Strength Prediction of T-Peel Joints by A Hybrid Spot-Welding/adhesive Bonding Technique

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/309023766
Strength prediction of T-peel joints by a hybrid spot-welding/adhesive

bonding technique
Article in The Journal of Adhesion · October 2016

DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2016.1244013
CITATIONS READS
2 119
3 authors, including:
F.J.s. de Almeida Raul Campilho

Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto
2 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS 373 PUBLICATIONS 7,222 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) Coating - 3D simulation View project
Manufacturing View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Raul Campilho on 06 June 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Journal of Adhesion
ISSN: 0021-8464 (Print) 1545-5823 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gadh20
Strength prediction of T-peel joints by a hybrid

spot-welding/adhesive bonding technique
F. J. S. de Almeida, R. D. S. G. Campilho & F. J. G. Silva
To cite this article: F. J. S. de Almeida, R. D. S. G. Campilho & F. J. G. Silva (2018) Strength

prediction of T-peel joints by a hybrid spot-welding/adhesive bonding technique, The Journal of
Adhesion, 94:3, 181-198, DOI: 10.1080/00218464.2016.1244013
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2016.1244013
Accepted author version posted online: 11

Oct 2016.
Published online: 29 Nov 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 61
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gadh20
Download by: [POLITECNICO DO PORTO] Date: 05 January 2018, At: 09:58

THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION
2018, VOL. 94, NO. 3, 181–198
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2016.1244013
Strength prediction of T-peel joints by a hybrid

spot-welding/adhesive bonding technique
F. J. S. de Almeidaa, R. D. S. G. Campilhoa,b, and F. J. G. Silvaa
a
Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Instituto
Politécnico do Porto, Porto, Portugal; bINEGI – Pólo FEUP, Porto, Portugal
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The need of joining methods that best meet the design require- Received 19 July 2016
Downloaded by [POLITECNICO DO PORTO] at 09:58 05 January 2018
ments has led to the increased use of adhesive joints at the Accepted 29 September 2016
expense of welding, fastening and riveting. Hybrid weld-bonded KEYWORDS
joints are obtained by combining adhesive bonding with a Cohesive zone models; finite
welded joint, providing superior strength and stiffness, and element analysis; fracture;
higher resistance to peeling and fatigue. In the present work, an joint design; steels
experimental and numerical study of welded, adhesive and
hybrid (weld-bonded) T-peel joints under peeling loads is pre-
sented. The brittle Araldite® AV138, the moderately ductile
Araldite® 2015 and the ductile Sikaforce® 7752 were the consid-
ered adhesives. An analysis of the experimental values and a
comparison of these values with Finite Element Method (FEM)
results in Abaqus® were carried out, which included a stress
analysis in the adhesive and strength prediction by Cohesive
Zone Models (CZM) considering failure simulation of both the
adhesive layer and weld-nugget. It was found that the Sikaforce®
7752 performs best in the bonded and hybrid configurations. The
good agreement between the experimental and numerical
results enabled the validation of CZM to predict the strength of
adhesive and hybrid T-peel joints, giving a basis for reducing the
design time and enabling the optimization of these joints.
1. Introduction
The need of joining methods that best meet the design requirements has led to
the increased use of adhesive joints at the expense of the traditional methods
such as welding, fastening and riveting. Their use in various industrial applica-
tions is justified by the smaller weight, reduction of stress concentrations,
acoustic insulation and improved corrosion resistance. However, they also
present disadvantages, such as the need of joint preparation, the poor resis-
tance to peel loads and the complexity in the strength prediction [1]. The
widespread use of adhesive bonding in structural components and machines
supposes that reliable predictive tools are available for designers to implement
best solution for a given application [2]. Traditionally, the strength prediction
CONTACT R. D. S. G. Campilho raulcampilho@gmail.com Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Instituto

Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 431, 4200-072
Porto, Portugal.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
182 F. J. S. DE ALMEIDA ET AL.
of bonded joints can be carried out by continuum mechanics or fracture

mechanics. In continuum mechanics, the stress distributions in the adhesive
layer are initially estimated by theoretical or numerical methods such as the
FEM [3]. The FEM excels theoretical methods in handling with ease complex
structures and non-linear material properties [4]. The maximum load (Pm)
estimation is made by comparing the stresses or strains in the models with the
limit values. Fracture mechanics studies applied to bonded joints are scarce in
the literature, but the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) can be used,
although it is restricted to Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) principles
and needs an initial crack [5]. A generalized stress intensity factor, similar to
the stress intensity factor used in classical fracture mechanics, was used by Xu
et al. [6] to predict failure initiation at the interface corners in bonded joints.
CZM combine elements from the strength of materials and fracture mechanics
to provide damage path analysis and strength prediction of bonded joints
[7, 8]. In fact, damage initiation is predicted by strength-based criteria, while
damage growth is evaluated by energetic criteria, enabling the simulation of
damage growth till failure. CZM modelling applied to bonded joints can be
undertaken by the local or continuum technique [9]. In the former technique,
damage propagation is confined to zero thickness lines and surfaces (in two
dimensions and three dimensions, respectively) connecting the different mate-
rials (adherends and adhesive layer), while the plasticity of materials develops
at the solid elements. In continuum modelling, the behaviour of the adhesive
layer is fully represented by a row of CZM elements. Thus, thickness-wise
effects and stress concentrations are neglected in this simplification. However,
this technique has already proved to be accurate if the CZM laws are properly
estimated [10]. Kafkalidis and Thouless [11] considered CZM to numerically
analyse symmetric and asymmetric single-lap joints. The characteristic para-
meters of the CZM laws were estimated considering a specific joint geometry
for the adhesive under analysis and subsequently used in other different
configurations. The comparison with the experiments revealed accurate pre-
dictions of Pm and respective displacement. Ridha et al. [12] used the same
technique in adhesively bonded scarf repairs on composite panels bonded with
the ductile epoxy adhesive FMs 300M (Cytec, NJ, USA). Different CZM laws
were considered: linear, exponential and trapezoidal. In general, the strength
predictions were accurate, although the linear and exponential CZM laws
caused strength under predictions of approximately 20% because of over
estimating the plastic degradation at the edges of the adhesive layer, which
was not consistent with the real joints. eXtended Finite Element Method
(XFEM) simulations surpass CZM modelling by not requiring placing cohesive
elements at the growth paths. The XFEM is based on the concept of partition
of unity, and it consists of enriching the displacements in the conventional
FEM formulation [13]. Campilho et al. [14] applied the XFEM formulation
implemented in Abaqus® (Dassault Systèmes, Vélizy-Villacoublay, France) to
THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 183
assess failure of single and double-lap joints. It was found that the Maximum
Principal Stress (MAXPS) and Maximum Principal Strain (MAXPE) criteria
do not work to simulate damage under mixed-mode conditions because failure
progressed towards the joint adherends, which does not represent the actual
behaviour of bonded joints.
Bonded joints subjected to peel loads are widely studied and documented
in the literature [15, 16]. Kaelble [15] performed an analytical analysis of peel
bonded joints. T-joints, T-peel joints and single-L joints are the most com-
mon peel configurations to be used in a real application. T-peel joints are
perhaps the most widely studied, e.g., da Silva and Adams [17] and Grant
et al. [18]. The experimental work of Nase et al. [19] addressed T-peel and
fixed arm peel tests with different adhesive formulations. Peel films of low-
density polyethylene/isotactic polybutene-1 (iPB-1) were tested and the frac-

ture energy measured by energetic concepts. Different amounts of iPB-1
content were considered in the T-peel joint tests, resulting in an exponential
decrease of the strain energy release rate (Gc) by increasing the iPB-1 content.
The fixed arm peel tests showed interlaminar and translaminar propagation
phases, which were characterized by fracture mechanics parameters. T-peel
joints have a geometry that makes them vulnerable to tensile (pullout) loads,
since stresses in the adhesive layer are typically concentrated in a small
bonded area. Thus, by considering a hybrid T-peel joint by combining the
bonded joint with a rivet, bolt or spot-welding, its peel strength will largely
increase. Hybrid joints are obtained by combining a traditional technique
with adhesive bonding [20]. Hybrid weld-bonded joints are obtained by
combining adhesive bonding with a welded joint, with spot-welding being
the most widely used welding technique in the manufacture of such joints.
The synergy between adhesive bonding and spot-welding provides competi-
tive advantages over adhesive bonding, such as superior strength and stiffness
and higher resistance to peeling and fatigue [21]. A more recent alternative to
this hybrid solution is the combination between adhesive bonding and
Friction-Stir Welding, as described in the work of Braga et al. [22]. These
authors concluded that FSW is not a match for adhesive-bonding. When
these two techniques are combined, improved results over adhesive bonding
could not be obtained only due to manufacturing issues (adhesive degrada-
tion induced by the FSW process), providing identical results to the bonded
joint. Nowadays, hybrid joints find application in structural elements such as
aeronautical parts, missile shells, spaceship sounders and car industry [23],
and several research studies on this topic are available, either static [24] or
fatigue-based [25]. Hybrid joints are extremely hard to model by analytical
models because of the complex geometries. Thus, experimental testing
[26, 27] and the FEM method [28, 29] are the most common techniques
found in the literature to address hybrid joints.
The first study on the damage process of weld-bonded T-peel joints is that
of Gilchrist and Smith [30], which used cohesive elements in fatigue strength
studies to characterize the initiation, propagation and damage growth direc-
tion in these joints. In this study, the authors observed cohesive crack growth
in the adhesive layer initiating at the adhesive fillet located at the bond edge
and propagating towards the inner region of the bond. Darwish and Al-
Samhan [31], in a parametric study by the FEM, compared welded T-peel
joints with adherends of equal and dissimilar thickness with weld-bonded
T-peel joints with adherends of different thickness. It was found that the
introduction of the adhesive layer drastically increases the strength of a
welded joint. Moreover, at the sites of highest principal stress concentrations,
these were reduced by 85% with the introduction of the adhesive layer. Thus,
this hybrid joining technology was recommended to join parts with dissim-
ilar thickness. In the literature, few studies are available about the mechanical
behaviour of hybrid T-peel joints. Although these involve some complexity, it
is extremely important to predict their strength. In fact, in constructive
terms, such joints enable butt joining structural elements, which is a quite
common bonding scenario in the industry.
In the present work, an experimental and numerical study of T-peel
welded, adhesive and hybrid (adhesive-welded) joints is presented under
peeling loads. The brittle Araldite® AV138 (Huntsman, Basel, Switzerland),
the moderately ductile Araldite® 2015 and the ductile Sikaforce® 7752 (Sika®,
Baar, Switzerland) were the considered adhesives between steel substrates
(C45E). An analysis of the experimental values and a comparison of these
values with FEM results in Abaqus® were carried out, which included a stress
analysis in the adhesive layer and joint strength prediction by CZM.
2. Experimental work
2.1. Adherends and adhesives
In this work, C45E carbon steel (EN 10083-2: 2006) adherends were con-
sidered for the joints, characterized in tension in a previous work by the
ASTM-E8M-04 standard [29]. Figure 1 (a) shows the engineering stress–
strain (σ–ε) curves for five bulk specimens tested in tension and respective
approximation to use in the FEM models. The relevant mechanical properties
are the following: Young’s modulus (E) of 204.32 ± 2.40 GPa, yield stress (σy)
of 279.11 ± 0.82 MPa, tensile strength (σf) of 347.51 ± 0.93 MPa and tensile
failure strain (εf) of 36.36 ± 2.45%. Three structural adhesives were tested in
the bonded and hybrid joints: the brittle epoxy Araldite® AV138, the mod-
erately ductile epoxy Araldite® 2015 and the ductile polyurethane Sikaforce®
7752. The adhesives’ selection process is dependent on the fabrication tech-
nique of the hybrid joints: either flow-in or weld-through, this last one
a) b)
500 50
400 40
300 30
σ [MPa]
σ [MPa]
200 20
100 10
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
ε ε
Experimental Numerical approximation Araldite® AV138 Araldite® 2015 Sikaforce® 7752
Figure 1. σ–ε curves of the C45E adherends and respective approximation for the numerical
analysis [29] (a) and selected σ–ε curves of the adhesives [33–35] (b).
considered in the present work. In the flow-in method, the process begins by
spot-welding the adherends and subsequent adhesive filling by capillarity
effect and curing the specimens with heat application. On the other hand, in
the weld-through process, the adherends are initially bonded, followed by
spot-welding during the working time (WT) of the adhesive [32]. In view of
the selected fabrication process, it is important to assure that the WT of the
adhesives is high enough to permit the welding procedure before the adhe-
sive solidifies. Mechanical and fracture characterization of the adhesives was
undertaken in previous works [33–35]. The values of E, σy, σf and εf of the
adhesives were determined by tensile tests to bulk specimens. The Double-
Cantilever Beam (DCB) test was considered to measure the tensile fracture
toughness (GIc), and the End-Notched Flexure (ENF) test for the shear
fracture toughness (GIIc, or in three-dimensions GIIc for shear and GIIIc for
tearing). Figure 1 (b) compares representative σ–ε curves of these adhesives
obtained from the bulk tests.
2.2. Joint geometry, fabrication and testing

Figure 2 depicts the geometry and relevant dimensions of the T-peel joints
used in this work. The dimensions are as follows (in mm): bonded length L =
90, width w = 25, free length c = 22, adherend radius R = 1, adherend
thickness tP = 2, a and b = 12.5 (spot-weld position) and adhesive thickness
tA = 0 for the welded joints and tA = 0.2 for the bonded and weld-bonded
joints. All joint configurations were fabricated with the aid of a positioning
mould to ensure the correct alignment between the two adherends.
Moreover, the mentioned tA value was attained by using Ø0.2 mm calibrated
wire at the overlap edges during the curing process. The welds for the spot-
welded and hybrid joints were executed in a CEA® NKLT-28 welder with
conical electrode tips truncated to Ø6 mm. The welding parameters to
Figure 2. Geometry and dimensions of the T-peel joints.
consider in this process are: (1) the squeeze time – elapsed time (defined in
50 Hz cycles of applied current, as in the following parameters) from the
initiation of joint squeezing and the application of electric current, (2) the
upslope – number of cycles required to attain the user-defined welding
current, (3) the welding time – duration in cycles of the welding process
and (4) the welding current – electric current in percentage of the maximum
machine capacity. A one-week period was assured between bonding and
testing for the bonded and weld-bonded joints. The joints were tested at
room temperature in an electro-mechanical tester Shimadzu AG-X 100
(Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) equipped with a 100 kN load cell, with a velocity
of 1 mm/min. Five specimens were tested for each joint configuration.
3. Numerical work
3.1. Modelling conditions
The numerical work was performed in Abaqus® accounting for geometrical
non-linearities to accurately model the large joint rotations expected due to
the adherends’ geometry. The objectives of this analysis are the CZM tool
validation by direct comparison with the experimental tests, giving analysts
an accurate design tool, and the exhaustive comparison between three adhe-
sive types, ranging from strong and brittle to less strong but ductile. This
comparative evaluation regards the failure process, stress plots in the adhe-
sive layer and Pm. It was necessary to consider a three-dimensional analysis
due to the inclusion of the spot-weld, although it was possible to include
longitudinal symmetry. The models were constructed with continuum ele-

ments (C3D8R from Abaqus®) with a damage model for the adherends
(continuum-mechanics-based plastic evolution depicted in Figure 1), while
damage growth in the spot-weld and adhesive layer was made possible by
modelling these media with triangular CZM elements (COH3D8 8-node
cohesive elements) [36]. Figure 3 presents, as an example, the mesh for the
hybrid joint, whose construction was identical to the spot-welded and
bonded joint models. Mesh size grading was considered through-thickness
in the adherends in the direction of the adhesive layer. The adherends were
also divided into different partitions to provide a higher mesh refinement at
Figure 3. Mesh details at the most relevant joint regions (hybrid joint).
the weld-nugget. The boundary conditions consisted of fixing one of the

adherends’ edges, while the other edge was subjected to a tensile prescribed
displacement and transversely restrained. The symmetry plane was fixed in
its normal direction. The adhesive layer and weld-nugget were modelled by
CZM elements to promote damage growth considering the continuum CZM
approach, i.e., using CZM elements to represent the full behaviour of the
adhesive layer between the adherends [37, 38]. The mentioned CZM ele-
ments are perfectly collinear in the models and link the two adherends
along L.
3.2. Triangular CZM and cohesive parameters

