ConferencePaper AB2019 04 FA

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/336070230
Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives: Introducing a New Benchmark for

Adhesive Performance
Conference Paper · July 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 1,884
1 author:
Martin Brandtner-Hafner
FRACTURE ANALYTICS
31 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives View project
Fracture Analysis of Biocomposites View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Brandtner-Hafner on 16 October 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives ©2019 Dr. Brandtner-Hafner
Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives: Introducing a New

Benchmark for Adhesive Performance
Martin Brandtner-Hafnera,∗
a
Owner & Founder, FRACTURE ANALYTICS, Raiffeisenstrasse 11/4/5, Mörbisch am See, Burgenland,
Austria.
Tel.: +436608444413
Abstract
Nowadays, structural adhesives are a key enabling technology for dissimilar material
assembly. This holds especially for the automotive, general and aerospace industry, where
traditional joining techniques such as welding and riveting are limited in their applicability.
It is a matter of fact that the optimal choice of adhesive is crucial for bonding success in
terms of structural safety, quality and performance.
Unfortunately, technical datasheets provided by adhesive manufacturers are very limited
in their explanatory power necessary for effective decision-making during the adhesive
selection process. As they are based on traditional mechanics, lap-shear tensile strength
still seems the only technical benchmark today in the industry. However, such a figure is
subject to a lot of shortfalls and restrictions. Hence, a new study is introduced presenting
an innovative alternative instead. This is accomplished by combining non-linear elastic
fracture mechanics with a smart test setup. The novel method presented stands out by
ensuring a stable test environment even for brittle adhesives, which is a necessary condition
for generating new adhesive performance benchmarks. Such measures are important to
characterize the operational safety of adhesives by quantifying safety against unstable
failure. To demonstrate this new concept, experiments were conducted on three high-
performance structural adhesives from HENKEL. The results of the investigations revealed
interesting interactions between adhesive bonding strength and damage tolerance. This leads
to the remarkable conclusion that lap-shear based tensile strength does not seem to serve as
a suitable benchmark for qualitative adhesive assessment. Instead, both the utilization of an
innovative test device and the application of new performance parameters are highly
representative and suitable for characterizing the safety, quality and performance of
structural adhesives adequately to meet industrial standards and demands successfully.
Keywords: damage tolerance, structural adhesives, new benchmarks, safety factor,
longevity, fail-safe analysis, crack growth resistance, bonding performance
∗Corresponding
author. Email address: info@fractureanalytics.com (Martin Brandtner-Hafner)
Please cite this paper as follows:

