining, mismatch of Poisson’s ratio, elastic moduli of
adherend and adhesive, and due to the existence of sharp-cornered adhesion failure.

5.3. Influence of aspect ratio of the pre-existing rectangular adhesion on the

SERR of the SLJ
5.3.1. Variation of mode I SERR (GI)
The variation of mode I SERR (GI ) computed from the 3-D FE analyses along the rect-
angular adhesion failure front (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) for aspect ratios 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 is
2106 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

Figure 16. Variation of longitudinal shear stress (yx ) around the rectangular adhesion failure fronts
(a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) in different aspect ratios (a) Ra ¼ 0.6, (b) Ra ¼ 0.8, (c) Ra ¼ 1.0, (d) Ra ¼ 1.2, (e) Ra ¼
1.4 and (f) Ra ¼ 1.6.

Figure 17. Variation of (a) Peel stress (yy ) and (b) Longitudinal shear stress (yx ) around the pre-
embedded circular adhesion failure front in the SLJ.

shown in Figure 18(a–f). The magnitude of GI is small along the adhesion failure fronts
for all the aspect ratios except for aspect ratio 1.6 as compared to the fracture tough-
ness of the adhesive AV119 (i.e. about 530 J/m2 ([17,18])). The GI value is maximum
(i.e. about 43 J/m2) along the adhesion failure front d0 a0 (Figure 18(f)) and is negligible
in other locations along the rectangular adhesion failure front. Higher values of the
SERR are observed at the corners than at other locations. The magnitude of GI (shown
in Figure 19(a)) is maximum at 60 and 300 along the circular adhesion failure fronts
pre-embedded in the interface of adhesive and the strap adherend of the SLJ which is
small in magnitude in comparison to the mode I SERR around the rectangular adhe-
sion failure of aspect ratio 1.6.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2107

Figure 18. Mode I SERR (GI) distribution along the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 )
for aspect ratios (a) Ra ¼ 0.6, (b) Ra ¼ 0.8, (c) Ra ¼ 1.0, (d) Ra ¼ 1.2, (e) Ra ¼ 1.4 and (f) Ra
¼ 1.6.

Figure 19. SERR distribution along the circular adhesion failure fronts (a) mode I SERR (GI),
(b) mode II SERR (GII), (c) mode III SERR (GIII) and (d) total SERR (GT).

5.3.2. Variation of mode II SERR (GII)

The variation of mode II SERR (GII ) computed from the 3-D FE analyses along the
rectangular adhesion failure front (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) is shown in Figure 20(a–f) for aspect
ratios 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6. The magnitude of GII is larger than the (GI ) value
along the rectangular adhesion failure front. The mode II SERR (GII ) have higher mag-
nitudes in the adhesion failure fronts b0 c0 and d0 a0 than the fronts a0 b0 and c0 d0 for rect-
angular adhesion failure area (346.43 mm2) for all the six aspect ratio. The magnitude
of GII along b0 c0 front decreases when the aspect ratio changes from 0.6 to 1.6. This
indicates that the chance of shear failure along b0 c0 decreases and mode I failure
increases for aspect ratio 1.6. Whereas the magnitude of GII along d0 a0 front increases
for aspect ratio 0.6 till 0.8, then decreases and again become higher for aspect ratio 1.6.
The magnitude of GII for aspect ratio of 1.2 and 1.4 is smaller. The GII values in front
b0 c0 is different than d0 a0 . However, in circular adhesion failure fronts the higher GII
value is in between 330 to 30 (or, ± 30 ) which is similar to d0 a0 rectangular front
2108 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

Figure 20. Mode II SERR (GII) distribution along the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a 0 )
in different aspect ratios (a) Ra ¼ 0.6, (b) Ra ¼ 0.8, (c) Ra ¼ 1.0, (d) Ra ¼ 1.2, (e) Ra ¼ 1.4 and (f)
Ra ¼ 1.6.

Figure 21. Variation of the total SERR (GT) distribution along the rectangular adhesion failure fronts
(a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) for different aspect ratios (a) Ra ¼ 0.6, (b) Ra ¼ 0.8, (c) Ra ¼ 1.0, (d) Ra ¼ 1.2, (e) Ra ¼
1.4 and (f) Ra ¼ 1.6.

and between 135 to 225 which is similar to b0 c0 rectangular front as shown in

Figure 21(b).

5.3.3. Variation of mode III SERR (GIII)

The variation of mode III SERR (GIII ) computed from the 3-D FE analyses along the
rectangular adhesion failure front (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 ) is shown in Figure 22(a–f) for aspect
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2109

Figure 22. Mode III SERR (GIII) distribution along the rectangular adhesion failure fronts (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 )
in different aspect ratios (a) Ra ¼ 0.6, (b) Ra ¼ 0.8, (c) Ra ¼ 1.0, (d) Ra ¼ 1.2, (e) Ra ¼ 1.4 and (f)
Ra ¼ 1.6.

ratios 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6. The magnitude of GIII along the adhesion failure
front b0 c0 and d0 a0 is zero whereas along the a0 b0 and c0 d0 the values are substantial. The
magnitude GIII increases with the aspect ratio along the a0 b0 and c0 d0 fronts for all the
six aspect ratios whereas, it is zero in other locations. Spikes are observed at the four
corners i.e. at a0 , b0 , c0 and d0 in the rectangular adhesion failure. The maximum magni-
tude GIII around the rectangular adhesion failure is more than the maximum value of
GIII around the circular adhesion failure of the same area (Figure 19(c)).

