International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 148, Issue 3, pp 261–271 | Cite as

Development of a simple mixed-mode fracture test and the resulting fracture energy envelope for an adhesive bond

Original Paper


Characterizing the fracture energy of bonded adhesive joints over a range of mode mixities often requires special fixtures or a variety of test configurations. By pairing a tapered and a constant thickness adherend, a hybrid double cantilever beam (DCB) specimen is proposed. This asymmetric tapered DCB configuration can be used to determine the fracture energy as a function of mode mixity. As the debond propagates, the relative stiffness of the adherends varies in a systematic manner, resulting in a range of mode mixities from 0° to approximately 20°. Strain energy release rates were obtained using corrected beam theory and a finite element fracture analysis. Single-leg bending tests were used to determine the fracture energy at mode mixity up to 56°. Constant thickness and tapered DCB tests were used to determine the mode I fracture energy. The resulting fracture envelope was constructed in order to show the dependence of the fracture energy on mode mixity for a two part acrylic adhesive.


Adhesively bonded joints Mode mixity Fracture energy envelope Adhesive failure Asymmetric tapered double cantilever beam Two part acrylic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ASTM-D412-98a (1998) Standard test methods for vulcanized rubber and thermoplastic rubbers and thermoplastic elastomers-tension. Annual book of ASTM standards. West Conshohocken, ASTMGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM-D3433-99 (2001) Standard test method for fracture strength in cleavage of adhesives in bonded metal joints. Annual book of ASTM standards. West Conshohocken, ASTM 15.06:225–231Google Scholar
  3. Blackman B, Dear JP et al (1991) The calculation of adhesive fracture energies from double-cantilever beam test specimens. J Mater Sci Lett 10(5): 253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackman BRK, Hadavinia H et al (2003) The calculation of adhesive fracture energies in mode I: revisiting the tapered double cantilever beam (TDCB) test. Eng Fract Mech 70(2): 233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen B, Dillard DA (2002) Crack path selection in adhesively bonded joints. In: Dillard DA, Pocius AV (eds) Adhesion science and engineering-I: the mechanics of adhesion. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen B, Dillard DA et al (2002) Crack path selection in adhesively bonded joints: the roles of external loads and specimen geometry. Int J Fract 114(2): 167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidson BD, Sundararaman V (1996) A single leg bending test for interfacial fracture toughness determination. Int J Fract 78(2): 193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fleck NA, Hutchinson JW et al (1991) Crack path selection in a brittle adhesive layer. Int J Solids Struct 27(13): 1683–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hutchinson JW, Suo Z (1992) Mixed-mode cracking in layered materials. Adv Appl Mech 29: 63–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanninen MF (1973) An augmented double cantilever beam model for studying crack propagation and arrest. Int J Fract 9: 83–92Google Scholar
  11. Liang YM, Liechti KM (1995) Toughening mechanisms in mixed-mode interfacial fracture. Int J Solids Struct 32(6–7): 957–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liechti KM, Chai YS (1992) Asymmetric shielding in interfacial fracture under inplane shear. J Appl Mech-Trans ASME 59(2): 295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Parvatareddy H, Dillard DA (1999) Effect of mode-mixity on the fracture toughness of Ti-6Al-4V/FM-5 adhesive joints. Int J Fract 96(3): 215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pohlit DJ, Dillard DA et al Mixed mode dynamic fracture testing of bonded composite beams. J Adhes Adhes, in preparationGoogle Scholar
  15. Russel AJ, Street KN (1985) Moisture and temperature effects on the mixed mond delamination fracture of unidirectional graphite/epoxy. In: Johnson WS (eds) STP 876 delamination and debonding of materials. ASTM, Philadelphia, pp 349–370Google Scholar
  16. Singh HK, Chakraborty A et al Mixed mode fracture testing of adhesively-bonded wood using a novel dual actuator load frame. Wood Fiber Sci, in reviewGoogle Scholar
  17. Sundararaman V, Davidson BD (1997) An unsymmetric double cantilever beam test for interfacial fracture toughness determination. Int J Solids Struct 34(7): 799–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thouless MD (1990) Fracture of a model interface under mixed-mode loading. Acta Metallurgica Et Materialia 38(6): 1135–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams JG (1993) A review of the determination of energy-release rates for strips in tension and bending. 1. Static solutions. J Strain Anal Eng Des 28(4): 237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering Science and MechanicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations