Damage Modelling of Adhesive Joints
Using the Cohesive Zone Model
Alexandra Wätzig1 , Vinzent Schmid, Ingo Ehrlich
Laboratory for Composite Technology
OTH Regensburg
Regensburg, Germany
1
Email: alexandra.waetzig@st.oth-regensburg.de
Abstract—Adhesive bonding constitutes an aspiring joining
technology. Nevertheless, the prediction of adhesive failure, nec-
essary to derive the bonding dimensions, is still a challenging
task due to local stress concentrations. Closed-form analysis
considering the stresses within the adhesive layer are limited
to simple geometries and loading conditions and require several
simplifications. Numerical methods are therefore more appro-
priate in terms of practical applications. In this work a finite
element (FE) model of a single-lap joint according to the standard
DIN EN 1465 is built up using the software ANSYS Workbench
V16.1. For this simple geometry results from both analytical
and empirical investigations are available for, respectively, the
verification or validation of the numerical model. A damage
mechanics approach, the cohesive zone model (CZM), is applied.
Necessary material parameters for the implementation of CZM
and appropriate test methods for their determination are ascer-
tained. Furthermore, factors affecting convergence difficulties,
which are commonly given at this method, are examined. The
overall aim is to evaluate the use of CZM for adhesive joints to
enable its transfer to more complex bonding geometries.
Index Terms—adhesive joints, single-lap joints, cohesive zone
model, fracture mechanics, damage mechanics, ANSYS Work-
bench
I. I NTRODUCTION
Adhesive bonding offers several advantages compared to
competing joining technologies. These include a more uniform
stress distribution across the bonding surface in contrast to for
example riveted joints as well as the opportunity to connect
different materials [21]. A variety of applications benefits from
these potentials. However, industrial applications require a
reliable design and strength calculation. For this purpose, a
multitude of analytical models investigating the stresses within
the adhesive layer had been developed over the last decades
[12]. But since these are limited to simple geometries and
loading conditions, numerical methods are more suitable for
practical applications.
There are several approaches using the finite element
method for the simulation of adhesive joints [5]. They differ
in their fundamental mechanical description as well as in the
findings which can be attained from it. Approaches based
on continuum mechanics consider the stress-strain behaviour.
But even though they allow a much more precise calculation
of the stress distribution within the adhesive layer compared
to the analytical models, stress singularities at the edges
and therefore the impossibility of defining a general failure
criterion, cause challenges for its use. These can be levered out
by alternative methods that are premised on the principles of
fracture and damage mechanics. The most widely used damage
mechanics approach is the cohesive zone model (CZM). It
describes the damage evolution including the material weaken-
ing, crack initiation and crack propagation at artificially intro-
duced fracture interfaces by applying a softening relationship.
This work aims to evaluate the use of CZM for adhesive
joints. To this end a finite element model of a single-lap
joint is developed using the software ANSYS Workbench
V16.1. Since convergence issues are always relevant for CZM,
factors affecting the result’s convergence are examined [5].
Furthermore, there are several material parameters, which are
necessary for the implementation of CZM. These parameters
as well as the corresponding tests for their determination are
collated. Thus, the method is set up to be transferred to more
complex bonding geometries.
II. FAILURE A NALYSIS
Fundamentally, there are different strategies to describe the
material behaviour or rather the failure mechanisms. They can
be classified in continuum, fracture and damage mechanics [5].
Continuum mechanics deals, as the name implies, with
continuums [20]. Thus, discontinuities of the molecular struc-
ture as well as those on the microscopic scale are neglected
or abstracted, respectively. Instead, the homogenised material
behaviour is used. Continuum mechanical state variables, such
as stress, strain and temperature, show continuous functions
as well as continuous and sufficient differentiability. This is
only valid for structures without any defects. Furthermore, the
interpretation of the results respecting bonded joints is a major
challenge due to the presence of stress singularities [14]. They
occur at sharp corners at the ends of the overlap and at stiffness
jumps caused by the different adjacent materials. That results
in a total dependency of the obtained stress value on the mesh
density at these points, whereby the stresses rise with a finer
mesh. Another difficulty is selecting the proper failure criterion
suitable to the material behaviour.
