Fatigue damage of adhesive

layers
experiments and
by
models.
Tomas Walander, Alexander Eklind, Thomas
Carlberger, Ulf Stigh

Tamonash Jana
001411202019

Introduction
Generation of macroscopic cracks due to fatigue.

Use of adhesive materials in Industry.

Adhesives
1. DOW
Betamate5096
(BM5096)
. A Rubber Based
Stiff Structural
Adhesive
.Epoxy Resin
.Nominal Layer
Thickness- 0.3
mm

2. DOW BetaForce
2850 (BF2850)
Polyurethane
(PUR) based
Adhesive
Soft modular
Adhesive
Nominal Layer
Thickness- 1 mm

Methodology
1st Approach - Paris law combined with the
Energy Release Rate G :
For a linear elastic specimen with a single crack tip
loaded with a prescribed load F
(1)

b=width of the specimen, Complience C=/F,

a=Crack length

As suggested by Berry(1963)
(2)
p,q=Compliance calibration parameters

Now

(3)

Substituting dC/da in eqn

(1)

(4)

 Experimental values of , F, and number of

elapsed
Cycles N are obtained.
Using Eqtn (3) and (4), G vs. a is evaluated for
each experiment
Hence the parameters c and n of Paris Law
are evaluated.
(5)

The relation used for determining

da/dN using experimental data is
(6)
afit =fitted crack
length

2nd Approach - Damage Mechanics Approach :

The damage evolution law is given by
(7)
D=Damage variable, = Peel stress, kn= elastic
stiffness ;
alternatively
(8)

, =Damage law parameters, th = fatigue

threshold value in stress
8

 The damage laws are implemented as a User

Material subroutine (UMAT) in Abaqus with the
cohesive elements to simulate the experiments.
The model does only consider damage in peel
loading.

Experiment

10

 Specimens are manufactured according to the

dimensions in the table below.

By repeated experiments, the static stressdeformation relations for Mode I loading are first
determined for each adhesive.
For the rubber adhesive, the method of
Andersson and Stigh (2004) is used; for the PUR
adhesive, the method of Tamuzs et al. (2004) is
used.
11

Stress-deformation relations for Rubber

adhesive

12

Stress-deformation relations for PUR

adhesive

13

A fatigue test rig is developed consisting of a

solid bar with six individual loads cells.
The rig is mounted in a servo hydraulic tensile
test machine.
The experiments are controlled with the initial
value of Load ratio=0.1
The experiments are performed at 4 Hz for up to
three million load cycles.

14

Experimental data and simulations of F vs N

for Rubber adhesive

15

Experimental data and simulations of F vs N

for PUR adhesive

16

Evaluated a vs. N for Rubber adhesive

17

Evaluated a vs. N for PUR adhesive

18

Evaluated G vs. N for Rubber adhesive

19

Evaluated G vs. N for PUR adhesive

20

Result Analysis and Parameter Identification

The end value of G is used as an engineering
estimate of the threshold value Gth for fatigue crack
growth.
The corresponding threshold value in stress th is
determined as the value of stress corresponding to
the point where G= Gth.
The parameters and in Eq. (8) are determined
by fitting results from
numerical simulations to the experimental results
in a log-log plot of (da/dN) vs. G.

21

Parameters obtained by evaluation

22

Conclusion
Fracture mechanics using Paris law provides
simpler parameter estimation than damage
mechanics approach.
The local modelling of fatigue damage using
damage
mechanics provides a more physical model of the
fatigue properties.
The experimental results contain substantial
scatter for the rubber based adhesive. Thus, a large
number of repeated experiments are necessary to
give useful data and properties.

23

Thank You
24