Pergamon
lnt. J. Solids Structures Vol. 35, NO. 12, pp. 11631185. 1998 © 1998Elsevier Science Ltd All rightsreserved. Printed in Great Britain 00207683/98$19.00 + .00 PII: S00207683(97)000978
IMPROVED 
THEORETICAL 
SOLUTIONS 
FOR 

ADHESIVE 
LAP 
JOINTS 
M. Y. TSAIt
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 240610219, U.S.A.
D. W. OPLINGER
Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405, U.S.A.
and
J. MORTON
Structural Materials Center, Defense Evaluation and Research Agency, Farnborough, Hampshire, GUI4 6TD, U.K.
(Received 7 April 1996; in revised form 24 March 1997)
A~traetImproved theoretical solutions for adhesively bonded single and doublelap joints are proposed. The classical theories ofVolkersen/de Bruyne's solution for doublelap joints, Volkersen's, Goland and Reissner's solutions for singlelap joints, which neglect adherend shear deformations, are used as the bases for the present analyses. The assumption of linear shear stress distributions through the thickness of the adherends is adopted in the analyses. The improved solutions are justified by comparing with the original theoretical solutions, and experimental and numerical results. It is shown that the improved solutions provide a better prediction for the adhesive shear distributions and maximum values, particularly in the case of fiber composite adherends. The effects of the adherend shear deformations on the adhesive shear distributions are presented and the relevant parameters are identified and discussed. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
The use of adhesive bonding joints in loadbearing structures is of great interest to the aerospace and automotive, as well as the wood and plastics industries, as a result of time and cost savings, high corrosion and fatigue resistance, crack retardance and good damping characteristics. In order to satisfy safety and durability requirements, stress analyses have to be conducted in joint design. Stress analyses are readily performed through numerical analyses such as finite element method. However, theoretical analyses are more effective for identifying key parameters. The development of theoretical models of the adhesive joints has taken over five decades. For singlelap joints, Volkersen (1938) first proposed a simple shear lag model based on the assumption of onedimensional barlike adherends with only shear defor mation in the adhesive layer. Later, Goland and Reissner (1944) postulated a beamon elasticfoundation model, simulating the joint as consisting of two beams bonded with a shear and transverse normaldeformable adhesive layer. HartSmith (1973a) extended the Goland and Reissner model to treat joints with elasticplastic adhesives. The emergence of the electronic packaging industry has generated additional interest in adhesive bonding technology. Recent contributions from this sector include Suhir (1986, 1989) who provided a beamlike solution for thermalinduced bimetal interfacial stresses by taking into account transverse interfacial compliance of the strips, and Suhir (1994) who provided a theoretical analysis of cylindrical double lap shear joints. Other recent contributions include Delale et al. (1981) who developed twodimensional closed form solutions for bonded joints, and
Lin and Lin
(1993) who derived a finite element model of singlelap adhesive joints. Oplinger
? Address for correspondence: Tjing Ling Industrial Research Institute, National Taiwan University, 130 Keeling Road, See. III, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
1163
1164 M.Y. Tsai et al.
(1994) developed a layered beam theory to investigate the effect of adherend deflection on the adhesive stress distributions. Tsai and Morton (1994) evaluated theoretical solutions using nonlinear finite element analyses, and resolved some controversies and inconsistencies between the theories. Tsai and Morton (1995) also performed experimental analysis to verify the nonlinear deformations of the singlelap joints, and adhesive stress distributions. De Bruyne (1944) adapted Volkersen's singlelap theory for the doublelap joints (referred to as Volkersen/de Bruyne in the present study). HartSmith (1973b) extended the Volkersen/de Bruyne model to include adhesive plasticity and adherend thermal mismatch. Of the above models and analyses, the Volkersen and Goland and Reissner solutions for singlelap joints, and Volkersen/de Bruyne solution for doublelap joints are most widely used. The objectives of this investigation are to improve the classical solutions of double and singlelap joints by incorporating with the adherend shear deformations, to verify the proposed theories through comparison with experimental and numerical results, and, finally, to study the effect of adherend shear on the adhesive stress distributions.
ADHEREND SHEAR DEFORMATION
Configurations and deformations of double and singlelap joints modeled in the classical theoretical solutions are shown in Fig. 1. For the doublelap joint shown in Fig. 1(a), Volkersen/de Bruyne modeled the adherends as the bars which are allowed to deform, in the longitudinal direction, uniformly through the thickness of the adherends. The adhesive layer was considered to be a shear spring carrying only the shear stresses needed to transfer the longitudinal forces from the inner to the outer adherends. For the singlelap joint, Goland and Reissner improved Volkersen's model [in Fig. l(b)] by treating the adherends as beams, and the adhesive layer as shear plus transverse normal springs, shown in Fig. 1 (c).
ffJ
J
JJJ
(a) 1 D bar model, Volkersen
1938/de Bruyne 1944
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
i
(b)
1 D bar model, Volkersen 1938
(c) 1 D beam model, Goland and Reissner 1944
Fig. 1. Configurationsand deformations of theoretical models: (a) 1D bar model (Volkersen, 1938; de Bruyne, 1944) for doublelapjoint; (b) 1D bar model (Volkersen, 1938) for singlelap joint ; and (c) ID beam model (Goland and Reissner, 1944) for singlelapjoint.
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints
]'/2
"1"/2
1165
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2. Experiment (moirr)deterrnined adherend and adhesive (horizontal) deformations for doublelap joints; (a) with graphiteepoxy quasiisotropic adherends; (b) with graphiteepoxy unidirectional adherends; (c) adherend and adhesive (horizontal) deformations of theoretical model [1D bar model (Volkersen, 1938 ; de Bruyne, 1944)].
Shear deformations in the adherends are ignored (or excluded) in the models mentioned above, possibly due to the relatively small values compared to longitudinal normal defor mations in some cases, or due to the complexity of formulations. As mentioned earlier, the adhesive layer can sustain significant shear stresses during load transfer. These large shear stresses would also be present at the adherend surfaces adjacent to the adhesive layer for shear stress equilibrium at the interface. These shear stresses would cause the adherend shear deformations, especially for adherends with relatively low transverse shear modulus such as in the case of laminated composite adherends. Experimental evidence for double lap joints (Tsai et al., 1996b), shown in Fig. 2, indicates that the longitudinal deformations of the bar (or beam) like adherends in theoretical model, in Fig. 2(c), are very different from the case of adherends with significant shear deformations, shown in Fig. 2(a, b). It is noted that Fig. 2(a, b) represents quasiisotropic ([0/90/45/45]2,) and unidirectional ([0] ~6) laminated composite doublelap joints. Thus, adherend shear deformations should be included in the theoretical models. Schematics of the deformations of the joints shown in Fig. 3 represent those including adherend shear deformations for double and singlelap joints. The deformations of the joints in Fig. 3 are more realistic than those in Fig. 1. So that, the associated models will be expected to result in better solutions for analyzing adhesive joints.
Formulation
DOUBLELAP JOINTS
Consider a doublelap joint with geometry and material parameters, shown in Fig. 4. The length of the overlap is 2c. The thicknesses of the outer and inner adherends are to and ti, respectively. Eo and Go areelastic modulus (in the longitudinal direction) and shear
modulus (in the transverse direction) for the
outer adherends, and Ei and G i are the
_{6}_{6} M. Y. Tsai et
al.
.. 
~ I _. ~I ~!l '
1D 

i i 
i 
t 
i 
i 
(b) 1D bar with shear deformation
(c) 1D beam with shear deformation
Fig. 3. Configurations and deformations of theoretical models including the shear deformations of adherends : (a) 1D bar model for doublelap joint ; (b) ID bar model for singlelap joint ; and (c) 1D beam model for singlelap joint.
DoubleLap Joint
Tl2=2C~vg 
_{]}_{9} 
_{C} 
,l'•c ^{x} 

E* Go 
~/~J_to 

B GI ~ 
I~tl  
~T,.,4CXavg 

T/2 
~ 
I 
EoGo 
]~'to 

dx 

To .~ 
= 
To + 
dTo 

_ 
1;cdx 

~c dx 

_{T}_{i} 
Ti + dTi 

~:c dx 

"co dx 

To41~~"}I~ 
To + 
dTo 
Fig. 4. Geometry
and material parameters of the doublelap joint, and an elementary model.
1D bar
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints
adherend shear stress
adherend displacement
1167
~c dx
'~'~ e
~c
dx
tu'
~'1:c
1;~0
,,
Uic
Fig. 5. An assumption of a linear shear stress (strain) distribution through the thickness ofadherends.
corresponding properties of the inner adherent. Gc and q are the adhesive shear modulus
and thickness.
T is an applied force per unit width. To and Ti represent longitudinal forces
per unit width acting at the outer
and inner adherends, respectively, r,vg is the average
adhesive shear stress over the bond line. That is :
"r.~g =
2c
"co dx =
c
4c
(1)
where z~ is adhesive shear stress. Following the notation in Fig. 4, the equilibrium equations for the basic elements of the outer and inner adherends can be written as :
dTo 

 
+ 
~ 
= 
0, 

dx 

dT~ 

 
 
2"re 
= 
0. 

dx 
(2)
(3)
Shear deformations of the adherends are incorporated by considering the kinematics
of the basic elements for the outer and inner adherends are illustrated in Fig.
5.
A
linear
shear stress (strain) distribution through the thickness of the adherend is assumed. Thus, the adherend shear To for the outer adherend and zi for the inner adherend can be expressed
as
Zo =~o y 
(4a) 

and 

2y"~ 

'17i 
= 
"Cc 
1 
 
~ii 
] 
(4b) 

where y' 
(y") is a local coordinate 
system with the 
origin at the 
top 
surface of the outer 

(inner) adherend. Equations (4a) and (4b) are based on zero shear stresses at the top surface 

of the outer adherend (i.e. at y' = 0) and at the center of the inner adherend (i.e. at 

y"  ti/2), and ~o = zc aty' = to and z i = 
"t"c aty" = 0. Then with a linear material constitutive 
1168 M.Y.
Tsai et
al.
relationship the adherend shear strain 70 for the outer adherend and 7~ for the inner adherend
are written as 

~c 

~o = ~TY' Ooto 
(5a) 

and 

gi 
 
Gi 
1  ~ii//. 
(5b) 
The longitudinal displacement functions Uo for the outer adherend and ui for the inner
adherend are given by
and
Uo(y') = Uos+ 
7o(f)df 
= Uo~,+ fG~otoy 

ui(y") = 
u~i + j0 
?i07') d))" = 
u~i + Gii 
y' 
~i,/ 
(6a)
^{(}^{6}^{b}^{)}
where Uos represents the displacement at the top surface of the outer adherend and uci is the
adhesive displacements at the interface between the adhesive and inner adherend. Note
that, due to the perfect bonding of the joints, the displacements are continuous at the
interfaces between the adhesive and adherends. As a result, the uc~ should be equivalent to
the inner adherend displacement at the interface and U¢o (the adhesive displacement at the
interface between the adhesive and outer adherend) should be the same as the outer
adherend displacement at the interface. Based on eqn (6a), the Uco can be expressed as
U~o = 
Uo(y' = 
to) 
= 
Uo~ + 

Using eqn (7), eqn (6a) can be rewritten as 

t~ 
/2 

uoO") 
= 
Uco + 
~G~tto) 
tcto 

 2Go 
(7) 
tcto 
(6c) 
2Go" 
The longitudinal resultant forces, To and Tj, for the outer and inner adherends, respectively,
are
and
To
=
ao(y') dy'
T~ =
2
f ti/2
do
a,(y") dy"
(Sa)
(8b)
where ao and ai are longitudinal normal stresses for the outer and inner adherends, respec
tively. By transforming these stresses into functions of displacements and substituting eqns
(6b) and (6c) into the displacements, eqns (8a) and (8b) can be rewritten as
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints
ro = to J0 Tx Oy = Eoto \
dx
3Go dx]
and
~=2E,
/W2 du
j °
~xdY,,
= Eiti
:duci
ti
\dx+~x)
dzc'~
_{•}
The adhesive shear
strain (?~) is simply defined as
ro =
~(,,o,
Uoo).
The adhesive shear stress can be written as
G~
'['c ~ ~(UciUco)"
)7
1169
(9a)
(9b)
(lO)
(11)
By differentiating eqn (11) with respect to x, the equation becomes
dx
r/
\dx
dx
]"
(12)
Substituting eqns (9a) and (9b) into eqn (12) leads to
d%dx
Qr/
Ti
Eiiti
To
Eol o
3Go) dxJ"
(13)
By differentiating eqn (13) with respect to x and substituting eqns (2) and (3) into the differential equation, the equation becomes
dx:

)7 LE, t, +

~
+ 3Go//dx: J"
By rearranging eqn (14), one obtains
1+~
~i+~o)]~.
~i,i + eo,:
_{°}
^{(}^{1}^{4}^{)}
(15)
which governs the adhesive shear stress. It can be rewritten as
where
d2xc _f12% = dx 2
0
(16)
ll70
M.Y.
Tsai
et al.
l+
+ 3oo/_1
The parameter fl is redefined by two parameters )~ (elongation parameter) and ~ (shear deformation parameter), as shown as
l? 
= ~2;2 
(18) 

where 

= 
 
+ 
, 
(19) 

~:= 
1+ 
+3~)] 
" 
(20) 
The closedform solution proposed by Volkersen/de Bruyne can be recovered by assuming that adherend shear deformations are zero, or that adherend shear moduli, Gi and Go are infinitely large, and ~ = 1. The general solution for the governing eqn (16) is
L = A sinh(flx) + Bcosh(flx)
(21)
where A and B are constant coefficients determined from the boundary conditions. The boundary conditions for this doublelap joint are :
T 

To  
}  
2CZavg, 
Ti = 
0 
at 
x 
= 
 
c 
(22a) 

To = 
0, 
T~ = T 
= 
4CZavg 
at 
x 
= 
c. 
(22b) 

The average shear stress along the entire bond line is" 

r~,vg = 2c J 
zc dx 
 
4c" 
(23) 

c 

Hence, 
the 
A and B are obtained 
as 

B 
flcz,,~g 

sinh(flc) 
(24) 

and 

Eiti 

flcr~g 
1  
2Eoto 
/ 
• 
(25) 

A 
 
cosh(flc) 
l + 
2Eoto d 
Thus, the adhesive shear stress closedform solution is given by eqn (21) with the constant coefficients A and B, from eqns (25) and (24), and the parameter fl defined in eqn (17). The
Improved theoretical solutions
for adhesive lap joints
1171
maximum adhesive shear stress will occur at one end or the other (i.e. at x = c or x = depending upon the joint parameters.

c)
Verification and parametric study
Two doublelap joints with graphiteepoxy laminated adherends were used in an evaluation of the theory. The joints had either unidirectional or quasiisotropic composite adherends. For the unidirectional joint, a [0],6 layup is used for the inner adherend and [0]8 for the outer adherends. For the quasiisotropic joint, a [0/90/45/451zs layup is for the inner adherend and [0/90/45/45]s for the outer adherends. The geometrical parameters are :
2c=
12.7mm,
to=lmm,
ti=2mm,
and
~/=0.15mm.
The relevant material properties are :
Adherends unidirectional jointEo = 137 GPa, Go = 4.83 GPa; quasiisotropic jointEo 50 GPa, Go = 3.80 GPa. Adhesive Gc = 0.91 GPa.
It is noted that Go for the quasiisotropic adherend is calculated by averaging Go for all laminae, i.e. [0], [90], [45] and [45], which are determined from the lamina threedimen sional (3D) constitutive stiffness matrix. The value of the adhesive shear modulus G~ is an epoxy designed for EA9628NW and taken from the manufacturer's data. The experimental analysis was performed using highsensitivity moir6 interferometry and the resulting data have been confirmed by comparing the data with twodimensional (2D) finite element results (Tsai et al., 1996b). The experimental values of the adhesive shear strains, shown in Fig. 6, for these two joints are compared with the onedimensional (lD) Volkersen/de Bruyne solution. It is apparent that the Volkersen/de Bruyne solution overestimates the nonuniformity of adhesive shear strain (stress) distribution and maximum adhesive shear strain (stress) for the unidirectional and quasiisotropic double lap joints. Analytical data from the present theory (TOM) are compared with those from
3.5
I_ 
2c 
_j 

I 
iy 
I 

3 
~ 
r/z~I 
1 
. 
X 
IllI 
I 

"' 
" 
,:,,i 
/t 

; .= V 
,.o 
~o,~.~.°,. ~,no C°.,.,,,o<ro~,°~ I, ! 