To take defects or precracks into consideration, fracture
mechanics approaches can be applied [5]. There singularities

Fig. 1. Fracture Modes: a) Mode I; b) Mode II; c) Mode III [11].
at crack-tips and re-entrant corners between two bonded
materials are allowed and well accepted. Essentially, fracture
mechanics describes the macroscopic effects of fracture. They
are based on the assumption of a continuum already containing
a crack or any other defect. Examining the deformation of
cracks, there are three crack opening types, presented in figure
1 [23]. Mode I describes a symmetric crack opening, where the
crack faces are moving apart with the displacement normal to
the crack. Parallel displacement of the crack faces in shear
results in mode II. Mode III is defined by out of plane
sliding with relative displacement tangential to the crack front.
Generally fracture mechanics can be classified in, inter alia,
linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and elasto-plastic
fracture mechanics (EPFM) [11]. LEFM assumes linear elastic
material behaviour in the whole region of a cracked body or
rather inelastic processes only in regions of very restricted
areas that can be neglected. The principles of LEFM are
suitable for the majority of adhesively bonded joints except
for very ductile adhesives with a large amount of material
yielding.
Important parameters of LEFM are the stress intensity
factor K and the energy release rate G [11]. The K-factor
characterizes the local conditions at the crack-tip and can
be interpreted as the strength of the crack-tip field [1]. By
comparison, G is defined as the rate of energy released by the
crack growth and thus represents the global behaviour of the
crack propagation. This relationship is evinced by
dU
G= , (1)
dA
whereby dU is the amount of energy change and dA is
the area increase [23]. The related failure criteria arise from
the corresponding material-specific critical values, the fracture
toughness Kc and the fracture resistance Gc [5].
Damage mechanics take one step backwards and addition-
ally include microscopic effects, namely the material weak-
ening and the consequent crack initiation. The aim is the
effective modelling of the damage evolution within a material
or structure by levering out the restrictions of both the other
described categories [2]. Thereby it combines the concepts of
continuum and fracture mechanics to describe the damage [5].
III. C OHESIVE Z ONE M ODEL
The cohesive zone model (CZM) is the most widely used
damage mechanics approach for the FE method [5]. It de-
scribes the static or fatigue damage at the cohesive process
zone ahead of the crack-tip. Subsequently the model as well
as the cohesive parameters, necessary for its application are
briefly analysed.
A. Model Description
Applying the CZM approach, both crack initiation and
crack propagation can be simulated by the use of continuum
mechanical parameters for the damage onset and fracture
mechanical parameters for the crack growth. To this end,
fracture interfaces are artificially introduced into structures.
This makes it particularly suitable for adhesive joints, where
the damage propagation is restricted to defined planes.
The interfaces are modelled by applying softening relation-
ships, the traction-separation laws, also named CZM laws
[19]. These define the response between two paired nodes
on the fracture interface comparable to a non-linear spring
by relating the crack opening δ to a surface traction σ or τ ,
respectively, on the crack faces [8]. The area under this curve
is represented by the value of the fracture resistance Gc . A co-
hesive law is characteristic for a certain material or bimaterial
interface, but independent of the geometry. Hence, it can be
applied for arbitrary specimens [5]. The resulting macroscopic
reproduction of damage consists of the strength evolution,
the weakening and gradual degradation of material properties
and finally the complete failure of the bond. Precisely the
detaching process under loading starts with a rising traction
until the cohesive strength is reached. Subsequently the bond
softens, which leads to a reduced stiffness and strength for the
case of unloading before complete failure [22]. If the critical
separation distance δc is attained, the bond opens and the crack
propagates to the next pair of nodes.
The accuracy of the mentioned parameters, especially the
fracture resistance, is much more important for the overall out-
come than the detailed shape of the cohesive law. Nevertheless
there are several possibilities for the shape of CZM laws. The
most commonly used laws are the bilinear and the exponential
traction-separation-curve, shown in figure 2. However, the
CZM law shape does not only influence the accuracy of
the solution, but also the iterative solving procedure and the
computing time.
Fig. 2. Bilinear and exponential (dashed line) CZM law shapes, modelled
according to DA S ILVA [5]
 Regardless of the chosen CZM law, convergence issues are
always relevant for the use of CZM [5]. These difficulties are
mainly linked to the damage propagation and instability, the
plasticity of adherends and adhesive, the adherends stiffness,
course meshes and large stress concentrations or singularities.
Composite adherends enlarge the difficulties because of their
orthotropic elasticity. The same applies to brittle adhesives,
which lead to a more abrupt softening process. Fig. 4. ENF test setup, modelled according to DA S ILVA [6].

B. Cohesive Parameters
In order to reasonably use the CZM analysis, attaining
an accurate simulation of the failure process, the cohesive
parameters have to be carefully determined [5]. The adhesive
in the underlying application is the Araldite AW 4859 from
Huntsman Advanced Materials, a two-component epoxy resin
Fig. 5. ELS test setup, modelled according to DA S ILVA [6].
adhesive [15]. Some parameters, such as the cohesive tensile
strength σc , are given in the data sheet. However, particularly
the critical values for the energy release rate G have to be clamped on a linear bearing trolley, sliding free in horizon-
obtained from bonded specimens due to the difference in crack tal direction to annul tensile stresses along the longitudinal
growth in bulk materials and thin adhesive layers. At these, direction [7].
the cracks are restricted to the bond line and exposed to the
strain constraining effects of the adherends.
IV. F INITE E LEMENT A NALYSIS OF A S INGLE -L AP -J OINT
For the implementation of CZM and the investigation of
The presented CZM approach is applied in a finite element
adhesively bonded joints, the fracture resistance in mode I GIc
analysis (FEA). Thereby the adhesive layer is not modelled
as well as in mode II GIIc are needed. For the determination
seperately. Instead a contact region is expanded with a de-
of GIc in structural adhesive joints a standardized test method,
taching condition to simulate the development of damage and
the double-cantilever beam (DCB) test according to ISO 25217
the crack growth through the interface. The investigations
[17], is available. It is suitable for metallic as well as fibre-
are performed using the software ANSYS Workbench V16.1.
composite adherends [4]. The principles of the DCB test are
Since the focus of this work is on the evaluation of the
based on LEFM. The test setup is shown in figure 3. Thereby
methodology, the finite element model is precisely described
both the resistance to crack initiation, either from a non-
in the following.
adhesive insert or a mode I precrack, and the resistance to
crack propagation are analysed. From that, the resistance (R)- A. Finite Element Model
curve of GIc versus the crack length a can also be deduced. The model development is structured in the modules engi-
Yet there is no agreed test standard for the determination neering data, geometry, model and setup. In the engineering
of GIIc in adhesive joints [6]. However, the most popular and data, the material properties are set. The aluminum alloy
considered to be standardized tests for the characterization of AlCu4PbMgMn, with the standardized designation EN AW-
mode II failure are the end-notched flexure (ENF) and the 2007, is chosen for the adherends. The characteristics of
end-loaded split (ELS) test. The test setups of these tests are
schematically depicted in figures 4 and 5.
TABLE I
At the ENF test, which represents a classical 3-point bend- C OHESIVE Z ONE PARAMETERS
ing test, the specimen is centrically loaded. For an alternative Symbol Property Unit Value
design, the 4-ENF test, a 4-point loading is used instead to σc Maximum normal contact stress MPa 40
achieve stable crack growth. In contrast, the ELS specimen is GIc Critical fracture energy for normal
J
425
m2
separation
τc Maximum equivalent tangential MPa 20
contact stress
J
GIIc Critical fracture energy for tangential slip m2
2000
η Artificial damping coefficient s 0.0001
β Tangential slip under compressive - 0
normal contact stress
The parameters are chosen in accordance to the manufacturer’s specifica-
tions [15], recommendations by the software’s representatives [3], [10]
Fig. 3. DCB test setup using load blocks for the application of force, modelled
according to ISO 25217 [17]. and corresponding literature [9].
the cohesive zone are given by establishing a new material
card. Thereby the toolbox for CZM, implemented in the
software, is used. Due to the difficult determination of the
opening displacement at the completion of debonding, the
option fracture-based debonding is favourable in contrast to
separation-distance based debonding. With that the detaching
behaviour is characterized by the parameters specified in
table I.
The setting mixed mode is necessary to activate all parame-
ters for both mode I and mode II. The values for both GIc and
GIIc are estimated according to relevant literature [9]. The
maximum normal contact stress is equated to the cohesive
tensile strength σc and likewise the maximum equivalent
tangential contact stress to the cohesive shear strength τc .