CZM elements model the linear behaviour of materials up to the cohesive

strength (tn0 in tension and ts0 in shear; in three-dimensions ts10 in shear or
ts20 in tearing) and subsequent material degradation up to failure [9]. The
areas under the traction-separation laws in tension, shear or tearing (GI, GII
or GIII, respectively) are equalled to GIc, GIIc or GIIIc, by the respective order.
In this work, a triangular law was used, which initially considers an elastic
behaviour and, after damage, linear degradation takes place (Figure 4). Under
pure loading, damage grows at a specific integration point when stresses are
released in the respective damage law. Under a combined loading, stress and
energetic criteria are often used to combine tension and shear [8]. The
triangular law (Figure 4) assumes an initial linear elastic behaviour followed
by linear degradation. Elasticity is defined by a constitutive matrix (K)
containing the stiffness parameters and relating stresses (t) and strains (ε)
across the interface

tn Knn Kns εn
t¼ ¼ ¼ Kε: (1)
ts Kns Kss εs
Figure 4. Traction-separation law with linear softening law.

tn and ts are the current tensile and shear tractions, respectively, and εn and εs
the corresponding strains. A suitable approximation for thin adhesive layers
is provided with Knn = E, Kss = G and Kns = 0 [39]. Damage initiation can be
specified by different criteria. In this work, the quadratic nominal stress
criterion was considered for the initiation of damage, already shown to
give accurate results [40] and expressed as
2 2
htn i ts
0
þ ¼ 1: (2)
tn ts 0
h iare the Macaulay brackets, emphasizing that a purely compressive stress

state does not initiate damage. After the mixed-mode cohesive strength is
attained (tm0 in Figure 4) by the fulfilment of Equation (2), the material

stiffness is degraded. Complete separation is predicted by a linear power
law form of the required energies for failure in the pure modes (GI and GII
are the current tensile and shear strain energy release rates, respectively)
[41, 42]
GI GII
þ ¼ 1: (3)
GIc GIIc
The cohesive parameters for the weld-nugget differ from the steel proper-
ties because of the applied thermal cycle during welding. In a previous
work by the authors [29], an experimental study was performed for the
same adherend material and one of the adhesives selected for this work
(Araldite® 2015), regarding the optimal welding parameters. Emphasis was
given on obtaining a strong bond by the weld-nugget, but without inflict-
ing visible damage in the surrounding adhesive layer by heating effects.
Different sets of welding parameters were tested, and the optimal para-
meters were defined as: squeezing time of 3 cycles, upslope of 5 cycles,
welding time of 35 cycles and welding current 45% of the machine
capacity (≈6.3 kA). The CZM properties to simulate the weld-nugget
were found by applying an inverse fitting technique to the purely welded
joint configuration, enabling to attain a very good fit between the numer-
ical and experimental load–displacement (P–δ) curves (for details, see
reference [29]). These CZM properties were then applied to simulate the
weld-nugget in the hybrid joints. The adhesives were characterized in
previous works by suitable mechanical and fracture tests [33–35], under
identical restraining conditions to those used in this work (e.g., identical tA
values), and the resulting properties were directly applied in this work.
Table 1 shows the parameters introduced in Abaqus® for the simulation of
damage growth in the adhesive layer and weld-nugget.
Table 1. Cohesive parameters of the adhesives and weld-nugget for CZM modelling.
Property AV138 2015 7752 weld-nugget
E [GPa] 4.89 1.85 0.49 204.32
G [GPa] 1.56 0.56 0.19 78.58
tn0 [MPa] 39.45 21.63 11.48 500
ts10 = ts20 [MPa] 30.2 17.9 10.17 395
GIc [N/mm] 0.20 0.43 2.36 110
GIIc = GIIIc [N/mm] 0.38 4.70 5.41 230
4. Results
4.1. Stress analysis
Peel (σy) and shear (τxy) stresses are evaluated along the adhesive layer during
the elastic loading phase, at the mid-adhesive thickness and at the midplane
of the joint width. These planes are considered as representative of the stress
state in the adhesive layer, although stress concentration areas occur at the
interfaces between the adhesive and the adherends [43]. The presented curves
are normalized relatively to the joint length (x/L is considered). Only the 0 ≤
x/L ≤ 0.2 interval is considered to improve visualization, since stresses at the
remaining portion of the adhesive are practically nil. The values of σy and τxy
are also normalized to the average peel stress (σy avg) for each adhesive and
for each joint configuration (bonded or hybrid).
Figure 5 (a) and (b) presents, for the three configurations of adhesive
joints, σy and τxy stresses distributions, respectively, as a function of L.
Disregarding the adhesive type, high σy stress concentrations are found
near the loaded end of the adhesive layer (x/L = 0), where damage initiated.
The adhesive joint with the Araldite® AV138 exhibits the highest σy peak
stresses (normalized peak value over σyavg of 133.16), followed by the
Araldite® 2015 and the Sikaforce® 7752 (normalized peak values of 95.68
and 60.25, respectively). After this peak region, σy peel stresses substantially
decrease with increasing distance from the edge of the adhesive layer up to
a) b)
140 140
120 120
100 100
τXy/σy avg
80
σy/σy avg
80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
-20 -20
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
x/L x/L
AV138 2015 7752 AV138 2015 7752
Figure 5. σy (a) and τxy (b) stress distributions at the adhesive mid-thickness for the bonded
joints.
attaining negative values. The highest rate of decrease occurs in the Araldite®
AV138. The normalized magnitude of compressive σy stresses is highest for
the Araldite® AV138 (9.09), followed by the Araldite® 2015 (6.76) and finally
the Sikaforce® 7752 (4.05). After the negative peak, σy stresses quickly
approach zero values. The previously described behaviour of σy stresses can
be explained by the adhesives’ stiffness. In fact, the Araldite® AV138 is the
stiffest adhesive, making it the one with less capacity to distribute stresses
over the adhesive and the one with the highest stress gradients. Opposed to
this behaviour, the Sikaforce® 7752 is the most compliant, thus resulting in a
more uniform state of stresses. The distribution of τxy stresses is similar to
that of σy stresses, peaking near x/L = 0. The highest normalized peak values
were attained for the Araldite® AV138 (25.33), followed by the Araldite® 2015
and Sikaforce® 7752 with respective values of 14.25 and 6.37. This results in
the joints with the Sikaforce® 7752 having the most uniform distribution of
τxy stresses. As observed for σy stresses, this difference is closely linked to the
adhesives’ stiffness. After the occurrence of these peak stresses, τxy stresses
decrease smoothly up to being nil. Despite this similarity to σy stresses, the
normalized magnitude is significantly lower. In fact, due to the typically peel
load of T-joints, τxy stresses are considered residual and only exist due to the
adherends’ deformation in the vicinity of x/L = 0. This deformation cancels
the orthogonality between the applied load and the adhesive layer, which
leads to the appearance of τxy stresses. Due to the substantially lower values
of τxy stresses compared to σy stresses, the former can be neglected in the
joints’ analysis.
Figure 6 shows σy (a) and τxy stresses distributions (b) as a function of L
for the welded and hybrid joints bonded with the three adhesives. The y-axis
is truncated such that the peaks are not observed for the welded joint to allow
better visualization of the curve. The welded joint reveals σy peel stresses at
the periphery of the weld-nugget. At the weld-nugget’s edge closest to x/L =
0, σy peak stresses are 736.63 times higher than σy avg. At the centre of the
welding point σy stresses are compressive and approximately constant,
becoming highly compressive towards the opposite weld-nugget edge, attain-
ing 565.50 times the value of σy avg. The hybrid joints have a very similar
behaviour to the bonded joints between x/L = 0 and the weld-nugget’s
periphery. Thus, these joints also reveal marked σy peel stresses near x/L =
0. The hybrid joint with the Araldite® AV138 is the one with higher peak
values, 132.38 times higher than σy avg, followed by the hybrid joint with the
Araldite® 2015 and the Sikaforce ® 7752 with normalized values of 95.31 and
64.42, respectively. Comparing these values with those observed for the
adhesive joints, these are virtually identical. Following, σy stresses decrease
over the adhesive layer up to values close to zero, while at the periphery of
the weld-nugget less significant peak stresses appear. Compared to the
welded joint, hybrid joints have much lower magnitude σy peak stresses at
a) 250 b) 250
200 200
150 150
τxy/σy avg
σy/σy avg
100 100
50 50
0 0
-50 -50
-100 -100
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
x/L x/L
Spot-welded AV138 2015 7752 Spot-welded AV138 2015 7752
Figure 6. σy (a) and τxy (b) stress distributions at the adhesive mid-thickness for the hybrid joints.
both edges of the weld-nugget. Thus, these results show that the introduction
of an adhesive layer to a spot-welded joint greatly reduces σy stresses at the
periphery of the weld-nugget. This effect is of particular importance because
it is at the periphery of the welding point where failure of the welded joints
begins. τxy stresses for the welded joint reveal high concentrations at both
ends (reaching a normalized value of 214.35 over σy avg at the end of the weld-
nugget closest to x/L = 0). At the opposite edge, the peak value is 92.58. The
introduction of an adhesive layer results in a strong reduction of τxy stresses at
the weld-nugget region. τxy stresses of the hybrid joints between x/L = 0 and the
weld-nugget are very similar to those observed for the bonded joints, both in
which regards the curve shape and magnitude. At the weld-nugget, τxy stresses
are practically zero except at its edges, particularly the one nearest to x/L = 0.
4.2. Failure modes and P–δ curves