"~" 
.. 
'i.'x 
,o vo,~.,,,.n,<,,, ~,u>,n,, C"n'<""<<'<>""~/.,~ 

>'° 
": 
/ 
.. 
0, <o°,0,.o<,o°=,> .. 
. 

0.5 

0 
i 
l 
I 

' 
0.5 
0 
0.5 
1 

x/¢ 
Fig. 6. Comparisons ofmoir6 and theorydetermined normalized adhesive shear strain distributions for unidirectional and quasiisotropic doublelap joints. (Note the theory is based on ]D bar model of Volkersen/de Bruyne.)
X/e
Fig. 7. Comparison of moirr and improved theorydetermined
normalized adhesive shear strain
distributions for
the
unidirectional and quasiisotropic doublelap joints. (Note the TOM represents present 1D bar model including the adherend shear deformations.)
the moir6 experiment. These comparisons are presented in Fig. 7. The prediction from the
present theory is more consistent with the experimental results for both unidirectional and
quasiisotropic doublelap joints, than those of Volkersen/de Bruyne. This implies that
adherend shear deformation is an important factor influencing the adhesive shear stress
distribution, especially for the joints with relatively low transverse shear stiffness such as
with laminated fiber composite adherends.
The'effect of adherend transverse shear stiffness on the maximum adhesive shear stress
can be examined through a parametric study. For simplicity, only a balanced doublelap
joint is considered. The geometry and material parameters for the balanced doublelap
joint are taken as :
Ei=Eo=E,
Gi=Go=G,
ti=2to=2t.
(26ac)
Substituting parameters into eqns (19) and (20), the elongation (2) and shear deformation
(~) parameters can be written as
2 =
~
ct 
1
(27)
(28)
Since the double joint is balanced, maximum adhesive shear will occur at both ends (at
x
=
c and x
=
 c) simultaneously. The maximum adhesive shear stress (max re) is :
max zc = Bcosh(flc) =
]~C'~avg coth(flc) =
~2C'Cavg coth(~2c).
_{(}_{2}_{9}_{)}
The ratio of the max zc from the present analysis (TOM) to the max re determined from the
Volkersen/de Bruyne analysis is given by
1.2
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints ,
,
,
,
m
u
1
0.8
~.~
0.6
~
0.4
~
..
0.2
E
0
0
0.2
0.4
0¢=
1,
0.6
2G.t
311 G
0.8
1173
1
Fig. 8. The ratio of the maximum adhesive shear stresses from the present theory (TOM) to those
from Volkersen/de Bruyne vs
factor 2c and ~t for the doublelap joints.
max ~ (TOM) max z~(Volkersen/de Bruyne) 
~ coth(~2c)
coth(2c)
(30)
and plotted in terms of parameters 2c and • in Fig. 8. It is clear that decreasing ~ or increasing 2c would result in a reduced normalized max ~c (or decreasing the max adhesive shear stress which is provided by Volkersen/de Bruyne analysis). A reduced value of G (adherend shear modulus) would cause a decrease in ~. Also an increase in the overlap length (2c) would produce an increase in 2c, which results in a reduced value of normalized
max ~. If the value of G is relatively large and the value of
t is relatively small (so that
2Gj/3P1G << 1), ~ would approach as one, and the normalized max zc would equal one. Then the adherend shear deformation can be neglected in the analysis and the Volkersen/de Bruyne analysis gives a reasonable prediction of adhesive shear stresses.
SINGLELAP JOINTS
Two formulations are proposed for singlelap joints. One is a 1D bar formulation and the other is a 1D beam formulation, according to the adherend deformation modeling used in the theories.
1D bar formulation
The adherends are modeled as bars, which deform uniformly across the thickness of the adherends in the longitudinal direction (i.e. the longitudinal normal strain is constant through the thickness), and inclu'tles the simple shear deformation. The bar model neglects the effects of edge moment and shear force which are present in the singlelap joints (Goland and Reissner, 1944) (these effects will be addressed in the 1D beam model). However, the bar model provides the easiest way to examine the mechanics of singlelap joints and the relevant parameters, especially for unbalanced joints. Furthermore, the 1D bar model proposed by Volkersen has been used in theoretical approaches for steppedlap joints and scarf joints (HartSmith, 1973c).
1174 M. Y. Tsai et al.
' 
X 

G¢ 
/~ 
Ez Gz 

T=2c':m,g 

dx 

T1 ~ 
~ T1 + d1"1 

, 
~,'t¢ 
dx 

I:c dx 

Tz 
I 
] 
=Tz+dTz 
Fig. 9. Geometry and material parameters of the singlelapjoint, and an elementary 1D bar model.
The geometry and material parameters for the singlelap joint are shown in Fig. 9. The length of the overlap is 2c. E~, G, and t~ represent elastic modulus, shear modulus, and thickness for the upper adherend, respectively, while E> G2 and t 2 are the corresponding values for the lower adherend. T~ and T2 represent the longitudinal forces per unit width acting at the upper and lower adherends, respectively. T is an applied force per unit width. Assuming a linear adherend shear stress distribution through the thickness of adherends, the adhesive shear stress ~ is obtained as (Appendix A) :
where
and
r,.
= A sinh(/3x) + Bcosh(flx)
A 
/JC.gavg
E2 t2
] 
E~
1
E2 t2
B 
/~('Tavg
sinh(flc) '