Furthermore, there is an option particularly for mixed-mode
debonding which controls tangential slip under compressive
normal contact stress [19]. To prevent that, it is set to zero. As
mentioned before, the CZM formulation always brings along
convergence difficulties due to the numerical instabilities,
notably when the adhesive bond is close to complete failure
[2], [13]. To remedy the difficulties, a numerical solution can
be included by applying viscous damping. For this purpose the
artificial damping coefficient η is implemented. It influences
the debonding parameter δv by
∆t
δv = δold + · ∆δ (2)
∆t + η
with the debonding paramater at the previous substep δold , the
increment of the debonding paramter in the current substep ∆δ
and the time increment ∆t [18]. It has the unit of time and
shall impede exceeding values of the maximum traction or
maximum separation respectively the critical fracture energy.
Indeed, the artificial damping should not impair the overall
behaviour of the structure. To achieve this, it should be smaller
than the minimum time step size. Values between 0.001 and
Fig. 6. Geometry of the FE model.
TABLE II
D IMENSIONS OF THE SINGLE - LAP JOINT
Dimension Direction Unit Value
Length x mm 115
Width y mm 20
Height z mm 1.5
Overlap x mm 12.5
Fig. 7. Mesh of the FE model in the area of the overlap.
0.1 multiplied with the smallest time increment are often
recommended [3], [10].
The geometry, shown in figure 6, is modelled three-
dimensional according to the standard DIN EN 1465 which
describes the determination of the lap shear strength of adhe-
sive joints [16]. The adhesive layer is not modelled separately.
Instead, the adhesive joint consists only of the two adherends
which are directly located on top of each other and are
connected by a bonded contact. The dimensions are given in
table II. For the implementation of the CZM approach either
the pure penalty or the augmented lagrange algorithm, which
are both based on the assignment of a contact stiffness, are
thereby permitted [19]. Regarding the mesh, the use of very
uniform elements is recommended for the overlapping area as
shown in figure 7 for this study [10]. Here the element type
SOLID186, a hexahedral element with 20 nodes and quadratic
trial functions, is chosen.
By the use of the contact debonding object of the fracture
tool, the cohesive zone can be introduced for the contact
region applying the predefined cohesive material. Further
settings, which are not yet implemented in ANSYS V16.1
are carried out by the integration of APDL commands [3]. It
is advantageous to preset the contact stiffness, videlicet the
gradient of the ascending contact stress. Thereby, particularly
for transient simulations concerning creep or fatigue, the
Youngs modulus of the adhesive can be taken into account.
Otherwise the contact stiffness can be adjusted in compliance
with the maximum numerical stability as it was done for this
study. Furthermore the pinball radius, which describes the
region within nodes are detected for the contact definition, has
to be set [19]. It should be at least twice the critical separation
distance δc .
For the analysis settings, a direct solver was chosen, weak
springs deactivated and large deflection enabled. The latter was
found to be essential for CZM due to the strong deformations
during the debonding process. Because of the high nonlinear-
ity, the load is divided in several load steps. Furthermore a
large number of substeps is required [2], [3]. As a boundary
condition a fixed support is attached on one adherend’s end.
A remote displacement at the other adherend’s end inhibits
all rotations as well as the displacements perpendicular to the
joint’s longitudinal axis, while it loads the joint lengthwise
with a displacement of 0.8 mm.
B. Results and Discussion
The deformation during the debonding process shows no
apparent crack initiation before the joint fails completely at
 Fig. 8. Force reaction at the remote displacement.
a failure displacement of about 0.578 mm. There the bonding
opens, the adherends’ elastic deformation reverses and from
then on the adherends slide unhindered along each other until
the prescribed displacement is reached. This evinces, that the
joint fails due to a brittle fracture with a sudden release of the
energy and without a preceding reduction owing to plastic
yielding. The reasons for this can be found in the brittle
behaviour of the adhesive and the loading, which is mainly
shear. Therefore it is relatively evenly spread over the bonding
area and rises very uniformly until the permissible limits are
reached and the bond opens at once. Before the bonding starts
to fail, the VON M ISES equivalent stresses within the ad-
herends concentrate at the ends of the overlap. This meets the
expectations on the basis of analysed analytical approaches as
well as previous numerical investigations following continuum
mechanics.