Brandtner-Hafner M.H., Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives: Introducing A New Benchmark for Adhesive Performance,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Structural Adhesive Bonding, p. 52, Porto, Portugal, 2019.
ISBN: 978-989-8927-74-3
Conference Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Structural Adhesive Bonding, Porto, 11th July 2019
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Literature Review
Adhesive bonding is the technology to fasten two surfaces together by adhesives. To
characterize such behavior technically, certain parameters must be defined to compare their
performance. In the late 1970s, several mechanical tests came up for investigating adhesive
bonding performance, such as lap-shear tests [1–4], tensile strength tests [5–7] and peeling
tests [8, 9].
Especially the lap-shear test according to [1–4] was introduced for characterizing
adhesive properties technically easily and effectively. Nowadays, this technique is
widespread established and still utilized by numerous institutions and companies
worldwide. Its principle is based upon the simple pulling apart from adhesively bonded
lap-joints until their rupture. The parameter deduced from this device is called lap-shear
strength, which is a pure mechanical stress-based coefficient. Because of its cheap
specimens, the simple testing device and the comparability of results, it is highly popular
in the adhesive industry. However, the biggest handicap of lap-shear based testing is the
lack of explanatory power when characterization of damage behavior and fracture
mechanisms of the interface region are necessary. This is because both the method and device
are not able to establish an empirical connection between loading and degree of damage
to the interface.
Thus, alternative approaches, which can be found in fracture mechanics, are necessary.
There, fracture toughness is the commonly used overall term describing the physical state
of material during cracking. It describes how cracking turn out if the material is tough
or brittle. In general, this coefficient can be expressed by various parameters based upon
fracture mechanics, such as K, G, J, R or GF. The latter one is used in this study for the first
time to characterize damage tolerance of rigid structures bonded with structural adhesives.
The interested reader can find more thorough coverage about the meaning of these
coefficients in a variety of books such as [10–18]. Especially for adhesion testing methods,
several comprehensive textbooks [19, 20] and scientific publications [21–26] are available.
However, it can be observed that no study was published so far dealing with the damage
tolerance behavior of adhesives based upon specific fracture energy GF. That is why this
work is taking up this issue for adhesively bonded structures to generate empirical data and
valuable information for stakeholders and operators striving for reliable adhesives.
Unfortunately, such information cannot be obtained from adhesive manufacturers
directly, as no standardized measurement method for deducing suitable assessment
parameters exists so far. From a decision maker’s point of view, this is very unsatisfactory.
Consequently, a novel study was conducted for generating such significant
performance benchmarks for characterizing adhesion performance. The technique used for
doing so is based upon a novel concept introduced by Brandtner-Hafner [27–33]. Three
types of high-performance structural adhesives were chosen for this investigation friendly
provided by HENKEL. The results revealed high damage tolerance behavior, especially for
hybrid-based adhesives. These are highly interesting findings and thus practicable for
compact industrial solutions where the minimization of resources is of major interest.
2
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Basic Considerations
In this research, the adhesive bonding performance of structural adhesives used for
bonding aluminum structures was investigated. For that, a novel testing approach based
on different failure criteria were used. The concept is referred to as non-linear elastic-
plastic fracture mechanics, which allows much more sophisticated statements about damage
tolerance characteristics and technical performance especially of adhesive boundary layers
than available from traditional mechanical techniques such as [1–9].
2.2. Reviewing the Assessment Concept
Finding a suitable assessment concept for characterizing adhesives technically hence is a
major objective in the present study. Conventionally, adhesive testing is still executed by the
so-called "lap-shear test" according to [1–4]. This approach, however, is very traditional and
ancient, not to say out-fashioned. Science has made big steps forward since its introduction
and thus lap-shear testing is suffering a lot of handicaps and limitations when it comes to
describing damage tolerance behavior of bonded aluminum structures. Rasche [34] already
stated a lot of disadvantages in 1990, reviewed scientifically by [31].
Taking up these issues, the six major concerns associated with lap-shear based
investigations can be stated as follows:
1. Unstable testing dynamics may lead to a sudden drop of the testing force. This
vanishes information about the post-cracking behavior of the ruptured interface, which in
turn is necessary to evaluate the damage tolerance behavior of the bonded structure.
2. Substrate failure of soft substrates bonded with brittle adhesives (i.e. PVC bonded
with Cyanoacrylate) prevents evaluation of the adhesive under consideration (Figure 1).
3. Undefined state of loading (mixed-mode) avoids clear assignment of stress and there-
fore the identification and localization of pure damage parameters.
4. Due to the design of specimens, the results are significantly dependent on the size and
direction of the force. Thus, no local material property can be derived necessary to simulate
cohesive zone properties (CZM) properly.
5. Since the lap-shear testing method is purely mechanical (no fracture mechanics) and
only values of tested lab-samples are given, no statements about damaging of interfaces and
real structures can be made.
6. The parameter deduced from lap-shear tests is purely single based (i.e. lap-shear
stress). However, for a better understanding of the softening process of adhesive interfaces,
far more parameters based upon fracture mechanics are required.
Figure 1 portrays an exemplary example of one of the strongest handicaps of lap-shear

testing - the failure of substrates when brittle adhesives and tough adherends are bonded.
Therefore, results are not as accurate as the real breaking forth is not measured. That is
why an alternative technique is introduced and applied in this study to overcome such
shortcomings. This picture was friendly provided by Henkel CEE GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
3
Figure 1: Exemplary example of typical substrate failure by using soft substrates bonded with brittle
adhesives demonstrated on PVC and Cyanoacrylate. This kind of testing was not used in this study to avoid
such behavior. Source: Henkel CEE GmbH, Vienna, Austria.
Figure 2, in turn, shows an overview showing the strongest handicaps of lap-shear testing.
Figure 2: Handicap compilation of lap-shear test setup based upon DIN EN 1465, ISO 4587 and ASTM
D3163/D1004 [1–4]. Source: FRACTURE ANALYTICS/HENKEL CEE
4
Figure 3 depicts the relationship between unstable and stable loading behavior. This, in
turn, is dependent on the test device, test method, and material used.
Figure 3: Explanation of the relationship between unstable and stable loading behavior. The first one is
typically for lap-shear tests according to DIN EN 1465, ISO 4587 and ASTM D3163/D1002 [1–4]. Source:
FRACTURE ANALYTICS
2.3. A Stable Method of Testing