+
_{(}_{3}_{1}_{)}
^{(}^{3}^{2}^{)}
(33)
The average adhesive shear stress T.vg is equal to T/2c. The parameter fl can be written in terms of 2 (elongation parameter) and ~ (shear deformation parameter) as
where
f12
~ ~2
=~~
(35)
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints
1175
Vo ,~ 
c 
; =h ~X 
¢ 
' 

"°I 

dx 

Vu 

~cdx 

i 

Vt 
~ T 
~dx 
~',
MI
Fig. 10. Geometry and material parameters of the singlelapjoint, and an elementary 1D beam model.
~2
G¢ (
1
+
•
(36a,b)
Note that when c¢ = 1 Volkersen's solution is obtained, and the effect of the adherend shear deformation is negligible.
1D beam formulation
The configuration of the singlelap joint is shown in Fig. 10. Balanced joints are analyzed in this study. E, G and t represent adherend longitudinal elastic modulus, trans verse shear modulus, and thickness of the adherend, respectively, while Gc and q are shear modulus and thickness for the adhesive layer. Mo and Vo are edge moment and shear force per unit width acting at the end of the overlap. T is the longitudinal applied force per unit width. In the Goland the Reissner solution, the adherends are modeled as beams. That is, the transverse normal strain and shear strain in the adherends are negligibly small compared with the corresponding strains in the adhesive layer. However, if the transverse normal strain and shear strain in the adherends are not small, both components have to be taken into account in the analysis. Thus, a 2D analysis has to be employed. A closedform solution based on 2D elasticity analysis is very complex. Instead, a simple solution based on 1D beam analysis, but including the shear deformation of the adherends is proposed. The adherend shear deformation is assumed similar to the shear deformation addressed in the doublelap joints. Since the adherend shear deformations affect only the adhesive shear stress distributions and not the peel stress, the adhesive stress analysis will be confined to the shear stress determination. The detailed analysis is described in Appendix B. The solution of the normalized adhesive shear stress zc is
Y. Tsai et al. 

rc 
1 
(#cx~c°sh\tcj 

~avg 
4 
flt~(l +3k) sinh ~c 
+3(1 k) 
(37) 

t 

where k = 2Mo/Tt, zav~ = T/2c and f12= 8tG~(~IE~I" 
(38) 
1 + 37 /
The parameter fl can be redefined by two parameters 2 (longitudinal deformation par
ameter) and ~ (shear deformation parameter)'
32 
= 
~2~2 

where 

° 7 
8Get 
4Ect 

Er/ 
 
E~/(1 +v~) 

1 

0{2 
__ 

2Gd " 

l+ 

3qG 
Note that for the Goland and Reissner solution, e =
1. That is 2Gct/3rlG << 1.
Verification and parametric study
(39)
(40)
(41)
Two cases are used to verify the 1D bar and beam models. One case is a balanced
thickadherend singlelap joint subjected only longitudinal force. The other is the same
singlelap joint, but subjected to a longitudinal force and edge moment (Mo). For the
geometry of this thickadherend singlelap joint, the length of the overlap (2c) is 9.53 mm.
The thickness of the adherend is 9.53 mm. The thickness of the adhesive (r/) is 0.152 mm.
The
adherends are aluminum (E = 70 GPa, G = 26.3 GPa) while the adhesive is epoxy
(Ec = 2.17 GPa, Gc = 0.83 GPa). For the first case, the normalized adhesive shear dis
tributions along the half of the bond line are shown in Fig. 11. It is shown that the Volkersen
solution is very close to the Goland and Reissner solution with zero edge moment (k = 0).
Furthermore, the present solutions, Volkersen's and Goland and Reissner's solutions with
adherend shear deformation, are very consistent with each other. This consistency suggests
the validity of these two models. It is also apparent that the adherend shear deformation
reduces the adhesive shear stress concentration and thus render the adhesive shear dis
tribution more uniform. For the other case, the edge moment (Mo = tT/2) is included. This
case is more realistic than the previous case. The comparisons of adhesive shear distributions
are shown in Fig. 12 which contains the results of the moir6 experiment (Tsai et al., 1996a),
2D finite element analysis, Goland and Reissner's theoretical solution and the present
analysis (modified Goland and Reissner's solutions with adherend shear deformation). It
is apparent that the moir6 experimental result is consistent with that from the 2D finite
element analysis, but not Goland and Reissner's prediction. However, the present analysis
with including adherend shear deformation provides a better prediction of adhesive shear
stress distribution than the original Goland and Reissner solution.
For the 1D beam model, the maximum adhesive shear stress will occur at both ends
of the
overlap
(at
x
=
c
and
c) for balanced singlelap joints. From eqn (37), the
normalized maximum adhesive shear is
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints
1.15
1.1
1.os
•
1


~"
0.95
~ut
..
...................."":::":"
.....
0.9
..
j.,~v
1.15
Volker~
/
~j~,K
...
G&R ( kO ) ,,,,,,,,,~.L ....
.o,"
:.''~
1.1
.L
..
/
..
:"'"
y
"
1.os
~':'"
1
G&R with adherend sheir (kO)
I
2¢
J
I 0.95
0.9
1177
0.85
~
0.85
0.8
0
..
,
0.2
.
i
0.4
=
0.6
i.
0.8
0.8
x/c
Fig. 11~ Normalized adhesive shear
stress
distributions of thickadherend singlelap joint predicted
by 1D bar model (Volkersen), 1D beam model (Goland and Reissner), the present 1D bar model
(Volkersen with adherend shear) and the present 1D beam model (Goland and Reissner with
adherend shear).
1.5 
1.5 

