Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313823983
CITATIONS READS
0 188
1 author:
Martin Brandtner-Hafner
FRACTURE ANALYTICS, Austria
4 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Interface Fracture Mechanics and Healing of Wood-Adhesive-Composites at Mode I, II, III Loading
View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Brandtner-Hafner on 18 February 2017.
M.H. Brandtner-Hafnera*
a
BRANDTNER-HAFNER Fracture Analytics, Raiffeisenstraße 11/4/5, 7072 Mörbisch am See, Austria
* Contact person: info@brandtnerhafner.com
www.fractureanalytics.com
ABSTRACT
For adhesives, the prevailing situation shows that material parameters obtained from popular standardised
tensile strength and peel tests cannot be used to make fracture mechanical statements. Unfortunately, they
merely giving the maximum bonding strength of the adhesively bonded composite. Specifically, since they
are pure measures assuming continuum mechanics, they are not appropriate for choosing the right adhesive
under fracture mechanical aspects. Furthermore, popular fracture mechanical tests such as DCB or ENF do
not take account the complex and non-linear nature of industrial adhesives, which leads to misleading
results. To overcome such limitations, an innovative fracture testing method was newly applied enabling
stable crack propagation behaviour after maximum load has been exceeded. This in turn leads to an
understanding of interface fracture mechanisms and therefore leads to fruitful conclusions of how to choose
the best adhesive/adherend system.
KEYWORDS:
Interface Fracture Behaviour, Adhesively Bonded Composites, Fracture Energy, Adhesive Selection
For this study, this was done for all three modes they are not very representative in terms of
of crack separation according to Irwin [5] shown describing real fracture mechanisms. As a fact,
in figure 1 below: they represent just a simplification of damage
reality occurring and therefore are not
appropriate for damage analysis of adhesively
bonded composites [4].
The major benefit over stress intensify factor K According to the ASTM D5573 standard,
(SIF) and strain energy release rate Gc is the locations of fracture can be categorized as
independence of crack geometry as well as the follows [13]:
ability to deal with non-linearity effects
appearing in a large damage zone compared to (1) Adhesive layer (cohesive failure):
specimen size. Since the above mentioned cases in this case, the adhesive is weak.
are just dealing with linear-elastic components, (i.e. A and B),
2
INTERFACE FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES:
A NOVEL EVALUATION APPROACH FOR ADHESIVE SELECTION
Symposium on Innovations in
Dr. Martin BRANDTNER-HAFNER Adhesives and their Applications
Fracture Mechanics Professional Munich, Germany, February 14-15, 2017
(2) Interface (interfacial failure): adherends (white and grey) and a starter notch
in this case, the adhesive bonding is weak. has been created.
(i.e. C)
(3) Mixed failure: (1) + (2). (i.e. D and E)
(4) Adherends or its surface layer
(adherend failure). (i.e. F)
3
INTERFACE FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES:
A NOVEL EVALUATION APPROACH FOR ADHESIVE SELECTION
Symposium on Innovations in
Dr. Martin BRANDTNER-HAFNER Adhesives and their Applications
Fracture Mechanics Professional Munich, Germany, February 14-15, 2017
4
INTERFACE FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES:
A NOVEL EVALUATION APPROACH FOR ADHESIVE SELECTION
Symposium on Innovations in
Dr. Martin BRANDTNER-HAFNER Adhesives and their Applications
Fracture Mechanics Professional Munich, Germany, February 14-15, 2017
5
INTERFACE FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES:
A NOVEL EVALUATION APPROACH FOR ADHESIVE SELECTION
Symposium on Innovations in
Dr. Martin BRANDTNER-HAFNER Adhesives and their Applications
Fracture Mechanics Professional Munich, Germany, February 14-15, 2017
6
INTERFACE FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES:
A NOVEL EVALUATION APPROACH FOR ADHESIVE SELECTION
Symposium on Innovations in
Dr. Martin BRANDTNER-HAFNER Adhesives and their Applications
Fracture Mechanics Professional Munich, Germany, February 14-15, 2017
figure 8, it is noticeable that both properties may setting introduced by [4] on adhesively bonded
often oppose each other. This means, that high composites.
tensile strength does not automatically lead to
high fracture resistance and vice versa. As a final statement, more future emphasis
should be laid on establishing a global fracture
This remarkable effect is throwing new light into mechanical standard for industrial adhesives
preconceived opinions namely “the higher the and bonded composites in order to obtain clear
bonding strength the better the adhesive”. results so that the cracking behaviour could be
As this is not true in terms of cracking behaviour, addressed more realistically.
prevailing dogmas in engineering should be
forced to be corrected by generating a “fracture
mechanical conscience” in the design and ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
material selection process.
This paper is based upon the doctoral thesis of
6. SUMMARY the author Martin Brandtner-Hafner [4]. As this
thesis is currently restricted due to patent
Summarising the findings, following conclusions applications, no further detailed information on
can be drawn by the author: the test setup can be given.