Failure of the welded joints occurred by detachment of the weld-nugget by
the welding line. All bonded and hybrid joints suffered full cohesive failures
in the adhesive layer. By visual inspection of the failure surfaces of the hybrid
joints, a burnt region near the weld-nugget was visible, with a thickness
between 1 and 2 mm. Figure 7 shows the valid experimental P–δ curves and
numerical approximation for the welded joints, with a steep increase of P in
the beginning of loading up to ≈ 1000 N. Above this point, the high adherend
deformations result in a global stiffness reduction of the specimens. Pm
corresponds to the onset of weld-nugget failure at its periphery. The simula-
tion result managed to capture quite accurately the curves’ behaviour and Pm
value. The numerical and experimental curves show a stiffening effect before
attaining Pm, which is due to the non-linear geometric nature of the damage
process, i.e., during the adherends’ plastic deformation initially there is
extensive adherend bending between the loading points and the weld-nugget,
while at a certain point the weld-nugget becomes almost aligned with the
P [kN]
3
0
0 10 20 30
δ [mm]
Experimental Numerical
Figure 7. Experimental and numerical P–δ curves for the welded joints.
applied load, which induces a higher overall joint stiffness. Figure 8 reports
the P–δ curves for the bonded joints with the Sikaforce® 7752, whose agree-
ment between the experiments and simulations is representative of all joint
configurations. The behaviour is initially typically linear up to attaining Pm,
apart from slight softening near this point. This occurred due to the marked
ductility of this particular adhesive and was minimal for the two other
adhesives. Following, the load begins to drop gradually as the crack propa-
gates through the adhesive layer. Figure 9 compares the experimental and
numerical P–δ curves for the hybrid joints with the Araldite® 2015, whose
agreement and curve behaviour is identical to the joints bonded with the
Araldite® AV138 and Sikaforce® 7752. In these curves, the first load drop
(zoomed in the figure for a better visualization) relates to failure of the
adhesive layer between x/L = 0 and the vicinity of the spot-weld. In the
numerical curve, this occurs at ≈1300 N, while in the experiments this failure
takes place at smaller loads and, inclusively, for one of the specimens, it is not
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
P [kN]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
δ [mm]
Figure 8. Experimental and numerical P–δ curves for the bonded joints with the Sikaforce® 7752.
8
7
6
5
P [kN]
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40
δ [mm]
Figure 9. Experimental and numerical P–δ curves for the hybrid joints with the Araldite® 2015.
visible in the respective curve. This difference is probably due to experi-