G&R (.k1)~ 
, 
," 

moBre 
.. 
,> 
. 
/ 
.. 
ol
0
0.5
G&R with adherend shear (kl)
Mo
I
ZC
;
0.5
0
0
:
J
0.2
J
I
0.4
,
,
'
'
0.6
X/C
'
0.8
0
Fig. 12. Normalized adhesive shear stress distributions of thickadherend singlelap joint with the
edge moment (Mo), determined from =the moir~ experiment, 2D finite element model (FEM), 1D
beam model (Goland and Reissner), and the present 1D beam model (Goland and Reissner with
adherend shear).
• avg

4
(1 + 3k) coth
+ 3(1 k)
1 (42)
where fl = 0t2. In order to understand the effect of adherend shear deformations on the
maximum adhesive shear stress, the maximum adhesive shear determined from the present
analysis (TOM) is normalized by that obtained from the Goland and Reissner analysis
which neglects the adherend shear deformation. That is :
1178 M.Y.
Tsai et al.
1 .Z
1,2
0.8
__
~,, 0,8
0.4
~
.o
0.4
~~
___.
~,,~j
K,o.7s
0
0 2
0 4
a=
I
0 6
,,,
0 8
1
0
0
i
O.Z
i
0.4
or=
1
t
0.6
i
0.8
i0.8
u
I
O.Z
I
0.4
Or=
,,
1
0.6
i
0.8
°.8

i ° 0.z ~
K0.zs
o
o'.z
o14
o'.8
o'.8
Fig. 13. The ratio of the maximum adhesive shear stresses from the present theory (TOM) to those from Goland and Reissner vs factor 2c/t and e for the singlelap joints with edge moment factor :
(a) k=
1;(b) k=0.75;(c)k=0.5;and(d)k=0.25.
max zc (TOM)
max
rc (G&R)
~2c
~(1
+
3k) coth
/c~2c\
~)+
3(1k)
2c(1 + 3k) coth (~)
+ 3(1 
k)
(43)
Equation (43) is plotted against ~ and 2c/t and shown in Fig. 13 for different values of k. The results indicate that the maximum adhesive shear stress is insensitive to the adherend shear deformation (parameter c0, as )~c/t approaches to zero or equals zero. It is also apparent that, as the value of 2c/t increases, the normalized maximum adhesive shear stress decreases for given ~ and k. This implies the longer the overlap, the greater the effect of adherend shear deformation. Furthermore, decreasing ~ results in decreasing the normalized maximum shear stress if the values of 2c/t and k are fixed. That means the smaller the c~, the higher the effect of adherend shear deformation. The relatively low adherend shear modulus (G) would cause the low value of ~. The magnitude of the edge moment (related to the value of k) also influences the maximum adhesive shear stress.
CON CLUSIONS
An improvement to the classical theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints (including double and singlelap joints) has been proposed in the present study. The adherend shear
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints
1179
deformations have been included in the theoretical analyses by assuming a linear shear stress (strain) through the thickness of the adherends. The assumptions and improved solutions have been validated by comparing with the experimental and numerical solutions. It has been shown that the improved theoretical solutions provide a better prediction than the classical solutions, especially for the adherends with relatively low transverse shear stiffness (for example, in the case of laminated composite adherends). The classical solutions which neglect the adherend shear deformations overestimate the nonuniformity of the adhesive shear distributions and maximum adhesive shear stress (strain). It is also shown that the classical solutions can be recovered from the improved solutions, and the improved Volkersen's solution can be recovered from the improved Goland and Reissner's solution. The critical parameter related to adherend shear deformation, which affect adhesive shear stress (strain) distribution, have been identified.
AcknowledgementThe financial support from the Federal Aviation Administration under the contract USDOT/ FAA 93G064 is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
de Bruyne, N. A. (1944) The strength of glued joints. Aircraft Engineering 16, 115118. Delale, F., Erdogan, F. and Aydinoglu, M. N. (1981) Stresses in adhesively bonded joints : a closedform solution.
Journal of Composite Materials 15, 249271.
Goland, M. and Reissner, E. (1944) The stresses in cemented joints. Journal of Applied Mechanics 11, A 17A27.
HartSmith, L. J. (1973a)
Adhesivebonded singlelap joints. NASA, CR112236.
HartSmith, L. J. (1973b) Adhesivebonded doublelap joints. NASA, CR112235. HartSmith, L. J. (1973c) Adhesivebonded scarf and steppedlap joints. NASA, CR112237. Lin, C. C. and Lin, Y. S. (1993) A finite element model of singlelap adhesive joints. International Journal of Solids
and Structures 30(12), 16791692. Oplinger, D. W. (1994) Effects of adherend deflections in single lap joints. International Journal of Solids and Structures 31, 25652587. Suhir, E. (1986) Stresses in bimetal thermostats. Journal of Applied Mechanics 53(3), 657660. Suhir, E. (1989) Interfacial stresses in bimetal thermostats. Journal of Applied Mechanics 56, 595600. Suhir, E. (1994) Approximate evaluation of the interfacial shearing stress in cylindrical double lap shear joints with application to dualcoated optical fibers. International Journal of Solids and Structures 31(23), 32613283. Tsai, M. Y. and Morton, J. (1994) An evaluation of analytical and numerical solutions to the singlelap joint.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 31(18), 25372563.
Tsai, M. Y. and Morton, J. (1995) An experimental investigation of nonlinear deformations in singlelap joints.
Mechanics of Material 20, 183194.
Tsai, M. Y., Morton, J., Kreiger, R. B. and Oplinger, D. W. (1996a) Experimental investigation of the thick adberend lap shear test. Journal of Advanced Materials, April, 2836. Tsai, M. Y., Morton, J. and Oplinger, D. W. (1996b) Deformation and stress analyses of doublelap adhesive joints with laminated composite adberends. The SEM VIlI International Congress, Nashville, Tennessee. Volkersen, O. (1938) Die Niektraftverteilung in Zugbeanspruchten mit Konstanten Laschenquerschritten.
Luftfahrtforschung 15, 4147.
APPENDICES
Appendix ,4 (improved Volkersen's solution)
The elementary model of a singlelap joint is demonstrated in Fig. 9. Force equilibrium equations in the x direction for adherend elements are expressed as
dTl 