1) Conventional material parameters, such as For the interested reader, further information
tensile strength, Young’s modulus, etc. are can be requested directly by the author by e-mail
not sufficient for characterising material at info@brandtnerhafner.com or via web at
behaviour of industrial adhesives. www.fractureanalytics.com.
2) Pull-out tests [1,2] are not appropriate to
describe cracking behaviour of industrial
adhesives and bonded composites. REFERENCES
3) Fracture mechanics indeed may be applied,
however, there are still too many rival [1] ASTM D897-08(2016), Standard Test
streams and theories not able to explain Method for Tensile Properties of Adhesive
distinct questions satisfactorily. Also, Bonds, ASTM International, West
precaution is required in using the Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
terminology and syntax of “fracture energy”,
as in literature there is still much confusion [2] DIN EN 14293:2006-10, Adhesives -
about the correct meaning and definition Adhesives for bonding parquet to subfloor -
[4]. Test methods and minimum requirements,
4) If fracture mechanics is used, still improperly Beuth, Berlin, 2016.
approaches are applied, for example linear
elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) for [3] A. Hillerborg, M. Modéer, P.-E. Petersson,
adhesives and bonded composites Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in
[6,7,8,9]. concrete by means of fracture mechanics and
5) As a matter of fact, still a multitude of finite elements, Cement and Concrete Research
research and testing is done based on 6(6), 773-781, 1976.
setups with questionable results, such as
DCB [20] or ENF [21] methods critically [4] M.H. Brandtner-Hafner, Interface fracture
reviewed in [22,23]. mechanics and healing of wood-adhesive-
composites at mode I, II, III loading, Doctoral
Finally, it is time to review standardised and still Thesis, Vienna University of Technology, 2016.
dominating fracture mechanical testing
methods. To address inconsistencies, this study [5] G.R. Irwin, Handbuch der Physik, Vol. VI,
was the first applying an innovative stable test p. 49, Springer, Berlin, 1958.
7
INTERFACE FRACTURE BEHAVIOUR OF INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES:
A NOVEL EVALUATION APPROACH FOR ADHESIVE SELECTION
Symposium on Innovations in
Dr. Martin BRANDTNER-HAFNER Adhesives and their Applications
Fracture Mechanics Professional Munich, Germany, February 14-15, 2017
[6] S. Ammann, P. Niemz, Mixed-mode fracture concrete, Materials and structures 18(4), 291-
toughness of bond lines of PRF and PUR 296, 1985.
adhesives in European beech wood,
Holzforschung 69(4), 415-420, 2015. [17] G.R. Irwin, J.A. Kies, Critical energy release
rate analysis of fracture strength, Welding
[7] P.S. Watson, S. Clauss, S. Ammann, P. Journal Research Supplement, 33, 193–8, 1954
Niemz, Fracture Properties of Adhesive Joints
under Mechanical Stresses, Wood Research [18] S. Timoshenko, History of strength of
58(1), 43-56, 2013. materials, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953.
[8] B. Blackman, A. Kinloch, Fracture tests on [19] M. Sakai, R.C. Bradt, Fracture toughness
structural adhesive joints, European Structural testing of brittle materials, International
Integrity Society 28, 225-267, 2001. Materials Reviews, 38(2), 53-78, 1993.
[9] S. Azari, M. Eskandarian, M. Papini, J.A. [20] ASTM D5528-13, Standard Test Method for
Schroeder, J.K. Spelt, Fracture load predictions Mode I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of
and measurements for highly toughened epoxy Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix
adhesive joints, Engineering Fracture Mechanics Composites, ASTM International, West
76(13), 2039-2055, 2009. Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[10] D. Gross, T. Seelig, Bruchmechanik: Mit [21] ASTM D 7905-14, Determination of the
einer Einführung in die Mikromechanik, 4. Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of
Auflage, Springer, Berlin, 2007. Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix
Composites, ASTM International, West
[11] L. Banks-Sills, Interface fracture mechanics: Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
theory and experiment, International Journal of
Fracture 191(1-2), 131-146, 2015. [22] J.J.L. Morais, M.F.S.F. de Moura, F.A.M.
Pereira, J. Xavier, N. Dourado, M.I.R. Dias,
[12] ASTM D5573-99(2012), Standard Practice J.M.T. Azevedo, The double cantilever beam test
for Classifying Failure Modes in Fiber- applied to mode I fracture characterization of
Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Joints, ASTM cortical bone tissue, Journal of the Mechanical
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012. Behavior of Biomedical Materials 3(6), 446-453,
2010.
[13] M. Afendi, T. Teramoto, H.B. Bakri,
Strength prediction of epoxy adhesively bonded [23] D.O. Adams, Fracture mechanics testing of
scarf joints of dissimilar adherends, International composites, CompositesWorld 1(2016), Article,
journal of adhesion and adhesives 31(6), 402- Online,
411, 2011. http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/fract
ure-mechanics-testing-of-composites
[14] T. Cordes, Mechanische Eigenschaften von
Grenzschichten zwischen zementgebundenen
Materialien, Doctoral Thesis, University of
Innsbruck, 2013.