mental fabrication issues, but it does not affect the overall behaviour of the
curves. In all curves, Pm corresponds to failure in the weld-nugget, and
the consequent load reduction prior to complete failure corresponds to
subsequent failure in the adhesive layer. The stiffening effect observed in
Figure 7 is also visible here, although in this case, due to limitations of the
numerical damage model of the adherends, some deviations in the slope
before Pm were found between the numerical and experimental curves.
4.3. Joint strength

Figure 10 shows a comparison between the average experimental values of
Pm (solid columns) and the corresponding numerical predictions (with white
background). Compared to the welded joints, there is a reduction in Pm for
the bonded joints due to premature failure of the adhesive in relation to the
weld-nugget in the welded joints. The experimental reduction of Pm weighted
against the welded joints was 66.1% (Araldite®AV138), 64.7% (Araldite®
2015) and 61.1% (Sikaforce® 7752). This shows that the Sikaforce® 7752, by
its smaller reduction in Pm, is the one that performs best in the T-peel
bonded joint configuration. As previously mentioned, this behaviour is
explained by its higher flexibility and ductility compared to the other two
adhesives. In fact, as it can be testified in Table 1, the Sikaforce® 7752 is much
more flexible, which translates into lower stress gradients near the edge of the
adhesive layer [43]. This difference can be observed in Figure 5 (a) and (b)
for σy and τxy stresses, respectively. On the other hand, the ductility of the
Sikaforce® 7752, found in the GIc and GIIc values of Table 1, also enables a
significant plasticization of the layer adhesive when the elastic limit of the
adhesive is reached. This effect still occurs, although to a lesser extent, with
the Araldite® 2015 adhesive, and is almost non-existent for the Araldite®
4
Pm [kN]
0
Spot-welded Bonded AV138 Hybrid AV138 Bonded 2015

Hybrid 2015 Bonded 7752 Hybrid 7752 Numerical values
Figure 10. Experimental/CZM comparison between the spot-welded, bonded and hybrid joints
(numerical values immediately to the right of the corresponding experiments).
AV138 adhesive, which justifies its worst performance, although being the
stronger adhesive.
Compared against the welded joints, the hybrid joints experimentally show
a percentile improvement in Pm of 37.2% (Araldite® AV138), 40.3%
(Araldite® 2015) and 43.8% (Sikaforce® 7752). The observed difference is
mainly due to the better distribution of σy stresses of hybrid joints compared
to welded joints (Figure 6a). In fact, σy stresses in the weld-nugget signifi-
cantly reduced with the introduction of the adhesive layer, which in the
hybrid joints supports significant loads, in particular at the loaded edge of the
adhesive layer (Figure 6a). τxy stresses also perform better, as depicted in
Figure 6(b). On the other hand, the percentile improvement of Pm for the
hybrid joints relatively to the welded joint increases with the ductility of the
adhesive, which can be explained in a manner analogous to that discussed for
the bonded joints. In fact, the increased flexibility of the Sikaforce® 7752
allows a more favourable distribution of σy and τxy stresses in the elastic
range (Figure 6). Moreover, the ductility of the adhesive allows a more
gradual failure, after significant plasticization of the adhesive layer.
Identically to the bonded joints, this behaviour occurs in a smaller scale for
the Araldite® 2015 and is minimal for the Araldite®AV138, which showed the
worst results.
The comparative analysis between the bonded and hybrid joints reveals
that the increase in Pm from the bonded to the hybrid joints was substantial,
namely 304.1% (Araldite® AV138), 297.0% (Araldite® 2015) and 269.4%
(Sikaforce® 7752). This difference can be explained by the fact that when
Pm is attained (after failure of the adhesive layer between the loaded end of
the joint and the proximity of the weld-nugget), the adhesive near the weld-
nugget also has an effective role in the transmitted load between the adher-
ends, which helps to increase joint strength. Equally to the previously dis-
cussed cases, the adhesive flexibility allows a greater portion of the adhesive
to resist separation, while its larger ductility allows greater plasticization
before failure in the nearby area of the weld-nugget.
Figure 10 also emphasizes on the suitability of the CZM technique for
predicting the strength of the T-peel joints. In fact, for the welded joints, the
numerical model predicts a Pm value higher by 2.73% than the average
experimental value. For the bonded joints with the adhesives Araldite®
AV138, Araldite® 2015 and Sikaforce® 7752, the numerical models predict
Pm values higher by 1.46%, 9.26% and 4.98%, respectively, over the average
experimental values of Pm. The numerical results for the hybrid joints
continue the over-estimating trend of Pm compared to the test results.