dx 
+zc 
= 
0, 
(AI) 
dT2 

dx 
 zc = 
0 
(A2) 
where % is adhesive shear stress. Adherend shear deformations are incorporated in this analyses. A linear shear stress (strain) distribution through the thickness of the adherend is assumed. Thus, the adherend shear z~ for the upper adherend and % for the lower adherend can be expressed as :
and
zl
Tc
= ~y
Ii
(A3)
_{1}_{1}_{8}_{0} M.
Y. Tsai el al.
(A4)
where y' (y") is a local coordinate system with the origin at the top surface of the upper (lower) adherend. The
eqns (A3) and (A4) are based on zero shear stresses at the top surface of the upper adherend (i.e. at y' 
= 
0) and 

at the bottom surface of the lower adherend (i.e. at y" = t2), and ~ 
= 
Zc at 
y' 
= 
t~ and 
~2 = 
~ 
at y" = 
0. The 
adherend shear strain yj for the upper adherend and Y2 for the lower adherend are written as
and
;,, =
Tc
~y'
ol/i
(As)
The longitudinal displacement functions u~ for the upper adherend and u2 for the lower adherend are given by
u](y') 
= u~s+ 
fl 
/,(f)d:' 
~c = u~+2~ty 
/2 
(A7) 

and 

(A8) 
where u~., represents the displacement at the top surface of the upper adherend and uc2 is the adhesive displacement
at the interface between the adhesive and lower adherend.
Note that due to the perfect bonding of the joints the displacements are continuous at the interfaces between
the adhesive and adherends. As a result, the uc2 should be equivalent to the lower adherend displacement at the
interface and uc~ (the adhesive displacement at the interface between the adhesive and upper adherend) should be
the same as the upper adherend displacement at the interface. Based on eqn (A7) the uo~ can be expressed as
uc, =
u~ (y'
=
"Cell
t~) = u~s +/2G'
Using eqn (A9), eqn (A7) can be rewritten as
ut (y')
=
uc~ +
"Cc
zlvltl ~y
,2

"Cc/l
2GI
.
(A9)
(A10)
The longitudinal resultant forces, T~ and T2 for the upper and lower adherends, respectively, are :
and
T2
f0
a2 (y") dy"
(A 12)
where a~ and a2 are longitudinal normal stresses for the upper and lower adherends, respectively. By changing
these stresses into functions of the displacements and substituting equations (A8) and (A10) into the displacements,
eqns (AI 1) and (A12) can be rewritten as
and
T, 
=E, J0 ~xdy 
=E~t, 
\dx 
3G, dx] 

~'2du2. ,, 
(du~z 
t2 
d~) 

r2 
= e2 J0 
~; 
ay 
= 
e2t2 
\ 
dx 
+ 
~ 
~/ 
The adhesive shear strain (yo) is simply defined as
(A13)
(AI4)
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints 
1181 

1 

7c = ~(uc2uc0. 
(A15) 

The adhesive shear stress can be written as 

Gc 

~c = 
(uc2  
uct). 
(AI 6) 

By differentiating eqn (A16) with respect to x, one obtains 

dx 
q 
~ dx 
" 
(A17) 

Substituting eqns (AI3) and (Al4) into (A17) leads to 

d%d__~= 
Gc ~. T2 
TI 
t(~G2~ 
a~S lh~ .. 
"~d%7 
_{(}_{A}_{1}_{8}_{)} 
By differentiating eqn (A18) with respect to x and substituting eqns (A1) and (A2) into the differential equation, the equation becomes
d:% 
G¢ [" re 
z¢ 
/ 
t: 
tl 
~d2zcl 

The governing eqn (A 19) can be rewritten as 

dZzc 

 
 
fl2T¢ 
= 
0 

dx 
2 

where 

rl \E2t2 
Ejtl,I 

Go( 

The parameter fl can be redefined as 

fl~ = 
e222 
(A20)
(A21)
(A22)
where the parameter 2 (elongation parameter) and e (shear deformation parameter) are
=
q kE2t2
E~'
~[~ j_]
.
The solution for the governing eqn (A20) is
t~ = A sinh(flx) +Bcosh(flx)
(A23)
(A24)
(A25)
where A and B are constant coefficients which can be determined from the given boundary conditions. The boundary conditions for this singlelap joint are:
TI =T=2cZa~g,
7"2=0
atx=c,
Tt
= O,
T 2 = T = 2cz~ s
at x =
c.
(A26)
(A27)
The integration of adhesive shear stresses along the entire bond line is equivalent to T. That is :
The A and B are obtained as
T
2cT,~g= f~
c Tc
dx.
(A28)
_{1}_{1}_{8}_{2}
M.
Y. Tsai et al.
8

/~CTavg
s~,)'
,4
/Jc%'"
cosh(/~c)
/
l
Ezt2
"'"/.