Taking the high degree of inappropriateness of the lap-shear test method [1–4] into
account, a novel fracture mechanical based cleavage test was used in order to identify
adhesive bonding performance in terms safety against unstable failure expressed by cohesive
strength σc , crack growth resistance GF and damage tolerance in terms of a novel
introduced safety factor called SF, respectively. The latter one is a new parameter
introduced in this study to describe the damage tolerance potential of adhesives
technically. The big advantage of such parameters is they account for crack shielding
effects, which in turn are necessary for assessing the adhesive bonding performance
correctly. According to [35], such phenomena could be voids, micro-cracks, crazes,
mechanical interlocking and several more, described in Figure 4 as follows.
5
Figure 4: Various crack-shielding effects. a) crack deflection, b) micro-cracking, c) plastic yielding, d)

dilatant phase transformation in wake region, e) fiber bridging, f) mechanical interlocking, g) viscoelastic
bridging [35].
For the operator, it is essential to know about the presence of such shielding effects in case of
damage as they have a major impact on crack growth resistance and fracture dynamics. That
is why an alternative property is necessary for describing non-linear cracking behavior. In this
paper, the specific fracture energy GF according to Hillerborg [36] is such a parameter. It is
defined as the energy needed to propagate a crack through the unit area of a joint, either
cohesively through any adhesive layer present or along with a bi-material interface. This
can be expressed mathematically by Equation (1) and Equation (2), respectively:
𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥
1
𝐺𝐹 = ∫ 𝐹𝑠 ∙ 𝑑𝛿 (1)
𝐴𝐿𝑖𝑔 0
𝛿𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐺𝐹 = ∫ 𝜎𝑐 ∙ 𝑑𝛿 (2)
0
6
with FS as cleavage separation force, Alig as the ligament area of the adhesive interface, δ
as crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) of the mode-I specimen and σc as cohesive
tensile strength generated from mode-I loading. Latter equals the cleavage separation force
divided by the ligament area. CMOD, in turn, serves as a non-linear elastic-plastic fracture
mechanical parameter representing the extension of the process zone of the interface under
cracking introduced by Wells [37]. It is required for calculating the specific fracture energy
G F.
2.4. Introducing the GF -Concept

The determination of GF is a sophisticated task that requires specialized knowledge about
fracture mechanics theory as well as special testing equipment. Two basic prerequisites
are crucial to successfully ascertain the specific fracture energy GF from an interface of an
adhesively bonded structure:
1. The application of non-linear elastic-plastic fracture mechanics,
2. The record of a full and steady load-displacement diagram of the loaded specimen.
2.4.1. Non-Linear Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics

Fracture mechanics is a valuable tool for investigating the damage behavior of different
materials especially in the interface of a bonded structure. Since traditional approaches, such
as lap-shear tests [1–4], tensile tests [5–7] or peel-off tests [8, 9], are only designed to measure
a stress-based single threshold value (i.e. lap-shear strength, peeling strength) of adhesively
bonded joints under lab conditions, they can neither describe nor understand the softening
process of a bonded structure. Likewise, non-linear cracking effects due to gross plastic
deformation (i.e. yielding) are not considered. Hence, alternative techniques are strongly
necessary. Hillerborg [36] introduced the so-called GF-concept, which originally traces back to
the evaluation of concrete. Firstly, introduced by Brandtner-Hafner for testing adhesives in
2017 [27], it offers several advantages over both traditional mechanical and standardized
fracture mechanical techniques used by industry, such as [38, 39]. Currently, linear-elastic
approaches still prevail for fracture testing in the industry due to their simplicity for testing
and analyzing adhesives. In any case, it is known that a non- negligible fracture process zone
(FPZ) can develop ahead of the crack tip due to various shielding mechanisms. This fracture
process zone or plastic zone is the region of a cracked material where softening immediate
takes place behind the crack front during loading. This is described in Figure 5 according
to [40]:
7
Figure 5: Illustration of a non- negligible plastic zone behind the crack front emerging during mode-I
loading [40].
These non-linear processes lead to a high grade of energy dissipation, which is not ac-
counted for when K or G parameters are used. Consequently, an alternative approach
based on non-linear fracture mechanics is proposed here instead. Finally, it is noteworthy
to say that the GF concept may not be confused with the linear-elastic strain energy release
rate G introduced by Griffith in 1920 [41] and ascertained from standardized techniques
from [38, 39, 42–44]. In contrast to the GF fracture criterion, the major shortfall of the
G-approach is the assumption of linear-elasticity which in turn is only valid especially for
ceramics. As a result, this might lead to imprecise values of fracture energy since non-linear
crack-shielding effects according to Figure 5 are not considered.
8
2.4.2. Steady-Stable Load-Displacement Diagrams

The ultimate requirement for successfully determining GF is the presence of a steady
and therefore fully recorded load-displacement diagram. This again can only be ensured
if fracture mechanical testing is applied stably. Figure 6 demonstrates this condition on
high-performance structural adhesives from HENKEL used in this study.
Figure 6: Illustration of loading behavior of adhesives A, B and C. Due to a stable testing device the
successfully recording of a steady-stably load-displacement diagram could be achieved. Values are averaged.
Source: FRACTURE ANALYTICS
The application of both the right failure criterion and testing method is crucial for
effectively assessing an adhesive technically. In this research, all core requirements from
above are fulfilled, so the deduction of GF was accomplished. Furthermore, in this study,
this coefficient has been chosen as the lead benchmark for assessing damage tolerance
performance behavior of adhesively bonded structures. This was empirically
demonstrated in Figure 6, where even a brittle 2C Epoxy adhesive (HENKEL A) truly
showed "quasi-brittle" behavior when testing fracture mechanically. Such results would
not have been possible by using lap-shear tests according to [1–4].
9
3. Experimental
3.1. Specimens
The specimen produced for the mode-I loading cleavage test for in this study were created
from bonded aluminum blocks with dimensions of 30 mm by 50 mm in the area with a
bonding thickness of 0.2 mm as portrayed in Figure 7. Fracture mechanical testing was
performed for mode-I loading based on a special setup originally introduced in [29].
Figure 7: Illustration of mode-I loading test specimen used for determining specific fracture energy G F.
Source: FRACTURE ANALYTICS
3.2. Test Method

The adhesive bonding performance and damage tolerance potential of high-tech
structural adhesives were investigated by using bonded aluminum specimens as described
above. All experiments were performed on seven sets of samples per run and conducted on
three different impact-resistant structural adhesives, from which two revealed significant
damage tolerance potential. It should be noted that no further details of the test method
can be stated for reasons of nondisclosure contract between FRACTURE ANALYTICS and
company HENKEL CEE GmbH, Vienna, Austria. Table 1 indicates a compilation of
adhesives and substrates employed for this investigation.
Table 1: Overview of adhesives and adherends used in this study.

Adhesive Supplier Chemical Basis Substrate
A Henkel 2C EP Aluminum
B Henkel 2C CA/A Aluminum
C Henkel 2C H Aluminum
10
3.3. Test Setup

Specimens were prepared by HENKEL CEE GmbH, Vienna, Austria. They were bonded
manually without the application of external forces and stored for seven days at room
temperature. Samples were tested for mode-I cleavage loading until full separation. Each
test involved seven specimens. The surface was treated mechanically by grinding with a
grain size of 150 microns. The adhesive layer thickness was amounted to 0.2 mm.
Dimensions of bonded areas of specimens were 30 mm by 50 mm for mode-I cleavage
test. Specific fracture energy GF, cohesive tensile strength σc and a novel introduced
fracture toughness-based safety factor SF were ascertained. All tests were carried out in a
lab under standard atmosphere (20◦ C, 43% humidity) on a universal testing machine by
Zwick with a maximum loading capacity of 50 kN. The mode-I cleavage test was conducted
quasi-static "in situ" under a constant loading rate of 2 mm/min until the specimen
ruptured completely. Due to a nondisclosure agreement with HENKEL CEE GmbH and
FRACTURE ANALYTICS and patent registrations, no further details, pictures and
illustrations of the test setup for mode-I loading utilized in this study are available.
4. Results
Table 2 presents a compilation of adhesive performance benchmarks introduced in this
study for characterizing safety against unstable failure. Except lap-shear strength ls,
which was derived from technical data sheets (TDS) of HENKEL, all values were measured
separately by experiment.
All load-displacement diagrams conducted from this investigation were steady recorded
thanks to the stable testing device from [27] (Figure 6). This is a big benefit over traditional
approaches, such as [1–9, 26, 38, 39, 42–44] where unstable fracture dynamics prevail in terms
of a sudden drop in the load level after exceeding lap-shear or tensile strength, respectively.
Table 2: Compilation of technical adhesive performance benchmarks for adhesives A, B and C.