Actually, the numerical models predicted the average experimental values
of Pm by an excess of 8.92% (Araldite® AV138), 8.25% (Araldite® 2015) and
10.28% (Sikaforce® 7752). While the predictions for the bonded joints are
perfectly acceptable, for the hybrid joints it is considered that, experimen-
tally, damage or even expulsion of adhesive in the vicinity of the welding
point may have occurred induced by the welding process, which may explain
the difference of approximately 10% between the experimental and numerical
results. An identical occurrence was detected in the work of Campilho et al.
[29] in hybrid single-lap joints bonded with the adhesive Araldite® 2015.
Therefore, it is considered that the CZM technique is suitable for modelling
and predicting the strength of such joints. Thus, it can be effectively used for
the purpose of design of this kind of joints with the advantages in terms of
cost and time project resulting therefrom.
5. Conclusions
This work presented an experimental and numerical study by CZM that
allowed comparing three joining techniques in T-peel joints: welded, bonded
and weld-bonded, when subjected to peeling loads. The CZM analysis
included failure simulation of both the adhesive layer and weld-nugget,
with CZM parameters estimated specifically for the analysis. The strong
and brittle Araldite® AV138, the highly ductile Sikaforce® 7752, and the
Araldite® 2015, with an intermediate behaviour, were tested. Experimentally
it was found that, for the bonded joints, the ductility of the adhesive
improves Pm. Compared against the welded joints, bonded joints have a
strong reduction in Pm, although less significant for the most ductile adhe-
sive. The percentile Pm reductions were 66.1% (Araldite® AV138), 64.7%
(Araldite® 2015) and 61.1% (Sikaforce® 7752). The hybrid joints revealed a
percentile improvement of Pm over the welded joints of 37.2% (Araldite®
AV138), 40.3% (Araldite® 2015) and 43.8% (Sikaforce® 7752). Thus, it is
reasonable to say that the increased strength of hybrid joints, together with
other advantages in relation to welded joints, can justify the cost/benefit of its
use in industrial applications.
The stress analysis showed that τxy stresses are merely residual and that σy
stresses concentrate at the loaded edge of the adhesive layer (x/L = 0). At this
region, the Sikaforce® 7752 is the adhesive with the lowest peak values of σy/
σyavg due to being the most compliant. Due to this result, it was considered
that this adhesive is the most suitable for bonded joints. Hybrid joints
confirm the trend observed for bonded joints, adding that the combination
of an adhesive layer with the weld-nugget causes a considerable decrease in
stresses relatively to the welded joint. Compared to bonded joints, hybrid
joints have a better distribution of stresses because of higher transmitted
loads through the weld-nugget. The CZM Pm predictions revealed a higher

numerical Pm value by 2.73% for the welded joint. The highest difference for
the bonded joints was 9.26% (Araldite® 2015) and for the hybrid joints was
10.28% (Sikaforce® 7752). The predictions for the hybrid joints exhibited
bigger deviations than for the welded and bonded joints, which is considered
to be due to adhesive expulsion during the welding process, which can affect
the experimental values of Pm. Based on the obtained results, it follows that
the CZM technique has an acceptable accuracy and is appropriate for accu-
rately modelling the behaviour of welded, bonded and weld-bonded T-peel
joints.
References
[1] da Silva, L. F. M., Öchsner, A., and Adams, R. D., eds. Handbook of Adhesion
Technology, (Springer, Heidelberg, 2011).
[2] Nunes, S. L. S., Campilho, R. D. S. G., da Silva, F. J. G., de Sousa, C. C. R. G.,
Fernandes, T. A. B., Banea, M. D., and da Silva, L. F. M., J. Adhes. 92, 610–634
(2016).
[3] da Silva, L. F. M., das Neves, P. J. C., Adams, R. D., and Spelt, J. K., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
29(3), 319–330 (2009).
[4] Akpinar, S., Compos.: Part B 67, 170–178 (2014).
[5] Clark, J. D., and McGregor, I. J., J. Adhes. 42(4), 227–245 (1993).
[6] Xu, J.-Q., Liu, Y.-H., and Wang, X.-G., Eng. Fract. Mech. 63(6), 775–790 (1999).
[7] Campilho, R. D. S. G., de Moura, M. F. S. F., Barreto, A. M. J. P., Morais, J. J. L., and
Domingues, J. J. M. S., Constr. Build. Mater. 24(4), 531–537 (2010).
[8] Alfano, G., Compos. Sci. Technol. 66(6), 723–730 (2006).
[9] Song, S. H., Paulino, G. H., and Buttlar, W. G., Eng. Fract. Mech. 73(18), 2829–2848
(2006).
[10] Heidari-Rarani, M., Shokrieh, M. M., and Camanho, P. P., Compos. Part B 45(1),
897–903 (2013).
[11] Kafkalidis, M. S., and Thouless, M. D., Int. J. Solids. Struct. 39(17), 4367–4383 (2002).
[12] Ridha, M., Tan, V. B. C., and Tay, T. E., Compos. Struct. 93(4), 1239–1245 (2011).
[13] Belytschko, T., and Black, T., Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 45(5), 601–620 (1999).
[14] Campilho, R. D. S. G., Banea, M. D., Pinto, A. M. G., da Silva, L. F. M., and de Jesus, A.
M. P., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 31(5), 363–372 (2011).
[15] Kaelble, D. H., Trans. Soc. Rheol. 3(1), 161–180 (1959).
[16] Niesiolowski, F., and Aubrey, D. W., J. Adhes. 13(1), 87–98 (1981).
[17] da Silva, L. F. M., and Adams, R. D., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 22(4), 311–315 (2002).
[18] Grant, L. D. R., Adams, R. D., and da Silva, L. F. M., J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 23(2), 317–
338 (2009).
[19] Nase, M., Langer, B., and Grellmann, W., Polym. Test. 27(8), 1017–1025 (2008).
[20] Moroni, F., Pirondi, A., and Kleiner, F., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 30(5), 367–379 (2010).
[21] da Silva, L. F. M., Pirondi, A., and Ochsner, A., eds. Hybrid Adhesive Joints, (Springer,
Heidelberg, 2011).
[22] Braga, D. F. O., de Sousa, L. M. C., Infante, V., da Silva, L. F. M., and Moreira, P. M. G.
P., J. Adhes. 92(7–9), 665–678 (2016).
[23] Shen, J., Zhang, Y. S., Lai, X. M., and Wang, P. C., Weld. J. 91, 59–66 (2012).
[24] Liu, L., Ren, D., and Li, Y., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 31(7), 660–665 (2011).
[25] Vergani, L., Guagliano, M., Fujii, T., Tohgo, K., Suzuki, Y., Yamamoto, T., Shimamura, Y.,
and Ojima, Y., Procedia Eng. 10, 1075–1080 (2011).
[26] Xu, W., Liu, L., Zhou, Y., Mori, H., and Chen, D. L., Mater. Sci. Eng. A 563, 125–132
(2013).
[27] Charbonnet, P., Clad, A., Fant-Jaeckels, H., and Thirion, J. L., La Revue de Métallurgie
April, 543–551 (2000).
[28] Sadowski, T., Golewski, P., and Kneć, M., Compos. Struct. 112, 66–77 (2014).
[29] Campilho, R. D. S. G., Pinto, A. M. G., Banea, M. D., and da Silva, L. F. M., Int. J.
Adhes. Adhes. 37(0), 86–95 (2012).
[30] Gilchrist, M. D., and Smith, R. A., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 13(1), 53–57 (1993).
[31] Darwish, S. M., and Al-Samhan, A. M., J. Mater. Process. Technol. 147(1), 51–59 (2004).
[32] Tao, W., Ma, Y., Chen, Y., Li, L., and Wang, M., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 51, 111–116
(2014).
[33] Campilho, R. D. S. G., Banea, M. D., Neto, J. A. B. P., and da Silva, L. F. M., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
44, 48–56 (2013).
[34] Campilho, R. D. S. G., Moura, D. C., Gonçalves, D. J. S., da Silva, J. F. M. G., Banea, M.
D., and da Silva, L. F. M., Compos. Part B 50, 120–126 (2013).
[35] Faneco, T. M. S., Campilho, R. D. S. G., da Silva, F. J. G., and Lopes, R. M., J. Test. Eval.,
DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150335 (2016).
[36] Vijaya Kumar, R. L., Bhat, M. R., and Murthy, C. R. L., Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 42, 60–68
(2013).
[37] Moreira, R. D. F., and Campilho, R. D. S. G., Eng. Struct. 101, 99–110 (2015).
[38] Azevedo, J. C. S., Campilho, R. D. S. G., da Silva, J. F. G., Faneco, T. M. S., and Lopes,
R. M., Theor. Appl. Fract. Mec. 80, 143–154 (2015).
[39] Campilho, R. D. S. G., Banea, M. D., Neto, J. A. B. P., and da Silva, L. F. M., J. Adhes. 88
(4–6), 513–533 (2012).
[40] Domingues, N. R .E., Campilho, R. D. S. G., Carbas, R. J. C., and da Silva, L. F. M., Int.
J. Adhes. Adhes. 64, 86–96 (2016).
[41] Li, B., Li, Y., and Su, J., Compos. Part B 58, 217–227 (2014).
[42] Weißgraeber, P., and Becker, W., Int. J. Solids. Struct. 50(14–15), 2383–2394 (2013).
[43] Fernandes, T. A. B., Campilho, R. D. S. G., Banea, M. D., and da Silva, L. F. M., J.
Adhes. 91(10–11), 841–862 (2015).
View publication stats