1+E_~t22 
L
EZj
Appendix B (improved Goland and Reissner's solution)
^{(}^{A}^{2}^{9}^{)}
(A30)
Following the adhesive stress analysis in Goland and Reissner Part llI solution, the elementary model is
shown in Fig. 10. Only adhesive shear formulation is considered here, since the adhesive peel stress is not affected
by adherend shear deformation based on the Goland and Reissner 1D beam model. The derivations are as
follows.
Moment equilibrium equations tbr the basic elements of the upper and lower adherends are given by
dM, 
t 

dx 
V.rc 
2 = 
0, 
(BI) 

dMt 
t 

dx 
Vi  
~ 2 
= 
0 
(B2) 

where Mu (M0 and V~ (V0 are the upperadherend (loweradherend) moment and shear per unit width, respec 

tively. Force equilibrium equations in the longitudinal direction for both elements can be written as 

dTo 

 
+r~ 
= 
O, 
(B3) 

dx 

d 
TI 

dx 
 
r' 
= 
0 
(B4) 

where Tu and T~ are longitudinal forces per unit width for the upper and lower adherends, respectively. Force 

equilibrium equations in the transverse direction for both elements are given by 

dVu 

dx 
at 
= 
0 
(B5) 

d 
VI 

d~.~ +~' 
= 
0 
(B6) 
where crc is the adhesive peel (transverse normal) stress. Shear deformations of the adherends are incorporated in
this analyses. A linear shear stress (strain) distribution through the thickness of the adherend is assumed. Thus,
the adherend shear ro for the upper adherend and ~ for the lower adherend can be expressed as
and
r~ =
Tc
,
t y
(B7)
where y' (y") is a local coordinate system with the origin at the top surface of the upper (lower) adherend. The
eqns (B7) and (B8) are based on zero shear stresses at the top surface of the upper adherend 
(i.e. 
at y' 
= 
0) and 

at the bottom surface of the lower adherend 
(i.e. 
at y" 
= 
t), and 
% = 
~c at y' 
= 
t and 
~ 
= ~c at y" = 0. Then with 
a linear material constitutive relationship the adherend shear strain ~'u for the upper adherend and 7~ for the lower
adherend are written as 

"Co 
, 

7° = 
~Y 
(B9) 

and 

~,,=~ 
l 
. 
(BI0) 
The longitudinal displacement functions u~ for the upper adherend and u~ for the lower adherend, due to the
longitudinal forces, are given by
and
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints
uX(y,) 
x 
z~t 
~Y' 
ret 
re 
,2 

= 
u. 
~6 +j0 
~()') d%  
"~o ~ 
~6 
+ ~bSy 

= 
U¢I "lt 
~l(fiu) dY° : U¢l "~ G 
2T 
1183
{ml)
where u~ (u~~) represents the longitudinal forceinduced adhesive displacement at the interface between the upper
(lower) adherend and the adhesive. The longitudinal resultant forces, T~ and Tt for the upper and lower adherends,
respectively, are 

T. = I'a~(Y') dy' 
(B13) 

J0 

and 

T~ = 
aT(y") 
dy" 
(B 14) 
where tr~r and a~r are longitudinal normal stresses for the upper and lower adherends, respectively. By changing
these stresses into functions of the displacements and substituting eqns (BI 1) and (BI2) into the displacements,
eqns (B13) and (B14) can be rewritten as
r'du ~ 
/'du~r. 
t 
dr=~ 

r" : Ejo~dY' = Et[~ 
3adx] 
(m5) 

and 

r, du x 
/du~ 
t 
dxc\ 
(B16) 

The adhesive shear strain (Yc) is simply defined as 

1 

7c = 7(u~,u~) q 
(B17) 
where u~, (ua) represents the total displacement at the interface between the upper (lower) adherent and the
adhesive. These total displacements can be expressed as
and
Ucu
~
Ucu//cu
M
Ucl
~
Ucl { Uel
T
ra
(B18)
(B19)
where u¢M (u~) represents the momentinduced displacement at the interface between the upper (lower) adherend
and the adhesive. Assuming no effect of the adherend shear deformation on the adherend moment, these moment
induced strains can be simply written as
duc~ 
 
Mu t 
6Mu 
(B20) 

dx 
EI~ 2 
Et2 

and 

du~ 
Ml 
t 
6Mi 
(B21) 

dx 
= 
Eli 2 
Et 2 
where lu (I0 are the moment of initia for the upper (lower) adherend. The adhesive shear stress can be written as
• o =
~(uo,
q
uo.).
(B22)
By differentiating eqn (B22) with respect to x, the equation becomes
_{1}_{1}_{8}_{4} M. Y. Tsai ei al.
Using eqns (B15), (B16) and (B18)(B21), eqn (B23) leads to
(~23)
The equilibrium condition
is given by
Improved theoretical solutions for adhesive lap joints 
1185 

f~ 
z~dxT= 
O. 
(B31) 
c
Based on the governing eqn (B27) and boundary conditions (B29), (B30) and (B31), the adhesive shear can be solved and written as
Zavg 
4 
(1 + 3k) 
+3(1 k) 

sinh ~c 

t 

where k = 2Mo/Tt, zavg = T/2c and 

//2 
8tGo/ 
1 
] 
=2¢. l
(B32)
(B33)