The force reaction at the remote displacement can be output
to determine the failure load. Figure 8 plots its line graph,
which shows an almost linear increase of the force without
any distinguishable crack initiation point until a failure load
of approximately 4379 N is reached and the force sharply
declines to zero. This confirms the observations from the
previously described deformation. The failure load yields the
expected scale, but nevertheless deviates significantly from
earlier experimental results of about 7000 N for lap shear
tests of specimens with the given dimensions and material
combination. This is consequently caused by the fact, that the
values for the fracture resistance Gc have not been determined
experimentally yet and instead values from literature have been
used.
The energies released due to failure in mode I and II can
be displayed and exported if the amounts of the involved
failure modes are of interest. This is executed by inserting user
defined results for the applied contact elements, which are of
the type CONTA174 in this case. For the investigated single-
lap joint that results in a released energy of (0.352 ± 0.006) J
for mode I and (15.153 ± 0.116) J for mode II for the whole
bonding.
Fig. 9. Traction-separation-relation.
Finally, it is necessary to prove the accuracy of the CZM
law’s reproduction. For this purpose the contact stress and
contact gap, which can both be obtained by user defined results
for a selected node, are plotted against each other. This is
depicted in figure 9 for the performed simulation. It demon-
strates the traction-separation-relation and therewith character-
izes the debonding behaviour. It is therefore necessary, that
this complies with the predefined CZM law for the main
features. It shall reproduce the whole debonding consisting of
the rising contact stress up to a maximum contact stress, the
subsequent softening and finally the complete opening. Thus,
the calculation of a sufficient number of sampling points is
essential. This can be influenced by the analysis settings. For
the case of insufficient CZM law’s reproduction, the number
of substeps has to be adjusted. In this case, the adaption led
to the demand of a minimum number of substeps of 60 to
80. Owing to the brittle failure the ascending part is mapped
by many supporting points whereas there are only two points
calculated at the descending part of the curve, which is the
required minimum. The fragmentation of the calculation into
those large numbers of increments and substeps leads to a high
increase in computation time. This predominates the effect
of the low number of required mesh elements compared to
continuum mechanics approaches, where the adhesive layer is
modelled separately with the consequence of a very fine mesh.
V. C ONCLUSION AND O UTLOOK
The object of this work was the evaluation of the cohesive
zone model for the simulation of adhesively bonded joints.
This damage mechanics approach covers the whole process
of damage evolution, including the material weakening, the
crack initiation and its propagation through the structure. It is
implemented by expanding a bonded contact with a detach-
ing condition, the CZM law. This requires certain cohesive
parameters. It has been found, that the fracture resistance in
mode I GIc can be determined by the standardized DCB test.
In contrast to that, there is no standardized test method for
the characterization of mode II failure. However, the two most
popular tests are the ENF test and the ELS test.
 Another main issue regarding CZM are the convergence
difficulties. But there are a few factors, that can influence
this iterative process. Smaller step increments can avoid diver-
gence due to unstable crack growth for G surpassing Gc [5].
Another assisting method is the implementation of a viscous
regularization by the use of an artificial damping coefficient
[13]. This value has to be small compared to the smallest
time increment for not impairing with the results’ accuracy.
Furthermore, stress concentrations and a distortion of elements
can be prohibited by a very uniform mesh and the reduction
of the initial stiffness of the cohesive elements.
The reproduction of the given CZM law should be proved by
the traction-separation-relation, obtained from the output for
the contact stress and contact gap. Although the consequent
incremental division of the solution and the necessity of
updating the contact’s constraint equations for every step
causes a largely increased computation time, this is required to
achieve a veridical representation of the debonding behaviour.
R
This could indeed be obstructive for the feasible usage of CZM
for more complex geometries and real applications. Thus, it
has to be analysed how the computation time can still be
diminished.