Benchmark Adhesive A Std. Adhesive B Std. Adhesive C Std.
Dev. Dev. Dev.
τ ls [MPa] 25 ±0 17.53 ±0 17.64 ±0

σc [MPa] 31.318 ±1.357 32.233 ±2.013 24.233 ±2.589
GF 1.642 ±0.110 5.457 ±0.612 6.495 ±0.922
[J/mm²]
SF [-] 0.196 ±0.03 1.950 ±0.483 4.716 ±0.478
11
Figure 8 indicates a comparison of bonding strength expressed by lap-shear strength  ls and

cohesive strength σc , respectively. As expected, adhesive A, which is based on 2C Epoxy,
indicates the highest lap-shear strength according to technical data sheets (TDS). However,
after conducting experiments on the bonded aluminum specimens, a slightly different picture
reveal. Especially, when relating cohesive strength instead of lap-shear strength, adhesive B
(2C CA/A) shows strong values even higher than for adhesive A (2C EP). This is remarkable,
as one might think that adhesive A is the strongest candidate.
So, caution must be appropriated when assessing structural adhesives solely on lap-
shear strength as there is danger of getting wrong impressions of true damage limits. That
is why different parameters were introduced in this study to understand the damage capacity
of structural adhesives more in deep.
Figure 8: Illustration of bonding strength distribution of structural adhesives used for investigation. Clearly,
Adhesives A and B show the same level of lap-shear strength whereas Adhesive A and B have almost equal
levels of cohesive strength.
Turning to adhesive C, it can be observed from Figure 9 that it has the highest damage
tolerance compared to 2C Epoxy-based adhesive A. This is very promising, as high values
of damage tolerance maximize the safety against unstable failure during operation thus pre-
venting the total structure from uncontrolled collapse. It can be stated that specific fracture
energy GF seems to serve as an excellent benchmark for characterizing damage tolerance
behavior of structural adhesives efficiency due to the incorporation of crack-shielding effects
explained earlier in this study (Figure 5).
12
Figure 9: Demonstration of bonding strength distribution of structural adhesives used for this study
supplemented by damage tolerance values depicted by colored balloons. Clearly, Adhesives C shows the
highest value of damage tolerance and thus the best safety against unstable failure whereas Adhesive A
shows opposite behavior due to its high strength. Source: FRACTURE ANALYTICS
5. Discussion
According to Figure 9, the performance compilation reveals high damage tolerance for
adhesives adhesive B and C, which are hybrid-based. This is supported by the strong values
of a newly introduced safety factor expressed by SF as indicated in Table 2. Notably, the level
of recovered lap-shear strength is almost the same. In summary, good crack growth
resistance was found for adhesive B and C as plotted in Figure 9. These results indicate the
benefits of the hybridization of adhesives by incorporating both high-impact resistance as
for Epoxy and low curing time as for Cyanoacrylate-based adhesives. The damage
tolerance chart according to Figure 9 reveals safety against unstable failure. In general,
the bigger the balloon, the better the fracture resistance against running cracks in case of
sudden damage. This was highlighted by different colors according to traffic lights. Thus,
such adhesives should be considered when it comes to ensuring a high bonding strength and
a strong damage tolerance.
6. Conclusions
A comprehensive investigation was conducted by applying an innovative fracture
mechanical testing technique. The aim was to investigate the adhesive bonding performance
of bonded interfaces of three types of structural adhesives used for bonding aluminum. In
the first procedure, lap-shear test values from technical data sheets (TDS) of the provider
were captured to monitor adhesive tensile strength. This was followed by applying a novel
fracture mechanical concept, from which cohesive tensile strength σc , specific fracture energy
GF and safety factor SF were derived. The results showed strong values of lap-shear strength
especially for Epoxy-based 2C adhesives, such as adhesive A, whereas 2C CA/A-based
candidate adhesive B and special hybrid-based adhesive C, had slightly lower values.
13
Fortunately, the latter ones showed up very high amounts of crack growth resistance
indicating the lowest risk against unstable failure in case of exceeding maximum
permitted load. The possible explanation to this effect might be due to the chemical hybrid
architecture of those adhesives enabling both high fracture toughness and high strength,
respectively.
The achievements of this study can be summarized as follows:

1. Adhesive A showed excellent lap-shear strength values. However, this was accompanied
by the lowest damage tolerance although. However, that is way in case of a crack
propagating through the interface the adhesive is likely to fail unstable leading to a
sudden break down of bonded structure. This behavior is typically for lap-shear based
testing.
2. Adhesive B show ed good values of damage tolerance compared to A due to its tough
nature and positive hybrid properties. Additionally, it has the same excellent cohesive
strength values compared to adhesive A.
3. Adhesive C, however, revealed excellent values of damage tolerance and fracture tough-
ness compared to more brittle 2C Epoxy adhesive A. However, it has slightly lower
strength values compared to hybrid candidate A or B, respectively.
4. Crack growth resistance GF seems a very suitable benchmark for incorporating non-
negligible crack - shielding effects influencing the softening process within the fracture
process zone (FPZ).
5. Stress-based coefficients such as lap-shear strength is not designed for deducing dam-
age tolerance properties because of unstable test setups. Thus, they are improper
for characterizing the adhesive bonding performance of structural adhesives used for
bonding aluminum structures.
6. Using non-linear elastic-plastic fracture mechanics as an assessment technique instead
of traditional mechanical approaches enables the generation of local independent
material parameters used for numeric simulation of cohesive zone models (CZM).
This allows the determined benchmarks to be validated accordingly.
7. Outlook
The outcome of this study indicated that high-strength structural adhesives possess
great potential for delaying running cracks in case of the appearance of hidden damages
such as micro-cracks, voids, flaws, crazes or contamination if there are tough enough. To
enable this, damage tolerance behavior was characterized by introducing new performance
benchmarks for assessing adhesives based upon non-linear elastic-plastic fracture mechanics.
Using performance benchmarks introduced in this study can excellently support decision-
making when selecting adhesives with high reliability, longevity and performance. Hence,
much emphasis should be put into safety research of structural adhesives in the future, since
this field seems very prospective especially for high-risk applications in the automotive,
aeronautics and medical industry.
14
8. List of abbreviations
CMOD = crack mouth opening displacement
δ = mathematical expression of CMOD
GF = non-linear elastic-plastic specific fracture energy (crack growth resistance)
SF = safety factor indicating damage tolerance against uncontrolled crack-propagation
GI = linear-elastic strain energy release rate for mode-I loading
KI = linear-elastic stress intensity factor (SIF) for mode-I loading
ls = lap-shear tensile strength of bulk
σc = cohesive tensile strength of interface
EP = Epoxy-based adhesives
CA = Cyanoacrylate-based adhesives
A = Acrylate-based adhesives
H = Hybrid-based adhesives
9. Availability of data and materials

Not applicable as confidential.
10. Competing interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.
11. Funding
The author declares that no funding was made.
12. Authors’ contributions

The author made all contributions by himself.
13. Acknowledgments
Not applicable.
14. Author biography