5.3.4. Variation of total SERR (GT)

The variation of the total SERR (GT ) (computed from 3-D FE analyses) with the aspect
ratio 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 along the rectangular adhesion failure front (a0 b0 c0 d0 a0 )
is shown in Figure 21(a–f), respectively. The magnitude of GT along the failure front
b0 c0 is greater than the other failure fronts up to aspect ratio 1 and then it gradually
decreases up to aspect ratio 1.6. At the same time GT decreases with increases the
aspect ratio up to 1.4 along the failure front d0 a0 and again increases for aspect ratio
1.6. Higher values of GT are observed at corners of the rectangular adhesion failure
fronts. The magnitude of GT is maximum in between 135 to 225 along with the pre-
embedded circular adhesion failure which is similar location as that of b0 c0 front in
rectangular adhesion failure, as shown in Figure 19(d). The total SERR (GT ) computed
from FEA is around 440 J/m2 whereas the experimental fracture toughness is (530 J/m2,
([17,18])) for the structural adhesive AV119 with steel joint.

6. Conclusions
Three-dimensional FE analyses of the SLJ having pre-embedded rectangular and circu-
lar adhesion failures have been carried out to assess the structural integrity of the joint.
2110 R. K. BEHERA ET AL.

This analysis gives an indication of the maximum dimension of the rectangular

adhesion failure that can be pre-embedded to accommodate any sensor to study the
interfacial phenomenon, that can be placed, so that the nucleation of the adhesion fail-
ure propagation will not initiate from the pre-existing adhesion failure boundary.
However, the load carrying capacity decreases almost linearly with the increase in rect-
angular adhesion failure pre-embedded in the interface of the adhesive and strap
adherend in the SLJ. This linear variation may be restricted to strong steel adherends
and the ductile structural adhesive AV119. The failure loads computed from the 3-D
FEA are lower than the experimentally obtained values but are very close to the corre-
sponding experimental values for all the adhesion failure sizes. This research establishes
that the FEA modeling technique used is accurate method for analyzing similar SLJ
problems. The three modes of SERR, interfacial peel and shear stress around the failure
front b0 c0 and d0 a0 are different indicating a different probability of rate of propagation
of the adhesion failure. The aspect ratio of the pre-embedded rectangular adhesion fail-
ure in the SLJ significantly influence the peel stress, longitudinal shear stress, the three
modes of SERR, and ultimately the failure strength of the SLJ. The strength of the SLJ
having circular adhesion failure existing in the interface of the strap adherend and the
adhesive is found to be better than the rectangular adhesion of the same area. The
strength of the adhesive bonded SLJ having through-the-width rectangular adhesion
failure has better strength than the SLJ having longitudinally oriented adhesion failure
of the same area (for aspect ratio 1.6).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Ranjan K. Behera http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8475-793X

References
[1] Karachalios EF, Adams RD, da Silva L. Single lap joints loaded in tension with high
strength steel adherends. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2013;43:81–95.
[2] Karachalios EF, Adams RD, Da Silva L. Strength of single lap joints with artificial
defects. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2013;45:69–76.
[3] Volkersen O. Die Nietkraftverteilung in zugbeanspruchten\mboxfNietverbindungeng
mit konstanten Laschenquerschnitten. Luftfahrtforschung. 1938;15:41–47.
[4] Goland M, Reissner E. The stresses in cemented lap joints. Trans ASME, J Appl Mech.
1944;6611:A17–A27.
[5] Hart-Smith LJ. Adhesive-bonded single-lap joints. Douglas Aircraft Co., NASA Langley
report CR112236. 1973;1–114.
[6] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. Stress analysis of adhesive-bonded lap joints. J Strain Anal.
1974;9:185–196.
[7] da Silva LFM, das Neves PJC, Adams RD, et al. Analytical models of adhesively bonded
joints-Part II: Comparative study. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2009;29:331–341.
[8] Panigrahi SK, Pradhan B. Adhesion failure propagation in adhesively-bonded single-lap
laminated FRP composite joints. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2007;21:379–398.
 JOURNAL OF ADHESION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2111

[9] Das RR, Pradhan B. Adhesion failure analyses of bonded tubular single lap joints in
laminated fibre reinforced plastic composites. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2010;30:425–438.
[10] Parida SK, Pradhan AK. Effect of material anisotropy on delamination damage in adhe-
sive bonded lap shear joints made with curved laminated FRP composite panels. Iran J
Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng. 2016;40:275–287.
[11] Pradhan AK, Parida SK. 3D FE delamination induced damage analyses of adhesive
bonded lap shear joints made with curved laminated FRP composite panels. J Adhes
Sci Technol. 2013;27:1104–1121.
[12] Raju IS, Crews JH, Aminpour MA. Convergence of strain energy release rate compo-
nents for edge-delaminated composite laminates. Eng Fract Mech. 1988;30:383–396.
[13] Tay T. Characterization and analysis of delamination fracture in composites: an over-
view of developments from 1990 to 2001. Appl Mech Rev. 2003;56:1.
[14] Panigrahi SKP. Three dimensional failure analysis and damage propagation behavior of
adhesively bonded single lap joints in laminated FRP composites. J Reinf Plast Comp.
2007;26:193–201.
[15] Rybicki EF, Kanninen MF. A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors by a
modified crack closure integral. Eng Fract Mech. 1977;9:931–938.
[16] Krueger R. Virtual crack closure technique: History, approach, and applications. Appl
Mech Rev. 2004;57:109.
[17] Lee RJ, Butler JR, Yates T, Davidson R. MTS adhesives project 2 failure modes and cri-
teria. Report No. 5: Anne 1– test methods for adhesive fracture properties. Department
of Trade and Industry, AEA Technology, Harwell, Didcot, United Kingdom. 1997;1–26.
[18] Tomczyk AJ. MTS adhesives project 2 failure modes and criteria. Report No. 5 – test
methods for adhesive fracture properties overall summary. Department of Trade and
Industry, AEA Technology, Harwell, Didcot, United Kingdom. 1997;1–23.