Strength Prediction of T-Peel Joints by A Hybrid Spot-Welding/adhesive Bonding Technique

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

Strength Prediction of T-Peel Joints by A Hybrid Spot-Welding/adhesive Bonding Technique

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Strength prediction of T-peel joints by a hybrid spot-welding/adhesive

Article in The Journal of Adhesion · October 2016

F.J.s. de Almeida Raul Campilho

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) Coating - 3D simulation View project

Manufacturing View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 0021-8464 (Print) 1545-5823 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gadh20

Strength prediction of T-peel joints by a hybrid

F. J. S. de Almeida, R. D. S. G. Campilho & F. J. G. Silva

To cite this article: F. J. S. de Almeida, R. D. S. G. Campilho & F. J. G. Silva (2018) Strength

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2016.1244013

Accepted author version posted online: 11

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [POLITECNICO DO PORTO] Date: 05 January 2018, At: 09:58

Strength prediction of T-peel joints by a hybrid

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT R. D. S. G. Campilho raulcampilho@gmail.com Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Instituto

of bonded joints can be carried out by continuum mechanics or fracture

density polyethylene/isotactic polybutene-1 (iPB-1) were tested and the frac-

2.2. Joint geometry, fabrication and testing

Figure 2. Geometry and dimensions of the T-peel joints.

longitudinal symmetry. The models were constructed with continuum ele-

the weld-nugget. The boundary conditions consisted of fixing one of the

3.2. Triangular CZM and cohesive parameters

CZM elements model the linear behaviour of materials up to the cohesive

Figure 4. Traction-separation law with linear softening law.

h iare the Macaulay brackets, emphasizing that a purely compressive stress

attained (tm0 in Figure 4) by the fulfilment of Equation (2), the material

Spot-welded AV138 2015 7752 Spot-welded AV138 2015 7752

4.2. Failure modes and P–δ curves

visible in the respective curve. This difference is probably due to experi-

4.3. Joint strength

Spot-welded Bonded AV138 Hybrid AV138 Bonded 2015

continue the over-estimating trend of Pm compared to the test results.

loads through the weld-nugget. The CZM Pm predictions revealed a higher

View publication stats

You might also like