Dr. Martin Brandtner-Hafner was born in 1977 in Güssing, Burgenland, Austria and
studied industrial engineering at Vienna University of Technology. After his doctoral study
about “interface fracture mechanics of adhesively bonded composites” he followed his
passion to lecture in the field of aeronautical and mechanical engineering. In 2016, he
founded FRACTURE ANALYTICS, a private and independent consulting & research
company which is specialized in the comparative assessment and benchmarking of structural
adhesives, medical cement and bonded composites for high-tech industries in terms of
safety, quality and performance.
15
References
[1] DIN EN 1465, Adhesives - Determination of Tensile Lap-Shear Strength of Bonded Assemblies,
Beuth (2016). doi:10.31030/1507601.
[2] ISO 4587, Adhesives - Determination of Tensile Lap-Shear Strength of Rigid-to-Rigid Bonded
Assemblies, International Organization for Standardization (2003). doi:10.3403/02844256.
[3] ASTM D3163, Standard Test Method for Determining Strength of Adhesively Bonded Rigid Plastic
Lap-Shear Joints in Shear by Tension Loading (2014). doi:10.1520/D3163-01R14.
[4] ASTM D1002, Test Method for Apparent Shear Strength of Single-Lap-Joint Adhesively Bonded Metal
Specimens by Tension Loading (Metal-to-Metal), Test method for Apparent Shear Strength of Single-
Lap-Joint Adhesively Bonded Metal Specimens by Tension Loading (Metal-to-Metal) (2010).
doi:10.1520/D1002-10.
[5] ASTM D897, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Adhesive Bonds (2016).
doi:10.1520/D0897-08R16.
[6] ISO 527, Plastics - Determination of Tensile Properties - Part 3: Test Conditions for Films and Sheets,
International Organization for Standardization 527 (2018).
[7] ASTM D638, Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics (2014). doi:10.1520/D0638-14.
[8] ASTM D1876, Test Method for Peel Resistance of Adhesives (2015). doi:10.1520/D1876-08R15E01.
[9] ISO 8510, Adhesives - Peel Test for a Flexible-Bonded-to-Rigid Test Specimen Assembly, International
Organization for Standardization (2006).
[10] A. S. Argon, The Physics of Deformation and Fracture of Polymers, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[11] W. D. Callister, Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 7th Edition, Wiley, New York,
NY, 2007, pp. 1–975.
[12] T. L. Anderson, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd Edition, Taylor & Francis
Group, 2005, pp. 1–630.
[13] A. T. Zehnder, Fracture Mechanics - Lecture Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics, Vol. 62,
Springer Science + Business Media, 2012, pp. 1–238.
[14] R. P. Wei, Fracture Mechanics: Integration of Mechanics, Materials Science, Cambridge University
Press, 2010, pp. 1–232.
[15] N. E. Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials: Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture,
and Fatigue, Pearson, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex, CM20 2JE, England, 2013, pp. 1–977, 4th
Edition.
[16] D. Gross, T. Seelig, Bruchmechanik: Mit einer Einführung in die Mikromechanik, Springer, Berlin,
2016, pp. 1–370, 6th Edition.
[17] M. Kuna, Finite Elements in Fracture Mechanics, Theory-Numerics-Applications, 1st Edition, Vol.
201, 2013, pp. 1–464.
[18] N. Perez, Fracture Mechanics, 2nd Edition, Springer, 2017, pp. 1–225.
[19] L. F. M. Silva, A. Öchsner, R. D. Adams, Handbook of Adhesion Technology, 2nd Edition, Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, 2018, pp. 1–1568.
[20] A. Pizzi, K. L. Mittal, Handbook of Adhesive Technology, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, 2003, pp. 1–
999, 2nd Edition.
[21] S. Correia, V. Anes, L. Reis, Effect of Surface Treatment on Adhesively Bonded Aluminium-Aluminium
Joints regarding Aeronautical Structures, Engineering Failure Analysis 84 (2018) 34–45.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.10.010.
[22] B. G. Silva-Sutil, A. H. Susin, Dentin Pretreatment and Adhesive Temperature as Affecting Factors on
Bond Strength of a Universal Adhesive System, Journal of Applied Oral Science 25 (2017) 533–540.
doi:10.1590/1678-7757-2016-0500.
[23] P. Weigraeber, W. Becker, Finite Fracture Mechanics Model for Mixed Mode Fracture in Adhesive
Joints, International Journal of Solids and Structures 50 (2013) 2383–2394.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.03.01.
[24] P. S. Watson, S. Clauss, S. Ammann, P. Niemz, Fracture Properties of Adhesive Joints under
Mechanical Stresses, Wood Research 58 (2013) 43–56.
[25] S. Budhe, M. D. Banea, S. D. Barros, L. F. M. D. Silva, An Updated Review of Adhesively Bonded
Joints in Composite Materials, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 72 (2017) 30–42.
doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.10.010.
16
[26] B. Blackman, A. Kinloch, Fracture Tests on Structural Adhesive Joints, Journal of the European