R EFERENCES
[1] A NDERSON , T. L.: Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applica-
tions. 2nd Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton (USA), 1995
[2] A NYFANTIS , K. N.: PhD Thesis: Analysis and Design of Composite-
to-Metal Adhesively Bonded Joints. National Technical University of
Athens, School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Athens,
2012
[3] BARTHOLD , U.: Seminar Documentation: Berechnung von Klebe-
verbindungen. CADFEM GmbH, Grafing, 2015
[4] B LACKMAN , B. R. K.; K INLOCH , A. J.: Fracture tests on structural
adhesive joints. in: Fracture of Polymers, Composites and Adhesives
II, Eds.: Moore, D.R.; Pavan, A.; Williams, J.G., ESIS Publication 28,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001
[5] DA S ILVA , L. F. M., C AMPILHO , R. D.: Advances in Numerical Mod-
elling of Adhesive Joints. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and
Technology, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2012
[6] DA S ILVA , L. F. M.; Ö CHSNER , A.; A DAMS , R.: Handbook of Adhesion
Technology. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2011
[7] DE M OURA , M. F.; D OURADO ; N. M.: Mode II Fracture Characteriza-
tion of Bonded Joints Using the ELS Test. in: Testing Adhesive Joints:
Best Practices, Eds.: da Silva, L. F. M.; Dillard, D. A.; Blackman, B. R.;
Adams, R. D., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2012
[8] F ERAREN , P.; J ENSEN , H. M.: Cohesive Zone Modelling of Interface
Fracture near Flaws in Adhesive Joints. in: Engineering Fracture Me-
chanics, vol. 71 (15) pp. 2125-2142, 2004
[9] F ORS , F.: Master Thesis: Analysis of Metal to Composite Adhesive
Joints in Space Applications. Linköpings universitet, Linköping, 2010
[10] G RAF, K.: Seminar Documentation: Bruchmechanische Berech-
nungsmethoden. CADFEM GmbH, Grafing, 2015
[11] G ROSS , D.; S EELIG , T.: Bruchmechanik. 4th Edition, Springer,
Berlin/Heidelberg, 2011
[12] H ABENICHT, G.: Kleben. Grundlagen, Technologien, Anwendungen.
Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden, 2009
[13] K HORAMISHAD , H.; C ROCOMBE , A. D.; K ATNAM , K. B.; A SHCROFT,
I. A.: Predicting Fatigue Damage in Adhesively Bonded Joints Using a
Cohesive Zone Model. in: International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 32 (7),
pp. 1146-1158, 2010
[14] M ITTAL , K. L.: Adhesive Joints: Formation, Characteristics and Test-
ing. 2nd Edition, VSP, Utrecht/Boston, 2002
[15] N. N.: Data Sheet: Araldite
AW4859/ Hardener HW4859 – Structural
Adhesives. Huntsman Advanced Materials, Basel, 2011
[16] N. N.: DIN EN 1465: Klebstoffe – Bestimmung der Zugscherfestigkeit
von Überlappungsklebungen. Beuth Verlag, Berlin, 2009
[17] N. N.: ISO 25217: Adhesives – Determination of the Mode 1 Adhesive
Fracture Energy of Structural Adhesive Joints Using Double Cantilever
Beam and Tapered Double Cantilever Beam Specimens. Beuth Verlag,
Berlin, 2009
[18] N. N.: Program Documentation: ANSYS Help for Release 17. ANSYS
Inc., Canonsburg (USA), 2016
[19] N. N.: Program Documentation: ANSYS Mechanical APDL Theory
Reference. Ed: Kohnke, P., ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg (USA), 2013
[20] PARISCH , H.: Festkörper-Kontinuumsmechanik. Von den
Grundgleichungen zur Lösung mit Finiten Elementen. Teubner,
Stuttgart/Leipzig/Wiesbaden, 2003
[21] ROMANOS , G.: Fügetechnik – Kleben. in: Handbuch Konstruktion, hg.
von Steinhilper, R.; Rieg, F., Carl Hanser Verlag, Mnchen, 2012
[22] WAHAB , M. A.: The Mechanics of Adhesives in Composite and Metal
Joints. Finite Element Analysis with ANSYS. DEStech Publications,
Pennsylvania, 2014
[23] W ILLIAMS , J. G.: Introduction to Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics.
in: Fracture Mechanics Testing Methods for Polymers, Adhesives and
Composites, Eds.: Moore, D. R.; Pavan, A.; Williams, J. G., ESIS
Publication 28, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001