Structural Integrity Society 28 (2001) 225–267. doi:10.1016/s1566-1369(01)80036-4.
[27] M. H. Brandtner-Hafner, Interface Fracture Behavior of Industrial Adhesives: A Novel Evaluation
Approach for Adhesive Selection, in: IN-ADHESIVES Symposium on Innovations in Adhesives and
their Applications, 14-15 February 2017, Munich, 2017, pp. 221–229.
[28] M. H. Brandtner-Hafner, Interface Fracture Mechanics of Notched Wood-Adhesive Composites at
Mode-I loading, in: International Symposium on Notch Fracture (ISNF), 29 - 31 March 2017,
Santander, Spain, Vol. 1, 2017, pp. 104–111.
[29] M. H. Brandtner-Hafner, Mechanical Fracture Characterization of Adhesive Interfaces: Introducing
a New Concept for Evaluating Adhesive Quality, Materials Testing 60 (9) (2018) 855–861.
doi:10.3139/120.111224.
[30] M. H. Brandtner-Hafner, Fracture Mechanical Characterization of Adhesively Bonded Wood-Ceramic-
Interfaces for Mode-I Loading, Journal of Testing and Evaluation 48 (5) (2020).
doi:10.1520/JTE20180256.
[31] M. H. Brandtner-Hafner, Innovative Assessment Concept for Qualitative Adhesive Selection,
Adhesion: Adhesives & Sealants 16 (2) (2019) 16–21, doi: 10.1007/s35784-019-0011-6.
[32] M. H. Brandtner-Hafner, Holistic Evaluation of Industrial Adhesives for the Optimal Selection Process,
Adhesion: Adhesives & Sealants 63 (5) (2019) 22–25, in German. doi:10.1007/s35145-019-0030-0.
[33] M. H. Brandtner-Hafner, Assessing the Natural-Healing Behavior of Adhesively Bonded Structures
under Dynamic Loading, Engineering Structures 196 (10), In Print (2019).
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109303.
[34] M. Rasche, The Tensile Shear Test in Adhesive Bonding, Adhesion: Adhesives & Sealants 11 (1990) 36–
43, in German.
[35] M. Sakai, R. C. Bradt, Fracture Toughness Testing of Brittle Materials, International Materials Reviews
38 (2) (1993) 53–78. doi:10.1179/imr.1993.38.2.53.
[36] A. Hillerborg, The Theoretical Basis of a Method to Determine the Fracture Energy GF of Concrete,
Materials and Structures 18 (4) (1985) 291–296. doi:10.1007/bf02472919.
[37] A. A. Wells, Critical Crack Tip Opening Displacement as Fracture Criterion, in: Crack Propagation
Symposium, 1961, pp. 210–221.
[38] ISO 25217, Adhesives - Determination of the Mode-I Adhesive Fracture Energy of Structural Adhesive
Joints using Double Cantilever Beam and Tapered Double Cantilever Beam Specimens (2009).
[39] ISO 13586, Plastics - Determination of Fracture Toughness (GIC and KIC) - Linear Elastic Facture
Mechanics (LEFM) Approach, International Organization for Standardization (2018).
[40] J. Rösler, M. Bäker, H. Harders, Mechanisches Verhalten der Werkstoffe, 2nd Edition, Vieweg +
Teubner, Wiesbaden, 2006.
[41] A. A. Griffith, The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solids, Philosophical Transactions 221 (1920)
163–198.
[42] ASTM D5528, Standard Test Method for Mode-I Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional
Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites (2013). doi:10.1520/D6671_D6671M-13E01.
[43] ASTM D5045, Test Methods for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness and Strain Energy Release Rate of
Plastic Materials (1999). doi:10.1520/D5045-99.
[44] ASTM D3433, Standard Test Method for Fracture Strength in Cleavage of Adhesives in Bonded Metal
Joints (2012). doi:10.1520/D3433-99R12.
17
View publication stats

ConferencePaper AB2019 04 FA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ConferencePaper AB2019 04 FA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives: Introducing a New Benchmark for

Conference Paper · July 2019

Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives View project

Fracture Analysis of Biocomposites View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Fracture Analysis of Structural Adhesives: Introducing a New

Please cite this paper as follows:

2. Materials and Methods

Figure 1 portrays an exemplary example of one of the strongest handicaps of lap-shear

2.3. A Stable Method of Testing

Figure 4: Various crack-shielding effects. a) crack deflection, b) micro-cracking, c) plastic yielding, d)

2.4. Introducing the GF -Concept

2.4.1. Non-Linear Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics

2.4.2. Steady-Stable Load-Displacement Diagrams

3.2. Test Method

Table 1: Overview of adhesives and adherends used in this study.

3.3. Test Setup

Table 2: Compilation of technical adhesive performance benchmarks for adhesives A, B and C.

τ ls [MPa] 25 ±0 17.53 ±0 17.64 ±0

Figure 8 indicates a comparison of bonding strength expressed by lap-shear strength  ls and

The achievements of this study can be summarized as follows:

9. Availability of data and materials

10. Competing interests

12. Authors’ contributions

14. Author biography

View publication stats

You might also like